Characterization and Selection of Bruchid [Callosobruchus maculatus (F.)] Tolerant Greengram [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek] Genotypes

DOI: 10.18805/IJARe.A-5442    | Article Id: A-5442 | Page : 679-688
Citation :- Characterization and Selection of Bruchid [Callosobruchus maculatus (F.)] Tolerant Greengram [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek] Genotypes.Indian Journal Of Agricultural Research.2020.(54):679-688
Prasanta Kumar Majhi, Suma C. Mogali prasantakumarmajhi53@gmail.com
Address : Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, College of Agriculture, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad-580 005, Karnataka, India. 
Submitted Date : 5-11-2019
Accepted Date : 3-02-2020

Abstract

Bruchid, a cosmopolitan and most notorious field carryover storage grain pest in greengram causes severe damage in storage conditions. Hence, breeding efforts were made to develop bruchid tolerant genotypes involving two agronomically superior genotypes DGGV-2 and DGGV-7 and two bruchid tolerant genotypes V-02-709 and V-02-802. The F3 genotypes were screened through a ‘free choice test’ and further evaluated under the ‘force choice test’ for confirmation of resistance. The genotypes derived from the F3 family involving cross between V-02-802 × DGGV-7 and V-02-802 × DGGV-2 were found to be resistant with a longer mean developmental period (34.76 days and 33.53 days), low infestation (27.66 and 30.33 %) and low susceptibility index (0.039 and 0.043). The correlation amongst the various parameters, the mean developmental period has shown significantly negative correlation (r = -0.848) with susceptibility index; indicating that the resistance genotypes have shown a delay in a developmental period which can reduce the seed loss during storage condition. Hence, the superior genotypes can be further backcrossed with resistant source V-02-802 to recover bruchid resistant genes and can be used in breeding programmes aimed at the development of bruchid resistance lines. 

Keywords

Bruchid Force choice Free choice Resistance Susceptibility index

References

  1. Akinkurolere, R.O., Adedire, C.O. and Odeyemi, O. (2006). Laboratory evaluation of the toxic properties of forest anchomanes, Anchomanes difformis against pulse beetle Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Insect Science. 13(4): 25-29.
  2. Amanda, J.S., Patricia, O.S., Marcio S.T.P., Tierry, T.W., Elane, S.R., Simone, C.S., Mariana, F.D., Maria, C.S., Xavier-    Filho, J., Katia, V.S.F., Antonia, E. and Oliveira, A. (2011). Natural seed coats provide protection against penetration by Callosobruchus maculatus larvae. Crop Protection. 30(4): 651-657. 
  3. Anamika, P., Dinesh, L. and Verma, R.A. (2011). Reaction of pulse beetle (Callosobruchus chinensis L.) to protein and oil contents of green gram varieties. Indian Journal of Entomology. 73(4): 317-320.
  4. Bharathi, T.D., Krishnayya, P.V. and Madhumathi, T. (2017). Developmental Response of Callosobruchus Maculatus F. and C. Chinensis L. on different Pulse host-grains. Chemical Science Review and Letters. 6(22): 786-792. 
  5. Bhubaneshwari, D.M. and Victoria, D.N. (2014). Biology and morphometric measurement of cowpea weevil, Calloso- -bruchus maculatus (F.) in green gram. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies. 2(3): 74-76. 
  6. Chakraborty, S., Mondal, P. and Senapati, S.K. (2015). Evaluation of relative susceptibility of Callosobruchus chinensis Linn. on five different stored pulse seeds. Asian Journal of Plant Science Research. 5(10): 9-15. 
  7. Divya, B.T., Krishnayya, P.V. and Madhumath, T. (2017a). Comparative studies on the susceptibility of different grains to pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus. International Journal of Science, Environment and Technology. 6(1): 308-318.
  8. Divya, B.T., Krishnayya, P.V. and Madhumathi, T. (2017b). Develop- -mental response of Callosobruchus maculatus F. and C. Chinensis L. on different pulse host-grains. Chemical Science Review Letter. 6(22): 786-792. 
  9. Duraimurugan, P., Aditya, P., Singh, S.K. and Sanjeev, G. (2014). Evaluation of screening methods for bruchid beetle (Callosobruchus chinensis) resistance in greengram (Vigna radiata) and blackgram (Vigna mungo) genotypes and influence of seed physical characteristics on its infestation. International Journal of Plant Research. 27(1): 60-67.
  10. Fujii, K., Ishimoto, M. and Kitamura, K. (1989). Patterns of resistance to bean weevils (Bruchidae) in Vigna radiata-mungo sublobata complex inform the breeding of new resistant variety. Applied Entomology and Zoology. 24: 126-132.
  11. Girish, G.K., Kumar, A. and Jain, S.K. (1975). Part II assessment of the quality loss in wheat damaged by Trogoderma granarium everts during storage. Bulletin Grain Technology. 13(2): 26-32.
  12. Howe, R.W. (1971). A parameter for expressing the suitability of an environment for insect development. Journal of Stored Product Research. 7(3): 63-65.
  13. Jadhav, D.R., Mallikarjuna, N and Rao, G.V.R. (2012). Callosobruchus maculatus resistance in some wild relatives and interspecific derivatives of pigeonpea. Indian Journal of Plant Protection. 40(1): 40-44.
  14. Karpechenko, G.D. (1925). Chromosomes of Phaseolinae, Bulletin of Applied Botany Leningrad. 14(2): 143-148.
  15. Kashiwaba, K., Tomooka, N., Kaga, A., Han, O.K. and Vaughan, D.A. 2003. Characterization of resistance to three bruchid species (Callosobruchus spp.) in cultivated rice bean (Vigna umbellate). Journal of Economic Entomology. 96: 207–213.
  16. Lambrides, C.J. and Imrie, B.C. (2000). Susceptibility of mung bean varieties to the bruchid species Callosobruchus maculatus (F.), C. phaseoli, C. chinensis (L.) and Acanthoscelides obtectus. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research. 51(1): 85- 90.
  17. Lazar, L. and Panickar, B. (2013). Varietal resistance of green gram genotypes/varieties to pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus. Indian Journal of Entomology. 75(4): 348-351.
  18. Motshwari, O., Keamogetse, M. and Chiyapo, G. (2011). Variation in reproductive and developmental parameters of Calloso- -bruchus maculatus (F) reared on ten Botswana cowpea landraces. African Journal of Biotechnology. 10(63): 13924-13928. 
  19. Ponnusamy, D., Pratap, A., Singh, S.K. and Gupta, S. (2014). Evaluation of screening methods for bruchid beetle (Callosobruchus chinensis) resistance in green gram and black gram genotypes and influence of seed physical characteristics on its infestation. International Journal of Plant Research. 27(1): 60-69.
  20. Sanhita, G., Anindita, R. and Sabyasachi, K. (2019). Diversity analysis of mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek] genotypes for bruchid resistance. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 53(3): 309-314.
  21. Sarwar, M. (2012). Assessment of resistance to the attack of bean beetle Callosobruchus maculatus (Fabricius) in chickpea genotypes on the basis of various parameters during storage. Journal of Seed Science and Technology. 34(3): 287-291.
  22. Sekar, S. and Nalini, R. (2017). Screening of mungbean genotypes against pulse beetle Callosobruchus chinensis and evaluating the biochemical basis of resistance. International Journal of Chemical Studies. 5(4): 1296-1301. 
  23. Sharma, O.P., Bambawale, O.M., Gopali, J.B., Bhagat, S., Yelshetty, S. and Singh, S.K. (2011) Field guide, mungbean and urdbean. National Centre for Integrated Pest Management. 40(3): 213-255.
  24. Siddiqa, A., Parveen, F., Rafi, A., Mazharul Islam, A.M., Zubair Anwar, Z., Ahmad, S., Bibi, F and Mahmood, S. A. (2015). Evaluation of resistance in local five pakistani chickpea varieties against Callosobruchus spps. Journal of Natural Sciences and Research. 5(1): 2224-3186.
  25. Singh, P., Dubey, N.K., Shukla, R., Kumar, A., Prakash, B. (2011). Global scenario on the application of natural products in integrated pest management programmes. In: Dubey N K, editor. Natural products in plant pest management, Wallingford: CAB International. 1: 120.
  26. Somta, C., Somta, P., Tomooka, N., Ooi, P.A.C., Vaughan, D.A and Srinivas, P. (2008). Characterization of new sources of mung bean [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek] resistance to bruchids, Callosobruchus spp. Journal of Stored Product Research. 44(4): 316-321. 
  27. Soumia, P.S., Chitra, S., Dikshit, H. K. and Pandi, G.G.P. (2015). Screening for resistance against pulse beetle, Calloso- -bruchus analis (F.) in Greengram (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) accessions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, India Section B: Biological Sciences. DOI 10.1007/s40011-015-0635-5.
  28. Soundararajan, R.P., Geetha, S., Chitra, N. and Dinakaran, D. (2013). Resistance in Vigna mungo var. silvestris against bruchid, Callosobruchus maculatus (F.). Annual Plant Protection Science. 21(2): 279-282.
  29. Srinivasan, T. (2008). Laboratory evaluation of green gram accessions for resistance to Callosobruchus maculatus (Fabricius). Journal of Insect Science. 21(2): 197-201.
  30. Thiraviaraj, S. and Malaikozhundan, B. (2011). Evaluation of varieties of pulses against infestation by cowpea bruchid, Callosobruchus maculatus (Fabricius). Indian Journal of Entomology. 73(4): 346-348. 
  31. Tiwari, A.K. and Shivhare, A.K. (2016). Pulses in India: retrospect and prospects. Govt. of India, Ministry of Agric. and Farmers Welfare, Directorate of development, Vindhyachal Bhavan, Bhopal, M.P. India, Publication No.: DPD/Pub.1/    Vol. 2/2016. pp. 82, 81-95.

Global Footprints