The document discusses the effects of various bioagents on the growth of Coleus forskohlii. Key findings include: 1) Inoculation with Trichoderma viride, Pseudomonas fluorescens, and neem cake improved growth characteristics like plant height and root weight of Coleus cuttings. 2) In field conditions, inoculation with Glomus fasciculatum and Pseudomonas fluorescens led to higher yields, nutrient uptake, and forskohlin content compared to the uninoculated control. 3) Inoculation with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi like Glomus bagyaragii and Scutellosp

3. UNIVERSITY OF HORTICULTURAL
SCIENCES, BAGALKOT
Kittur Rani Channamma College of Horticulture, Arabhavi.

4. Introduction
Importance of bioagents
Role of bioagents in coleus
Role of bioagents in
ashwagandha
Conclusion

5.  Bioagents are preparations containing microorganisms in sufficient
numbers which enhance crop growth, reduce diseases and pests
infestation
 Bioagents have the ability to replicate rapidly, require minimal
resources to survive and can infect at very small doses
 Biological approach will be particularly useful under organic
conditions, especially for medicinal plants, which are mainly used for
treating various human ailments, where the use of chemicals is
restricted because of health and residue considerations
(Paul, 2003)

6.  Rising costs of chemical inputs and a host environmental concerns
have caused farmers to consider alternative agri-industrial
managements to reduce costs, protect human health, and conserve
the resource base
 High intensity of chemical pesticide use has become serious cause of
concern in recent years so, lot of importance has been given to
organically produced medicinal herbs
 Bioagents are eco-friendly, cost-effective and co-existence with
tissues of host without causing any harm
(Kritcher, 1993)

8. Biofertilizers
• 'Biofertilizer' is a substance which contains living
microorganisms, when applied to seed, plant surfaces, or
soil, colonizes the rhizosphere and promotes growth by increasing the
supply or availability of nutrients to the host plant
• These add nutrients through natural processes of N-
fixation, solubilizing phosphorous and stimulating plant growth
through the synthesis of growth promoting substances

9. General classification of Biofertilizers Murugan, 2002

10. BIOFERTILIZER ORGANISMS
RHIZOBIUM
AZOTOBACTER
PSB
BLUE GREEN ALGAE
AZOSPIRILLUM
VA-MYCORRHIZA

11. Commercial
BIO-FERTILIZERS in
market

12. Biopesticides
• Biologically active microbial agents applied to control insect-pests
by non-toxic mechanisms
• Stimulate plant host defenses and other physiological processes
make plants more resistant to biotic and abiotic stresses
• Prepared by growing and concentrating naturally occurring
organisms or their metabolites including
bacteria, fungi, nematodes, etc.

13.  Viruses, Bacteria, Fungi and Nematodes are sources of
potential biopesticides
 Viruses - NPV, Granulosis viruses (GV)
 Bacteria- Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Streptomyces and
Salmonella
 22 varieties of Bacillus thuringiensis are used as biopesticides
 Fungi - Beauveria, Metarhizum, Verticillium, Hirsutella etc.
 Nematodes - Paecilomyces lilacinus & Romanomermis
culicivorax
(WHO, 2009)

14. Biopesticides and Target pests
Biopesticides Target pest
Bacillus thurigiensis strains LBT-1,
Lepidoptera, Mites
LBT-13, LBT-21, LBT-24
Beauveria bassiana strain LBB-1 Coleoptera (weevils), ants, thrips
Verticillium lecanii strain Y-57 Bemisia tabaci ,Myzus persicae
Metarhizium anisopliae
Lepidoptera and Coleoptera
strain LBM-11
Trichogramma spp. Lepidoptera
Corynebacterium paurometabolum Nematodes
Pheidole megacephala Sweet potato weevil
(Nicolas, 2006)

15. Biofungicides
 Biofungicides are microorganisms and naturally occurring
substances that control diseases of crops that are approved for
organic production
Biofungicides / biologicals Diseases
Bacillus pumilus Several foliar diseases
Pseudomonas syringe Post-harvest diseases
Pythium, Rhizoctonia, Fusarium,
Bacillus subtilis
Powdery mildew, other foliar diseases
Trichoderma harzianum Root diseases
Fusarium, Rhizoctonia,Pythium,
Streptomyces lydicus
Phytophthora
Gliocladium virens Damping off
(Roger, 2010)

16.  Cost effective and eco-friendly
 Renewable sources to supplement chemical fertilizer
 Play vital role in maintaining long term soil fertility and
sustainability
 Proliferates beneficial microbes in the soil
 Suppress certain plant diseases, soil-borne diseases and
parasites

17.  Non-availability of crop/zone specific strains of
microorganisms
 Genetic instability of the strains
 Inconsistent performance in the field during abiotic
stresses
 Lesser speed of action
 Lack of adequate knowledge among the farmers

18. B.N : Plectranthus forskohlii
Family: Lamiaceae
Active principle: Forskohlin (0.1-0.5%)
Origin: Indian-subcontinent
Medicinal Uses : Glaucoma, Asthma,
Congestive heart failures &
Certain type of cancers
Economic parts: Tuberous roots
Yield: 3.5 - 4.0 t/ha (Dry tuber)

19. Table 1: Effect of bioinoculants and neem cake on growth characteristics of Coleus
forskohlii at the nursery stage (55 day old cuttings) prior to transplanting.
Singh et al., 2012, Bangalore
Dry shoot Dry root
Shoot length Root length Plant spread
Treatments weight weight
(cm) (cm) (cm)
(g/plant) (g/plant)
TV (1.2x106 CFU mL-1) 17.6bc 10.8ab 13.2a 0.81a 0.044bc
BS (1.8x108 CFU mL-1) 15.8ab 11.6b 15.0a 0.75a 0.017a
AZ (2.3x107 CFU mL-1) 19.6bc 12.0b 16.4ab 1.31b 0.059c
GF (1.2x106 CFU mL-1) 20.6c 13.4b 20.8c 1.05b 0.069c
PF (2.5x108 CFU mL-1) 19.0bc 12.4b 18.6b 0.98ab 0.063c
NC 20.4bc 12.4b 20.2c 1.19b 0.078c
Control 13.8a 9.20a 14.4a 0.77a 0.013a
LSD (P<0.05) 3.33 2.27 2.89 0.27 0.022
TV: Trichoderma viride; BS: Bacillus subtilis; AZ: Azotobactor chroococcum; GF: Glomus
fasciculatum; PF: Pseudomonas fluorescens; NC: Neem cake (Soil, sand, vermicompost & neem
cake @ 1:1:1/10:1/40, v/v); values in vertical columns followed by different letters are significantly
different at P=0.05 by ANOVA (LSD) test.

20. Table 2: Effect of bioinoculants and neem cake on growth characteristics of Coleus
forskohlii at harvesting in field conditions.
Singh et al., 2012, Bangalore
Forskohlin
Plant height Plant spread No. of Dry shoot Dry root
Treatments yield
(cm) (cm) branches yield (t/ha) yield (t/ha)
(Kg/ha)
TV (1.2x106 CFU mL-1) 41.7ab 43.7ab 20.3a 1.34a 0.18a 1.1a
BS (1.8x108 CFU mL-1) 40.0ab 46.7b 19.3a 1.36a 0.17a 1.02a
AZ (2.3x107 CFU mL-1) 40.2ab 41.3ab 18.3a 1.49a 0.22a 1.32ab
GF (1.2x106 CFU mL-1) 49.6c 49.3b 28.3b 2.58b 0.41c 2.71c
PF (2.5x108 CFU mL-1) 43.6b 47.1b 28.0b 2.01a 0.32bc 2.15bc
NC 48.2c 46.3b 27.7b 2.64b 0.42c 2.67c
Control 38.0a 37.1a 17.0a 1.33a 0.14a 0.83a
LSD (P<0.05) 4.1 7.0 6.8 0.8 0.1 0.84
TV: Trichoderma viride; BS: Bacillus subtilis; AZ: Azotobactor chroococcum; GF: Glomus
fasciculatum; PF: Pseudomonas fluorescens; NC: Neem cake- (Soil, sand, vermicompost & neem
cake @ 1:1:1/10:1/40, v/v); values in vertical columns followed by different letters are significantly
different at P=0.05 by ANOVA (LSD) test.

21. Table 3: Effect of bioinoculants and neem cake on nutrient uptake by Coleus
forskohlii under field conditions.
Singh et al., 2012, Bangalore
Shoot uptake (Kg/ha) Root uptake (Kg/ha) Total uptake (Kg/ha)
Treatment
N P K N P K N P K
TV (1.2x106 CFU mL-1) 18.62a 4.89ab 22.31a 0.89a 0.39a 2.44a 19.51a 5.28a 24.75a
BS (1.8x108 CFU mL-1) 19.35ab 4.62a 21.96a 1.04a 0.44ab 2.7a 20.39ab 5.06a 24.66a
AZ (2.3x107 CFU mL-1) 26.97ab 4.82ab 24.62a 1.00a 0.55ab 3.16ab 27.97b 5.37a 27.78ab
GF (1.2x106 CFU mL-1) 28.03b 7.49b 35.68b 1.99b 0.94b 6.05b 30.02b 8.43b 41.73b
PF (2.5x108 CFU mL-1) 27.78b 5.10ab 30.06a 1.41ab 0.73b 4.76b 29.19b 5.83ab 34.82b
NC 32.78b 7.94b 36.11b 2.35b 0.83b 5.90b 35.13b 8.77b 42.01b
control 18.6a 4.62a 21.86a 0.80a 0.36a 2.27a 19.40a 4.98a 24.13a
LSD (P<0.05) 8.4 2.8 9.1 0.7 0.3 2 8.2 2.8 9.2
TV: Trichoderma viride; BS: Bacillus subtilis; AZ: Azotobactor chroococcum; GF: Glomus
fasciculatum; PF: Pseudomonas fluorescens; NC: Neem cake-(Soil, sand, vermicompost &
neem cake @ 1:1:1/10:1/40, v/v); values in vertical columns followed by different letters are
significantly different at P=0.05 by ANOVA (LSD) test.

22. Table 4: Influence of inoculation with different arbuscular fungi on various characters of
Coleus forskohlii.
Sailo and Bagyaraj, 2005, Bangalore
Plant height No. of length of fresh Dry weight (g/plant)
Treatments
(cm) branches/plant root (cm) Root Shoot
Uninoculated control 13.33f 81.87e 10.3d 80e 15.85d
Acaulospora laevis 13.67ef 87.87cd 12.5cd 99cd 18.85c
Gigaspora margarita 14.22de 82.87e 12.3cd 99cd 18.90c
Glomus bagyaragii 16.72a 109.20a 18.2a 121a 27.16a
G. etunicatum 14.37de 82.30e 10.6d 94d 18.85c
G. fasciculatum 15.37dc 94.00bc 14.9bc 102bc 19.63c
G. intraradices 14.52cde 87.00cd 13.4cd 99cd 19.15c
G. leptotichum 14.00def 82.05e 11.3d 94d 18.85c
G. macrocarpum 14.58cde 84.73d 11.0d 95cd 18.38c
G. monosporum 14.60cde 86.03d 10.9d 95cd 16.65d
G. mosseae 14.73cd 95.86b 14.5bc 102bc 19.60c
Scutellospora
15.70b 99.43b 16.5ab 107b 23.36b
calospora
Means followed by the same letter in each column do not differ significantly at P= 0.05 by DMRT.
Values are an average of 20 plants taken at 150 DAP.

23. Table 5: Influence of inoculation with different arbuscular fungi on root and shoot P- content,
and root forskohlin concentration and content of Coleus forskohlii.
Sailo and Bagyaraj, 2005, Bangalore
P content (mg/plant) Forskohlin Forskohlin content
Treatments
Shoot Root concentration (%) (mg/plant)
Uninoculated control 19.61e 3.20e 0.57g 45.6h
Acaulospora laevis 41.31cd 4.27cde 0.74ef 73.58f
Gigaspora margarita 43.44cd 4.71bcd 0.75ef 74.58f
Glomus bagyaragii 76.49a 7.65a 0.93a 112.5a
G. etunicatum 37.41d 3.98de 0.80c 75.51f
G. fasciculatum 48.12c 5.27bc 0.79cd 80.89e
G. intraradices 48.42c 4.94bcd 0.86b 85.13d
G. leptotichum 28.07e 4.04de 0.73f 68.62g
G. macrocarpum 41.44cd 4.46bcd 0.76def 72.19f
G. monosporum 26.45e 4.45bcd 0.77cde 72.45f
G. mosseae 49.99c 4.85bcd 0.88b 89.41c
Scutellospora calospora 59.93b 5.48b 0.92a 98.43b

24. Table 6: Influence of inoculation with different arbuscular fungi on mycorrhizal root
colonization and spore numbers in the root zone of Coleus forskohlii.
Sailo and Bagyaraj, 2005, Bangalore
Number of spore (CFU) /50 g
Treatments Root colonization (%)
soil
Uninoculated control 3.64f 9.67g
Acaulospora laevis 74.80cd 72.33c
Gigaspora margarita 71.82e 66.00d
Glomus bagyaragii 98.72a 158.00a
G. etunicatum 63.56e 33.33f
G. fasciculatum 77.97c 131.33bc
G. intraradices 73.75cd 124.0c
G. leptotichum 63.24e 36.33ef
G. macrocarpum 63.61e 36.3ef
G. monosporum 68.95de 43.33e
G. mosseae 76.81c 123.00c
Scutellospora calospora 85.61b 139.67b

25. Fig 1: Effect of Pseudomonas monteilii (PM) (strain CRC1) and Glomus fasciculatum
(GF) alone and co-inoculated (PM + GF) on growth characteristics of Coleus
forskohlii.
Alok et al., 2012, Lucknow

26. Fig 2: Effect of P. monteilii (PM) (strain CRC1) and G. fasciculatum (GF) alone
and co-inoculated (PM + GF) on yield of C. forskohlii.
Alok et al., 2012, Lucknow

27. Fig 3: Effect of P. monteilii (PM) (strain CRC1) and G. fasciculatum (GF) alone and co-
inoculated (PM + GF) on forskolin content (percent) in root tubers of C. forskohlii
Alok et al., 2012, Lucknow

28. Fig 4: Effect of P. monteilii (PM) (strain CRC1) and G. fasciculatum (GF) alone and co-
inoculated (PM + GF) on percent disease index (PDI) and percent wilt incidence
(PWI) of C. forskohlii.
Alok et al., 2012, Lucknow

29. Table 7: Effect of AM fungi on growth characters in coleus forskohlii.
Dharana et al., 2006, Arabhavi
Percent Plant Plant spread (cm) No. of Stem
Treatment establishment height branche diameter
E -W N-S
of cuttings (cm) s/Plant (cm)
Glomus intraradices 85.00 52.66 52.80 52.00 53.46 2.57
Glomus fasciculatum 91.66 53.40 50.63 52.36 55.83 2.26
Glomus monosporum 83.33 50.73 51.86 51.20 52.5 2.40
Glomus mosseae 91.66 56.76 56.00 52.50 52.50 2.35
Gigaspora margarita 86.66 61.23 55.16 55.20 57.66 2.34
Sclerocystis dussii 90.00 57.76 53.50 53.46 53.5 2.33
Consortia- I 93.33 58.36 56.16 56.96 58.40 2.35
Control 80.00 49.23 54.30 54.16 48.13 2.24
Mean - 55.02 54.17 53.48 54.00 2.35
S. Em 2.530 1.406 1.190 1.122 0.769 0.020
C. D. @ 5% 7.673 4.265 3.609 3.402 2.334 0.062
CV (%) 5.00 4.43 3.80 3.63 2.47 1.50
Consortia-I : Azotobacter chroococcum, Azospirillum brassilence, Pseudomonas striata &
Trichoderma harzianum

30. Table 8: Effect of AM- fungi on tuber yield and forskohlin content in Coleus forskohlii.
Dharana et al., 2006, Arabhavi
No. of Fresh tuber yield Dry tuber yield Forskohlin Forskohlin
Treatment tubers/pla content yield
g/plant q/ha g/plant q/ha
nt (%) (mg/plant)
Glomus intraradices 9.26 107.78 89.82 14.08 11.85 - -
Glomus fasciculatum 11.60 120.74 100.62 15.78 13.15 0.329 19.30
Glomus monosporum 10.73 126.26 105.21 16.43 13.69 - -
Glomus mosseae 9.53 125.4 104.48 16.39 13.65 - -
Gigaspora margarita 10.53 160.09 133.4 20.92 17.36 0.307 17.28
Sclerocystis dussii 13.53 133.06 110.89 17.39 14.62 0.274 15.56
Consortia- I 16.8 159.46 132.89 20.85 17.35 0.403 26.07
Control 9.8 127.6 106.33 16.69 13.91 0.330 20.75
S. Em 1.119 7.01 5.84 0.94 0.80 - -
C. D. @ 5% 3.393 21.25 17.7 2.86 2.44 - -
CV (%) 4.709 9.16 9.15 9.43 9.65 - -
Consortia-I : Azotobacter chroococcum, Azospirillum brassilence, Pseudomonas striata &
Trichoderma harzianum

31. Table 9: Effect of bio-inoculants on growth parameters of Coleus forskohlii
Singh et al., 2009, Bangalore
Treatments Plant height (cm) Plant spread (cm) No. of branches
GA+120F 57.21bc 39.17bc 9.13b
GF+120F 78.25d 49.75c 13.38c
GI+120F 46.96ab 36.71bc 8.0ab
GM+120F 64.5cd 37.0bc 9.0b
PF6+120F 81.88d 56.0c 12.25c
120F 50.5b 28.38ab 6.75ab
GA+240F 42.88ab 31.63ab 8.5ab
GF+240F 76.0d 39.75bc 10.75bc
GI+240F 48.38ab 34.46ab 7.13ab
GM+240F 58.38b 33.13ab 7.88ab
PF6+240F 76.0d 43.5bc 9.75bc
240F 37.25a 21.5a 4.75a
Soil only 50.42b 30.04ab 7.5ab
SED 5.564 6.3542 1.9221
GA: Glomus aggregatum; GF: Glomus fasciculatum; GI: Glomus intraradices; GM: Glomus mosseae;
PF6: Pseudomonas fluorescens: 120 F: 120 mL suspension of Fusarium chlamydosporum; 240 F: 240
mL suspension of Fusarium chlamydosporum.& SED: Standard error of mean difference.

32. Table 10: Effect of bio-inoculants on P and K uptake, Forskohlin content of Coleus forskohlii.
Singh et al., 2009, Bangalore
Forskohlin content
Treatments P - uptake (mg/plant) K- uptake (mg/plant)
(mg/100gm dry roots)
GA+120F 66.5cd 495.0de 890.0ab
GF+120F 77.5d 600.0f 1010.0c
GI+120F 59.5cd 385.0c 795.0a
GM+120F 59.0c 390.0c 920.0bc
PF6+120F 81.0d 555.0ef 975.0bc
120F 23.5ab 150.0ab 795.0a
GA+240F 36.5b 195.0b 790.0a
GF+240F 71.5c 500.0de 835.0ab
GI+240F 50.0bc 270.0b 820.0ab
GM+240F 59.5cd 390.0c 835.0ab
PF6+240F 72.5cd 495.0de 820.0ab
240F 18.0a 115.0a 820.0ab
Soil only 30.5ab 140.0ab 895.0ab
SED 8.448 36.576 47.871

33. Fig 5: Effect of bio-inoculants on mean shoot dry yield.
Singh et al., 2009, Bangalore

34. Fig 6: Effect of bio-inoculants on mean root dry yield.
Singh et al., 2009, Bangalore

35. Fig 7: Effect of bio-inoculants on Per cent disease index (PDI).
Singh et al., 2009, Bangalore

36. Population of Scirtothrips dorsalis on coleus, as influenced by bio-control agents.
Thangavel et al., 2011, Coimbatore
Treatment Details:
 T1- Chrysoperla carnea @ 50,000 eggs/ha (5 releases)
 T2- Trichogramma chilonis @ 6.25 cc/ha (5 releases)
 T3- Bacillus thuringiensis 750 g/ha (5 sprays)
 T4- Beauveria bassiana 2 g/L (5 sprays)
 T5- C.c (1 release) + T.c (1 release) + B.b (1 spray) + B.t (2 spray)
 T6- B.t (1 spray) + C.c (1 release) + T.c (1 spray) + B.t (2 spray)
 T7- B.t (1 spray) + C.c (1 release) + T.c (1 spray) + B.b (2 spray)
 T8- Untreated check

37. Table 11 :Population of Scirtothrips dorsalis on coleus, as influenced by bio-control agents.
Thangavel et al., 2011, Madurai
Pre- No. of thrips/Sq. cm at monthly interval Percentage
Treatm
treatment Mean reduction over
ents count 60 DAP 90 DAP 120 DAP 150 DAP
control
T1 38.2 11.5 (3.46)a 9.2 (3.11)a 7.4 (2.81)a 4.4 (2.21)a 8.2 60
T2 39.8 22.1 (4.75)f 19.2 (4.43)g 15.8 (4.03)g 13.4 (3.72)e 17.6 14.1
T3 40.7 18.3 (4.33)d 15.4 (3.98)e 12.3 (3.57)e 10.9 (3.37)d 14.4 29.7
T4 41.4 20.2 (4.54)e 17.4 (4.23)f 14.4 (3.86)f 12.8 (3.64)e 16.3 20.4
T5 37.8 12.7 (3.63)b 10.4 (3.30)b 8.8 (3.04)b 6.3 (2.60)b 9.5 53.6
T6 39.7 14.4 (3.86)c 13.2 (3.70)d 11.4 (3.44)d 8.3 (2.96)c 11.8 42.4
T7 40.5 14.2 (3.83)c 12.3 (3.57)c 10.2 (3.27)c 7.8 (2.88)c 11.2 45.3
T8 41.6 24.7 (5.01)g 22.3(4.77)h 18.6 (4.37)h 16.3 (4.09)f 20.5 -
SEd - 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 - -
C. D @
5%
- 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.14 - -
Figures in parentheses are square root transformed values in a column, means followed by same
letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P=0.05).

38. Table 12 : Population of Orphanostigma abruptalis and yield of wet tubers in coleus, as influenced
by bio-control agents
Thangavel et al., 2011, Madurai
No. of larvae/5 plant Percentage
Pre-
reduction Wet tuber
Treatments treatment Mean
60 DAP 90 DAP 120 DAP 150 DAP over yield (kg/ha)
count
control
T1 7.6 5.5 (2.44)c 5.1 (2.36)c 3.9 (2.09)b 3.2 (1.92)c 4.4 48.2 20,105c
T2 8.4 7.9 (2.89)de 7.7 (2.86)e 6.6 (2.66)d 5.5 (2.44)d 6.9 18.8 17,075f
T3 9.2 7.1 (2.75)d 6.3 (2.60)d 5.1 (2.36)c 4.8 (2.30)d 5.8 31.7 18,112d
T4 8.3 7.6 (2.84)d 6.8 (2.70)de 5.7 (2.48)cd 4.4 (2.21)d 6.1 28.2 17,454e
T5 7.1 3.9 (2.09)a 3.3 (1.94)a 2.1 (1.61)a 1.3 (1.34)a 2.6 69.4 20,643a
T6 8.2 4.6 (2.25)ab 4.2 (2.16)b 3.1 (1.89)b 2.2 (1.64)b 3.5 58.8 20,455ab
T7 7.8 5.0 (2.34)bc 4.8 (2.30)bc 3.3 (1.94)b 2.5 (1.73)bc 3.9 54.1 20,283bc
T8 9.2 8.8 (3.04)e 9.1 (3.09)f 8.5 (3.00)e 7.6 (2.84)e 8.5 - 20,256g
SEd 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.11 - - - 0.33
C. D @
0.17 0.19 0.21 0.25 - - - 1.32
5%
T5- C.c (1 relaese) + T.c (1 relaese) + B.b (1 spray) + B.t (2 spray)

39. Management of collar rot complex in Coleus forskohlii using bioagents, organic
amendments and chemicals.
Kulkarni et al., 2007, Arabhavi
Treatment Details:
T1- Trichoderma viride @ 10 ml/plant (8x103 cfu/ml)
T2- Trichoderma harzianum @ 10 ml/plant (8x103 cfu/ml)
T3- Pseudomonas fluorescens @ 10 ml/plant (24x105 cfu/ml)
T4- Pronto @ 5% as soil drench (neem based product)
T5- Neemto @500 g/5 m2 (neem based product)
T6-Carbofuran 3G @ 15 gai/5 m2
T7- Farm yard manure @ 5 kg/5 m2
T8- Trichoderma viride @ 10 ml/plant (8x103 cfu/ml) + Neemto @500 g/5 m2
T9- Carbendazim @ 0.1% soil drench
T10- Propiconazole @ 0.1% soil drench
T11- Control

40. Table 13: Management of collar rot complex of Coleus forskohlii using bioagents, organic
amendments and chemicals.
Kulkarni et al., 2007, Arabhavi
Population of root CFU (103/g)
Wilt incidence No. of galls / 5 g of
Treatments (%)
knot juveniles/200
root
cc of soil F. chlamydosporum R. bataticola
T1 21.09 (27.33) 1640 21.13 7.6 12.2
T2 18.87 (25.74) 1633.33 19.53 8 12.6
T3 19.98 (26.51) 1533.33 18.27 8 14.2
T4 23.31 (28.84) 136.67 17.33 10.6 15.6
T5 21.09 (27.24) 1180 16.07 12.6 16.4
T6 24.42 (29.57) 1066.67 14.93 16.2 17.6
T7 25.53 (30.38) 1960 25.67 15.2 18.8
T8 12.76 (20.93) 873.33 10.13 6.2 9.6
T9 21.09 (27.33) 1933.33 23.33 3.6 6.8
T10 23.31 (28.84) 1906.67 23 3.8 7.4
T11 35.52 (36.59) 2177.33 28.4 19.6 21.6
Mean 22.45 (28.12) 1569.69 19.82 10.13 13.89
S.Em 1.18 49.05 1.83 0.87 0.95
CD @ 5% 3.48 144.68 5.38 2.49 2.72
Figures in parentheses are arc sine (angular) transformed values

41. Table 14: Effect of antagonists on the growth of Macrophomina phaseolina in the dual
culture technique in coleus.
Paramasivan et al., 2007, TN
Per cent reduction over
Treatment Mycelial growth (cm)
control
Trichoderma viride 4.2 52.2
T. viride Isolate1 4.3 51.1
T. viride Isolate2 3.8 56.8
T. viride Isolate3 4.6 47.7
T. viride Isolate4 3.1 64.7
Trichoderma harzianum 3.6 59.6
Trichoderma reesei 5.1 41.1
Trichoderma koningeei 4.2 48.5
Chaetomium globosum 4.5 55
Pseudomonas fluorescens 3.7 58.7
Bacillus subtilis 4.2 51.1
Carbendazim 4 59.1
Control 9 -
C. D @ 5% 0.3 -

42. Table 15: Efficacy of bioagents against dry root rot of coleus under pot culture
conditions Paramasivan et al., 2007, TN
Treatment Disease incidence Total sprouts Yield (g)
Trichoderma viride 28.6 (33.2)* 3 105
T. viride Isolate1 21.8 (27.8) 2 107
T. viride Isolate2 22.9 (28.5) 4 107
T. viride Isolate3 24.6 (29.7) 5 110
T. viride Isolate4 19.2 (26.7) 7 150
T. harzianum 20.6 (26.9) 5 120
T. reesei 33.5 (35.3) 4 90
T. koningeei 27.9 (31.1) 3 80
Chaetomium globosum 31.5 (34.2) 2 70
Pseudomonas fluorescens 20.8 (27.2) 6 135
Bacillus subtilis 22.3 (28.7) 5 114
Carbendazim 18.3 (25.3) 5 140
Control 44.3 (41.5) 1 60
C. D @ 5% 3.4 2.1 12
Figures in parentheses are arc sine transformed values

43. Table 16: Effect of biocontrol agents on inhibition of mycelial growth of
Rhizoctonia bataticola infecting Coleus forskohlii.
Ammajamma et al., 2009, Dharwad
Per cent inhibition of mycelial
Sl. No. Biocontrol agents growth of R. bataticola
1 Bacillus subtilis Cohn. 12.18 (20.43)
2 Pseudomonas fluorescens Migula. 6.45 (14.68)
3 Trichoderma koningii Rifai. 57.40 (49.29)
4 Trichoderma virens Miller. 56.66 (48.89)
5 Trichoderma viride Pers. 76.29 (60.83)
Trichoderma harzianum Rifai.
6 79.63 (63.57)
(Dharwad isolate)
7 Trichoderma harzianum Rifai. 77.03 (61.23)
Mean 52.23 (45.57)
S.Em+ 0.28
C.D @1% 1.16
Figures in the parenthesis indicate angular transformed values

44. Table 17: Biomanagement of nematode fungal disease complex in coleus under
controlled conditions.
Ramakrishnan and Deepa, 2011, Coimbatore
Length (cm) Per cent Tuber
Shoot Root gall
Treatments disease yield/
Shoot Root weight (g) index
incidence plant (g)
Super Pseudomonas @ 2.5
120.62 81.87 958.12 2.25 35.62 223.7
kg/ha
P. fluorescens @ 2.5 kg/ha 120.6 75 883.12 2.37 36.87 212.2
Consortial formulations of
113.12 72.5 886.87 2.5 38.12 201.2
Pfbv22 + Bbv 57 @ 2.5 kg/ha
T. viride @ 2.5 kg/ha 125 85.6 994.37 2.00 31.87 235.6
P. fluorescens + T. viride each
113.12 70.62 813.87 3.12 46.87 190
@ 2.5 kg/ha
Carbofuran 3G @ 1 kg a.i/ ha
+ drenching with bavistin 101.87 68.75 772.5 3.37 51.25 185
(1 g/L water)
Untreated control 70.6 47.5 762.18 5 93.75 157.5
CD@5% 10.53 4.21 22.7 0.78 3.54 10.5
Pooled analysis of two pot culture experiments.

45. Table 18: On farm trial on Biomanagement of nematode fungal disease complex in
medicinal coleus
Ramakrishnan and Deepa, 2011, Coimbatore
-
Shoot Root Nematode population Tuber
Treatments yield
Length Weight Length Weight Soil Root Gall
PDI (t/ha)
(cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (200cc) (5g) index
134.21 1158.70 76.75 258.18 77.43 23.56 0.866 17.85
T. viride @ 2.5 kg/ha 24 (68.1)
(83.37) (79.25) (134.42) (129.16) (76.90) (84.58) (81.54) (77.69)
Super pseudomonas @ 115.20 825.07 60.33 208.53 201.36 50.40 2.733 31.23 22.6
2.5 kg/ha (57.39) (27.60) (84.27) (85.09) (39.95) (67.02) (41.41) (60.96) (58.8)
Carbofuran 3G @ 1 kg
117.36 932.46 64.19 218.47 194.30 57.96 2.40 35.00 22.0
a.i / ha + drenching
(60.34) (44.25) (96.05) (93.91) (42.05) (62.07) (48.49) (56.25) (54.6)
with Bavistin (1 kg/ha)
Untreated control 73.19 646.4 32.74 112.66 335.33 152.83 4.66 80.01 14.2
CD@5% 21.67 145.1 14.99 48.92 33.05 19.1 1.19 19.43 6.7
Pooled analysis of three field experiments.

46. Effect of integrated bio-management strategies on root tuber yield in medicinal coleus
infested with M. incognita and M. phaseolina
Seenivasan, 2010, TN
Treatment Details:
 T1-Integrated nematode management strategy (INMS) i.e. dipping of stem
cuttings in 0.1% Pseudomonas fluorescens (strain Pf1 @ 6x108 CFU/g) talc
based formulation at planting + growing marigold (Tagetes errecta) as
intercrop
 T2- T1 (INMS) + Biointensive disease management strategy (BDMS) i.e.
soil drenching with P. fluorescens (strain PfC6 @ 6x108 CFU/g) talc
formulation @ 2.5 kg/ha at planting, 30, 60, 90 & 120 DAP
 T3- Standard chemical check i.e. Carbofuran 3G @ 1 kg a.i/ ha + soil
drenching with carbendazim 0.1%
 T4- Untreated control

47. Table 19 : Effect of integrated bio-management strategies on root tuber yield in
medicinal coleus infested with M. incognita and M. phaseolina
Seenivasan, 2010, TN
Tuber length No. of tubers Tuber weight/ Root tuber
Treatments B:C ratio
(cm) /plant plant (g) yield (t/ha)
T1 11.3a (29.2) 4.8a (22.9) 250.0b (47.6) 6.92b (45.3) 1.37:1
T2 11.3a (29.2) 4.8a (22.9) 258.3b (49.3) 7.07b (46.5) 1.22:1
T3 12.3a (34.9) 4.9a (24.5) 297.8a (56.0) 7.31a (48.2) 1.35:1
T4 8.0b 3.7b 131.0c 3.78c 0.78:1
SEd 0.84 0.26 8.4 0.16 -
C.D @ 5 % 1.85 0.56 18.3 0.21 -
CV % 12.6 8.75 5.7 8.92 -
Figures in a column followed by different letters are significantly different at P=0.05
level by DMRT; Figures in the parentheses are percent decrease over control; Pooled 2
years data.

48. B.N : Withania somnifera
Family: Solanaceae
Active principle: Withanine & Somniferine
(0.13-0.31 %)
Medicinal Uses: Rheumatic pain, antitumor,
Anti-inflammatory, antioxidant & nervine tonics.
Economic parts: Roots and seeds
Yield: 4-5 q/ha (Dry roots) &
50-75 kg/ha (Seed yield)

49. Table 20: Effect of rhizobacterial inoculation on the shoot length, primary and lateral branches
development of ashwagandha (var.Jawahar 20).
Gopal, 2010, Coimbatore
No. of
Shoot length /plant (cm ) No. of lateral branches/plant
primary
Treatment 120 150 180
90 DAI 120 DAI 150 DAI 180 DAI branche 90 DAI
s/plant DAI DAI DAI
T1- Azospirillum
30.25 43.55 52.11 59.75 2.65 9 12.86 13 16.1
(AAs-11)
T2- Azotobacter
27.25 39.66 50 56.66 2.15 8.16 12 12.95 15.86
(AAz-3)
T3- Bacillus(APb-1) 27 38.44 48 55 2.05 8 11.86 12.85 15.33
T4-
28.33 41.24 51.15 58.85 2.75 8.76 12.22 13 16
Pseudomonas(APs-1)
T5-T1+T2 31.25 46.33 54.66 62..77 2.85 9.15 11 13 16.65
T6-T1+T3+T4 35.25 62.55 64.65 71.33 3.25 11 12.1 14.25 18
T7-T2+T3+T4 33.34 49.65 60 68.65 3.12 10.1 12 14 17.23
T8-T1+T2+T3 32.15 48.25 57.15 66.45 3 9.85 11.86 13.25 17
T9-T1+T2+T3+T4 38.47 56.22 69.47 76.5 3.52 11.44 13.24 16.32 20.25
T10-Uninoculated control 26.00 37.33 45.66 53 2 7.96 10 11.85 15.33
S.E C.D(P=0.05) S.E C.D(P=0.05)
T 2.24 4.45 0.59 1.18
D 2.42 2.82 0.37 0.75
T D 4.47 8.9 1.18 2.35

50. Table 21: Effect of rhizobacterial inoculation on the root growth of ashwagandha
(var.Jawahar 20). Gopal, 2010, Coimbatore
Root parameters (180 DAS) -
Treatment Lateral Root fresh Root dry
Root Root girth /Plant
roots/Plant weight/ Plant weight/Plant
length/Plant(cm) (cm)
(no.) (g ) (g)
T1- Azospirillum(AAs-11) 19.65 1.78 16.33 17.65 4.72
T2- Azotobacter(AAz-3) 18.95 1.75 14.66 16.95 4.3
T3- Bacillus(APb-1) 18.2 1.75 14 17 4.33
T4- Pseudomonas(APs-1) 19 1.76 14.33 17.33 4.43
T5-T1+T2 20.65 1.8 17.66 18 4.92
T6-T1+T3+T4 23 2 18.33 19 5.53
T7-T2+T3+T4 22.55 1.92 18 18.55 5.33
T8-T1+T2+T3 21 1.85 17 18.2 5
T9-T1+T2+T3+T4 26.17 2.32 19.66 21.33 6.1
T10-Uninoculated control 17 1.72 14.66 15.33 4
S.E. 1.76 0.16 1.31 1.53 0.41
C.D.(P=0.05) 3.69 0.33 2.76 3.22 0.87

51. Table 22: Effect of rhizobacterial inoculation on dry matter production of ashwagandha
(var.Jawahar 20). Gopal, 2010, Coimbatore
Dry matter production(g/plant)
Treatments
90 DAI 120 DAI 150 DAI 180 DAI
T1- Azospirillum(AAs-11) 0.58 4.72 9.65 15.18
T2- Azotobacter(AAz-3) 0.49 4.55 9 14.6
T3- Bacillus(APb-1) 0.51 4.6 9.15 14.64
T4- Pseudomonas(APs-1) 0.55 4.65 9.26 15
T5-T1+T2 0.61 4.78 9.85 15.33
T6-T1+T3+T4 0.693 5.11 11.12 16.17
T7-T2+T3+T4 0.68 4.93 10.56 16
T8-T1+T2+T3 0.65 4.82 10 15.92
T9-T1+T2+T3+T4 0.703 5.47 12.56 17.27
T10-Uninoculated control 0.41 4.16 8.5 13.26
S.E. C.D.(P=0.05)
T 0.42 0.84
D 0.27 0.53
T D 0.85 1.68

52. Table 23: Effect of rhizobacterial inoculation on total alkaloid content of
ashwagandha (var.Jawahar 20) roots.
Gopal and Kumutha, 2010, Coimbatore
Total alkaloid yield
Treatments Total alkaloid (%)
(mg/plant)
T1- Azospirillum(AAs-11) 1.18 56
T2- Azotobacter(AAz-3) 1.12 48
T3- Bacillus(APb-1) 1.13 49
T4- Pseudomonas(APs-1) 1.15 51
T5-T1+T2 1.20 59
T6-T1+T3+T4 1.29 71
T7-T2+T3+T4 1.26 67
T8-T1+T2+T3 1.23 62
T9-T1+T2+T3+T4 1.42 87
T10-Uninoculated control 1.10 44
S.E. 0.10 5.33
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.22 11.13

53. Table 24: Effect of rhizobacterial inoculation on Withaferin-A content of
ashwagandha (var. Jawahar 20) roots by HPLC.
Gopal and Kumutha, 2010, Coimbatore
Withaferin-A content
Treatments
(mg /100g of roots)
T1- Azospirillum (AAs-11) 44.80
T2- Azospirillum (AAs-11) + Azotobacter (AAz-3) 57.80
T6- Azospirillum (AAs-11) + Bacillus (APb-1) +
66.42
Pseudomonas (APs-1)
T9- Azospirillum (AAs-11) + Azotobacter (AAz-3) +
110.00
Bacillus (APb-1) + Pseudomonas (APs-1)
T10- Uninoculated control 40.40

54. Table 25: Influence of organic and biological amendments on root knot
index in Withania somnifera L.
Pandey et al., 2011, Lucknow
Treatments Root knot Index (RKI)
Untreated control 3.33a
Trichoderma harzianum (2x108 cfu/g)
0.66cd
@0.9 kg/bed
Cow urine @4.5 L/bed 0.83cd
Vermicompost @4.5 kg/bed 1.33bc
Neem oil seed cake @ 0.36 kg/bed 1.16bc
Cow urine + T. harzianum 0.33d
Vermicompost + T. harzianum 0.66cd
Neem oil seed cake + T. harzianum 0.33d
Mean in each column followed by same letters do not differ significantly
(P= 0.05) according to Duncan’s multiple range test.

55. Table 26: Effect of different organic and biological amendments on the root & Shoot
dry weight (kg) of Withania somnifera.
Pandey et al., 2011, Lucknow
Root dry weight
Treatments Shoot dry weight (kg/m2)
(kg/m2)
Untreated control 1.3f 0.15h
Trichoderma harzianum (2x108
2.3d 0.25e
cfu/g) @0.9kg/bed
Cow urine @4.5L/bed 2.7b 0.28d
Vermicompost @4.5 kg/bed 2.3d 0.29bc
Neem oil seed cake @
2.5c 0.23f
0.36kg/bed
Cow urine + T. harzianum 2.8ab 0.30b
Vermicompost + T. harzianum 2.9a 0.32a
Neem oil seed cake + T.
harzianum
2.8ab 0.29bc
Mean in each column followed by same letters do not differ significantly (P= 0.05)
according to Duncan’s multiple range test.

56. Conclusion
• Biological approach could be practiced to obtain maximum
yield, quality and to manage pest & diseases
• Different AM- fungi and PGPR improve growth, forskohlin
and withaferin- A in coleus and ashwagandha, respectively
• Chrysoperla carnea, Trichogramma chilonis, Beauveria
bassiana and Bacillus thuringiensis are effective in pest
management
• Trichoderma harzianum found to be effective in controlling the
population of Meloidogyne incognita and Rhizoctonia
bataticola