Banner
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive

Research Article

volume 42 issue 2 (april 2019) : 282-286,   Doi: 10.18805/LR-3848

Biochemical basis of resistance in chickpea varieties against Callosobruchus chinensis Linn. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae)

M
Mohammad Abbas Ahmad
M
Meena Agnihotri
M
M.S. Khan
A
Ashutosh Dubey
B
Bhawna Tyagi
R
Rajesh Kumar
N
Nilmani Prakash
1Department of Entomology, College of Agriculture, Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agricultural and Tech., Pantnagar-263 145, Uttarakhand, India.

  • Submitted09-02-2017|

  • Accepted20-05-2017|

  • First Online 16-07-2018|

  • doi 10.18805/LR-3848

Cite article:- Ahmad Abbas Mohammad, Agnihotri Meena, Khan M.S., Dubey Ashutosh, Tyagi Bhawna, Kumar Rajesh, Prakash Nilmani (2018). Biochemical basis of resistance in chickpea varieties against Callosobruchus chinensis Linn. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Legume Research. 42(2): 282-286. doi: 10.18805/LR-3848.

ABSTRACT

Eleven chickpea varieties were screened for their biochemical resistance to the pulse beetle (Callosobruchus chinensis L.), a serious pest of the stored pulses. The varieties were found to arrest the growth and development of C. chinensis, at grub stages which were indicated by different parameters viz., oviposition, adult emergence, weight loss, developmental period and growth index. Among the various biochemical analyzed, high growth index was observed in the varieties PKG 2 (0.61), BG 1003 (0.62), BG 1053 (0.62) and PKG 1 (0.71). Low growth index recorded in PG 3 (0.52), BGM 547 and PG 186 (0.56) may be attributed to low phenol and tannin content. Similarly the varieties PKG 1, BG 1003 and BG 1053 with less phenol, flavonoids and tannin content recorded more growth index as compared to moderate resistance varieties PG 4, PBG 1 and PG 114 PBG 1, BGM 547 and PG 114 were found to be moderately resistant and PKG 1, PKG 2, BG 1053 and BG 1003 as highly susceptible, shows the major role of trypsin inhibitor in protein resistance to C. chinensis. The highest protease activity inhibition acts as antimetabolites to C. chinensis, inhibit to the feeding of grubs as result higher trypsin content varieties showed relative resistance. The correlation between different antinutritional factors and growth index of the grub also showed a negative relationship.

REFERENCES

  1. Abdel Fattah, H.M. and Ahmed, S. M. (2007). Physical and biochemical characteristics of some resistant faba bean genotypes in relation to Callosobruchus maculatus infestation. J. Egypt. Acad. Soc. Environ. Develop, 8 (3):37-44. 
  2. Alam, M. Z. (1971). Pests of stored grain and other stored products and their control. Agricultural Information Service. R. K. Mission Road, Dhaka, Bangladesh. pp.361.
  3. Anonymous. (2011). Vision 2030, Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur. PP iii-vii.
  4. Attarde, D. L, Patil, M. B, Chaudhari, B. J. and Pal, S. C. (2010). Estimation of Tannin content in some marketed Harde Churna (Terminalia chebula Retz. Family Combretaceae). Int. J. Pharm. Technol. 2 (3): 750-756.
  5. Booker, R. H. (1967). Observation on three bruchids associated with cowpea in Northern Nigeria. J. Stored Prod. Res.3: 1-15.
  6. Bradford, M. M. (1976). A rapid and sensitive method for the quantification of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of dye binding. Anal. Biochem. 72: 248-254
  7. Broadway, RM., Duffey, SS., Pearce G, Ryan, C.A. (1986). Plant proteinase inhibitors: a defense against herbivorous insects. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 41:33-38.
  8. Damle, M. S., Giri, A. P., Sainani, M. N. and Gupta, V.S. (2005). Higher accumulation of proteinase inhibitors in flowers than leaves and fruits as a possible basis for differential feeding preference of Helicoverpa armigera on tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill, Cv. Dhanashree). Phytochemistry, 66: 2659-2667.
  9. Divya, P., Kanaka-Durga, K. and Udayababu, P. (2013). Studies on the effect of biochemical and physico-chemical characters on bruchid (Callosobruchus chinensis L.) resistance in horse gram. J. Food Legumes, 26 (1&2):70-74.
  10. Fishwick, F. B. (1988). Pesticide residues in grain arising from post-harvest treatments. Aspects Appl. Biol., 17: 37-46.
  11. Gatehouse, A. M. R., Gatehouse, J. A., Dohie, P., Kilminster, A. M. and Boulter, D. (1979). Biochemical basis of insect resistance in Vigna ungulata. J. Set Food Agric. 30: 948-958.
  12. Gatehouse, A. M. R., Minney, B. H., Dobie, P. and Hilder, V. (1990). Biochemical resistance to bruchid attack in legume seeds; investigation and exploitation, in Bruchids and Legumes: Economics, Ecology and Coevolution eds. K. Fujii et al. Kluwer Acad. 241-256.
  13. Ghosal, T. K., Dutta, S., Senapti, S. K. and Deb, D. C. (2004). Role of phenol contents in legume seeds and its effect on the biology of Callosobruchus chinensis. Ann. Pl. Protec. Sci., 12 (2): 425-475.
  14. Giga, D. (1995). Selection of oviposition sites by cowpea weevils Callosobruchus rhodesianus (Pic.) and Callosobruchus maculatus (F.). Insect Sci. Appl. 16: 145-149.
  15. Howe, R. W. (1971). A parameter for expressing the suitability of an environment for insect development. Journal of Stored Products Research, 7: 63-65.
  16. Jackai, L. E. N. and Asante, S. K. (2003). A case for the standardization of protocols used in screening cowpea, Vigna unguiculata for resistance to Callosobruchus maculatus (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J. Stored Prod. Res., 39: 251-263.
  17. Jackai, L.E.N. and Singh, S.R. (1988). Screening techniques for host plant resistance to insect pests of cowpea. Tropical Grain Legume Bull. 35: 2-18.
  18. Kakade, Ì. L., Simons, Í. and Liener, É. Å. (1969). The evaluation of natural vs. synthetic substrates for measuring the antitrypsin activities of soybean samples. Cereal Chem. 46: 518-526.
  19. Khattab, R. Y. and Arntfield, S. D. (2009). Nutritional quality of legume seeds as affected by some physical treatments. Antinutritional factors. LWT Int. J. Food Sci. Technol., 42: 1113-1118.
  20. Nadarajan, N. (2013). Prospects and strategies for increasing pulses production in the potential states. In: Training Manual ‘Model Training Course on Management of Pest and Diseases in Pulse Crops’ organized at IIPR, Kanpur, pp. 1–18.
  21. Obiadalla - Ali, H. A., Salman, A. M. A. and El-Hady, M. A. H. A. (2007). Screening some local and introduced cowpea cultivars for dry-seed yield and resistance to Callosobruchus maculatus (F.). Annals Agric. Sci., 52 (1): 197-212.
  22. Okunola, C. O. (2003). Use of melon oil for the control of bruchid damage in cowpea. In: Proc. of African Crop Science Society, Ondo State, Nigeria 6: 238-240.
  23. Patel, S. N., Yadav, A. and Kumar, R. (2002). Nutritional and antinutritional profile of newly developed chickpea (Cicer arietinum) varieties. Food Chem. 29: 655-78.
  24. Patil, S. L., Loganandhan, N. and Ramesha, M. N. (2016). Evaluation of chickpea varieties under compartmental bunding in rainfed situation. Legume Res. 39 (6): 890-895
  25. Quettier, D. C., Gressier, B., Vasseur, J., Dine, T., Brunet, C., Luyckx, M. C., Cayin, J. C., Bailleul, F. and Trotin, F. (2000). Phenolic compounds and antioxidant activities of buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench) hulls and flour. Ethnopharmacol. 72: 35-42.
  26. Raghuwanshi, P. K., Sharma, S., Bele, M. and Kumar, D. (2016). Screening of certain gram genotypes against Callosobruchus chinensis L. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Legume Res. 39 (4): 651-653.
  27. Righi-Assia, A. F., Khelil, M. A., Medjdoub, B. F. and Righi, K. (2010). Efficacy of oils and powders of some medicinal plants in biological control of the pea weevil (Callosobruchus chinensis L.). African Journal of Agricultural Research, 5: 1474-1481.
  28. Sharma, R., Devi, R., Soni, A., Sharma, U., Yadav, S., Sharma, R. and Kumar, A. (2016). Growth and developmental responses of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) on various pulses. Legume Research, 39 (5): 840-843.
  29. Shukla, R., Srivastava, B., Kumar, R. and Dubey, N. (2007). Potential of some Botanical Powders in reducing infestation of chickpea by Callosobruchus chinensis L. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J. Agric. Technol., 3: 11–19.
  30. Singh, B.D. (2002). Plant Breeding: Principles and Methods. Kalyani Publishers: New Delhi, India.
  31. Singleton, V. L. and Rossi, J. A. (1965). Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagents. Am. J. Enology Vitic, 16: 144-158.
  32. Southgate, B. J. (1979). Biology of Bruchidae. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 24: 499-473.
  33. Tamhane, V. A., Chougule, N. P., Giri, A. P., Dixit, A. R., Sainani, M. N. and Gupta, V. S. (2005). In vitro and in vivo effects of Capsicum annum proteinase inhibitors on Helicoverpa armigera gut proteinases. Biochim. Biophys. Acta, General Subjects, 1722: 155–167.
  34. Van and Nodus (1990). Effects of Oviposition behavior on host preference of Callosobruchus maculatus. Chinese J. Entomol. 14 (2): 245-253. 
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 2 (april 2019) : 282-286,   Doi: 10.18805/LR-3848

    Biochemical basis of resistance in chickpea varieties against Callosobruchus chinensis Linn. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae)

    M
    Mohammad Abbas Ahmad
    M
    Meena Agnihotri
    M
    M.S. Khan
    A
    Ashutosh Dubey
    B
    Bhawna Tyagi
    R
    Rajesh Kumar
    N
    Nilmani Prakash
    1Department of Entomology, College of Agriculture, Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agricultural and Tech., Pantnagar-263 145, Uttarakhand, India.

    • Submitted09-02-2017|

    • Accepted20-05-2017|

    • First Online 16-07-2018|

    • doi 10.18805/LR-3848

    Cite article:- Ahmad Abbas Mohammad, Agnihotri Meena, Khan M.S., Dubey Ashutosh, Tyagi Bhawna, Kumar Rajesh, Prakash Nilmani (2018). Biochemical basis of resistance in chickpea varieties against Callosobruchus chinensis Linn. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Legume Research. 42(2): 282-286. doi: 10.18805/LR-3848.

    ABSTRACT

    Eleven chickpea varieties were screened for their biochemical resistance to the pulse beetle (Callosobruchus chinensis L.), a serious pest of the stored pulses. The varieties were found to arrest the growth and development of C. chinensis, at grub stages which were indicated by different parameters viz., oviposition, adult emergence, weight loss, developmental period and growth index. Among the various biochemical analyzed, high growth index was observed in the varieties PKG 2 (0.61), BG 1003 (0.62), BG 1053 (0.62) and PKG 1 (0.71). Low growth index recorded in PG 3 (0.52), BGM 547 and PG 186 (0.56) may be attributed to low phenol and tannin content. Similarly the varieties PKG 1, BG 1003 and BG 1053 with less phenol, flavonoids and tannin content recorded more growth index as compared to moderate resistance varieties PG 4, PBG 1 and PG 114 PBG 1, BGM 547 and PG 114 were found to be moderately resistant and PKG 1, PKG 2, BG 1053 and BG 1003 as highly susceptible, shows the major role of trypsin inhibitor in protein resistance to C. chinensis. The highest protease activity inhibition acts as antimetabolites to C. chinensis, inhibit to the feeding of grubs as result higher trypsin content varieties showed relative resistance. The correlation between different antinutritional factors and growth index of the grub also showed a negative relationship.

    REFERENCES

    1. Abdel Fattah, H.M. and Ahmed, S. M. (2007). Physical and biochemical characteristics of some resistant faba bean genotypes in relation to Callosobruchus maculatus infestation. J. Egypt. Acad. Soc. Environ. Develop, 8 (3):37-44. 
    2. Alam, M. Z. (1971). Pests of stored grain and other stored products and their control. Agricultural Information Service. R. K. Mission Road, Dhaka, Bangladesh. pp.361.
    3. Anonymous. (2011). Vision 2030, Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur. PP iii-vii.
    4. Attarde, D. L, Patil, M. B, Chaudhari, B. J. and Pal, S. C. (2010). Estimation of Tannin content in some marketed Harde Churna (Terminalia chebula Retz. Family Combretaceae). Int. J. Pharm. Technol. 2 (3): 750-756.
    5. Booker, R. H. (1967). Observation on three bruchids associated with cowpea in Northern Nigeria. J. Stored Prod. Res.3: 1-15.
    6. Bradford, M. M. (1976). A rapid and sensitive method for the quantification of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of dye binding. Anal. Biochem. 72: 248-254
    7. Broadway, RM., Duffey, SS., Pearce G, Ryan, C.A. (1986). Plant proteinase inhibitors: a defense against herbivorous insects. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 41:33-38.
    8. Damle, M. S., Giri, A. P., Sainani, M. N. and Gupta, V.S. (2005). Higher accumulation of proteinase inhibitors in flowers than leaves and fruits as a possible basis for differential feeding preference of Helicoverpa armigera on tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill, Cv. Dhanashree). Phytochemistry, 66: 2659-2667.
    9. Divya, P., Kanaka-Durga, K. and Udayababu, P. (2013). Studies on the effect of biochemical and physico-chemical characters on bruchid (Callosobruchus chinensis L.) resistance in horse gram. J. Food Legumes, 26 (1&2):70-74.
    10. Fishwick, F. B. (1988). Pesticide residues in grain arising from post-harvest treatments. Aspects Appl. Biol., 17: 37-46.
    11. Gatehouse, A. M. R., Gatehouse, J. A., Dohie, P., Kilminster, A. M. and Boulter, D. (1979). Biochemical basis of insect resistance in Vigna ungulata. J. Set Food Agric. 30: 948-958.
    12. Gatehouse, A. M. R., Minney, B. H., Dobie, P. and Hilder, V. (1990). Biochemical resistance to bruchid attack in legume seeds; investigation and exploitation, in Bruchids and Legumes: Economics, Ecology and Coevolution eds. K. Fujii et al. Kluwer Acad. 241-256.
    13. Ghosal, T. K., Dutta, S., Senapti, S. K. and Deb, D. C. (2004). Role of phenol contents in legume seeds and its effect on the biology of Callosobruchus chinensis. Ann. Pl. Protec. Sci., 12 (2): 425-475.
    14. Giga, D. (1995). Selection of oviposition sites by cowpea weevils Callosobruchus rhodesianus (Pic.) and Callosobruchus maculatus (F.). Insect Sci. Appl. 16: 145-149.
    15. Howe, R. W. (1971). A parameter for expressing the suitability of an environment for insect development. Journal of Stored Products Research, 7: 63-65.
    16. Jackai, L. E. N. and Asante, S. K. (2003). A case for the standardization of protocols used in screening cowpea, Vigna unguiculata for resistance to Callosobruchus maculatus (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J. Stored Prod. Res., 39: 251-263.
    17. Jackai, L.E.N. and Singh, S.R. (1988). Screening techniques for host plant resistance to insect pests of cowpea. Tropical Grain Legume Bull. 35: 2-18.
    18. Kakade, Ì. L., Simons, Í. and Liener, É. Å. (1969). The evaluation of natural vs. synthetic substrates for measuring the antitrypsin activities of soybean samples. Cereal Chem. 46: 518-526.
    19. Khattab, R. Y. and Arntfield, S. D. (2009). Nutritional quality of legume seeds as affected by some physical treatments. Antinutritional factors. LWT Int. J. Food Sci. Technol., 42: 1113-1118.
    20. Nadarajan, N. (2013). Prospects and strategies for increasing pulses production in the potential states. In: Training Manual ‘Model Training Course on Management of Pest and Diseases in Pulse Crops’ organized at IIPR, Kanpur, pp. 1–18.
    21. Obiadalla - Ali, H. A., Salman, A. M. A. and El-Hady, M. A. H. A. (2007). Screening some local and introduced cowpea cultivars for dry-seed yield and resistance to Callosobruchus maculatus (F.). Annals Agric. Sci., 52 (1): 197-212.
    22. Okunola, C. O. (2003). Use of melon oil for the control of bruchid damage in cowpea. In: Proc. of African Crop Science Society, Ondo State, Nigeria 6: 238-240.
    23. Patel, S. N., Yadav, A. and Kumar, R. (2002). Nutritional and antinutritional profile of newly developed chickpea (Cicer arietinum) varieties. Food Chem. 29: 655-78.
    24. Patil, S. L., Loganandhan, N. and Ramesha, M. N. (2016). Evaluation of chickpea varieties under compartmental bunding in rainfed situation. Legume Res. 39 (6): 890-895
    25. Quettier, D. C., Gressier, B., Vasseur, J., Dine, T., Brunet, C., Luyckx, M. C., Cayin, J. C., Bailleul, F. and Trotin, F. (2000). Phenolic compounds and antioxidant activities of buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench) hulls and flour. Ethnopharmacol. 72: 35-42.
    26. Raghuwanshi, P. K., Sharma, S., Bele, M. and Kumar, D. (2016). Screening of certain gram genotypes against Callosobruchus chinensis L. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Legume Res. 39 (4): 651-653.
    27. Righi-Assia, A. F., Khelil, M. A., Medjdoub, B. F. and Righi, K. (2010). Efficacy of oils and powders of some medicinal plants in biological control of the pea weevil (Callosobruchus chinensis L.). African Journal of Agricultural Research, 5: 1474-1481.
    28. Sharma, R., Devi, R., Soni, A., Sharma, U., Yadav, S., Sharma, R. and Kumar, A. (2016). Growth and developmental responses of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) on various pulses. Legume Research, 39 (5): 840-843.
    29. Shukla, R., Srivastava, B., Kumar, R. and Dubey, N. (2007). Potential of some Botanical Powders in reducing infestation of chickpea by Callosobruchus chinensis L. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J. Agric. Technol., 3: 11–19.
    30. Singh, B.D. (2002). Plant Breeding: Principles and Methods. Kalyani Publishers: New Delhi, India.
    31. Singleton, V. L. and Rossi, J. A. (1965). Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagents. Am. J. Enology Vitic, 16: 144-158.
    32. Southgate, B. J. (1979). Biology of Bruchidae. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 24: 499-473.
    33. Tamhane, V. A., Chougule, N. P., Giri, A. P., Dixit, A. R., Sainani, M. N. and Gupta, V. S. (2005). In vitro and in vivo effects of Capsicum annum proteinase inhibitors on Helicoverpa armigera gut proteinases. Biochim. Biophys. Acta, General Subjects, 1722: 155–167.
    34. Van and Nodus (1990). Effects of Oviposition behavior on host preference of Callosobruchus maculatus. Chinese J. Entomol. 14 (2): 245-253. 
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us
      Published In
      Legume Research

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)