Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-gbqfq Total loading time: 0.637 Render date: 2022-05-19T05:25:38.786Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Evaluation of Helicoverpa and drought resistance in desi and kabuli chickpea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2007

S. S. Yadav*
Affiliation:
Division of Genetics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, 110012, India
J. Kumar
Affiliation:
Division of Genetics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, 110012, India
S. K. Yadav
Affiliation:
Division of Genetics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, 110012, India
Shoraj Singh
Affiliation:
Division of Genetics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, 110012, India
V. S. Yadav
Affiliation:
Division of Genetics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, 110012, India
Neil C. Turner
Affiliation:
Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture, M080, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia
Robert Redden
Affiliation:
Department of Primary Industries, Grains Innovation Park, Private Mail Bag No. 260, Horsham, Vic 3400, Australia

Abstract

A chickpea collection of 1600 desi and 1400 kabuli were evaluated for yield losses arising from pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera) infestation under rainfed conditions by spraying half the plots to prevent pod borer infestation and allowing the other half to be infested. From these lines, 82 were selected for further detailed evaluation of Helicoverpa resistance and drought resistance under irrigated and rainfed conditions. The yield losses from Helicoverpa damage varied from 10 to 33% depending on the chickpea type and the growing environment. Spreading types were more susceptible to Helicoverpa damage than erect types, as were kabuli types compared to desi types. Yield losses due to Helicoverpa infestation were always greater in the irrigated than in the rainfed materials. Terminal drought reduced yields by 13–37% depending on plant type. The yields in the kabuli c“hickpea lines were more severely reduced than were the desi types, due to a greater reduction in the number of branches and pods per plant in the kabuli compared to the desi lines. It appears that the extent of pod borer damage varies between the chickpea types, and that desi types have greater drought resistance than kabuli ones. These characteristics should be informative for the population improvement of chickpea for environments in which terminal drought and Helicoverpa damage occur frequently.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © NIAB 2006

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

Berger, JD, Turner, NC, Siddique, KHM, Knights, EJ, Brinsmead, RB, Mock, I, Edmonson, C and Khan, TN (2004) Genotype by environment studies across Australia reveal the importance of phenology for chickpea ( Cicer arietinum L.) improvement. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 55: 10711084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, JD, Ali, M, Basu, PS, Chaudhary, BD, Chaturvedi, SK, Deshmukh, PS, Dwivedi, SK, Gangadhar, GC, Gaur, PM, Kumar, J, Pannu, RK, Siddique, KHM, Singh, DN, Singh, DP, Singh, SJ, Turner, NC, Yadava, HS and Yadav, SS (2006) Genotype by environment studies demonstrate the critical role of phenology in adaptation of chickpea ( Cicer arietinum L.) to high and low yielding environments of India. Field Crops Research 98: 230244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gowda, CLL, Lateef, SS, Smithson, JB and Reed, W (1985) Breeding for resistance to Heliothis armigera in chickpea. In: National Seminar on Breeding Crop Plants for Resistance to Pests and Diseases, 25–27 May, 1983, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. Coimbatore: Agricultural University of Tamil Nadu, pp. 3639.Google Scholar
Hariri, G (1982) The problems and prospects of Heliothis management in South West Asia. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Helicoverpa Management, 15–20 November 1981, ICRISAT Center, Patancheru, AP, India. Patancheru: ICRISAT, pp. 369373.Google Scholar
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) (1984) Annual Report. Patancheru: ICRISAT.Google Scholar
Leport, L, Turner, NC, French, RJ, Barr, MD, Duda, R, Davies, SL, Tennant, D and Siddique, KHM (1999) Physiological responses of chickpea genotypes to terminal drought in a Mediterranean-type environment. European Journal of Agronomy 11: 279291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leport, L, Turner, NC, Davies, SL and Siddique, KHM (2006) Variation in pod production and abortion among four chickpea cultivars under terminal drought. European Journal of Agronomy 24: 236246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, W, Lateef, SS and Sithanantham, S (1979) Insect pest management on chickpea. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Chickpea Improvement, 28 February–2 March 1979, ICRISAT Centre, Patancheru, AP, India. Patancheru: ICRISAT, pp. 179187.Google Scholar
Shackel, KA and Turner, NC (1998) Seed coat cell turgor responds rapidly to air humidity in chickpea and faba bean. Journal of Experimental Botany 49: 14131419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sithanantham, S and Reed, W (1979) Plant density and pest damage in chickpea. International Chickpea Newsletter 1: 910.Google Scholar
Tahhan, O, Sithanantham, S, Hari, G and Reed, W (1982) Heliothis species infesting chickpea in Northern Syria. International Chickpea Newsletter 6: 21.Google Scholar
Turner, NC (2003) Adaptation to drought: lessons from studies with chickpea. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology Special Issue: 1117.Google Scholar
Yadav, SS, Kumar, J, Turner, NC, Berger, J, Redden, R, McNeil, D, Materne, M, Knights, EJ and Bahl, PN (2004) Breeding for improved productivity, multiple resistance and wide adaptation in chickpea ( Cicer arietinum L.). Plant Genetic Resources 2: 181187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.

Evaluation of Helicoverpa and drought resistance in desi and kabuli chickpea
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Evaluation of Helicoverpa and drought resistance in desi and kabuli chickpea
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Evaluation of Helicoverpa and drought resistance in desi and kabuli 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? *