Banner
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive

Research Article

volume 42 issue 3 (june 2019) : 411-415,   Doi: 10.18805/LR-3896

Character association and assessment of yield loss in pigeonpea cultivars infested by pod fly and bruchid 
 

B
B. Kiran Gandhi
S
Sanjay M. Bandi
S
S.J. Satheesh Naik
S
S.K. Singh
K
Krishna Kumar
1ICAR- Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur-208 024, Uttar Pradesh, India.

  • Submitted24-05-2017|

  • Accepted11-08-2017|

  • First Online 29-12-2017|

  • doi 10.18805/LR-3896

Cite article:- Gandhi Kiran B., Bandi M. Sanjay, Naik Satheesh S.J., Singh S.K., Kumar Krishna (2017). Character association and assessment of yield loss in pigeonpea cultivars infested by pod fly and bruchid. Legume Research. 42(3): 411-415. doi: 10.18805/LR-3896.

ABSTRACT

Field studies were conducted at IIPR, Kanpur, India to estimate the intensity of field infestation on pigeonpea by pod fly and bruchids, and whether or not the phenotypic characters of the pigeonpea related to infestation caused by these insects. A total 32 long duration pigeonpea cultivars and advanced breeding lines were planted in augmented design along with check ‘Bahar’ and evaluated on the basis of exit holes and windows per pod, seed damage (%) by pod fly maggot and bruchid grub, 100 damaged seeds weight and relative resistant rating. Breeding line IPA-92 and a cultivar MA-3 were found to be highly resistant against pod fly, preventing them from crafting exit holes on pods and seed damage (%). Bruchid (C. chinensis and C. maculatus) was vulnerable to make windows on pods damaging the seeds of cultivars viz., IPA-15-1, IPA-15-5, IPA-15-7, IPA-15-10, IPA-15-12, IPA-15-14, MA-3, IPA-92, AZAD, IPA-234, BSMR-736, IPA-13-1 and IPA-37. Correlation studies revealed that pod fly infestation was the major biotic factor, which causes significant seeds damage and yield reduction in pigeonpea cultivars and advanced breeding lines.  Those cultivars and breeding lines exhibited resistant reaction on pod fly and bruchids infestation might be used as donors in resistance breeding programme and including in IPM modules against these insect pests.

REFERENCES

  1. Dias, C.A.R., Lal, S.S. and Yadava, C.P. (1981). Relative susceptibility of pigeonpea cultivars against pod fly, Melanagromyza obtusa Malloch under field conditions. In: Proc. International Workshop on Pigeonpea, 2: 337-340
  2. Durairaj, C. (2006). Evaluation of certain neem formulations and insecticides against pigeonpea podfly. Indian J. Pulses Res., 19 (2): 269-270.
  3. ICRISAT (1992) “The Medium Term Plan,” A International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, Telangana, India.
  4. Lal, S. S, ,Yadava, C. P. and Sachan, N. J. (1988). Studies on some aspects of oviposition and damage of pod fly in relation to the host phenology. Indian J. Pulses Res., 1: 83-88. 
  5. Lal, S. S.and Yadava, C. P. (1994). Ovipositional response of pod fly Melanagromyza obtusa Malloch on some resistance pigeonpea selections. Indian J. Agri. Sci. 64(9): 658-60. 
  6. Reddy, L. J. (1990). Pigeonpea: morphology. In The Pigeonpea, [ed. Y. L. Nene, S. D. Hall and V. K. Sheila], ICRISAT, CAB International, Wallingford. pp. 47-89.
  7. Reed, W. and Lateef, S. S. (1990). Pigeonpea : Pest management. In:. The Pigeonpea. Nene, Y. L., Hall, S. D. and Sheila, V. K. Wallingford, CAB International, pp 394-74. 
  8. Siddiqui, P. M. (1972). Studies on longevity, oviposition, fecundity and development of Callosobruchus chinensis (L.). Zeitschift Fur Angewantee Entomologie, 72: 66-72. 
  9. Silim Nahdy, M. (1995). Biotic and abiotic factors influencing the biology and distribution of common storage pests of pigeonpea. Ph.D. thesis. University of Reading.
  10. Sithanantham, S., Lateef, S. S. and Reed, W. (1981). Pod fly susceptibility in pigeonpea. Some aspects of oviposition preference. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Pigeonpea, ICARISAT, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India.Vol 2, pp 329-35. 
  11. Subharani, S. and Singh, T.K. (2009). Yield loss assessment and economic injury level of pod borer complex in pigeonpea. Ann. Plant Prot. Sci., 17: 299-302.
  12. Taylor, T. A. (1981). Distribution ecology and importance of bruchids attacking grain legumes in Africa. In: The Ecology of Bruchids Attacking Legumes (Pulses) Labeyrie V. The Hague, Junk, pp.199-203. 
Published In
Legume Research
Article Metrics
Metrics Icon
0
Views
0
Citations
Reviewed By
Share Article
Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Research Article

    volume 42 issue 3 (june 2019) : 411-415,   Doi: 10.18805/LR-3896

    Character association and assessment of yield loss in pigeonpea cultivars infested by pod fly and bruchid 
     

    B
    B. Kiran Gandhi
    S
    Sanjay M. Bandi
    S
    S.J. Satheesh Naik
    S
    S.K. Singh
    K
    Krishna Kumar
    1ICAR- Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur-208 024, Uttar Pradesh, India.

    • Submitted24-05-2017|

    • Accepted11-08-2017|

    • First Online 29-12-2017|

    • doi 10.18805/LR-3896

    Cite article:- Gandhi Kiran B., Bandi M. Sanjay, Naik Satheesh S.J., Singh S.K., Kumar Krishna (2017). Character association and assessment of yield loss in pigeonpea cultivars infested by pod fly and bruchid. Legume Research. 42(3): 411-415. doi: 10.18805/LR-3896.

    ABSTRACT

    Field studies were conducted at IIPR, Kanpur, India to estimate the intensity of field infestation on pigeonpea by pod fly and bruchids, and whether or not the phenotypic characters of the pigeonpea related to infestation caused by these insects. A total 32 long duration pigeonpea cultivars and advanced breeding lines were planted in augmented design along with check ‘Bahar’ and evaluated on the basis of exit holes and windows per pod, seed damage (%) by pod fly maggot and bruchid grub, 100 damaged seeds weight and relative resistant rating. Breeding line IPA-92 and a cultivar MA-3 were found to be highly resistant against pod fly, preventing them from crafting exit holes on pods and seed damage (%). Bruchid (C. chinensis and C. maculatus) was vulnerable to make windows on pods damaging the seeds of cultivars viz., IPA-15-1, IPA-15-5, IPA-15-7, IPA-15-10, IPA-15-12, IPA-15-14, MA-3, IPA-92, AZAD, IPA-234, BSMR-736, IPA-13-1 and IPA-37. Correlation studies revealed that pod fly infestation was the major biotic factor, which causes significant seeds damage and yield reduction in pigeonpea cultivars and advanced breeding lines.  Those cultivars and breeding lines exhibited resistant reaction on pod fly and bruchids infestation might be used as donors in resistance breeding programme and including in IPM modules against these insect pests.

    REFERENCES

    1. Dias, C.A.R., Lal, S.S. and Yadava, C.P. (1981). Relative susceptibility of pigeonpea cultivars against pod fly, Melanagromyza obtusa Malloch under field conditions. In: Proc. International Workshop on Pigeonpea, 2: 337-340
    2. Durairaj, C. (2006). Evaluation of certain neem formulations and insecticides against pigeonpea podfly. Indian J. Pulses Res., 19 (2): 269-270.
    3. ICRISAT (1992) “The Medium Term Plan,” A International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, Telangana, India.
    4. Lal, S. S, ,Yadava, C. P. and Sachan, N. J. (1988). Studies on some aspects of oviposition and damage of pod fly in relation to the host phenology. Indian J. Pulses Res., 1: 83-88. 
    5. Lal, S. S.and Yadava, C. P. (1994). Ovipositional response of pod fly Melanagromyza obtusa Malloch on some resistance pigeonpea selections. Indian J. Agri. Sci. 64(9): 658-60. 
    6. Reddy, L. J. (1990). Pigeonpea: morphology. In The Pigeonpea, [ed. Y. L. Nene, S. D. Hall and V. K. Sheila], ICRISAT, CAB International, Wallingford. pp. 47-89.
    7. Reed, W. and Lateef, S. S. (1990). Pigeonpea : Pest management. In:. The Pigeonpea. Nene, Y. L., Hall, S. D. and Sheila, V. K. Wallingford, CAB International, pp 394-74. 
    8. Siddiqui, P. M. (1972). Studies on longevity, oviposition, fecundity and development of Callosobruchus chinensis (L.). Zeitschift Fur Angewantee Entomologie, 72: 66-72. 
    9. Silim Nahdy, M. (1995). Biotic and abiotic factors influencing the biology and distribution of common storage pests of pigeonpea. Ph.D. thesis. University of Reading.
    10. Sithanantham, S., Lateef, S. S. and Reed, W. (1981). Pod fly susceptibility in pigeonpea. Some aspects of oviposition preference. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Pigeonpea, ICARISAT, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India.Vol 2, pp 329-35. 
    11. Subharani, S. and Singh, T.K. (2009). Yield loss assessment and economic injury level of pod borer complex in pigeonpea. Ann. Plant Prot. Sci., 17: 299-302.
    12. Taylor, T. A. (1981). Distribution ecology and importance of bruchids attacking grain legumes in Africa. In: The Ecology of Bruchids Attacking Legumes (Pulses) Labeyrie V. The Hague, Junk, pp.199-203. 
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us
      Published In
      Legume Research

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)