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
Legume Research, volume 42 issue 3 (june 2019) : 421-425

Biological activity of pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) influenced by chickpea genotypes

Bheemaraya, V. Rachappa, Raju Teggelli, Suhas Yelshetty, Y.S. Amaresh
1Department of Agricultural Entomology, Agricultural Research Station, Kalaburagi, University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur-560 065, Karnataka
  • Submitted06-01-2018|

  • Accepted09-02-2018|

  • First Online 20-06-2018|

  • doi 10.18805/LR-3988

Cite article:- Bheemaraya, Rachappa V., Teggelli Raju, Yelshetty Suhas, Amaresh Y.S. (2018). Biological activity of pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) influenced by chickpea genotypes. Legume Research. 42(3): 421-425. doi: 10.18805/LR-3988.
Investigations on biological activities of pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on 20 promising chickpea genotypes using detached leaf assay method at Agriculture Research Station Kalaburagi, UAS, Raichur, Karnataka was carried out during rabi 2016-17. The results revealed that at vegetative and flowering stage there was significantly lesser larval survival (70 to 76.67 %), larval weight (8.37 to 8.90 mg) and damage rate (3.67 to 4.67 of visual Rating in 1-9 Scale) on resistant check ICCL 86111, HC-1 and DBGV-3104 genotypes where as maximum per cent larval survival (86.67 to 90 %), larval weight (13.60 to 14.10 mg) and damage rate (7.67 to 8.00 of visual Rating in 1-9 Scale) was recorded in susceptible checks (ICC-3137, A-1 and JG-11). During pod formation stage, highest weight gain by larvae was noticed on susceptible check ICC-3137 (409.18 mg), on the contrary lowest weight gain by larvae was found on resistant check ICCL-86111 (275.43 mg) also these genotypes recorded more amount of malic acid and trichomes indicating that biological activity of insect was affected through antibiosis mechanism which is one of the component of resistance to H. armigera in chickpea.
  1. Armes, N. J., Bond, G. S. and Cooker, R. J. (1993). The laboratory culture and development of Helicoverpa armigera. Natural Resources Institute, Chaltan U.K. Bull., 57.
  2. Ascensao, L., Marques, N. and Pais, M. S. (1995). Glandular trichomes on vegetative and reproductive organs of Leonotis leonurus (La-Maiacez). Ann Bot., 75: 619-26.
  3. Bhagwat, V. R., Aherkar, S. K., Satpute, U. S. and Thakare. (1995). Screening of chickpea (Cicer arielinum L.) genotypes for resistance to gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) and its relationship with malic acid in leaf exudates. J. Entomol. Res., 19(3): 249-253.
  4. Bhatt, N. J. and Patel, R. K. (2001). Screening of chickpea cultivars for their resistance to gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera, (Hubner), Indian J. Entomol., 63(3): 277-280.
  5. Chhabra, K. S., Kooner, B. S., Saxena, A. K. and Sharma, A. K. (1993). Field reaction of some chickpea genotypes to gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.) as influenced by biochemical components. Legume Res., 16 (1): 17-22.
  6. Cowgill, S. E. and Lateef, S. S. (1996). Identification of antibiotic and antixenotic resistance to Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in chickpea. J. Econ. Entomol., 89(1): 224-229.
  7. Girija, Salimath, P. M., Patil, S, A., Gowda, C. L. L and Sharma, H. C. (2008). Biophysical and biochemical basis of host plant resistance to pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera Hubner) in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Indian J Genet., 68: 320-23.
  8. Husandeep. S. R. (2014). Host plant resistance in chickpea against Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera : Noctuidae). M.Sc (Agri) Thesis, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.
  9. Johnpeter, A., Shanower, T. G. and Romes, J. (1995). The role of plant trichomes in insect resistance: a selective review. Phytophaga, 7: 41-64.
  10. Kanchana, R., Lakshmi, K. V. and Sekhar, P. R. (2005). Morphological and biochemical bases of host plant resistance to Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) in chickpea. J. Plant Prot. Environ., 2: 12-17.
  11. Kansal, R., Kumar, M., Kuhar K., Gupta, R. N., Subrahmanyam, B., Koundal, K. R. and Gupta, V. K. (2008). Purification and characterization of trypsin inhibitor from Cicer arietineum L. and its efficacy against Helicoverpa armigera. Brazil. Soc. Plant Physiol. 20: 313-322
  12. Kaur, S., Chhabra, K. S., Arora, B. S. and Kaur, S. (1999). Incidence of Heliothis armigera (Hubber), on wild and cultivated species of chickpea. Int. chickpea pigeonpea Newslett., 6: 18-19.
  13. McCaffery, A. R., Walker, A. J. and topper, C. P. (1991). Insecticide resistance in the bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera from Indonesia. Pestic. Sci., 32: 85-90.
  14. Narayanamma, V. L., Sharma, H. C., Gowda, C. L. L. and Sriramulu, M. (2007). Mechanisms of resistance to Helicoverpa armigera and introgression of resistance genes into F1 hybrids in chickpea. Arthropod-Plant Interactions,1: 263- 270.
  15. Painter, R. H. (1951). Insect resistance in crop plants, Mc Millan, New York, USA, pp 520.
  16. Prakash, M. R., Ram, U. and Tariq, A. (2007). Evaluation of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) germplasm for the resistance to gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). J. Agril. Res., 31: 215-218.
  17. Rembold, H. (1981). Malic acid in chickpea exudates - a marker for He1iothis resistance. Int. Chick. News., 4: 18-19.
  18. Rembold, H., Wallner, P. and Singh, A. K. (1989). Attractiveness of volatile chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) seed components to Helicoverpa armigera larvae (Noctuidae : Lepidoptera). J. Appl. Entomol., 107: 65-70.
  19. Rembold, H. (2001). Chemistry of insect-plant interaction based on Helicoverpa armigera and legume. Entomon., 26: 249-255.
  20. Sagar D. and Heena D (2018). Legume : Potential source of entomotoxic proteins-A review, Legume Research DOI-10.18805/    LR-3903
  21. Shaila, O., Sharma, H. C., Ramesh Babu, T. and Sharma, S. P. (2017). Quantification of Organic Acids (on Fresh Weight Basis) Present on the Leaf Surface in Transgenic Chickpea Lines Using HPLC, Chem Sci Rev Lett., 6(21): 505-509.
  22. Shankar, M., Munghate, R. S., Babu, T. R., Sridevi, D. and Sharma, H. C. (2014). Population density and damage by pod borers, Helicoverpa armigera and Spodoptera exigua in a diverse array of chickpea genotypes under natural infestation in the field. Indian J. Entomol., 76(2): 117-127. 
  23. Sharma, H. C., Bhagwat, M. P., Pampapathy, G., Sharma, J. P. and Ridsdill-Smith, T. J., (2006). Perennial wild relatives of chickpea as potential sources of resistance to Helicoverpa armigera. Genet. Resour. crop Evol., 53: 131-38.
  24. Sharma, H. C., Pampapathy, G., Lanka, S. K. and Ridsdill-Smith, T. J. (2005). Antibiosis mechanism of resistance to pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera in wild relatives of chickpea. Euphytica, 142: 107-117.
  25. Simmonds, M. S. J. and Stevenson, P. C. (2001). Effects of Isoflavonoids from Cicer larvae of Helicoverpa armigera. J. Chem. Ecolo., 27: 965-977.
  26. Singh, H. and Sharma, S. S. (1970). Relative susceptibility of some important varieties 
  27. of gram to pod borer Heliothis armigera (Hubner), Indian J. Entomol.,32: 170- 171.
  28. Srivastava, C. P. and Srivastava, R. P. (1990). Antibiosis in chickpea Cicer arietinum L. to gram pod borer. Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) in India. Entomon, 15: 89-93.
  29. Yoshida, M., Cowgill, S. E. and Wightman, J. A. (1995). Mechanism of resistance to Helicoverpa armigera (Noctuidae : Lepidoptera) in chickpea: Role of oxalic acid in leaf exudate as an antibiotic factor. J. Econ. Entomol., 88(6): 1783-1786. 

Editorial Board

View all (0)