Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-x5mqb Total loading time: 0.256 Render date: 2021-11-29T14:07:46.518Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Expression of resistance to the pod borer Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), in relation to high-performance liquid chromatography fingerprints of leaf exudates of chickpea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2013

V.L. Narayanamma
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India ANGR Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad 500 030, Andhra Pradesh, India
H.C. Sharma*
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India
P.M. Vijay
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India
C.L.L. Gowda
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India
M. Sriramulu
Affiliation:
ANGR Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad 500 030, Andhra Pradesh, India
*

Abstract

The noctuid moth Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) is the most damaging pest of chickpea worldwide. Plant resistance is an important component for the management of this pest. To develop cultivars with resistance to insects, it is important to understand the role of different components associated with resistance to insects. Therefore, we characterized a diverse array of chickpea genotypes for organic acid profiles in the leaf exudates that are associated with resistance to H. armigera. Chickpea leaf exudates contained five major organic acids that were identified as malic, oxalic, acetic, citric and fumaric acids. High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) profiles of the leaf exudates of nine chickpea genotypes showed that amounts of malic acid were negatively correlated with leaf feeding by H. armigera larvae at flowering and maturity, and with pod damage. Oxalic acid showed a negative association with leaf damage in the detached leaf assay. Additionally, the amounts of acetic acid were negatively correlated with larval weights and damage rating at the flowering and maturity stages. Citric acid levels were negatively associated with damage rating at the flowering stage. Implications of using the HPLC profiles of organic acids in the leaf exudates of chickpea to breed for resistance to H. armigera are discussed.

Type
Research Papers
Copyright
Copyright © icipe 2013 

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

Bhagwat, V. R., Aherkar, S. K., Satpute, U. S. and Thakare, H. S. (1995) Screening of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes for resistance to gram pod borer, Heliothis armigera (Hubner) and its relationship with malic acid in leaf exudates. Journal of Entomological Research 19, 249253.Google Scholar
Chabhra, K. S., Kooner, B. S., Sharma, A. K. and Saxena, A. K. (1990) Sources of resistance in chickpea, role of biochemical components on the incidence of gram pod-borer Helicoverpa (Heliothis) armigera (Hubner). Indian Journal of Entomology 52, 423430.Google Scholar
Chen, W., Sharma, H. C. and Muehlbauer, F. J. (eds) (2011) Compendium of Chickpea and Lentil Diseases and Pests. American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, MN. 164 pp. (ISBN 978-0-89054-383-2).Google Scholar
Dias, C. A. R., Lal, S. S. and Yadava, C. P. (1983) Differences in susceptibility of certain chickpea cultivars and local collection to Heliothis armigera (Hubner). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 53, 842845.Google Scholar
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2005) FAO Statistical Yearbook 2005–2006 (includes CD-ROM) (multilingual edn). FAO, Rome. 320 pp. (ISBN 978-9250055060).Google Scholar
Garcia-Vallve, S., Palau, J. and Romeu, A. (1999) Horizontal gene transfer in glycosyl hydrolases inferred from codon usage in Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis. Molecular Biology and Evolution 9, 11251134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kranthi, K. R., Jadhav, D. R., Kranthi, S., Wanjari, R. R., Ali, S. S. and Russell, D. A. (2002) Insecticide resistance in five major pests of cotton in India. Crop Protection 21, 449460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lateef, S. S. (1985) Gram pod borer (Heliothis armigera) (Hub.) resistance in chickpeas. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 14, 95102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lateef S. S. and Sachan J. N. (1990) Host plant resistance to Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.) in different agro-economical conditions, pp. 181–189. In Chickpea in the Nineties. Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Chickpea Improvement, 4–8 December 1989, ICRISAT Centre, India. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru and International Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Allepo, Syria. (ISBN 9789290661818).Google Scholar
Narayanamma, V. L., Gowda, C. L. L., Sriramulu, M., Ghaffar, M. A. and Sharma, H. C. (2013) Nature of gene action and maternal effects for pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera resistance and grain yield in chickpea, Cicer arietinum. American Journal of Plant Sciences 4, 2637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narayanamma, L. V., Sharma, H. C., Gowda, C. L. L. and Sriramulu, M. (2007) Mechanisms of resistance to Helicoverpa armigera and introgression of resistance genes into F1 hybrids in chickpea. Arthropod–Plant Interactions 1, 263270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narayanamma, L. V., Sharma, H. C., Gowda, C. L. L. and Sriramulu, M. (2008) Incorporation of lyophilized leaves and pods into artificial diet to assess antibiosis component of resistance to pod, Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in chickpea. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science 27, 191198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rembold, H. (1981) Malic acid in chickpea exudate – a marker for Heliothis resistance? International Chickpea Newsletter 4, 1819.Google Scholar
Rembold H., Wallner P., Kohne A., Lateef S. S., Grune M. and Weigner C. (1990) Mechanism of host plant resistance with special emphasis on biochemical factors, pp. 191–194. In Chickpea in the Nineties. Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Chickpea Improvement, 4–8 December 1989, ICRISAT Centre, India. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru and International Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Allepo, Syria. (ISBN 9789290661818).Google Scholar
Rembold H. and Winter E. (1982) The chemists's role in host plant resistance studies. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Heliothis Management, 15–20 November 1981. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi Arid Tropics, Patancheru, India.Google Scholar
Sharma, H. C. (ed.) (2005) Heliothis/Helicoverpa Management: Emerging Trends and Strategies for Future Research. Oxford & IBH Publishers, New Delhi. 469 pp.Google Scholar
Sharma, H. C., Ahmad, R., Ujagir, R., Yadav, R. P., Singh, R. and Ridsdill-Smith, T. J. (2005 a) Host plant resistance to cotton bollworm/legume pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera, pp. 167208. In Heliothis/Helicoverpa Management: Emerging Trends and Strategies for Future Research (edited by Sharma, H. C.). Oxford & IBH, New Delhi.Google Scholar
Sharma, H. C., Pampapathy, G., Dhillon, M. K. and Ridsdill-Smith, T. J. (2005 b) Detached leaf assay to screen for host plant resistance to Helicoverpa armigera. Journal of Economic Entomology 98, 568576.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Srivastava, C. P. and Srivastava, R. P. (1989) 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. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science 10, 255258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoshida, M., Cowgill, S. E. and Wightman, J. A. (1995) Mechanism of resistance to Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in chickpea: role of oxalic acid in leaf exudate as an antibiotic factor. Journal of Economic Entomology 88, 17831786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoshida, M., Cowgill, S. E. and Wightman, J. A. (1997) Roles of oxalic and malic acids in chickpea trichome exudate in host-plant resistance to Helicoverpa armigera. Journal of Chemical Ecology 22, 11951210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Expression of resistance to the pod borer Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), in relation to high-performance liquid chromatography fingerprints of leaf exudates of chickpea
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Expression of resistance to the pod borer Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), in relation to high-performance liquid chromatography fingerprints of leaf exudates of chickpea
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Expression of resistance to the pod borer Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), in relation to high-performance liquid chromatography fingerprints of leaf exudates of chickpea
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *