Chickpea (Cicer ariethtim L) is a mandate crop of International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). The crop has fewer pest problems khan other legumes, Heliothis arimgtra is the major past in most chickpea growing areas and is polyphagous attacking many crop species

Gowda, C L L

Lateef, S S

Reed, W

Smithson, J B

ICRISAT Open Access Repository

\ .1TIO\AI,  S K R I I S  A R  ON BREEDIN(; <'HOP PL.ANTS FOR RE:SISTASC'E TO PESTS AND DISEASES SCHOOL OF GENETICS TAMILNAOU AGRICULTURAL UNIVEKSllY COIMBATORE - 641 003 INDIA better for yialdinadditlontoresistanee l o  CAMV. Single plants were selec- ted from these lines in the subsequent panerations and their vied perform- ance was assessed up to Fa genera- tion at which stage homozygosttv for yield and resistance was ach ever'. The progenies of the lines 1.20. 1.26 and 1-27 were labelled and they were sown In the f~e ld  after F. generatlor! i n  a Randomised Block Des i~n.  The results of the trial are presentsd In  the following Table T d e  1 YYd of w p a  l i n e  9. Na Gen8,typsr Mean veld m k O l  h l  Thelines 1-20 and 1.26 gave higher ymld than both the parents and In add+ tion, they were on par w t h  the ruling cultivar CO. 3. This trend was notcad consistentlq and hence these lines are under considerat~on for release as Imp- roved varieties T b  above IIMS entaded a dura~ion of 75.80 days which is wmi- Iar to that of the resistant parent MS. 9804. Kr~shnaswamv. N. K. K. Nanhiat and A. Marlakulandai. 1945 Mdrm qrir.  J..  32: 145-60 Ramiah. M. and P. Naravanasamy. 1980. National Seminar on Disease reststance in Crop plants. Tam11 Nadu 4gr,cultural Unlverslly. Co~mbatore Dec. 1980. p 54-59. Bruding lor resistam, t o  Heliothis ormigero in chickpaa C.L.L G M A ,  S S UTEEF. J. 8. SMITHSON AND W. REED Chickpea (Cicer arirriit~,m L.) is a ation insusceptibility to Ht.lia,ll~ir among mandata crop of lnternataonal Crops released chtckpea cult~vars Research Institute lor the Semi -Arid Tfopics (ICRISAT). Thecrophas fewer lCRISAT ha' lhe ,ban I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,  gemplasm collecoo3 for resistance.  hi^ arin,gr,o is ,he major past in In the 1976.77s9ar3n. 8629germ?lasm most chickpea grow,ng areas and is Itnes were sown in unrepllcated single polyphagous attacking many rows in insect~clde free areas where spacies. natural levels of Hdiolhir are moderate Of thasa. 955 had no borer damage Identi f icat ion of resictam sources (Reed d.. 1%). S o w  were 0s- apes as shown by rrplicmed tests in Sinah and Sharma 11 9701 and subsequent Wars but others maintained ~rlvaitb;a rf  al.. (1975) reboned vari- reduced suspectibolity to pDd b o w  Inlelnslmnrl Crops Rrwarrh tna~luts lor the Semm - Arid Tl0pir.s PaUn~horu P.  0. A. P. 502 324 36 We have lound that maturity plays a major role; and i t  IS essemiel that only materials of the same maturity group are tested together in any screening trial. To date we hava screened more than 12,000 lines and at Ieaat ten have been confirmed to exhibit reduced suscaptibility. These have been tested over 3 to 4 years at Hyjerabad and the lest of them. ICC-508. her shown around 6% borer damage compared with 20';:, in the hlgh yieldang check Annigeri (Table 1). Thus. although complete resistance is not availabia ICC-506 has shown consistently low,.; pod damage over the years, end improved yields under unsprayec conditions (Table 1). l r n d i n p  for n a i s t a n n  Thr wrcent borer &mags in m e  of the linrs u u d  in the breading prqram are capa r rd  with the chock cukiva~ Annigeri during 1978-82 in Table 2 Tha lin conmim early maturity d r s ~  typo cultksrs d e p t d  to growing con- ditions in pminular India. We also have mid-and late-maturity hi lines and bbul i  wpm with reduced luscepri- bility end thew hava b a n  uud in crosses to transfer raistanca to high v~eldang, adapted lines. Tabla 1. CwnPlnmn el W n m l  boar dnnane ( ~ n d  vilfd Wal in ICC.506 od An* (chock) duting 1978.1982 at lU11SAT Cenmr. v ~ r  of m t  C~IlivaI 1978179 l979laO lMOlll 1981182 ICC-SOB 8.0 1.7 5.1 6.2 (Ye1 (It371 (tSS7) 113451 Annlpaf# 31 2 15.8 20.0 15 4 1529) (10171 11828) 11169) s r'i 1.73 1.W 1.70 151 (19 5) (49.5) (48.2) I*) .Unwplceta Iarga No1 Im Dialld crmses were made among Sdact lon I n  sylrmgatinp resistant and slrpce~tible deal lines l o  wnarationm study the wlure of gene actton. We studied the F,s o l  a 4x4 d~allel in 1980-81 and a 6x6 diallel i n  1981.82. The estimates of the varlance conwan- ants are given in Table 3. Variances due I, general combining abil~ty (gcs) lor borer damage were highly dgnifi. cant in both sets indicating a pre- ponderance of additive geneticvariation for this character and that conventional breeding mathods will be effective (n handliw resistance to Hdiuthir. F2 populations of crossesinvolving lines resistant to Hrllorhi.~ were space- Plantad in a pesticide-free area st ICRISAT Centor. At maturfty. single plants were viw& *t& lo? resis- tance and wsre subsoquantly ansl;sed for percent pod borer damage Percent borer damage was lower in plants visually selected as reustant than in susceptible plants indicating visual selection to be effective in identtfying resirtent plants in the f~eld (Table4). Resistant deri and kabuli types have Selected F2 Plants were sown as been crossed in a diallel to accumulate F, progeny rows w ~ t h  checks every 20 resisant genes end improve the level progenies for comparison Soma 120 and stabiliw of resttancs. Fa progenies were randomly assessed Table: 3 Esrinarso 01 pensvat (pea) md spsclic s o m b k a ~  a b l i  vatiemer in the 4r  b la) and 6 x 6  (b) dill.l lor Hdiorhis M U I K O  *I ICRISAT CbIIU 1980. ~1 and 1981 .82, nrpcctwrly. Vamnra Sou..: Days 10 llOWef 80.1 d.mme Plant yield a b  8 b . b . b OCA 3 5 NR 28,621. 225 08*. L.O1** 40 I I *  0.12** SCA 6 15 NR 6.68' 1 80- 0 10.85.. 0 Error 18 4u NR - -St8  LW 923 5 S t 2  Nn . datd nut re~ordad. *(nd**benote rtgsalrancs at 6.. and I:., 1w.l 01 pmbabliw. mrp&liuelv. Tab\* 4 Means ol p e m n l  bole! damage n 'msirlam' 8nO 'uucarlPle' dams tn >OF* WPI- g r o w  at ICRISAT Csntlr Rliatanl Plants Su~e~t tbk  Pllntf Fa PopYl~ltonl Mean S.D. + 

Breeding for resistance, to Heliothis armigera in chickpea

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ICRISAT Open Access Repository

ICRISAT Open Access Repository