mango malformation: its causes and control

1. MANGO MALFORMATION ITS
CAUSES AND CONTROL

2. Mango
 B. Name: Mangifera indica L.
 Family: Anacardiaceae
 Chromosome No.: 2n = 4x = 40
 Origin: Indo-Burma
 Inflorescence: Branched panicle bearing both male and
hermaphrodite flowers
 Fruit type: Drupe
Known as: King of fruits, Bathroom fruit, National fruit of India

3. Introduction
• Mango is a popular, nutritional tropical fruit, which are
now one of the most important fruits crops in tropical
and subtropical areas of the world.
• Hiuen Tsang was the first foreigner to bring Mango to
the notice of the outside world.
• Beginning in the 16th Century, mangoes were gradually
distributed from India to other tropical countries in Asia
such as the Philippines, Indonesia, China and Thailand.
Bose, T.K., Vol-1

4. ORIGIN AND DISTRIBUTION
• Mango is believed to be originated from
tropical rain forests of South-East Asia.
• The genus contain 69 spp. in all but almost all
the edible cv. belongs to the single species
Mangifera indica which originated in the
Indian subcontinent (Mukherjee,1949).
• The name Mangifera was given for the first
time by Bontius in 1658.

5. AREA & PRODUCTION
• Total Area: 2.263 m ha
• Total Production: 19.687 m MT
• Productivity: 8.699 MT/ Ha
• Max area: Andhra Pradesh (0.332 m Ha)
• Max Production: Uttar Pradesh (4.540 m MT)
• Max Productivity: Uttar Pradesh 17.1 MT/Ha
(2016-17 NHB data base)

6. Mango Malformation
• It is a disorder in mango in which deformation of vegetative and floral
tissues takes place.
• Mango malformation disease causes abnormal flower and leaf
development, resulting in reduced plant growth and fruit yield.
• Caused by fungus- Fusarium moniliforme var. subglutinans (Marasas et al.,
2006).
• Malformation is the most threatening malady that causes great economic
loss and limits the mango production in India and among tropical and
subtropical countries around the globe. Floral malformation, in contrast to
vegetative one, is very virulent and can cause the loss of the entire crop.
Affected panicles either do not set fruit or abort fruit shortly after they
have set; yields can be reduced by as much as 50-80%.(Kumar et al., 2011)
• It was first reported by Watt in 1891 Darbhanga district of Bihar.

8. Types of malformation
• Vegetative Malformation
• Floral Malformation

9. Vegetative Malformation
• Is more commonly found on young seedlings.
• It is characterised by disrupting of apical growth
resulting in several small flushes.
• Quite short internodes at the apical ends of
various branches.
• These shoots bear small leafy structures.
• The multi-branching of shoot apex with scaly
leaves is known as “Bunchy Top.”
• The malformed seedlings, becomes remain
stunted and die.

11. Floral malformation
• Affected flower stems or panicles are
thickened and highly branched, producing up
to three times the normal number of flowers.
• The flowers are enlarged, sterile and do not
bear fruit.
• There are often high numbers of male flowers
compared with perfect flowers.
• Panicles may also form dwarfed and distorted
leaves instead of flowers.

13. SIGNIFICANCE
• Malformation is the most threatening malady
that causes great economic loss and limits the
mango production in India and tropical -
subtropical countries.
• Floral malformation, in contrast to vegetative
one, is very virulent and yields can be reduced
by as much as 50-80%.
• The damage per affected tree may vary from
50-80% and in severe cases the loss may be
almost total.

14. Contd..
• Delhi and western Uttar Pradesh where
almost 50% plants were affected, whereas in
eastern Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Andhra
Pradesh, Telangana and Tamil Nadu the
incidence was hardly 10%.
• A disorder causing deformation and
blackening of the panicles and swelling of
vegetative buds with gall formation is
reported for the first time from Florida.

15. Symptoms
• Abnormal, compact development of shoots and flowers are
common signs of mango malformation disease.
• Both normal growth and mango malformation disease–
affected growth may be present on a plant at the same time.
• Shoots Growing points such as leaf and stem buds produce
misshapen shoots with short internodes and brittle leaves.
• The leaves are significantly smaller than those of healthy
plants and re-curve towards the stem giving a squat, bunchy-
top appearance.
• Shoot damage occurs in mature trees but symptoms are
particularly serious for young plants, which become severely
stunted.

16. Disease cycle
• Malformed inflorescences and vegetative growth serve as
sources of pathogen conidia, which reach infection sites by at
least three different routes:
(i) aerial dissemination via wind
(ii) via contaminated bud mites (Aceria mangiferae) or
(iii) via infected host materials that fall into the funnel-like
structure of the apical buds.
• Conidial germination and infection can occur with at least 2
hours of wetness and temperatures between 5-41°C, but is
accelerated between 15-30°C and wetness >3 hours.
• After host penetration, the pathogen colonizes buds but not
subtending tissue.

17. Diseases cycle

18. Abiotic Factors
Temperature:
• The low temperature at the time of flowering was
correlated with the intensity of malformation.
• The incidence of disease is most severe in northwest
region of India where mean temperature during
flowering remains between 10-15°C.
• It is mild where corresponding temperature is 15-
20°C, sporadic at 20-25°C.

19. Micronutrient:
• The micronutrient deficiency, particularly iron
and zinc and copper has been associated with
the cause of malformation.
Ethylene
• As some of the symptoms of mango
malformation resemble with those of ethylene
effects.
• Higher the level of ethylene, higher the
infestation of mango malformation.

20. Low temperature stress ethylene and not Fusarium, might be responsible
for mango malformation
Mango
cultivars
Ethylene (pM g−1 FW min−2) Malformed/
healthy
**/ns
Malformed Healthy
Bombay green 60.48 28.56 2.11 **
Mallika 76.02 18.18 4.18 **
Chausa 81.90 25.20 3.25 **
Amrapali 50.86 18.48 2.75 **
Dushehri 147.00 41.37 3.55 **
cd at 1% = 12.44, cd at 5% = 8.75, ** = significant, ns = non significant.
Levels of endogenous ethylene content in healthy and malformed vegetative tissues
of mango (Mangifera indica L.) cultivars. Results are the means of two independent
experiments each with three replicates.
Ansari et al. (2013)
GBPUA&T, PANTNAGAR

21. Malformin:
• The presence of malformin like substances in
fully grown malformed panicles has been
reported.
• The stem and root of malformed vegetative
seedlings contain higher level of malformin as
compared to healthy seedlings.

22. INTEGRATED DISEASES MANAGEMENT
PHYSICAL METHOD
1) Pruning: Pruning the malformed branches
and application of capton (0.1%) help in
controlling the disease.
2) Diseased plant should be destroyed.
3) Use of disease free planting material.

23. BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
• Trichoderma viride, T. virens, T. harzianum are used
against malformation.
• Best result was obtained from T. harzianum followed
by T.virens & T. viride.

24. Per cent reduction of F. moniliforme var. subglutinans against
different Trichoderma spp.
Where F1, F4, F10, F11, F18 are five different isolates
of F.moniliforme var. subglutinans isolated from different locations
Kumar et al. (2012)
CISH, Luchnow

25. CHEMICAL CONTROL
• The application of NAA 100-200 ppm, at flower bud
differentiation stage reduce the malformation.
• Spraying of 500 ppm ethrel in February was highly
effective in reducing floral malformation.
• Application of cyclohexamide at 250 ppm is effective.
• Deblossoming at bud burst stage, spraying of 200
ppm NAA was reported to be very effective in
controlling malformation.

26. Contd..
• Spraying 1000 ppm placlobutrazol
prior to FBD, during the first week of
October.
• GA3 @ 30ppm reduced incidence of
malformation when sprayed at pre
bloom stage.

27. TREATMENTS Healthy
panicles %
Malformed
panicles %
Partially
malformed
panicles %
Light malformed
panicles %
Paclobutrazol
Doses
To (Control) 76.43 21.00 3.46 5.37
T1 (Paclobutrazol
@ 2.5g/tree
83.57 16.89 2.39 2.55
T2 (Paclobutrazol
@ 5g/tree
87.27 14.25 1.98 2.16
T3 (Paclobutrazol
@ 7.5g/tree
84.64 14.64 2.25 2.35
Singh et al. (2011)
College of Agriculture, Tikamgarh
Effect of various doses of paclobutrazol on incidence of mango malformation

28. Integration of prochoraz-Zn and sanitation treatments
Freeman et al. (2014)
The Volcani Center, Bet Dagan, Israel
Management of mango malformation disease based on a novel strategy
of timing of fungicide applications combined with sanitation

29. Treatment % severity before
treatment (2003)
% severity after
treatment (2005)
% decrease over
previous years count
(2005 over 2003)
Clipping 15 cm 40.55 27.56 29.37
Clipping 30 cm 63.33 37.41 40.92
Clipping 45 cm 68.42 27.02 60.50
Clipping 15 cm +
benomyl spray
75.58 50.90 32.65
Clipping 30 cm +
benomyl spray
54.21 27.33 49.58
Clipping 45 cm +
benomyl spray
70.85 20.99 70.37
Benomyl spray 61.37 49.33 19.61
Control 87.75 86.84 1.03
Effect of clipping at various distances behind the panicles and chemical spray on severity of mango malformation
Iqbal et al. (2011)
University College of Agriculture, University of Sargodha, Sargodha,
Pakistan
Management of mango malformation through physical alteration and
chemical spray

30. Screening of mango (Mangifera indica) germplasm for identification of
sources resistant to mango malformation
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Usha et al. (2019)
IARI, New Delhi
Mango varieties having extent of Mango Malformation <10%

31. POTENTIAL OF FUSARIUM MANGIFERAE AS AN ETIOLOGICAL
AGENT OF MANGO MALFORMATION
Sr.
No
.
District % Tissue infection Mean
A. alternata F. equiseti F. mangiferae F. pallidoroseum
1. Bahawalpur 0.00 1.33 35.33 1.33 7.59
2. Khanewal 0.00 0.00 60.66 0.00 12.13
3. Multan 3.33 0.00 46.00 4.66 10.79
4. Muzaffargarh 0.00 0.00 19.33 0.00 3.86
5. T.T. Singh 2.00 1.33 41.33 4.00 9.73
Fungi associated with malformed tissues of mango collected from five districts of the Punjab.
Sr. No. Fungus Tissue Infection %
1. F. mangiferae 40.53
2. F. pallidoroseum 1.99
3. A. alternata 1.06
4. F. equiseti 0.53
Iqbal et al. (2010)
University of Sargodha, Pakistan

32. BIOCHEMICAL CHANGES ASSOCIATED WITH FLORAL
MALFORMATION IN MANGO
Constituents Organ Dashehari Chausa
Healthy Malformed Healthy Malformed
Reducing
sugars
Leaf 3.70 3.00 3.95 3.40
Stem 3.40 2.70 3.25 3.00
Panicle 4.45 4.00 4.85 4.20
Non-reducing
sugars
Leaf 1.38 1.18 1.73 1.43
Stem 1.10 0.55 0.75 0.33
Panicle 0.93 1.00 0.80 0.65
Total sugars Leaf 5.08 4.18 5.68 4.83
Stem 4.50 3.25 4.00 3.33
Panicle 5.38 5.00 5.65 4.85
Acid hydrolysable polysaccharides and total carbohydrates remained at higher levels in
leaves, stems and panicles of malformed shoots as compared to healthy ones in both
the cultivars. The total nitrogen did not show much change while the reducing sugars,
non-reducing sugars and total sugars remained at lower levels in leaves, stems and
panicles of malformed shoots as compared to healthy ones in both the cultivars.

33. Acid
hydrolysable
polysaccharides
Leaf 10.26 12.26 11.16 12.52
Stem 25.20 26.19 21.60 26.19
Panicle 18.00 18.80 17.10 19.08
Total
carbohydrates
Leaf 15.34 16.44 16.84 17.35
Stem 29.70 29.44 25.60 29.52
Panicle 23.38 23.80 22.75 23.93
Total nitrogen Leaf 1.90 1.80 1.60 1.55
Stem 1.15 0.90 1.10 1.05
Panicle 1.85 1.80 1.85 1.80
C/N ratio Leaf 8.07 9.13 10.52 11.19
Stem 25.82 32.71 23.27 28.11
Panicle 12.63 13.22 12.30 13.29
Amount of various fractions of carbohydrate and total nitrogen in different parts of healthy
and malformed shoots of mango after fruit-bud differentiation, expressed as % dry weight.
Pandey et al. (1977)
IARI, New Delhi

34. Consistent association of fungus Fusarium mangiferae Britz
with mango malformation disease in Pakistan
Area Percent recovery from each cultivar Mean of
district
Aman
Dusehri
Malda Late
Chaunsa
Fajri Anwar
Rataul
Shujabad 91.66 75.00 83.33 78.33 100.00 85.66
Vehari 100.00 65.00 41.66 71.66 100.00 75.66
Layyah 100.00 76.66 38.33 68.33 95.00 75.66
Rahm Yar
Khan
83.33 58.33 33.33 70.00 88.33 66.66
Faisalabad 66.66 50.00 45.00 43.33 100.00 60.99
Mean of
cultivars
88.33 64.99 48.33 66.33 96.66
Recovery of F. mangiferae from malformed tissues of five local cultivars obtained from
five mango growing areas of the Punjab province of Pakistan.
Iqbal et al. (2011)
College of Agriculture, University of Sargodha, Sargodha, Pakistan

35. References
• NHB DATABASE 2016-17
• Mukherjee, S.K., 1949. The mango and its relatives. Sci. Cult, 15: 5-9.
• Singh, V.K., Singh, A.K., Singh, J.N. and Singh, V.K., 2011. Effect of various doses of paclobutrazol on
incidence of mango malformation. Indian Journal of Horticulture, 68(4): 561-563.
• Marasas, W.F.O., Ploetz, R.C., Wingfield, M.J., Wingfield, B.D. and Steenkamp, E.T., 2006. Mango
malformation disease and the associated Fusarium species. Phytopathology, 96(6): 667-672.
• Kumar, P., Misra, A.K. and Modi, D.R., 2011. Current status of mango malformation in India. Asian Journal
of Plant Sciences, 10(1): 1.
• Kumar, P., Misra, A.K., Modi, D.R. and Gupta, V.K., 2012. Biocontrol potential of Trichoderma species
against mango malformation pathogens. Archives of phytopathology and plant protection, 45(10): 1237-
1245.
• Freeman, S., Maymon, M., Biton, A., Levin, A.G. and Shtienberg, D., 2014. Management of mango
malformation disease based on a novel strategy of timing of fungicide applications combined with
sanitation. Crop Protection, 61: 84-91.
• Iqbal, Z., Akhtar, N., Ghazanfar, M.U., Shehzad, S.M., Ahmad, S., Asif, M., Yasin, M. and Pervez, M.A., 2011.
Management of mango malformation through physical alteration and chemical spray. African Journal of
Agricultural Research, 6(7): 1897-1901.
• Iqbal, Z., Pervez, M.A., Saleem, B.T., Ahmad, S., Dasti, A.A. and Saleem, A., 2010. Potential of Fusarium
mangiferae as an etiological agent of mango malformation. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 42(1): 409-415.

36. • Usha, K., Singh, O.P., Yadav, A., Deepak, N.G., Singh, B. and Sharma, D.K., 2019. Screening of mango
(Mangifera indica) germplasm for identification of sources resistant to mango malformation. INDIAN
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, 89(2): 327-332.
• Ansari, M.W., Bains, G., Shukla, A., Pant, R.C. and Tuteja, N., 2013. Low temperature stress ethylene and
not Fusarium, might be responsible for mango malformation. Plant physiology and biochemistry, 69: 34-
38.
• Pandey, R.M., Rao, M.M. and Pathak, R.A., 1977. Biochemical changes associated with floral malformation
in mango. Scientia Horticulturae, 6(1): 37-44.
• Iqbal, Z., Hameed, S., Akhtar, N., Pervez, M.A., Ahmad, S., Yasin, M., Asif, M., Dasti, A.A. and Saleem, A.,
2011. Consistent association of fungus Fusarium mangiferae Britz with mango malformation disease in
Pakistan. African Journal of Biotechnology, 10(27): 5286-5290.