1 J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 00-00, 2022 This is an open access article d istributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommer cial-ShareAl ike 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, d istribution, and reproduction in any med ium, provide d the original author and source are credited. Original Research Paper INTRODUCTION Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) is a widely cultivated vegetable crop in India. Karnataka is one of the major tomato producing states in the country. In 2017-18, Karnataka state accounted for 10.54 per cent of the total production of the country (NHB, 2021). Tomato production is limited by several biotic stresses. Among biotic stresses, late blight disease caused by Phytophthora infestans (Mont.) de Bary is a deva sta ting disea se on toma to in India a nd worldwide (Fry et al., 2015). Tomato late blight has emerged as a major pr oduction risk in toma to cultivation in southern hills and plains including Karnataka. Under severe epidemics, crop loss up to 100 per cent has been reported (Chowdappa et al., 2013). In India, cr op insura nce scheme implies yield insurance. Tomato crop yield loss is covered under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) and Restructured Weather Based Crop insurance Scheme (RWBCIS). Comprehensive risk insurance is provided to cover yield losses due to non-preventable risks, among other widespread pests and disease attack in standing crop from sowing to harvesting (Anon., 2021). To consider tomato late blight disease as an important peril under insurance scheme, scientifically validated da ta on yield loss a re required in a par ticular geography. Previously 100 per cent crop loss due to late blight in tomato due to A2-13 mating type of Phytophthora infestans in southern plains and hills has been reported as per rapid roving survey observation (Chowdappa et al., 2013; 2015). Currently there are no reports in India with data generated on yield loss assessment due to late blight based on crop cutting exper iments. In this context, field tr ials wer e undertaken at ICAR-Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Hesaraghatta, Bengaluru, India during Kharif 2019 and 2020, with two objectives viz., i) to estimate the magnitude of tomato yield loss due to late blight disease ii) to assess resistant hybrid as risk management option against late blight epiphytotics. MATERIALS AND METHODS Estimation of yield loss Two sea son field tr ia ls wer e under ta ken in Hesar aghatta farm of ICAR-India n Institute of Horticultural Research, Bengaluru (13.1362° N, 77.4980° E). The trials were conducted in Kharif (July-December) 2019 a nd 2020 under na tur al epiphytotics of late blight. Tomato late blight yield loss assessment and risk aversion with resistant hybrid Sandeep Kumar G.M.*, Sriram S., Laxman R.H. and Harshita K.N. ICAR-Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Hesaraghatta lake post, Bengaluru - 560 089, Karnataka, India *Corresponding author Email : Sandeep.gm@icar.gov.in ABSTRACT Late blight (Phytophthora infestans) is one of the devastating diseases of tomato worldwide. Field trial was carried out in Kharif 2019 and 2020 in Hesaraghatta, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India, to estimate yield loss due to late blight and to assess extent of protection in resistant genotype during late blight epiphytotics. Yield loss was calculated as per cent difference in yield between fungicides treated and unprotected plots in three F1 hybrids NS501, Arka Rakshak, both susceptible genotypes and Arka Abhed, a resistant genotype. Over two years, average yield loss due to late blight was 79.47 per cent in NS501, 75.53 per cent in Arka Rakshak and 12.84 per cent in Arka Abhed. With lower mean AUDPC values (147.22 in 2019 and 469.17 in 2020) and with low yield loss, Arka Abhed provided affordable protection against late blight. Our findings indicate late blight as an economically important peril to be considered for tomato yield loss coverage under insurance scheme in Bengaluru region. Arka Abhed hybrid can be cultivated to avert yield loss risk associated with late blight epiphytotics. Key words: Arka Abhed, resistance hybrid, tomato late blight and yield loss. 2 Sandeep et al J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 00-00, 2022 Field exper iment wa s la id out in 2 fa ctor ia l randomized complete block design. Factor 1 was tomato genotypes with three levels. The three tomato F1 hybrids were NS501, Arka Rakshak and Arka Abhed (H-397). The second factor was fungicide protection with two levels, i.e., with and without fungicide protection against late blight as treatments. Each treatment was replicated four times. These three hybrids were selected as they have relatively different degree of resistance against major diseases of tomato, so that effect of other disease on yield loss estimation is minimal. Among three hybrids, hybrid NS 501 is tolerant to bacterial wilt and TLCV but susceptible to early and late blight. Arka Rakshak has resistance against leaf curl, bacterial wilt and moderate resistance against early blight, but it is susceptible to late blight. Arka Rakshak was chosen to minimize the effect of other diseases on yield loss, which might occur even with pesticide usage. The third hybrid chosen was Arka Abhed (H-397), which has disease resistance to tomato leaf curl disease (Ty- 2+Ty3), bacterial wilt (Bwr.12), early blight and late blight (Ph-2 + Ph-3) and has field tolerance to bipa r tite Tomato leaf curl New Delhi virus (ToLCNDV) (Kaushal et al., 2020). Arka Abhed was included in the experiment, to test the relative efficacy of this hybrid to be adopted as a strategy against this disease risk to get assured yield in conditions of late blight epidemics. Each plot measured 3m × 3m, with 20 plants were transplanted on raised beds and covered with reflective agriculture mulch film (30μ) at spacing 100 cm × 45 cm. Twenty-five-day old tomato seedlings at 3-4 leaf stage were transplanted on 21st July in both the years. The crop was raised with staking and drip irrigation. Fertilizer application and weed management were made as per package of practices of ICAR-Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Bengaluru, for open field cultivation of tomato (Sadashiva et al., 2018). Yield loss was calculated by subtracting yield from a plot protected with fungicides a nd one without fungicide protection. To protect tomato plants from late blight, a total of five sprays of dimethomorph 50% WP (1. 2 g/L) + ma ncozeb 75%WP (2 g/L), fenamidone 10% + mancozeb 50% WG (3 g/L) and famoxadone 16.6% + cymoxanil 22.1% SC (1 ml/L), fosetyl Al 80 WP (80% w/w) (1 g/L), were sprayed at weekly interval until final harvest. All these fungicides have label claim for use on tomato in India (DPPQS, 2021). A control plot without any fungicide protection against late blight was maintained in each hybrid with four replications. To exclude other pests additional sprays of following pesticides were given; Spinosad 45.00% SC (0.32 ml/ L), indoxacarb 14.50% SC (1.34 ml/L), imidacloprid 17.80% SL(0.5 ml/L), azadirachtin 01.00% EC (10000 ppm)(3 ml/L), streptomycin sulphate 90% + tetracycline hydrochloride 10% SP (500ppm), neem Soap (10 g/L), to manage, bacterial leaf spot, South American tomato pinworm, fruit borer and sucking pests. Fruit yield data from all the pickings from each plot was pooled and expressed as t ha-1. At each harvest, observations on marketable and non-marketable fruits, incidence of late blight infection on fruits was recorded. In addition, ancillary observations on incidence of ea r ly blight, toma to GBNV, a nd infestation of South American tomato pin worm and tomato fruit borer on fruits were recorded. Yield loss was calculated as the difference between actual yields recorded in plots with fungicide protection and unprotected plots (Cooke et al., 2006). Where Yp=yield recorded in protected plot, Yup=yield recorded in unprotected plot Disease assessment Late blight severity was assessed at weekly intervals from transplanting to final harvest on five randomly selected plants tagged in a plot. Severity on leaves was assessed by using 0-5 scale where, 0=no symptoms, 1=1 to 11% disease (midpoint 6%), 2=12 to 38% disease (midpoint 25%), 3=39 to 61% disea se (midpoint 50%), 4=62 to 88% disease (midpoint 75%), 5=89 to 100% disease (midpoint 95%) (Seidl-Johnson et al., 2015). Per cent disease index (PDI) was calculated based using the formula. From multiple severity assessments made at periodical intervals, Area under disease progress curve for each variety was worked as per equation (Wilcoxson et al., 1975). 3 Tomato late blight yield loss assessment and risk aversion with resistant hybrid Where, Si=disease severity at the end of week i, K = the number of successive evaluations of disease and d=interval between two evaluations. Statistical Analysis: Disease severity index data was subjected to Arcsine transformation before calculating AUDPC values. The data were subjected to ANOVA at 5 per cent significance level by SPSS software. Yield loss and disease severity data were subjected to ANOVA for statistical significance among different treatments at significance level 5 per cent using SPSS software. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Yield loss assessment The results on marketable yield and yield loss in two years are presented in Table 1. Significant difference in yield was observed between varieties and level of protection. This may be attributed to inherent yielding potentials of the varieties and efficacy of plant protection schedule applied in both the years. Yield loss in Kharif 2019 was less compared to Kharif 2020. This may be attributed to higher disease incidence of late blight recorded in 2020 (Table 2). Over two years, average yield loss due to late blight was 79.47 per cent in NS501, 75.53 per cent in Arka Rakshak and 12.84 per cent in Arka Abhed. In India, severe tomato late blight epidemics have been recorded during 2009-2010 in South Indian plains and hills by Chowdappa et al. (2013), during 2014 in eastern and northeastern India (NEI) by Dey et al. (2018) and during 2016 in eastern Uttar Pradesh by Tripathi et al. (2017). In all these reports there was no yield loss estimation except for reports from South India plains and Hills, where 100% crop loss is reported as per rapid roving survey observation. Our data establishes that late blight is an inevita ble r isk in Kharif cultivation of tomato causing considerable yield loss in Bengaluru region if resistant genotypes are not used. The yield loss data generated will pave way for inclusion of this peril under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) of India for yield coverage. Disease assessment Data on disease severity on three varieties during 2019 and 2020 Kharif season are presented in Table 2. Data Table 1 : Tomato late blight yield loss estimation in Kharif 2019 and 2020 in Hesaraghatta, Bengaluru Kharif 2019 Kharif 2020 Marketable Yield Mean Marketable Yield Mean Average Treatment yield (t/ha) loss (Variety) yield (t/ha) loss (Variety) yield (%) (%) loss (%) P* UP P UP Arka Rakshak 70.94 19.98 71.92 45.46 61.47 12.82 79.14 37.15 75.53 NS-501 53.84 13.25 75.39 33.55 48.12 7.92 83.54 28.02 79.47 Arka Abedh 61.25 53.14 13.65 57.20 55.12 48.50 12.02 51.81 12.84 Mean 62.01 28.79 - - 54.90 23.08 - - - (Protection) Variety SeM = 1.87, CD = 5.63 SeM = 3.15, CD = 9.51(pd<0.05) Protection SeM = 1.52, CD = 4.60 SeM = 2.57, CD = 7.76(pd<0.05) Variety* protection SeM = 2.64, CD = 7.97 SeM = 4.46, CD = 13.45 (pd<0.05) CV (%) 11.81 22.48 *P=protected UP=Unprotected 4 analysis revealed significant effect of varieties and level of protection on severity of late blight. In 2019, significantly lower disease severity was recorded with variety Arka Abhed, which was statistically superior over Arka Rakshak and NS501, which were at par with respect to late blight severity. Similar trend was observed in 2020 except for higher disease severity recorded in second year. The higher incidence in second year may be attributed to build up of soil borne inoculums a nd pr eva iling fa vor a ble wea ther conditions. In susceptible varieties, late blight severity ranged from 54.44 to 74.17 over two years. In a trial on four years evaluation of integrated management packages for management of tomato diseases at Hesa r agha tta , la te blight was r ecorded a s the predominant disease during 2015-18 Kharif season (Kumar et al., 2020). The current and previous works substantiate that Bengaluru region is a natural hot spot of tomato late blight disease. In our exper imenta tion, even with pr otective application of systemic fungicides at 7 days interval, late blight severity values in fungicide protected plots ranged from 8.34 to 18.33 in 2019 and 6.67 to 27.50 in 2020. This is due to prevailing continuous rains that might have reduced the bioefficacy of fungicides applied. This is in conformation with work of Rani et al. (2015) that simulated rainfall after spray reduced persistence a nd bioefficacy of fungicides viz. , meta la xyl 8%+ ma ncozeb 64%WP, ma ncozeb 75%WP, which are widely used against late blight management in tomato. In Kharif tomato production, where weather events like continuous rains limits fungicide and protection against late blight. In such situa tions, Arka Abhed, a r esista nt F1 hybr id developed at ICAR-IIHR can be used as an effective component to get assured yield with reduction in input costs incurred on usage of protective and curative fungicides. In two consecutive season’s evaluation in Hesaraghatta under high disease pressure, the hybrid Arka Abhed had significantly recorded low AUDPC values (147.22 and 469.17 in 2019 and 2020 respectively) compared to higher AUDPC values of susceptible genotypes viz., Ar ka Ra ksha k (997. 22, 2683. 33) a nd NS501 (1096.68, 2655.83) which were at par with each other in Turkey’s test at 5 per cent probability (Fig. 1). Table 2 : Tomato late blight severity in Kharif 2019 and 2020 under fungicide protected and unprotected conditions Kharif 2019 Kharif 2020 Treatment Per cent disease index (PDI) Per cent disease index (PDI) P UP Mean P UP Mean (Variety) (Variety) Arka 13.89 54.44 34.17 25.83 72.50 49.17 Rakshak (21.88) (47.55) (34.72) (30.55) (58.37) (44.46) NS-501 18.33 61.11 39.72 27.50 74.17 50.84 (25.34) (51.42) (38.38) (31.63) (59.45) (45.54) Arka 8.34 12.22 10.28 6.67 17.50 12.09 Abedh (16.78) (20.46) (18.62) (14.96) (24.72) (19.84) Mean 13.52 42.59 - 20.00 54.72 - (Protection) (21.33) (39.81) (25.71) (47.51) Variety SeM = 1.42, CD = 4.27 SeM = 1.29, CD = 3.89(pd<0.05) Protection SeM = 1.16, CD = 3.49 SeM = 1.05, CD = 3.17(pd<0.05) Variety*protection SeM = 2.01, CD = 6.04 SeM = 1.83, CD = 5.49(pd<0.05) CV (%) 13.12 9.95 *Value in the parenthesis is arcsine transformed values of per cent disease index. First year peak severity data on September 12, second year peak severity on November 24. P=protected UP=Unprotected Sandeep et al 5 Higher AUDPC values in 2020 can be attributed to higher late blight severity recorded in second year. Previous study by Hansen et al. (2014) suggests that tomato varieties possessing both Ph-2 and Ph-3 genes can be used to effectively manage late blight caused by P. infestans clonal lineage US-23. In our two years study we have found that Arka Abhed with Ph-2 and Ph-3 genes has provided affordable protection against the prevailing late blight population 13_A2 clonal lineage of P. infestans in Bengaluru location. CONCLUSIONS The current yield loss assessment validates late blight as a major production constraint causing considerable yield loss in Kharif cultivation of tomato in Bengaluru region. Hence, late blight disease has to be considered as an important peril and yield loss arising out of it has to be covered under national crop insurance programme. Based on disease prevalence data it is clear that Bengaluru area is hot spot for late blight disease. Tomato breeders and pathologist should eva lua te their ma ter ial in Benga lur u a r ea for identification of resistant germplasm and testing field efficacy of management measures evolved against this disea se. In consecutive two year s, two sea son evaluation, we have found that Arka Abhed is a risk aversion technology with assured yield under late blight epiphytotics. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors are grateful to the Director, ICAR-Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Hesaraghatta lake post, Bengaluru, for providing facilities. Authors acknowledge the funding for this study by ICAR under NICRA programme. REFERENCES Anonymous. 2021. Operational guidelines Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) accessed on 24 April2021,https://pmfby.gov.in/pdf/ Revised_Operational_Guidelines.pdf. Chowdappa, P., Kumar, N., Madhura, S., Kumar, M., Myers, K., Fry, W., Squires, J. and Cooke, D. 2013. Emergence of 13_A2 blue lineage of Phytophthora infestans was responsible for severe outbreaks of late blight on tomato in South West India. Journal of Phytopathology, 16:49-58. Chowdappa, P., Nirmal Kumar, B. J., Madhura, S., Mohan Kumar, S. P., Myers, K. L., Fry, W.E. and Cooke, D. E. L. 2015. Severe outbreaks of late blight on potato and tomato in South India caused by recent changes in the Phytophthora infestans population. Plant Pathology, 64:191- 199. Cooke, B. M. 2006. Disease assessment and yield loss. In: Cooke, B. M., Jones, D. G and Kaye, B(eds)The Epidemiology of Plant Diseases. Second Edition, Springer, Netherlands, p. 43- 75. Dey, T., Saville, A., Myers, K. Tewari, S., Cooke, D. E. L., Tripathy, S., Fry., W. E., Ristaino, J. B. and Roy, S. G. 2018. Large sub-clonal variation in Phytophthora infestans from recent severe late blight epidemics in India. Scientific Reports, 8:4429. DPPQS. 2021. Major uses of fungicides, accessed 25th April 2023, http://ppqs.gov.in/divisions/ cib-rc/major-uses-of-pesticides. Fry, W. E., Birch, P. R., Judelson, H. S., Grunwald, N. J., Danies, G., Everts, K. L., Gevens, A. J., Gugino, B. K., Johnson, D. A., Johnson, S. B., McGrath, M. T., Myers, K. L., Ristaino, J. B., Roberts, P. D., Secor, G and Smart, C. D. 2015. Five reasons to consider Phytophthora infestans a r eemerging pa thogen. Phytopathology, 105(7):966-81. Hansen Z. R., Small, I. M, Mutschler, M., Fry, W. ., Smart, C. D. 2014. Differential susceptibility of 39 toma to va r ieties to Phytophthora infestans clonal lineage US-23. Plant Disease, 98(12):1666-1670. Tomato late blight yield loss assessment and risk aversion with resistant hybrid Fig. 1 : Area under disease progress curve (AUDPC) of tomato late blight in three varieties during 2019 and 2020 in unprotected plots under natural epiphytotics. AUDPC values were arrived from seven disease assessments in 2019 and six assessments in 2020. 6 Sadashiva, A. T., Hebbar, S. S., Nair, A. K. and Senthilkumar, M. 2018. Production technology of vegetable crops-A hand book (eds). ICAR- IIHR, Bengaluru, 560 089. Seidl-Johnson, A. C., Jordan, S. A. and Gevens, A. J. 2015. Efficacy of organic and conventional fungicides and impact of application timing on control of tomato late blight caused by US-22, US-23, and US-24 isolates of Phytophthora infestans. Plant Disease, 99(5): 641-647. Kaushal, A., Sadashiva, A. T., Ravishankar, K.V., Singh, T. H., Prasanna, H. C., Rai, A. K and Jatav, V. K. 2020. A rapid disease resistance breeding in Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). In: Gosal Satbir Singh and Wani Shabir Hussain (Eds) Accelerated Plant Breeding, Volume 2: Vegetable Crops.; 1st ed. Springer International Publishing, Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Springer. p.17-55. Kumar, G. M. S., Reshma, V., Reddy, M. K., Sriram, S and Sharma, D. 2020. Integrated management of major tomato diseases. Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems, 26(1): 140-146. Rani, R., Sharma, V. K., Kumar, P and Mohan, C. 2015. Impa ct of simula ted r a infa ll on persistence of fungicides used against late blight (Phytophthora infestans) of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 85(2): 256-60. Tripathi, A. N, Pandey, K. K., Meena, B. R., Rai, A. B. and Singh, B. 2017. An emerging threat of Phytophthora infestans causing late blight of tomato in Uttar Pradesh, India. New Disease Reports, 35(1): 14. Wilcoxson, R. D., Skovmand, B. and Atif , A.H. 1975. Evaluation of wheat cultivars for their ability to retard development of stem rust. Annals of Applied Biology, 80(3):275-281. NHB. 2019. Area production statistics accessed on 24 April 2021,