Screening of greengram genotypes against pulse beetle based on biological parameters (C. chinensis)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59797/journaloffoodlegumes.v29i2.528Keywords:
Biological Parameters, Greengram, Pulse Beetle (C. chinensis), Resistant, AccessionsAbstract
The performance of thirty three greengram accessions against C. chinensis infestation was assessed based on the physical and biological parameters of the pulse beetle. The studies revealed reduction in test weight in all the accessions due to insect infestation and it ranged from 1.43 g (KVSA- 1787) to 5.03 g (KVSA-1790) and the accessions viz., NSKMS- 111, KSAS-06/140, LGG-460, KVSA-1790, KVSA-1741 and KARS-39 with minimum reduction in test weight were non preferred by the insect. The seed coat thickness exhibited non significant difference s among the green gram accessions, indicating that the seed coat thickness had no relationship with resistance/tolerance to pulse beetle. Significant variation was observed among the accessions with respect to pest development and seed damage. The accessions KSAS-06/140, KSAS-1790, NSKMS-111and LGG- 460 with zero index of susceptibility were found to be significantly superior and resistant for insect infestation over the other accessions. Further, minimum weight loss was also noticed in the accessions NSKMS-111, KSAS-06/ 140, LGG-460, KARS-39, KVSA-1741 and KVSA-1790.
References
Ahmad K, Khalique F, Khan IA, Afzal M and Malik BA. 1993. Genetic differences for susceptibility of chickpea to bruchid beetle (Callosobruchus chinensis L.) attack. Pak. J. Sci. and Ind. Res., 36: 96-98.
Chakraborty S, Chaudhuri N and Senapati SK. 2004. Correlation between seed parameters and relative susceptibility of mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) genotypes to Callosobruchus chinensis L. during storage. Annuals of Plant Protection Sciences 1: 48-50.
Chandel BS, Chauhan, AK and Mamta B. 2012. Varietal resistance in pigeon pea genotypes against pulse beetle. Indian Journal of Entomology 74: 295-297.
Deeba F, Sarwar M and Khuhro RD. 2006. Varietal susceptibility of mung bean genotypes to pulse beetle, Callosobruchus analis (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Pakistan Journal of Zoology 38: 265-268.
Deshpande VK, Basavaraj M, Deshpande SK, Sateesh, A and Salimath PM. 2011. Quantitative and qualitative losses caused by Callosobruchus maculatus in cowpea during seed storage. Plant Archives 11: 723-731.
Divya P, Kanaka Durga K, Sunil N, Rajasri M and Udayababu P. 2012. Screening of horse gram accessions against pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis. Indian Journal of Plant Protection 40: 280-286.
Gujar GT and Yadav TD. 1978. Feeding of Callasobruchus maculatus (F.) and Callasobruchus chinensis (L.) in green gram. Indian Journal of Entomology 40: 108-112.
Howe RW. 1971. A parameter for expressing the suitability of an environment for insect development. Journal of Stored Products Research 7: 63-64.
Hussain M, Roy GC and Husain M. 1997. Laboratory evaluation of some mung bean strains for susceptibility to pulse beetle, Callosobruchus analis. (F.). Bangladesh Journal of Entomology 7: 211-216.
Kananji GAD. 2007. Study of bruchid resistance and its inheritance in Malawian dry bean germplasm. Ph. D. Thesis submitted to African Centre for Crop Improvement (ACCI), School of Biochemistry, Genetics, Microbiology and Plant Pathology. Faculty of Science and Agriculture, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Republic of South Africa.
Khattak SU, Alam M., Khalil SK and Hussain N. 1991. Response of chickpea cultivars to the infestation of pulse beetle, Callasobruchus chinensis (L.). Pakistan Journal of Zoology 23: 51-55.
Lephale S, Abraham AB and Victoria A. 2012 Susceptibility of seven cowpea cultivars (Vigna unguiculata) to cowpea beetle (Callosobruchus maculatus). Agricultural Sciences Research Journal 2: 65-69.
Lema T. 1994. Screening of chickpea genotypes against adzuki bean beetle (Callosobruchus chinensis L.). Proceedings of the First Annual Conferences of Crop Protection Society of Ethiopia. Eshetu Bekele; Yitbarek Semeane; Tibebu Habtewold; Mengistu Kebede; Kasahun Bekele. Addis Abeba (Ethiopia). 32. Mensah GWK. 1986. Infestation potential of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) on cowpea stored under subtropical conditions. Insect Science Appliances. 7 (6): 781-784.
Painter RH. 1951. Insects Resistance in Crop Plants. The Macmillon and Co., Newyork. 520.
Pankaj N and Singh HK. 2011. Correlation of seed characters of pulses with host suitability and preference of C.chinensis (L.). Indian Journal of Entomology 73: 365-370.
Rao RS and Verma RA. 2002. Studies on correlation of physical factors and grain losses with infestation of the Callasobruchus chinensis on pea varieties. Indian Journal of Entomology 64: 283-287.
Sarwar M. 2012. Assessment of resistance to the attack of bean beetle Callosobruchus maculatus (Fabricius) in chickpea genotypes on the basis of various parameters during storage. Songklanakarin Journal of Seed Science and Technology 34: 287-291.
Shaheen FA, Khaliq A and Aslam M. 2006. Resistance of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars against pulse beetle. Pak. J. Bot., 38: 1237-1244.
Singh VN, Pandey ND and Singh YP. 1995. Relative resistance of gram varieties to Callosobruchus chinensis L. on the basis of biochemical parameters. Ind. J. Entomol., 57: 77-82.
Somta P, Ammaranan C, Ooi PAC and Srinivas P. 2007. Inheritance of seed resistance to bruchids in cultivated mung bean (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek). Euphytica 155: 47–55.
Tripathi K, Bhalla S, Srinivasan K, Prasad TV and Srinivasan K. 2012. Differential reaction of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) genotypes to pulse beetle (Callosobruchus maculatus). Legume Research 25: 367-374.
