Forty desi (local) early maturity chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes were screened for resistance to gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner), under natural field conditions. ICC 506 exhibited 8% pod damage and harboured 10 larvae on 10 plants and was designated as least susceptible, whereas ICC 14665 showed 41.8% pod damage and 26 larvae on 10 plants and categorized as most susceptible. A low amount of acidity in the leaf exudates (21.1 and 41.9 meq./100 gm) of genotype (ICC 14665) was found to be associated with susceptibility to H. armigera, 60 and 75 days afer sowing. However, such a trend was not evident 90 days after sowing

Aherkar , S K

Bhagwat, V R

Satpute, U S

Thakare, H S

ICRISAT Open Access Repository

1. ent. Res., 19 (3) : 249-253 (1995) Screening of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes for resistance to gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) and its relationship with malic acid in leaf exudates V. R. BHAGWAT, S. K. AHERKAR*, U. S. SATPUTE* AND H. S. THAKARE* Crop Protection Division, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Asia Region, Patancheru, Hyderabad -502324 (A P) (India) ABSTRACT: Forty desi (local) early maturity chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes were screened for resistance to gram pod borer, HelicDverpa armigera (Hubner), under natural field conditions. ICC 506 exhibited 8% pod damage and harhoured 10 larvae on 10 plants and was designated as least susceptible, whereas ICC 14665 showed 41.8% pod damage and 26 larvae on 10 plants and categorized as most susceptible. A low amount of acidity in the leaf exudates (24.1 and 41.9 meq. /100 gm) of genotype (ICC 14665) was found to be associated with susceptibility to H. armigera, 60 and 75 days afer sowing. However, such a trend was not evident 90 days after sowing. Chickpea accounts for about 45 per cent of the total production of pulses in India (Lal et al., 1986). Of the many factors responsible for low yield, substantial damage due to insect pests is the major limiting factor. The gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) is the most important insect pest contributing substantial yield losses in chickpea. Lal et al. (1985) estimated the annual loss caused by H. armigera in chickpea to be approximately 2030 M rupees (= US $ 131 M) annually in India. In view of the known variation in susceptibility to H. armigera among chickpea genotypes (Lateef, 1985; Singh and Sharma, 1970), the development and use of less susceptible cultivars may offer suitable crop protection. The chemical basis of resistance to H. armigera has been attri-buted to acid exudate which can be used as a marker for resistance, though the quantity of exudate and resistance levels vary across locations ,and with the environment (Rembold, 1981; Rembold and Winter, 1982). This acid exudate (pH 1.3) is secreted from the glandular hairs as droplets containi'ng a high concentration of malic acid (Sahasrabuddhe, 1914). These considerations led to screen chickpea genotypes under pestiCide free conditions against H. armigera and to determine the relationship, if any, between malic acid content and resis-tance to pod borer. MATERIALS AND METHODS Forty desi (local) chickpea genotypes of early maturity group were screened at the ~ Department of Entomology, Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth, Krishi Nagar-444 I 04, Akola, (M.S.), India. 250 V. R. BHAGWAT, S. K. AHERKAR, U. S. SATPUTE AND H. S. THAKARE Research Farm of Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola in 1991-92 post-rainy season under pesticide-free conditions. Sowing was done in the second week of November 1991 in a randomized block design with three replications. The plot consisted of 3 rows, each 2 m long and 30 cm apart. The plant-to-plant distance was 10 cm. The genotypes were evaluated under natural infestation. The larval count on 10 plants was recorded at 60 days after sowing (DAS). The relative acidity in the leaves of chickpea genotypes was estimated and corre-lated with the mean percentage of pods damaged by the pod borer, H. armigera. For this study, the same forty chickpea genotypes were grown at the University farm, Akola during post-rainy season (1991-92) in a randomized block design with three replications. Plot consisted of single row measuring 2 m in length. Row to row and plant to plant distance was maintained at 30 em and 10 cm, respectively. The acidity of leaf exudates of 60, 75, and 90. d'ay-old crop was estimated by a procedure suggested by Koundaland Sinha (1981). Twenty tender leaflets were randomly detached from every replication from each genotype at 8.00 h when copious acid exudates are available for harvest. These were placed 'in a small (50 ml) conical flask and washed with 25 ml distilled water. The water containing the acid was then titrated as two sub-samples of 10 nil each for acidity against 0.01 sodium hydroxide solution using phenolpthlene as the indicator. The leaves were dried for two days at 60°C and the dry weight was determined. The mean of two titration values, adjusted for leaf weight, were then used to calculate milliequivalents of acidity for each genotype. The mean percentage of pods damaged by H. armigera was recorded on randomly selected five plants from each plot at harvest. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Susceptibility of genotypes It is evident from Table 1 that larval nu~bers ranged from 10 to 26 on 10 plants. There were significant differences in the larval numbers and mean per cent pod damage among different genotypes. The minimum number of larvae was recorded on genotype ICC 506 (10 larvae on 10 plants) and maximum (26 larvae on 10 plants) on ICC 14665. The pod damage was highest in ICC 14665 (41:8%) and lowest in ICC 506 (8%). Estimation of acidity The data presented in Table' 1 show that the acidity in leaf extract~ increased with the age of crop till 75 days from sowing. The level of malic acid among different genotypes was significant,the highest being in ICC 506 (153.0 meq) and lowest in ICC 14665 (24.1 meq) at 60 DAS. Also, malic acid level at 70 DAS was highest (168.4 meq) in ICC 506 and lowest in ICC 14665 (41.9 meq). At 90 DAS, ICC 7089 exhibited highest malic acid level (133.8 meq) and the lowest (31.8 meq) was recorded in ICC 2125. Relationship between malic acid levels and pod damaRe , The relationship between these two characters showed negative correlations till 75 Screening of chickpea genotypes for resistance to H. armigera 251 days (Figs. 1 a & b). The results are in agreement with those obtained by Srivastava and Srivastava (1989). But positive correlation was evident at 90 DAS (Fig. Ie). According to Table 1. Susceptibility of chickpea genotypes to H. armigera and levels of malic' acid in the foliage tested at Akola during 199 1-92 Malic· acid (meq/lOO g) Harmigera Days after sowing larvae Mean SI. Chickpea on 10 plants pod damage No. genotypes 60 75 90 (%) ICC 506 153.0 168.4 53.5 10 8.0 (16.25 2 ICC 959 57.8 52.1 82.4 15 18.7 (25.6) 3 ICC 1235 84.9 71.6 56.8 16 26.8 (31.1) 4 ICC 1298 106.9 74.6 76.5 18 16.5 (24.0) 5 ICC 1305 97.1 65.7 57.4 14 27.7 (31.7) 6 ICC 2125 46.2 86.6 31.8 17 26.8 (30.7) 7 ICC 2369 62.9 100.7 53.5 16 23.0 (28.6) 8 ICC 2397 1 I 7.4 76.9 46.7 12 I 1.0 ( 19.3) ':> ICC 3287 75.4 85.5 59.7 14 25.4 (28.6) 10 ICC 3627 64.3 82.7 81.3 14 25.9 (30.6) II ICC 4134 88.0 74.8 54.5 17 23:7 (29.1) 12 ICC 4163 44.5 56.1 ~0.4 13 27.4 (31.5) 13 ICC 4270 65.4 58.2 55.4 14 22.8 (28.5) 14 ICC 4517 62.6 99.8 73.5 11 19.2 (25.9) 15 ICC 4876 31.6 61.7 41.1 24 19.6 (26.2) 16 ICC 4880 58.8 98.1 104.3 19 27.6 (31.6) 17 ICC 4958 37.2 55.9 82.9 18 32.4 (34.6) 18 ICC 6341 105.4 121.9 79.6 14 9.5 (17.9). 19 ICC 6946 86.9 136.8 99.4 II 11.4 (19.6)· 20 ICC 6976 63.2 63.7 133.7 14 16.6 (24.0) 21 ICC 7035 85.2 121.8 105.4 20 24.7 (29.8) 22 ICC 7089 45.8 56.5 133.8 14 25.9 (30.6) 23 ICC 8073 44.5 55.2 88.1 19 33.6 (35.4) 24 ICC 8304 62.7 111.6 35.1 12 9.6 (18.0) 25 ICC 10910 125.1 89.3 63.5 15 25.6 (30.4) 26 ICC 12614 73.6 85.1 56.1 12 22.2 (28.1) 27 ICC 12733 44.1 71.3 53.1 12 27.7 (31.7) 28 ICC 12829 62.4 89.7 46.9 15 25.8 (30.5) 29 ICC 14013 42.6 98.4 26.8 15 21.8 (30.5) 30 ICC 14049 66.4 71.7 43.6 14 17.0 (24.3) 31 ICC 14368 76.0 99.0 45.1 13 15.0 (22.6) 32 ICC 14377 49.1 78.6 93.9 14 26.2 (30.8) 33 ICC 14419 56.0 73.9 89.7 14 35.9 (36.8) (Contd) 252 V. R. BHAGWAT, S. K. AHERKAR, U. S. SATPUTE AND H. S. THAKARE SI. Chickpea No. genotypes 34 ICC 14439 :15 ICC 14665 36 ICC 14757 37 ICC 15107 ~8 ICC 15171 39 Chafa 4() Phule G-5 Trial mean S.E. (m) c..V. % L.S.D. at 0.0) Figures in parentheses are laO a) 60 day~ after sowing \69 140 120 0-!100 ~ 80 ~ 60 ~ 40 20 Table I. (Contd.) Malic acid (meqllOO g) Days after sowing 60 75 90 39.5 53.4 44.0 24.1 41.9 70.2 33.6 91.0 98. I 42.S 48.8 64.1 85.2 71.7 83.5 67.4 62.4 40.9 56.4 76.9 57.3 67.3 81.8 71.1 4.38 3.52 2.18 11.3 7.5 3.3 12.05 10.03 6.26 angular transformed values. b) 75 d:ys after sowing 10 20 30 10 40 t-(---Mean 20 30 pod dam age (<;;) 40 H.armigero larvae Mean on 10 plants pod damage (%) 14 27.2 (31.4) 26 41.8 (40.2) IS 35.9 (36.8) 17 34.6 (36.0) 13 IS.l (25.2) 11 19.3 (26.0) 14 25.2 (30.1) 15 (28.5) 1.15 ( 1.59) 39.3 (9.7) 3.27 (4.48) c) 90 days after sowing 10 20 Y'" S4.4+0.608.x B.D% (R~ .. 0.96) Fig. I. Relationship between pod damaged by H. armigera and malic acid levels in chipc1cpea genotypes under tield conditions during 1991-92 rabi season. . Screening of chickpea genotypes for resistance to H. armigera 253 Rembold et al. (1990), the acidity of leaf exudates increased with the age of crop up to a certain stage of crop growth. Susceptibility of chickpea genotypes to H. armigera attack varied with the growth stage of plant and population density of the pest. This primarily explains the enormous variation in field data. A clear correlation between borer damage and malate contents was evident in some varieties. A few varieties showed fairly low malic acid content. This suggests that other factors too come into play. According to Rembold et al. (1990), these may be based on surface texture, kairomones composition or nutritional factors. REFERENCES Koundal, K.K. and Sinha, S.K. 1981. Malic acid exudation and photosynthetic characteristics in Cicer arietinum. Phytochemistry, 20: 1251-1252. La!, S.S .. Yadava, C.O. and Oias. C.A.R. 1985. Assessment of crop losses in chickpea caused by Heliothis armigera. FAO. Pl. Prot. Bull., 33: 27-35. La!, S.S .. Yadava. C.O. and Sachan, J.N. 1986. Strategies for the development of an integrated approach· to control gram pod borer. Heliothis armigera infesting chickpea. Pesticides, 20 (5) : 39-51. Lateef. S.S. 1985. Gram pod borer (Heliothis armigera) (Hub) resistance in chickpeas. Agriculture Ecosystem and Environment, 14: 95-102. Rembold. H. 1981. Malic acid in chickpea exudate a marker for Heliothis resistance Int. Chickpea Newsl., 4 : 18" i 9. Rembold. H .• Wallner P .• Kohne. A., Lateef, S.S., Grune, M. and Weigner, Ch. 1990. Mechanisms of host plant resistance with special emphasis on biochemical factors. ICRISAT 1990 : Chickpea in the nineties: Proceedings Second International Workshop on Chickpea Improvement, 4-8 December, 1989. ICRISAT Center, Patancheru, A.P. India. Remdbold. H. and Winter. E. 1982. The chemist role in host plant resistance studies. Proceedings of International Workshop on Heliothis Management. 15-20 November.; 1981, ICRISAT Center. Patancheru. A.P. India: 241-250 .. Sahasrabuddhe. 0.1. 1914. The acid secretion of gram plant (Cicer arietinum). Bull. Imp. agric. Res. Inst., Pusa, 45 : 1-12. Singh. H. and Sharma. S.S. 1970. Relative susceptibility of some important varieties of gram to Heliothis armigera Hubner. Indian J. Ent., 32 : 170-171. . 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. Insect Sci. Applic .. 10 (3) : 255-258. (Accepted: July 30, 1995) 

Screening of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes for resistance to gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) and its relationship with malic acid in leaf exudates

http://oar.icrisat.org/6302/1/JER_19_3_249-253_1995.pdf

Screening of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes for resistance to gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) and its relationship with malic acid in leaf exudates

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ICRISAT Open Access Repository