Legume Research

  • Chief EditorJ. S. Sandhu

  • Print ISSN 0250-5371

  • Online ISSN 0976-0571

  • NAAS Rating 6.80

  • SJR 0.391

  • Impact Factor 0.8 (2023)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Research Article

Legume Research, volume 40 issue 5 (october 2017) : 959-961

Morphological and bio-chemical factors associated with resistance to Maruca vitrata (testulalis)  (Geyer) in cowpea

B.L. Jakhar, Dhara M. Prajapati, Y. Ravindrababu
1<p>Pulses Research Station,&nbsp;Sardarkrushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University, Sardarkrushinagar - 385 506 (Gujarat)&nbsp;&nbsp;India.&nbsp;</p>
Cite article:- Jakhar B.L., Prajapati M. Dhara, Ravindrababu Y. (2017). Morphological and bio-chemical factors associated with resistance toMaruca vitrata (testulalis) (Geyer) in cowpea . Legume Research. 40(5): 959-961. doi: 10.18805/lr.v0i0.7015.

ABSTRACT

Legume pod borer, Maruca vitrata (Geyer) is one of the major constraints in increasing the production and productivity of grain legumes in the tropics. Keeping in view of the importance of this pest, present studies were carried out with the association of different morpho-chemical traits with resistance/susceptibility to M. vitrata at the Pulses Research Station, SDAU, S.K. Nagar. Some of the characters like flower colour, pod angle, protein, flavonoid, tannin and phenols were found to be associated with M. vitrata  attack on cowpea genotypes. The pod damage by M. vitrata on different cowpea genotypes in the field ranged from 10.22 to 19.98%. High phenol content in pods (428.63mg/100g) and (326.33mg/100g) found responsible for the resistance of GC 5 and GC 0815, respectively and high flavonoid concentration in pods (484.08mg/100g) and (458.81mg/100g) in GC 5 and GC 0815 respectively were responsible for resistance. Based on these results, GC 5 and GC 0815 were categorized as moderately resistant. This paper discusses the physico-chemical traits associated with resistance to M. vitrata in cowpea variety/genotypes. 

REFERENCES


  1. Anantharaju P, and Muthaiah A.R. (2008). Biochemical Components in Relation to pest incidence of pigeonpea spotted Pod borer (Maruca vitrata) and Blister beetle (Mylabris spp.). Legume Research. 31:87-93.

  2. Chang C, Yang M, Wen H and Chern J. (2002). Estimation of total flavonoid content in propolis by two complementary colorimetric methods. Journal of Food Drug Analaysis. 10: 178-82.

  3. Bindra, O. S. and Jakhmola, S. S. (1967). Incidence and losses caused by some pod infesting insects in different varieties of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan L.). Indian Journal of Agricultural Science. 37: 117–186.

  4. Halder, J. Srinivasan, S. and Muralikrishna, T. (2006). Biochemical basis of resistance to spotted pod borer, Maruca vitrata (Geyer) in Mungbean. Journal of Entomological Research. 30:313-316.

  5. Halder, J. and Srinivasan, S. (2011). Varietal screening and role of morphological factors on distribution and abundance of spotted pod borer, Maruca vitrata(Geyer) on cowpea. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences. 19:71-74.

  6. Jackai, L. E. N., (1981). Relationship between cowpea crop phenology and field infestation by the legume pod-borer, Maruco testulalis. Ann. Entomol. Sot. Am. 14: 402-408.

  7. Karel, A. K., (1985). Yield losses from and control of bean pod borers, Maruca testulalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and Heliothis armigera (Lcpidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 78: 1323-1326.

  8. Macfoy, C. A., Dabrowski, Z. T. and Okech, S. (1983). Studies on the legume pod borer, Maruca testulalis (Geyer) – 4. Cowpea resistance to oviposition and larval feeding. Insect Science and its Application 4: 147-152.

  9. Malik, C.P. and Singh M.B. (1980). Extraction and estimation of total phenols. Appendix 13 In: plant enzymology and histo-enzymology. Kalyani publishers, New Delhi, pp- 286.

  10. Ogunwolu, E. O. (1990). Damage to cowpea by the legume pod borer, Muruca testululis Geyer, as influenced by infestation density in Nigeria. Trop. Pest Manage. 36: 138-140.

  11. Ohno, K. and Alam, M. Z. (1989). Ecological studies on cowpea borers. I. Evaluation of yield loss of cowpea due to the pod borers. In Annual Research Review, 29 Jun 1989. Institute of Postgraduate Studies in Agriculture, Salna, Gazipur, Bangladesh.

  12. Sahoo, B. K., Patnaik, H. P. and Mishra, B. K. (2002). Field screening of early maturing pigeonpea cultivars against the pod borers in Orissa. Indian Journal of Plant Protection 30: 13-15.

  13. Schanderl, S.H. (1970). In: Method in food analysis. Academic Press, New York, pp- 709.

  14. Sharma, H. C. (1998). Bionomics, host plant resistance and management of the legume pod borer Maruca vitrata, a review. Crop protection 17: 378-382.

  15. Sharma, H. C., Saxena, K. B. and Bhagwat, V. R. (1999). The Legume pod borer, Maruca vitrata: Bionomics and management. Information bulletin 55. International crops research institute for the semi-arid tropics, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh.

  16. Singh, S. R. (1978). Resistance to pests of cowpea in Nigeria. In Pests of Grain Legumes: Ecology and Control, (Singh, S. R., van Emden, H. F. and Taylor, T. A. ed.)Academic Press, London, pp. 267-279.

  17. Singh, S. R. and Allen, D. R. (1980). Pests, diseases, resistance, and protection in cowpea. In Advances in Legume Science, ed. Summerfield, R. J. and Bunting, A. H.ed.). HMSO, London, pp. 419-443.

  18. Tandon, H. L. S. (1992). Method of analysis of soil, plants, water and fertilizers. Fertilizer development and consultation organization, New Delhi, pp. 54-56.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)