Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T03:30:43.748Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Screening for resistance to gram pod borer, Heliothis armigera (Hubner), in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes and observations on its mechanism of resistance in India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

C. P. Srivastava  and
R. P. Srivastava
C. P. Srivastava
Affiliation:
Rajasthan College of Agriculture, Rajasthan Agricultural University, Udaipur 313 001, Rajasthan, India
R. P. Srivastava
Affiliation:
Rajasthan College of Agriculture, Rajasthan Agricultural University, Udaipur 313 001, Rajasthan, India
Get access

Abstract

Eight desi chickpea genotypes of mid-maturity group were screened by using an open-field screening technique. The genotypes ICC-3137, K-850 and ICC-1403 were found to be more susceptible than the others. More eggs were laid and more larvae were recorded on more susceptible genotypes. A low amount of acidity in the leaf extracts of genotypes was found to be associated with susceptibility to gram pod borer, Heliothis armigera (Hubner).

Résumé

Huit variétés de pois-chiche (type Desi) ont été testées pour leur résistance à Heliothis armigera (Lepid. Noctuidae) en plein champs. Les génotypes ICC 3137, K 850 et ICC 1403 se sont avérés les plus sensibles anx attaques de l'insecte. Les variétés présentant une résistance vis à vis de l'insecte sont caractérisées par des exudations foliaires plus acides que celles des variétés plus sensibles.

Keywords

Heliothis armigerachickpearesistancenon-preferenceIndiaH. armigerapois chicherésistance variétalenon-préferenceInde
Type
Research Articles
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , June 1989 , pp. 255 - 258
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Koundal, K.K. and Sinha, S.K. (1981) Malic acid exudation and photosynthetic characteristics in Cicer arietinum. Phytochemistry 20, 1251–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lal, S.S., Yadava, C.P. and Dias, C. A. R. (1985) Assessment of crop losses in chickpea caused by Heliothis armigera. FAO Plant Prot. Bull. 33, 27–35.Google Scholar
Lateef, S.S. (1985) Gram pod borer (Heliothis armigera) (Hub.) resistance in chickpeas. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 14, 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lateef, S.S. and Reed, W. (1983) Grading plant genotypes for their resistance to insect pests in a field screening programme. Paper presented at the National Seminar on Breeding Crop Plants for Resistance to Pest and Diseases, 25–27 May 1983 at Tamil Nadu Agriculture University, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.Google Scholar
Reed, W., Lateef, S.S. and Sithanantham, S. (1980) Insect Pest Management of Chickpea. In Proc. of the International Workshop on Chickpea Improvement, 28 Feb-2 March 1979 at ICRISAT Centre, Patancheru, A.P., India, pp. 179–183.Google Scholar
Rembold, H. (1981) Malic acid in chickpea exudate a marker for Heliothis resistance. Int. Chickpea Newsl., ICRISAT4, 18–19.Google Scholar
Rembold, H. and Winter, E. (1982) The chemist's role in host-plant resistance studies. In Proceedings of International Workshop on Heliothis Management, 15–20 Nov. 1981 at ICRISAT Center, Patancheru, A.P., India, pp. 241–250.Google Scholar
Sahasrabuddhe, D.L. (1914) The acid secretion of gram plant (Cicer arietinum). Imperial Agricultural Research Institute, Pusa Bull. 45, 1–12.Google Scholar
Singh, H. and Sharma, S.S. (1970) Relative susceptibility of some important varieties of gram to Heliothis armigera Hubner. Indian J. Entomol. 32, 170–171.Google Scholar