Journal of Plant Stress Physiology Update Publishing House en-US Journal of Plant Stress Physiology 2455-0477 Oxidative defense mechanisms of proline on growth, nutritional compositions and antioxidant activities in water-stressed Solanum aethiopicum L. <p>The growth performance of vegetables is influenced by water availability. This study explored the use of proline as an osmoregulator on growth, nutritional compositions and oxidative enzyme activities in water-stressed <em>Solanum aethiopicum. </em>Seedlings of the vegetable were subjected to 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100% proline against droughted and well-watered. Morphological and physiological characters, nutritional compositions and oxidative activities were determined in the vegetable. Plant height (20.37 cm), number of leaves (35.75 cm), Leaf area (347.55 m<sup>2</sup>), specific leaf area (72.02 m<sup>2</sup> g<sup>-1</sup>), leaf area index (0.71 m<sup>2</sup> m<sup>-2</sup>) relative growth rate (0.21 mg g<sup>-1</sup> day<sup>-1</sup>), net assimilation rate (0.058 mg g<sup>-1 </sup>day<sup>-1</sup>) and leaf area ratio (0.19 m<sup>2</sup> g<sup>-1</sup>) were higher in <em>S. aethiopicum </em>seedlings sprayed with 100% proline. Crude fat (0.11%), ash (1.57%), crude fibre (1.49%), crude protein (2.44%) and carbohydrate (3.50%) were higher in the leaves of the vegetable sprayed with 100% proline. Higher vitamin A (84.21 mg/100 g), vitamin B<sub>3 </sub>(0.56 mg/100 g) and vitamin C (10.97 mg/100 g) were observed in the leaves of the vegetable under 100% proline. Furthermore, sodium (8.93 mg/100 g), potassium (402.20 mg/100 g), calcium (121.55 mg/100 g) and magnesium (58.80 mg/100 g) were recorded in the leaves of well-watered. Higher SOD (0.88 mg g<sup>-1</sup>), APX (0.95 mg g<sup>-1</sup>), CAT (0.98 mg g<sup>-1</sup>), GR (0.96 ug g<sup>-1</sup>) and GST (14.52 mg g<sup>-1</sup>) were observed in the roots of <em>S</em>. <em>aethiopicum </em>droughted. Although all the proline levels sustained growth components, nutritional compositions and oxidative enzymes of <em>S. aethiopicum </em>under water stress<em>, </em>however, 100% proline produced better ameliorative effects.</p> A. W. Ojewumi M. O. Keshinro L. F. Mabinuori S. C. O. Makinde Copyright (c) 2023 Journal of Plant Stress Physiology 2023-07-26 2023-07-26 1 9 10.25081/jpsp.2023.v9.8391 Comparative study between biological and chemical agents for control sheath blight disease of rice <p>Biological control measures are indispensable to sustain global food security, due to it being economically profitable and environmentally sound. A comparative study was conducted to know the effectiveness of biological control measures compared with contact fungicide. <em>Trichoderma </em>spp. based bio fungicides Bioquick and Biospark were applied as preventive measures and contact fungicide as a curative measure for controlling sheath blight disease in rice varieties BR 71 and IR 24. Biospark and Bioquick were applied before disease development while, contact fungicide was used after the initiation of sheath blight disease. At the early stage of disease development, the effect of Bioquick, Biospark, and fungicide in terms of reducing percent relative lesion height and percent tiller infection are comparable. At 14 DAI and 18 DAI, contact fungicide performed best among the three control measures based on the two parameters. The genotypes of the rice accessions used in the study also appeared to be a factor in disease development, as evidenced by higher horizontal and vertical disease severity in BR71 than in IR24. Between comparison of Bioquick and Biospark in terms of reducing percent relative lesion height, percent tiller infection, and percent disease control, appeared to be higher in Biospark in both varieties. From this study, we can conclude that farmers can use Biospark as a biofungicide to get maximum benefit considering rice yield and ecology. However, its efficacy is slightly lower than chemical fungicides for controlling sheath blight disease of rice.</p> Mohammad Abul Monsur Sharmaine C. BiƱas Shashika Neranjan Herath Israel Dave V. Ambita Zarin Tasnim Ireneo B. Pangga Christian Joseph R. Cumagun Copyright (c) 2023 Journal of Plant Stress Physiology 2023-09-05 2023-09-05 10 17 10.25081/jpsp.2023.v9.8459