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 (2024)

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 44 issue 11 (november 2021) : 1398-1401

Biochemical Factors Associated with Resistance to Spotted Pod Borer, Maruca vitrata (Fabricius) in Green Gram

Sameer Kumar Singh1,*, P. S. Singh2
1Department of Entomology and Agricultural Zoology, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221 005, Uttar Pradesh, India.
2Department of Entomology, College of Agriculture, Acharya Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology, Kumarganj, Ayodhya-224 229, Uttar Pradesh, India.

  • Submitted17-12-2019|

  • Accepted03-06-2020|

  • First Online 09-11-2020|

  • doi 10.18805/LR-4302

Cite article:- Singh Kumar Sameer, Singh S. P. (2021). Biochemical Factors Associated with Resistance to Spotted Pod Borer, Maruca vitrata (Fabricius) in Green Gram . Legume Research. 44(11): 1398-1401. doi: 10.18805/LR-4302.

ABSTRACT

Background: Legume pod borer or spotted pod borer, Maruca vitrata is one of the serious insect pest to the green gram, which causes damage mainly at the reproductive phase of the crop growth. The larvae of spotted pod borer are known to cause damage by webbing the leaves, bud, flower and pods together and feed from inside on them. Due to its webbing nature, it is very difficult to enter inside by natural enemies and chemicals cannot directly reach inside webbing. Host plant resistance to insect pests is an economically and ecologically preferred alternative as compared to other pest management tactics, particularly the synthetic pesticides. The present investigation was undertaken to examine the role of certain bio-chemical constituents of the immature pods of green gram in the expression of damage by the spotted pod borer.

Methods: The experiments on screening were conducted during the kharif 2014 and 2015 at the Agricultural Research Farm, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, (U.P.) to define the occurrence of M. vitrata on 20 promising varieties/genotypes of green gram. Pods were collected at the immature stage from different varieties/genotypes and biochemical constituents such as total soluble sugar, total chlorophyll, protein were estimated.

Result: The maximum protein content was found in genotype IPM 306-6 (36.17 mg/g) and minimum in genotype PM-5 (20.53 mg/g). Highest total sugar content was reported from genotype ML 1256 (16.71 mg/g) and lowest total sugar content was recorded in PM-5 (10.94 mg/g).The phenol content in genotype PM-5 (9.00 mg/g) was significantly higher than others whereas, the minimum phenol content was reported in IPM 306-6 (5.14 mg/g). The higher amount of total chlorophyll content found in genotype IPM 306-6 (3.22 mg/g) and lowest in PM-5 (1.85 mg/g). The significant and positive correlation was observed between M. vitrata larval population, pod damage and protein (r=0.954** and r=0.952**, respectively) and total sugar content (r=0.986** and r=0.986**, respectively) and total chlorophyll content (r=0.994** and r=0.993**, respectively) in immature pods, while, the significant and negative correlation was found between phenol (r= -0.916** and r= -0.919**, respectively).

INTRODUCTION

The insect pests such as jassids, whitefly, thrips, stem fly, Epilachna beetle, blister beetle, Galerucid beetle, pod sucking bug, spotted pod borer and tobacco caterpillar have more significance on mungbean throughout the year. Incidence of insect pests considerably reduces the yield and quality of mungbean (Elias et al., 1986; Malik, 1994; Singh and Singh, 2014; Soundararajan et al., 2013). Among the pod borers, legume pod borer or spotted pod borer, Maruca vitrata is one of the insect serious pest to the green gram, which causes damage mainly at the reproductive phase of the crop growth. Because of its extensive host range and destructiveness, it became a persistent pest in pulses particularly on the green gram, as it is available throughout the year in different seasons. The larvae of spotted pod borer are known to cause damage by webbing the leaves, bud, flower and pods together and feed from inside on them. Due to its webbing nature, it is very difficult to enter inside by natural enemies and chemicals cannot directly reach inside webbing. Host plant resistance to insect pests is an economically and ecologically preferred alternative as compared to other pest management tactics, particularly the synthetic pesticides (Barad et al., 2016). Zahid et al., (2008) had reported 20-30 per cent pod damage in mungbean. It is known to cause an economic loss of 20-25 per cent and yield loss of 2-84 per cent in green gram (Vishakanthaiah and Jagadeesh Babu, 1980; Umbarkar et al., 2011a). Various biochemical compounds present in the plant parts play an important role in offering host plant resistance in suppressing the insect pests. The present investigation was undertaken to examine the role of certain bio-chemical  constituents of the immature pods of green gram in the expression of damage by the spotted pod borer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experiments on screening were conducted during the kharif 2014 and 2015 at the Agricultural Research Farm, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, (U.P.) to define the occurrence of M. vitrata on 20 promising varieties/genotypes of green gram obtained from ICAR-Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur (U.P.). The suggested agronomic practices without using pesticides were followed in growing of the crop. All the varieties/genotypes were planted in randomized block design (RBD) with three replications. The row to row and plant to plant distance was maintained as 30 cm and 10 cm, respectively. The unit plot size was 4×0.60 m. The population of spotted pod borer, M. vitrata was estimated by randomly picking of 5 plants per plot from all the varieties/genotypes. The level of infestation was considered by the population count at weekly intervals.
       
The observation on pod damage was made by counting a total number of pods harvested at the time of maturity from five randomly selected plants and a number of damaged pods were examined in the laboratory for characteristic M. vitrata entry/exit holes on the pods. Later, the per cent pod damage was worked out using the following formula.
 
       
Pods were collected at the immature stage from different varieties/genotypes of greengram and cleaned with water, also sun-dried for some time. Thereafter, these samples were dried in a hot air oven at 80°C and ground with a grinder and preserved for the analysis. Biochemical constituents such astotal soluble sugar (Anthrone Method), total chlorophyll (Arnon’s Method), protein (Lowry et al., 1951) and phenols (Sadasivan and Manickam, 1996) were estimated.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Mean larval population and pod damage percentage on different varieties/genotypes during Kharif 2014 and 2015
 
The pooled mean larval population of M. vitrata during both the years considered together, the larval population varied considerably from 0.53 to 3.01 larvae plant-1 (Table 1). The uppermost mean larval infestation was recorded in IPM 306-6 (3.01 larvae plant-1) which was at par with IPM 05-3-22 (2.92 larvae plant-1) and ML 1256 (2.73 larvae plant-1). The lowest mean larval infestation was reported in PM-5 (0.53 larvae plant-1) followed by IPM 306-1 (0.65 larvae plant-1) and ML 515 (0.78larvae plant-1) as compared to the 2.22larvae plant-1 in local check cultivar, HUM-12. Sandhya et al., (2014); Bhople et al., (2017); Soundararajan and Chitra (2017) in their experiments also obtained identical results to the results of the present studies, although, they used different green gram varieties.
 

Table 1: Biochemical constituents (immature pods), mean larval population of M. vitrata of different varieties/genotypes during kharif 2014 and 2015 (Pooled).



The pooled pod damage due to M. vitrata varied from 4.67 to 36.00 per cent among the different varieties/genotypes (Table 1). The data indicated that maximum pod damage was recorded in IPM 306-6 (36.00%) followed by IPM 05-3-22 (35.67%) and ML 1256 (33.17%). The minimum pod damage was reported in PM-5 (4.67%) followed by IPM 306-1 (6.33%) and ML 515 (7.50%) as compared to the 26.33 per cent in local check cultivar, HUM-12. The results are in agreement with Singh and Singh (2014) and Kumar and Singh (2017) who obtained identical results in their experiment to the results of the present studies, although, they used different mungbean varieties/genotypes.
 
Biochemical constituents of immature pod associated withresistance to M. vitrata during kharif 2014 and 2015
 
The various biochemical constituents of immature pods associated with resistance to M. vitrata viz., protein, total sugars, phenol and total chlorophyll of each test varieties/genotypes were estimated and results revealed that the protein content of tested varieties/genotypes was in the range of 20.53 to 36.17 mg/g. The significantly highest protein content was reported in IPM 306-6 (36.17 mg/g) which did not differ significantly with PM 05-3-22 (35.49 mg/g), followed by ML 1256 (33.64 mg/g). The significantly lowest protein was recorded in PM-5 (20.53 mg/g) followed by IPM 306-1 (21.68 mg/g), HUM-16 (21.92 mg/g) and HUM-1 (22.56 mg/g), whereas, 27.91 mg/g in local check, HUM-12. These observations are in agreement with the findings of Halder and Srinivasan (2006) and (2007) who reported high protein content in susceptible varieties and low protein content in resistant varieties of mungbean and urdbean, respectively. Sujithra and Srinivasan (2012) also reported similar results and found high protein content in susceptible varieties and low protein content in resistant varieties of field bean.
       
The considerable and significant variation in the pooled data of total sugar content existed among the different varieties/genotypes and ranged from 10.94 to 16.71 mg/g. The highest amount of total sugar content was present in ML 1256 (16.71 mg/g) followed by IPM 05-3-22 (16.38 mg/g), IPM 306-6 (16.18 mg/g) and ML 1059 (15.79 mg/g). The significantly lowest total sugar content was recorded in PM-5 (10.94 mg/g) closely followed by IPM 306-1 (11.48 mg/g), HUM-16 (11.93 mg/g) and HUM-1 (12.13 mg/g), although, total sugar content in local check cultivar, HUM-12 was 14.67 mg/g. These findings are in accordance with the findings of Halder and Srinivasan (2006) and (2007) who reported high sugar content in susceptible varieties and low sugar content in resistant varieties of mungbean and urd bean, respectively.
       
The significant variation in phenol content was observed in the range of 5.14 to 9.00 mg/g. The phenol content in PM-5 (9.00 mg/g) was significantly higher than others followed by IPM 306-1 (8.86 mg/g), HUM-16 (8.62 mg/g) and HUM-1 (8.33 mg/g), whereas, the minimum phenol content was reported in IPM 306-6 (5.14 mg/g), IPM 05-3-22 (5.20 mg/g) and ML 1256 (5.65 mg/g). The local check, HUM-12 contained 6.64 mg/g phenol content. The present findings are similar with the findings of Halder and Srinivasan (2006) and (2007) who reported high phenol content in resistant varieties and low phenol content in susceptible varieties of mungbean and urd bean, respectively. Sujithra and Srinivasan (2012) also reported similar results and found high phenol content in resistant varieties and low protein low phenol content in susceptible varieties of field bean.
       
The total chlorophyll content significantly varied from 1.85 to 3.22 mg/g. The significant higher amount of total chlorophyll content was reported in IPM 306-6 (3.22 mg/g) which was not significantly different with IPM 05-3-22 (3.16 mg/g), ML 1256 (3.12 mg/g) and PDM 288 (2.96 mg/g), whereas, the minimum total chlorophyll content was found in PM-5 (1.85 mg/g) followed by IPM 306-1 (1.93 mg/g), HUM-16 (2.04 mg/g) and HUM-1 (2.16 mg/g), although, 2.81 mg total chlorophyll was found in local check, HUM-12. This result is in conformity with the findings of Elanchezhyan (2009) who reported the higher total chlorophyll content in susceptible varieties as compared to resistant varieties.
 
Relationship between biochemical constituents (immature pods) of varieties/genotypes, M. vitrata larval population and pod damage
 
The correlation coefficient was obtained between M. vitrata larval population, pod damage and biochemical constituents (Table 2). The correlation studies made with biochemical constituents revealed a significant correlation with M. vitrata larval population and pod damage during kharif 2014 and 2015. The significant and positive correlation was observed between M. vitrata larval population, pod damage and protein (336r = 0.954** and r = 0.952**, respectively) and total sugar content (r = 0.986** and r = 0.986**, respectively) and total chlorophyll content (r = 0.994** and r = 0.993**, respectively) in immature pods, while, the significant and negative correlation was found between phenol (r = -0.916** and r = -0.919**, respectively) content in immature pods. The findings of present experiments are in conformity with the findings of Halder and Srinivasan (2006) and (2007); Sujithra and Srinivasan (2012) who reported a positive correlation of protein, total sugar with pod damage in mungbean, urd bean and field bean, respectively. Elanchezhyan (2009) reported a positive correlation between the chlorophyll content and shoot damage caused by brinjal shoot and fruit borer. The negative correlation of phenol with pod damage was reported by Halder and Srinivasan (2006) and (2007); Sujithra and Srinivasan (2012).\
 

Table 2: Simple correlation coefficient between biochemical constituents (immature pods) and mean M. vitrata population and mean per cent pod damage on different varieties/genotypes during kharif 2014 and 2015 (pooled).

CONCLUSION

The present study revealed that green gram varieties/genotypes with more phenolic content and less total protein, total chlorophyll and total sugar content in pods suffered less damage by spotted pod borer. Therefore, these biochemical parameters can be utilized as indicators to detect the source of resistance in green gram for spotted pod borer. These findings can be used very effectively in spotted pod borer resistant breeding programme in the future.

REFERENCES


  1. Barad, C. S., Patel, P. S., Rabari, G. N. and Bindu Panickar (2016). Biochemical basis of resistance against Maruca vitrata in selected genotypes/varieties of cowpea. Indian Journal of Plant Protection. 44(1): 59-62.

  2. Bhople, S.K., Dhandge, S.R., Aravindarajan, G. and Patange, N.R. (2017). Varietal screening of mungbean genotypes for theirresistance against pest complex of mungbean. AGRES- An International e-Journal. 6(1): 123-128.

  3. Elias, S. M., Hussain, M. S., Sikder, F. S., Juber, A. and Karim, M. R. (1986). Identification of constraints to pulse production with special reference to present farming systems. Annual report of Agricultural Economic Division. BARI, Joydebpur. pp.1.

  4. Kumar, R. and Singh, P. S. (2017). Screening of certain mungbean, Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek genotypes against spotted pod borer and pod bugs. Journal of Experimental Zoology, India. 20(1): 595-597.

  5. Lowry, O.H., Rosnbrough, N.J.,Farr, A.L. and Ramdall, R.J. (1951). J. of Bio. Chem. pp: 193-265.

  6. Malik, B.A. (1994). Grain Legumes: Crop Production. Melanagromyza sojae (Zehntner) on soybean. Indian Journal of Plant Protection. 18: 271-275.

  7. Sadasivam, S. and Manickam, A. (1996). Biochemical methods, Second Edition, New Age International (P) Publishers, pp. 20-21 and 193-194.

  8. Sandhya Rani, C., Rao, G.R., Chalam, M.S.V., Kumar, P.A. and Rao, V.S. (2014). Field Screening of Greengram Genotypes against Maruca vitrata in summer, Journal of Agriculture and Crop Science. 1: 18-25. 

  9. Singh, S.K. and Singh, P. S. (2014). Screening of mungbean (Vigna radiata) genotypes against major insects. Current Advances in Agricultural Sciences. 6 (1): 85-87

  10. Soundararajan, R.P. and Chitra, N. (2017). Field evaluation of mungbean (Vigna radiata L.) germplasm for resistance against pod borer complex. Legume Research. 40(4): 768-772. 

  11. Sujithra, M. and Srinivasan, S. (2012). Bio-physical and bio-chemical factors influencing plant resistance in pod borers on field bean, Lablab purpureus var. lignosus Medikus. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences. 20 (2): 329-333.

  12. Vishakanthaiah, M. and Jagadeeshbabu, C. S. (1980). Bionomics of the tur webworm, Maruca testulalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Mysore Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 14: 529-532.

  13. Zahid, M.A., Islam, M.M. and Begum, M.R. (2008). Determination of economic injury levels of Maruca vitrata in green gram, Journal of Agricultural Rural Development. 6(1- 2):91-97.

  14. Halder J. and Srinivasan, S. (2007). Biochemical Basis of Resistance against Maruca vitrata (Geyer) in Urd bean, Annals of Plant Protection Sciences. 15(2): 287-290.

  15. 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(4): 313-316.

  16. K. Elanchezhyan, Murali Baskaran, R.K. and Rajavel, D.S. (2009). Biochemical basis of resistance in brinjal genotypes to shoot and fruitborer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. Journal of Entomological Research. 33(2): 101-10.

  17. Umbarkar, P.S., Parsana, G.J. and Jethva, D.M. (2011a). Estimation of yield losses by pod borer complex in greengram. Legume Research. 34(4): 308-310.

  18. Soundararajan, R.P., Chitra, N. and Geetha, S. (2013). Host plant resistance to insect pests of grain legumes – A review. Agric. Reviews. 34 (3): 176-187. 
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)