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 44 issue 8 (august 2021) : 967-976

Morpho Physico-Chemical Components of Resistance to Pod Borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) in Pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millspaugh]

B.L. Jat, K.K. Dahiya, S.S. Yadav, S. Mandhania
1Department of Entomology, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar-125 004, Haryana, India.
  • Submitted27-06-2019|

  • Accepted06-11-2019|

  • First Online 17-02-2020|

  • doi 10.18805/LR-4182

Cite article:- Jat B.L., Dahiya K.K., Yadav S.S., Mandhania S. (2021). Morpho Physico-Chemical Components of Resistance to Pod Borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) in Pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millspaugh]. Legume Research. 44(8): 967-976. doi: 10.18805/LR-4182.
The experiments were conducted at CCS HAU, Hisar (Haryana) to study the morpho physico-chemical components of resistance to pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera in pigeonpea with different sowing dates. In different four sowing dates, the minimum pod infestation (1.70%) was recorded in (D4) 3rd week of July sown crop, whereas, it was observed maximum (4.54%) in (D2) 1st week of July sown crop. In different pigeonpea varieties, the minimum mean pod infestation (2.45%) was recorded in AL-201, whereas, the maximum mean pod infestation (3.72%) was recorded in Pusa-992. The glandular (type A) and non-glandular (type B) trichomes on pods of top and middle canopy of the plant and pod wall thickness were associated with resistance to H. armigera, whereas, the non-glandular lengthy (type C) trichomes and pod length were associated with susceptibility to this insect. The expression of resistance to H. armigera was also associated with the high amount of fat, phenol and tannin content. Crude protein and total soluble sugar content were responsible for higher pod infestation.
  1. AOAC (1965). Official Methods of Analysis. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Washington, D. C.
  2. AOAC (1975). Official Methods of Analysis. 12th Ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Washington, D. C.
  3. AOAC (1985). Official Methods of Analysis. 16th Ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Washington D. C.
  4. Blaney, W.M. and Simmonds, M.S.J. (1990). In: Host Selection Behaviour of Helicoverpa armigera. ICRISAT, Hyderabad, pp. 11-18.
  5. Bray, H.G. and Thorpe, W.V. (1954). Analysis of phenolic compounds of interest in metabolism. Methods of Biochemical Analysis. 1: 27-52.
  6. Dodia, D.A. (1992). Control of pests of pigeonpea with special reference to host plant resistance. Ph. D. Thesis, G.A.U., Anand. p. 143.
  7. Dodia, D.A., Patel, J.R. and Shukla, Y.M. (1998). Studies on plant biochemical imparting resistance/susceptibility against pod borer Helicoverpa armigera in pigeonpea. Proceeding of Entomology in 21st Century, April 30-May 2. Pp 41-43.
  8. Dodia, D.A. and Patel, J.R. (1994). Antibiosis in pigeonpea to Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner). International Chickpea and Pigeonpea Newsletter. 1: 39-40.
  9. Dua, R.P., Gowda, C.L.L., Kumar, S., Saxena, K.B., Govil, J.N., Singh B.B., Singh, A.K., Singh, R.P., Singh, V.P. and Kranthi, S. (2005). Breeding for resistance to Heliothis/ Helicoverpa: Effectiveness and Limitations. In: “Heliothis / Helicoverpa Management: Emerging Trends and Strategies for Future Research” Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, pp. 223-242.
  10. Dubios, M., Gilles, K.A., Hamilton, J.K., Rebers, P.A. and Smith, F. (1956). Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substance. Analytical Chemistry. 28: 350-356.
  11. Elanchezhyan, K., Baskaran, R.K. and Murali, R.D.S. (2009). Bio-    chemical basis of resistance in brinjal genotypes to shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. Journal of Entomological Research. 33(2): 74-76.
  12. Green, P.W.C., Stevenson, P.C., Simmonds, M.S.J. and Sharma, H.C. (2003). Phenolic compounds on the pod surface of pigeonpea, Cajanus cajan, mediate feeding behavior of larvae of Helicoverpa armigera. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 29: 811–821.
  13. Green, P.W.C., Sharma, H.C., Stevenson, P.C., Simmonds, M.S.J. (2006). Susceptibility of pigeonpea and some of its wild relatives to predation by Helicoverpa armigera: implications for breeding resistant cultivars. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research. 57: 831-836. 
  14. Green, P.W.C., Stevenson, P.C., Simmonds, M.S.J. and Sharma, H.C. (2002). Can larvae of the pod-borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), select between wild and cultivated pigeonpea [Cajanus sp. (Fabaceae)]. Bulletin of Entomological Research. 92: 45–51.
  15. Haldar, J., Srinivasan, S. and Muralikrishan, T. (2006). Role of various biophysical factors on distribution and abundance of spotted pod borer, Maruca vitrata on mung bean. Annals of Plant Protection Science. 14: 49-51.
  16. Hartlieb, E., Rembold, H. (1996). Behavioral response of female Helicoverpa (Heliothis) armigera (Hub.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) moths to synthetic pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.) kairomone. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 22: 821–837.
  17. Hiscox, J.D. and Israelstam, G.F. (1979). A method for the extraction of chlorophyll from leaf tissue without maceration. Canadian Journal of Botany. 57(12): 1332-1334.
  18. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi­Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) (2007). The medium term plan. ICRISAT, Patancheru 502324, Andhra Pradesh, India. 3: 1-10.
  19. Jagtap, B.R., Acharya, S., Patel, J.B. and Lal, B. (2014). Impact of morphological and biochemical constitution of genotypes on incidence of Helicoverpa in pigeonpea [Cajanus Cajan (L.) Millsp.]. Journal of Food Legumes. 27(1): 48-51.
  20. Kamakshi, N., Srinivasan, S. and Krishna, T.M. (2008). Influence of biochemical constituents on incidence of pod borer complex in selected field bean genotypes. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences. 16(2): 302-305.
  21. Kranthi, K.R., Jadhav, D.R., Kranthi, S., Wanjari, R.R., Ali, S.S., Russell, D.A. (2002). Insecticide resistance in five major insect pests of cotton in India. Crop Protection. 21: 449-460.
  22. Kushwaha, K.S. and Malik, B.P.S. (1987). Effect of sowing time and plant type on pod borer incidence and grain yield in some pigeonpea genotypes. International Pigeonpea Newsletter. 6(5): 65-66.
  23. Mehta, S.L. and Lodha, M.L.K. (1979). Laboratory Manual on Assessment of Grain Protein Quality. Nuc. Res. Lab., New Delhi.
  24. Nanda, U.K., Sasmal, A. and Mohapatra, S.K. (1996). Varietal reaction of pigeonpea to pod borer, Helicoverpa (Heliothis) armigera (Hübner) and modalities of resistance. Current Agriculture Research. 9(1/2): 107-111.
  25. Pol, P.S., Shinde, J.B. and Shinde, S.H. (1992). Reaction of pigeonpea cultivars to pod borer infestation as influenced by date of sowing. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural University. 17(2): 320-321.
  26. Prasad, D. and Singh, A. (2004). Advances in Plant Protection Sciences. Akansha Publishing House, New Delhi. p. 421.
  27. Prasad, D., Chand P. and Srivastava, G.P. (1986). Effect of sowing dates on the infestation of insect pests and grain yield of pigeonpea. Indian Journal of Entomology. 48(2): 230-231.
  28. Rangaiah, P.V. and Sehgal, V.K. (1984). Insects on T-21 pigeonpea and losses caused by them at Pantnagar, Northern India. International Pigeonpea Newsletter. 3: 40-43.
  29. Reddy, C.N., Singh, Y. and Singh, V.S. (2001). Effect of sowing time and plant type on pod borer incidence and grain yield in some pigeonpea genotypes. Indian Journal of Entomology. 63(3): 215-220.
  30. Reed, W. and Lateef, S.S. (1990). Pigeonpea: pest management. In: The pigeonpea. [Nene YL, Hall SD, Sheila VK (Eds)]. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp 349-374.
  31. Sahoo, B.K. and Patnaik, H.B. (2003). Effect of biochemical on the incidence of pigeonpea pod borer infecting pigeonpea. Indian Journal of Plant Protection. 31: 105-108.
  32. Sahoo, B.K. and Senapati, B. (2000). Determination of economic thresholds for pod borer complex in pigeon pea. Indian Journal of Plant Protection. 28: 176-179.
  33. Sass, J.E. (1964). Botanical Micro Techniques. Oxford and IBH Publications Company, Calcutta, Bombay.
  34. Shanower, T.G., Yoshida, M., Peter, A.J. (1997). Survival, growth, fecundity and behavior of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on pigeonpea and two wild Cajanus species. Journal of Economic Entomology. 90: 837-841.
  35. Sharma, H.C. (2001). Cotton Bollworm/Legume Pod Borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Noctuidae: Lepidoptera): Biology and Management. Crop Protection Compendium. Wallingford: CAB International, 70.
  36. Sharma, H.C. (Ed) (2005). Heliothis/Helicoverpa Management: Emerging Trends and Strategies For Future Research. Oxford and IBH Publishers, New Delhi, India, pp 469.
  37. Sharma, H.C., Green, P.W.C., Stevenson, P.C., Simmonds, M.S.J. (2001). What makes it tasty for the pest? Identification of Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) feeding stimulants and location of their production on the pod surface of pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.]. Competitive Research Facility Project R7029 C, Final Technical Report. Department for International Development, London, UK.
  38. Sharma, H.C., Sujana, G. and Rao, D.M. (2009). Morphological and chemical components of resistance to pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera in wild relatives of pigeonpea. Arthropod Plant Interaction. 3(3): 151-161.
  39. Singh, U. (1988). Anti-nutritional factors of chickpea and pigeonpea and their removal by processing. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition. 38(3): 251-261.
  40. Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J.H. (1980). Principle and Procedures of Statistics. A Biometrical Approach, 2nd Edition, McGraw-    Hill Book Company, New York.
  41. Thakur, R.C., Nema, K. and Singh, O.P. (1989). Losses caused by podfly (Melanagromyza obtusa Mall) and pod borer (Heliothis armigera Hub) to pigeonpea in Madhya Pradesh. Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika. 4: 107-111.
  42. Tripathi, R.K. and Purohit, M.L. (1983). Pest damage on pigeonpea in relation to pod size and colour. Legume Research. 6(2): 103-104.
  43. Verulkar, S.B. and Singh, D.P. (2000). In: “National Symposium on Management of Biotic and Abiotic Stresses in Pulses Crops” 26-28, June 1998, IIPR, Kanpur. pp. 75-78.
  44. Wightman, J.A., Shanower, T.G., Cowgill, S. and Armes, N.J. (1994). Integrated pest management in Asian pulse crops, New directions. Abstract in International Symposium on Pulses Research, April, 2-6, New Delhi, pp. 21-23.

Editorial Board

View all (0)