Susceptibility of mung bean varieties to Callosobruchus chinensis under storage conditions

DOI: 10.18805/lr.v0iOF.7486    | Article Id: LR-3434 | Page : 637-642
Citation :- Susceptibility of mung bean varieties to Callosobruchus chinensis understorage conditions .Legume Research.2016.(39):637-642

V.R. Parmar* and B.H. Patel1 

Address :

Department of Agricultural Entomology, B. A. College of Agriculture, Anand Agricultural University, Anand-388001, India

Submitted Date : 9-02-2015
Accepted Date : 31-08-2015


Investigations were carried out during 2013 on mung bean for their susceptibility against Callosobruchus chinensis L. under storage. Among the mung bean varieties; Vishal, Samrat, GM-3, GM-4 and K-851 were found resistant based on oviposition preference (7.97/20 seeds, 8.74, 8.99, 9.17 and 9.49, respectively), population growth (345.09, 371.99, 397.50, 405.52, and 437.56, respectively), per cent weight loss (6.11%, 7.43%, 8.08%, 9.28% and 11.04%, respectively) and per cent germination loss (29.27%, 36.03%, 34.91%, 40.36% and 40.42%, respectively) against C. chinensis. Variety VMS-6 was also found resistant based on oviposition preference (9.61), population growth (437.56) and germination loss (43.87%) whereas GM-2 was resistant based on oviposition preference (10.72).


Callosobruchus chinensis Germination loss Mung bean Ovipostion preference Weight loss Population growth


  1. Anonymous (2012). www.aicrpmullarp.res.in 
  2. Bajiya, R. S., Bhargava, M. C. and Singh, S. (2011). Relative susceptibility of some mung bean, Vigna radiata varieties to Callosobruchus chinensis (Linnaeus) during storage. J. Insect Sci. (Ludhiana), 24: 112-116.
  3. Chakraborty, S., Chaudhuri, N. and Senapati, S. K. (2004). Correlation between seed parameters and relative susceptibility of mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) genotypes to Callosobruchus chinensis L. during storage. Annls Plant Protect. Sci., 1: 48-50. 
  4. Choudhary, M. D. (2012). Varietal susceptibility and evaluation of grain protectants against Callosobruchus chinensis Linnaeus on cowpea under storage condition. M. Sc. thesis submitted to Anand Agricultural University, Anand.
  5. Khattak, S. U. K., Hamed, M., Khatoon, R. and Mohammad, T. (1987). Relative susceptibility of different mung bean varieties to Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J. Stored Prod. Res., 23: 139-142.
  6. Nene, Y. L. (2006). Indian pulses through the millennia. Asian Agri-history, 10: 179-202.
  7. Pankaj, N. and Singh, H. K. (2011). Correlation of seed characters of pulses with host suitability and preference of Callosobruchus chinensis (L.). Indian J. Ent., 73: 365-370. 
  8. Pingale, S. V.; Kandalkar, S. B. and Swaminathan, M. (1956). Effect of insect infestation on stored bengal gram (Cicer arietinum L.). Bull. Central Food Tech. Res. Inst., 5: 211-213.
  9. Raghvani, K. L., Juneja, R. P., Buhecha, K. V., Godhani, B. G. and Makwana, P. M. (2001). Relationship between insect population of Callosobruchus analis F. and level of infestation in green gram. Insect Environ., 6: 83-84. 
  10. Shafique, M. and Ahmad, M. (2002). Screening of pulse grains for resistance to Callosobruchus analis (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Pakistan J. Zool., 34: 293-296.
  11. Singh, D.P. and Sharma, S.S., 1982. Studies on grain damage and germination loss caused by Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) in different varieties of moong and mash during storage. Bull. Grain Tech., 20: 20-24. 
  12. Southgate, B. J. (1979). Biology of bruchidae. Ann. Rev. Ent., 24: 449 – 473.
  13. Srivastava, B. P. and Dadhich, S. R. (1973). Laboratory evaluation of malathion as a protectant for prevention of damage by pulse beetles to stored gram (Cicer arietinum L.) Part – I : Biological effectiveness. Bull. Grain Tech., 11: 8-13.
  14. Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. (1980). Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. pp-334. 

Global Footprints