Searching for resistance in wild Lens species against pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis (L.)

DOI: 10.18805/lr.v0iOF.6778    | Article Id: LR-3375 | Page : 630-636
Citation :- Searching for resistance in wild Lens species against pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) .Legume Research-An International Journal.2016.(39):630-636

Padmavati G Gore, K Tripathi, SK Chauhan, Mohar Singh, IS Bisht and S Bhalla*

sbhalla@nbpgr.ernet.in
Address :

Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi-110 012, India

Submitted Date : 16-10-2014
Accepted Date : 26-12-2014

Abstract

A total of 51 accessions of different Lens spp. viz., Lens culinaris (cultivated) and L. culinaris subsp. odemensis, L. culinaris subsp. orientalis, L. orientalis, L. nigricans, L. lamottei and L. ervoides (wild species) were screened for their reaction to Callosobruchus chinensis under no-choice artificial infestation conditions to find the sources of resistance. Significant differences among the accessions in terms of number of eggs laid, development period, adult emergence, number of emergence holes of C. chinensis loss in seed weight on different Lens spp. were observed. Of the seven species tested, L. culinaris was the most preferred one for egg laying while L. ervoides was the least preferred. Based on Growth Index (GI), accessions were categorised as highly resistant (15 accessions, GI = 0.00), resistant (14, GI=0.00 to 1.00), moderately resistant (16, GI=1.01 to 2.00) moderately susceptible (3, GI 2.01 to 3.00) susceptible (3, >3.01) to C. chinensis and the species have been arranged in the order of their resistance to C. chinensis. viz L. ervoides > L. lamottei > L. nigricans= L. orientalis > L. culinaris subsp. orientalis= L. culinaris subsp. odemensis > L. culnaris, i.e. L. ervoides was highly resistant and L. culnaris was the most susceptible. Correlation between GI and growth parameters of pulse beetle on different Lens spp. accessions indicated that GI had negative relationship with mean development period (-0.22) and significant positive relationship with adult emergence (+0.73), weight loss (+0.77) and eggs laid (+0.75).

Keywords

Callosobruchus chinensis Growth index Lens species Wild species.

References

  1. Ahmed, K.F., Khalique, M., Afzal, T. and Malik, B.A. (1989) Variability in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes for resistance to Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Bruchidae). J. of Stored Product Res., 25(2): 97-99.
  2. Ahmed, K.S., Itino, T. and Ichikawa, T. (2003) Duration of developmental stages of Callosobruchus chinensis (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) on azuki bean and the effects of neem and sesame oils at different stages of their development. Pak. J. Biol. Sci., 6(10): 932-335.
  3. Bhalla, S., Kapur, M.L., Gupta, K., Lal, B. and Khetarpal, R.K. (2006) Check-list of bruchids, New Delhi, India 43 p.
  4. CAB International (2007) Crop Protection Compendium. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
  5. Frederick, M., Cho, S., Sarker, A., McPhee, K., Coyne, C., Rajesh, P. and Ford, P. (2006) Application of biotechnology in breeding lentil for resistance to biotic and abiotic stress. Euphytica, 147: 149-165.
  6. FAO STAT (2012) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx 
  7. Giga, D. (1995) Selection of oviposition sites by cowpea weevils Callosobruchus rhodesianus (Pic.) and Callosobruchus maculatus (F.). Insect Sci. Appl., 16: 145-149. 
  8. Jackai, L.E.N. and Singh, S.R. (1988) Screening techniques for host plant resistance to insect pests of cowpea. Trop. Grain Legume Bull., 35: 2-18.
  9. Kananji, G.A.D. (2007) Study of bruchid resistance and its inheritance in Malawian dry bean germplasm. A Ph. D. thesis submitted to African Centre for Crop Improvement (ACCI) School of Biochemistry, Genetics, Microbiology and Plant Pathology. Faculty of Science and Agriculture University of KwaZulu-Natal Republic of South Africa. 
  10. Lambrides, C.J. and Imrie, B.C. (2000) Susceptibility of mung bean varieties to the bruchid species Callosobruchus maculatus (F.), C. phaseoli (Gyll.), C. chinensis (L.) and Acanthoscelides obtectus (Say.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 51 (1): 85-89.
  11. Laserna-Ruiz, I., De-Los-Mozos-Pascual, M., Santana-Meridas, O. and Sanchez-Vioque, R. (2012) Screening and selection of lentil (Lens Miller) germplasm resistant to seed bruchids (Bruchus spp.). Euphytica, 188: 153-162. 
  12. Mahendran, K. and Mohan, S. (2002) Technology adoption, estimation of loss and farmers behavior in pulses storage. A study in Western Tamil Nadu. Pestology, 26: 35-38.
  13. Manohar, S.S. and Yadav, S.R.S. (1990) Laboratory observation on relative resistance and susceptibility of some cowpea cultivars to pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus F. (Bruchidae: Coleoptera). Indian J. Ent., 52(2): 180-186.
  14. Obiadalla-Ali, H.A., Salman, A.M.A. and Abd El-Hady, M.A.H. (2007) Screening some local and introduced cowpea cultivars for dry-seed yield and resistance to C. maculatus (F.). Annals of Agricultural Sciences, 52: 197-212.
  15. SAS (2009) Statistical analysis software system, Version 9.2, SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA.
  16. Singh, S. and Sharma, G. (2001) Screening of chickpea varieties for oviposition preference and larval development of the pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis (Linn.). Pest Manag. Econ. Zool., 9(1): 39-43.
  17. Singh, S. and Sharma, G. (2003) Preference of Callosobruchus chinensis in pea varieties. Indian J. Ent., 65(2): 277-280. 
  18. Tripathi, K., Bhalla, S., Prasad, T.V. and Srinivasan, K. (2012) Differential reaction of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) genotypes to pulse beetle (Callosobruchus maculatus) Vegetos, 25 (2): 367-374.

Global Footprints