Hostname: page-component-6b989bf9dc-wj8jn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-12T18:08:15.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Morphological and biochemical factors associated with resistance to Maruca vitrata (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in short-duration pigeonpea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2008

V. Sunitha
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, College of Agriculture, Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad 500030, Andhra Pradesh, India
G.V. Ranga Rao*
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru502324, Andhra Pradesh, India
K. Vijaya Lakshmi
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, College of Agriculture, Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad 500030, Andhra Pradesh, India
K.B. Saxena
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru502324, Andhra Pradesh, India
V. Rameshwar Rao
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru502324, Andhra Pradesh, India
Y.V.R. Reddy
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru502324, Andhra Pradesh, India
Get access

Abstract

The spotted pod borer Maruca vitrata (Geyer) is known for its economic importance throughout its geographical distribution because of its destructive nature to reproductive parts of several grain legume crops including pigeonpea. In view of the importance of the pest, the present study was carried out on the association of different morpho-chemical traits with resistance/susceptibility to M. vitrata at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru, India. Trichome length and density, sugars, proteins and phenols were found to be associated with resistance to M. vitrata in short-duration pigeonpea genotypes. Pod damage by M. vitrata on different short-duration pigeonpea genotypes in the field ranged from 5.8 to 68%. Laboratory studies showed less consumption of food and reduced larval and pupal weights of M. vitrata when reared on the resistant genotypes ICPL 98003 and ICPL 98008 indicating antibiosis effects of the genotypes. Trichome density on upper and lower surfaces of the leaf (390 and 452/9 mm2), and length (3.5 mm) and trichome density (442/9 mm2) and length (5.9 mm) on pods were found positively correlated with the resistant genotype ICPL 98003. High sugar content in flowers (22%) and pods (10.6%) was responsible for the susceptibility of ICPL 88034, while high phenol concentration in flowers (6.5%) and pods (9.3%) in ICPL 98003 was responsible for resistance. Protein content in pods was significantly higher (25.5%) in susceptible ICPL 88034 when compared with resistant ICPL 98003 (16.5%). Based on these results, ICPL 98003 and ICPL 98008 were categorized as highly resistant and ICPL 98012 as moderately resistant. This paper discusses the physico-chemical traits associated with resistance to M. vitrata in short-duration pigeonpea genotypes.

Type
Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 2008

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

Anitha Kumari, D. (2005) Mechanisms of resistance to Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) in pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Mill). PhD thesis submitted to Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad.Google Scholar
Armes, N. J., Wightman, J. A., Jadhav, D. R. and Ranga Rao, G. V. (1997) Status of insecticidal resistance in Spodoptera in Andhra Pradesh, India. Pesticide Science 50, 240248.Google Scholar
Bindra, O. S. and Jokhmola, S. S. (1967) Incidence and losses caused by some pod infesting insects in different varieties of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.). Indian Journal of Agricultural Science 37, 117186.Google Scholar
Brooker, R. H. (1965) Pests of cowpea in northern Nigeria. Bulletin of Entomological Research 55, 663672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dina, S. O. (1979) Synthetic pyrethroids for the control of cowpea insect pests. Journal of Agricultural Science 93, 735747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dina, S. O. (1988) Timing the application of deltamethrin and cypermethrin for the control of insect pests of cowpea Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. Tropical Pest Management 34, 6567.Google Scholar
Durairaj, C. and Shanower, T. G. (2003) Reaction of eight short duration pigeonpea genotypes against pod borer complex in Tamil Nadu, India. International Chickpea and Pigeonpea Newsletter No. 10, 4748.Google Scholar
Fellow, R. W., Subasinghe, S. M. C. and Amarsena, J. (1977) Reassessment of insect pest problems on pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan). Tropical Agriculturist 83, 9197.Google Scholar
ICRISAT [International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics] (1992) The medium term plan. Patancheru 502324, Andhra Pradesh, India..Google Scholar
Ishikawa, S., Hirao, T. and Arai, N. (1969) Chemo-sensory basis of host plant selection in the silkworm. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 12, 544554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackai, L. E. N. (1982) A field screening technique for resistance of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) to the pod borer Maruca testulalis (Geyer) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 72, 145156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackai, L. E. N. (1991) Laboratory and screenhouse assays for evaluating cowpea resistance to the legume pod borer. Crop Protection 10, 4852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackai, L. E. N. and Oghiakhe, S. (1989) Pod wall trichomes and resistance of two wild cowpea, Vigna vexillata accessions to Maruca testulalis (Geyer) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and Clavigralla tomentosicollis Stål (Hemiptera: Coreidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 79, 595605.Google Scholar
Lateef, S. S. and Reed, W. (1981) Development of methodology for open field screening for insect resistance in pigeonpea, pp. 315–322. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Pigeonpea, Vol. 2, 15–19 December 1980 (Edited by Y. L. Nene). International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India.Google Scholar
Macfoy, C. A., Dabrowski, Z. T. and Okech, S. (1983) Studies on the legume pod borer, Maruca testulalis (Geyer)—4. Cowpea resistance to oviposition and larval feeding. Insect Science and Its Application 4, 147152.Google Scholar
Murkute, G. R., Dhage, A. R., Desai, B. B., Kale, A. A., Mote, U. N. and Aher, R. P. (1993) Biochemical parameters associated with pod borer damage as influenced by maturity group and growth stages of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Mill). Legume Research 16, 151156.Google Scholar
Ochieng, R. S., Okeyo-Owuor, J. B. and Dabrowski, Z. T. (1981) Studies on the legume pod borer, Maruca testulalis (Geyer). Mass rearing on natural food. Insect Science and Its Application 1, 269272.Google Scholar
Oghiakhe, S., Jackai, L. E. N. and Makanjuola, W. A. (1991) Cowpea plant architecture in relation to infestation and damage by the legume pod-borer, Maruca testulalis (Geyer) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae): effect of canopy structure and pod position. Insect Science and Its Application 12, 193199.Google Scholar
Peter, J. A. (1995) Pigeonpea trichomes a promising source for pod borer resistance. IPM and IRM News Letter for Legume Crops in Asia No. 2, pp. 4–5.Google Scholar
Ranga Rao, G. V., Ashwini Kumari, P. R., Rameswar Rao, V. and Reddy, Y. V. R. (2007) Evaluation of Spinosad and Indoxacarb for the management of legume pod borer, Maruca vitrata (Geyer), in pigeonpea. Journal of Food Legumes 20, 126127.Google Scholar
Reese, J. C. (1979) Interactions of allelochemicals with nutrients in herbivore food, pp. 309330. In Herbivores: Their Interaction with Secondary Plant Metabolites (Edited by Rosenthal, G. A. and Jazen, D. H.). Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Sadasivam, S. and Manikkam, A. (1996) Biochemical Methods, 2nd Edition. New Age International (P) Limited Publisher, New Delhi. pp. 20–21, 193–194.Google Scholar
Sahoo, B. K., Patnaik, H. P. and Mishra, B. K. (2002) Field screening of early maturing pigeonpea cultivars against the pod borers in Orissa. Indian Journal of Plant Protection 30, 1315.Google Scholar
Saxena, K. B., Lateef, S. S., Ariyattne, H. P., Fonseka, H. H. D. and Dharmasena, C. M. D. (1996) Maruca testulalis damage in determinate and indeterminate lines of pigeonpea. International Pigeonpea Newsletter 3, 9193.Google Scholar
Shanower, T. G., Romies, J. and Peter, A. J. (1996) Pigeonpea plant trichomes: multitrophic level interactions, pp. 7688. In Biotechnological Perspectives in Chemical Ecology of Insects (Edited by Ananthakrishnan, T. N.). Oxford and IBH, New Delhi, India.Google Scholar
Sharma, H. C. (1998) Bionomics, host plant resistance and management of the legume pod borer Maruca vitrata, a review. Crop Protection 17, 378382.Google Scholar
Sharma, H. C. and Ortiz, R. (2002) Host plant resistance to insects: an eco-friendly approach for pest management and environment conservation. Journal of Environmental Biology 23, 1135.Google ScholarPubMed
Sharma, H. C., Saxena, K. B. and Bhagwat, V. R. (1999) The legume pod borer, Maruca vitrata: bionomics and management. Information Bulletin, 55. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh.Google Scholar
Sharma, K. K., Kalpana, B. and Bijendra Singh, (2005) Monitoring of pesticide residues: Indian and international scenario, pp. 45–54. In Proceedings of National Seminar on Pesticide Residues and their Risk Assessment, 20–21 January 2005, (Edited by D. Raghunatha Rao and J. Padmaja Rambabu) National Institute of Nutrition (ICMR), Hyderabad, India.Google Scholar
Singh, S. P. (1999) The eco-friendly approach. The Hindu: Survey of Indian Agriculture, (Edited by N. Ravi). National Press, Chennai, India.Google Scholar
Tandon, H. L. S. (Ed.) (1993) Method of Analysis of Soil, Plants, Water and Fertilizers. Fertilizer Development and Consultation Organization, New Delhi, 143 pp.Google Scholar