Loading...

Identification of tolerant genotypes against pulse beetle as a source to reduce post harvest losses in pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millisp.]

DOI: 10.18805/LR-4112    | Article Id: LR-4112 | Page : 480-485
Citation :- Identification of tolerant genotypes against pulse beetle as a source to reduce post harvest losses in pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millisp.].Legume Research.2021.(44):480-485
Satheesh Naik S.J., Amrit Lamichaney, Abhishek Bohra, R.K. Mishra, Farindra Singh, Dibendu Datta, I.P. Singh and N.P. Singh satheeshnaikagri@gmail.com
Address : The Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Indian Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur-208 024, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Submitted Date : 22-12-2018
Accepted Date : 4-02-2019

Abstract

The present study intends to screen 52 pigeonpea genotypes for bruchid infestation under controlled conditions using no-choice assay. The results revealed significant differences among the genotypes considering parameters like growth index (GI), egg numbers and adult emergence. The genotypes viz., ICP 89049, IPA 37 and Dholi dwarf DB had low average values for GI (0.45, 0.48 and 0.48 respectively), number of eggs after 20 days (14.5, 21.5 and 28), and adults emerged after 30 days of oviposition (9.0, 7.0 and 4.5, respectively) when compared to the genotypes Asha (higher GI: 1.10), and IPA 7–6 (having 98.0 eggs after 20 days of incubation). Concerning associations among different traits, the GI had significant positive correlations with number of eggs laid (0.484), and number of adults emerged at 15–30 days (0.638). The GI showed a negative relationship with proportion of seed coat (–0.162) and seed hardness (–0.197). The traits that are less preferred by the bruchids include hard seed with less seed diameter and high proportion of seed coat. The tolerant genotypes viz. ICP 89049, IPA 37 and Dholi dwarf DB identified here could be deployed in breeding programs for reducing post harvest losses in pigeonpea.

Keywords

Bruchids Growth index Oviposition Pigeonpea

References

  1. Akinkurolere, R. O., Adedire, C. O. and Odeyemi, O. O. (2006). Laboratory evaluation of the toxic properties of forestanchomanes, Anchomanes difformis against pulse beetle Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Insect Sci., 13: 25-29.
  2. Anamika K and Jayalaxmi G. (2016). Fecundity and preferential oviposition by pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus F on chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) var dollar. Legume Research. 39 (2): 310-314.
  3. Arora, G. L. (1977). Taxonomy of the Bruchidae (Coleoptera) of Northwest India, Part I adults. Oriential Insects: Supplements, 7: 1-137.
  4. Bamaiyi, L. J., Dike, M. C. and Onu, I. (2000). Relative susceptibility of some Nigeria sorghum varieties to the rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae L. J. Agric. Techn. 8(2): 26-31.
  5. Chandel, B. S. and Bhadauria, D. S. (2015). Impact of bio-chemical parameters on pigeonpea varieties against egg laying, fecundity and viability of pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis (Linn.). Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, 3 (2): 109-117.
  6. Dasbak, M. A., Echezona, B. C. and Asiegbu, J. E. (2009a). Pigeonpea grain physical characteristics and resistance to attack by the bruchid storage pest. Int. Agrophysics. 23: 19-26.
  7. Dasbak, M. A., Echezona, B. C. and Asiegbu, J. E. (2009b). Post–harvest bruchid richness and residual activity of pirimiphos–methyl on Callosobruchus maculatus F. infested pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.] in storage. African J. Biotechn. 8 (2): 311-315.
  8. Department of Agriculture and Cooperation (DAC), Ministry of Agriculture, National Agriculture Policy Report, 2000.
  9. Duraimurugan, P., Aditya Pratap, Singh, S. K. and Sanjeev Gupta. (2014). Evaluation of Screening Methods for Bruchid Beetle (Callosobruchus chinensis) resistance in green gram (Vigna radiata) and black gram (Vigna mungo) genotypes and influence of seed physical characteristics on its infestation. Vegetos. 27(1): 60-67. 
  10. DUS Guidelines for Pigepnpea (2007). Guidelines for Conduct of Test for Distinctiveness, Uniformity and Stability On [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.]. PPV & FRA, GoI. Plant Variety Journal of India. 1(1): Pp 10
  11. Fitzner, M. S., Hagstrum, D. W., Knauft, D. A., Buhr, K. L. and Mc Laughlin, J. R. (1985). Genotypic diversity in the suitability of cowpea (Rosales: Leguminosae) pods and seed for cowpea weevil (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) oviposition and development. J. Econ. Entomol. 78: 806-810.
  12. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (1998). FAOSTAT statistics database. 2016. [Rome]: FAO,
  13. Gibson, K. E. and Raina, A. K. (1972). A simple laboratory method of determining the seed host preference of bruchidae. J. Econ. Entomol. 65: 1189-1190.
  14. Grolleaud, M. (2002). Post-harvest losses: discovering the full story. Overview of the phenomenon of losses during the post-harvest system, In: (AGSI), F.A.I.a.P.h.M.S. (Ed.). FAO, Agricultural Support Systems Div., Rome, Italy.
  15. Howe, R.W. (1971). A parameter for expressing the suitability of an environment for insect development. J. Stored Prod. Res. 7: 63-65.
  16. Howe, R. W. and J. E. Currie. (1964). Some laboratory observations on the rates of development, mortality and oviposition of several species of Bruchidae breeding in stored pulses. Bull. Entomol. Res. 55: 437-477.
  17. Lamichaney, A., Kudekallu, S., Kamble, U., Sarangapany, N., Katiyar P. K. and Bohra, A. (2017). Differences in seed vigour traits between desi (pigmented) and kabuli (non-pigmented) ecotypes of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and its association with field emergence. J. Environ. Bio. 38: 735-742.
  18. Mohsenin, N. N. (1980) Physical properties of plant and animal materials. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, New York
  19. Prabhakar, G. S. (1979). Studies on the bruchid fauna, infesting pulse crops of Karnataka with special emphasis on bioecology of Callosobruchus chinensis (L.). Dissertation, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore.
  20. Sarwar, M. and Tofique, M. (2006). Resistance variability within gram seeds of different genotypes against the intrusion of cowpea weevil, Callosobruchus analis L. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Pakistan J. Seed Techn. 34(3): 287-291.
  21. Shkelqim, K. and Joachim, M. (2010). Determination of physical, mechanical and chemical properties of seeds and kernels of (Jatropha curcas L). J. Ind. Crops Prod. 32: 129-138.
  22. Soumia, P. S., Srivastava, C., Guru Pirasanna Pandi, G. and Subramanian, S. (2017). Varietal preference of pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) in greengram. Indian J. Entomol., 79(1): 86-91.
  23. Tripathi Kuldeep, Chauhan S. K., Gore P. G., Mehta P. S., Bisht I. S. and Bhalla S. (2017). Evaluation of wheat landraces of north-    western Himalaya against rice weevil, Sitophillus oryzae L. vis-a-vis physical seed parameters. Pl. Genet. Resource. 15(4): 321-326.
  24. Zakka, U., Lale, N. E. S. and Umeozor, O. C. (2013). Evaluation of the performance of different maize varieties against Sitophilus zeamais Motsch. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) infestation in the Niger delta region of Nigeria. Jordan J. Bio. Sci., 6: 99-104.

Global Footprints