ISSN : 0975-3710
EISSN : 0975-9107
CHITTI BABU GIDDI1*, H.C. SHARMA2, T. MADHUMATI3
1Scientist (Crop Protection), DAATT Centre, Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University, Lam, Guntur, 522034, Andhra Pradesh, India
2International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, Hyderabad, 502324, Telangana, India
3Department of Entomology, Agricultural College, Bapatla, 522101, Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University, Lam, Guntur, 522034, Andhra Pradesh, India
* Corresponding Author : bgchitti@gmail.com
Received : 05-05-2018 Accepted : 12-05-2018 Published : 15-05-2018
Volume : 10 Issue : 9 Pages : 5999 - 6002
Int J Agr Sci 10.9 (2018):5999-6002
Keywords : Pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera, Chickpea/Pigeon pea genotypes, Survival and Development
Academic Editor : Mayurkumar K Kanani
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Author thankful to Acharya NG Ranga Agricultural University, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh and International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, Hyderabad
Author Contribution : All author equally contributed
Legume pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera is a major pest of chickpea, cotton, pigeonpea, sunflower, tomato, vegetables and other pulse crops and has been reported to attack more than 181 cultivated plants. Artificial diets impregnated with different genotypes of lyophilized chickpea leaf and pod powders were fed to gram pod borer and results revealed that the genotypes, CRIL 2-17, ICC 10393, ICC 506, ICCL 86111, RIL 25 and ICC 3137 were suitable for the H. armigera growth and development and recorded 100 % larval survival. CRIL 2-13 was found resistant against the gram pod borer and not supported (only 70% survival) the growth and development of larvae among the ten cultivars and standard diet check. The adult emergence percent was very less and ranged from 4.2 to 37.5 in the tested genotypes against 75% in standard artificial diet. Larval and pupa periods were prolonged to 25.5 and 18.8 days, respectively compared to the standard artificial diet (16.2 and 11.3 days, respectively). It was evident that chickpea genotypes tested were resisted the complete development of pod borer and very less percent of larvae grown were turned to adult. In pigeon pea genotypes incorporated impregnated diets, the lowest larval survival (62.5%) was found in ICPW 125 and the highest in standard artificial diet. Adult recovery percentage (20.8-41.7 %) was also low in case of pigeonpea genotypes leaves/pod powder incorporated diets as against the standard artificial diet (79.2 %). The larval and pupal periods were prolonged and some larvae were remained in larval stage till death and pupa were unable to give the adults in pigonpea leave/pod powder impregnated diets. Differences in survival and development of H. armigera on different pigeonpea genotypes have also been expressed by several workers in their earlier studies and these differences may also be due to biochemical changes in the nutritional quality of the pigeonpea plant parts impregnated in artificial diets.
1. Sigsgaard L., Greenstone M.H. and Duffield S.J. (2002) Biological Control, 47, 151-165.
2. Sharma H.C. (2005) Heliothis/Helicoverpa management; emerging trends and strategies for future research. Oxford and IBH Publishers, New Delhi, India. 469.
3. Manjunath T.M., Bhatnagar V.S., Pawar C.S. and Sitanathan S. (1985) Proceedings of a Workshop on Biological Control on Heliothis, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, 11-15.
4. Yelshetty S. and Sidde Gowda D.K. (1998) Paper presented at the seminar on Progress and Perspectives for Sustainable Agriculture in North Karnataka, Dharwad, 20th March, 1998.
5. ICRISAT (1992) The Medium Term Plan. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru, India, 7-9.
6. Bernays E.A. and Chapman R.F. (1994) Host-Plant Selection by Phytophagous Insects. Chapman and Hall. Newyork.
7. Singh O. P. and Parihar S.B.B. (1988) Bulletin of Entomology, 29, 168-172.
8. Tsai J.H. and Wang J.J. (2001) Environmental Entomology, 30, 45-50.
9. Kim D.S. and Lee J.H. (2002) Environmental Entomology, 31, 686-692.
10. Li Y., Hill C.B. and Hartman G.L. (2004) Journal of Economic Entomology, 97,1106- 1111.
11. Singh A.K. and Mullick S. (1997) Indian Journal of Entomology, 59,209-214.
12. Narayanamma V.L., Sharma H.C. Gowda C.L.L. and Srinivasulu M. (2008) International Journal of Tropical Insect Science, 27 (3/4), 191-198.
13. Lateef S.S. (1985) Agricultural Ecosystem and Environment, 14, 95-102.
14. Chhabra K.S., Kooner B.S., Sharma A.K. and Saxena A.K. (1990) Indian J. Entomol., 52(3), 423-430.
15. Lateef S.S. and Sachan J.N. (1990) Pesticides, 31(4),21-24.
16. Singh B. and Yadav R.P. (1999) J. Entomol. Res., 23(2),133-140.
17. Das S.B. and Kataria V.P. (1999) Insect Environment, 5, 68-69.
18. Sharma H.C., Laxmipathi Gowda, Cholenahalli, Sharma Kiran, Gaur Pooran, Mallikarjuna N, Buhariwalla H.K. and Crouch J.H. (2003) Chickpea research for the millennium: Proceedings of the International Chickpea Conference, 20-22.
19. Sharma H.C., Pampapathy G., Lanka S.K. and Ridsdill-Smith T.J. (2005) Euphytica, 142(1/2), 107-117.
20. Yoshida M., Cowgill S.E. and Wightman J.A. (1995) Journal of Economic Entomology, 88 (6), 1783–1786.
21. Cowgill S.E. and Lateef S.S. (1996) Journal of Economic Entomology, 89 (1), 224-229.
22. Yoshida M. and Shanower T.G. (2000) Journal of Agricultural and Urban Entomology, 17, 37-41.
23. Anitha Kumari D., Sharma H.C. and Jagdishwar Reddy D. (2010) Journal of Food Legumes, 23(1), 57-65.
24. Lateef S.S., Reddy L.J., Reed W. and Faris D.G. (1981) International Pigeonpea Newsletter, 1, 32-34.
25. Dodia, D.A. and Patel J.R. (1994) International Chickpea and Pigeonpea Newsletter, 1, 39-40.
26. Dodia D.A., Patel A.J., Patel I.S., Dhulia F.K. and Tikka S.B.S. (1996) International Chickpea and Pigeonpea Newsletter, 3, 100-101.
27. Sison M.L.J. and Shanower T.G. (1994) Journal of Economic Entomology, 87: 6, 1749-1753.