Legume Research

  • Chief EditorJ. S. Sandhu

  • Print ISSN 0250-5371

  • Online ISSN 0976-0571

  • NAAS Rating 6.67

  • 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 45 issue 4 (april 2022) : 514-520

Effect of Different Chickpea Genotypes and Its Biochemical Constituents on Biological Attributes of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner)

Su Htet San, D. Sagar, Vinay Kumari Kalia, Veda Krishnan
1Division of Entomology, ICAR- Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi-110 012, India.

  • Submitted07-08-2020|

  • Accepted11-01-2021|

  • First Online 01-03-2021|

  • doi 10.18805/LR-4474

Cite article:- San Htet Su, Sagar D., Kalia Kumari Vinay, Krishnan Veda (2022). Effect of Different Chickpea Genotypes and Its Biochemical Constituents on Biological Attributes of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). Legume Research. 45(4): 514-520. doi: 10.18805/LR-4474.

ABSTRACT

Background: Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is the third most important pulse crop grown all over the world. Chickpea is infested by an average of about 60 insect-pests, of which gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) is known to be the key pest. The migratory nature, polyphagous, short life cycle, multivoltine and resistance to insecticides makes H. armigera very difficult to control. In order to develop the resistance chickpea genotypes against H. armigera it is very important to understand the interrelation between the chickpea biochemical constituents and their effect on insect growth and development.
Methods: The biological performance of H. armigera on different chickpea genotypes was studied using detached leaf method and the test genotypes were also evaluated for field level resistance to H. armigera under natural conditions. Different biochemical constituents viz., reducing sugar, protein, total phenol and tannins content in chickpea genotypes were estimated at 30 days after sowing. The relationship between biological attributes of H. armigera reared on different chickpea genotypes and biochemical constituents of chickpea genotypes was computed using simple correlation co-efficient.
Result: Among the test genotypes, the lowest larval weight, prolonged larval duration and pupal duration were observed in GL-13042. The lowest pupal weight and percent of adult emergence was observed in NBeG-786 while the lowest fecundity was observed in GL-13001. The percent pod damage, pest susceptibility/ resistance per cent and PRSR on different chickpea genotypes in the field condition varied from 25.9 to 47.84%, 12.91 to 45.86 and from 4 to 5. In the biochemical constituents, the highest total phenol and tannin content were observed in NBeG-786 whereas the lowest protein and reducing sugar content were observed in GL-13042. Relationship between biological attributes of H. armigera and biochemical constituents in different chickpea genotypes revealed that reducing sugars, protein, total phenols and tannins content showed negative association with biological attributes of H. armigera reared on chickpea genotypes.

REFERENCES

  1. Abbott, W.S. (1925). A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. Journal of Economic Entomology.18: 265-267.
  2. Amorim, E.L.C., Nascimento, J.E., Monteiro, J.M., Sobrinho, T.J.P., Araujo, T. and Albuquerque, U.P. (2008). A simple and accurate procedure for the determination of tannin and flavonoid levels and some applications in ethnobotany and ethnopharmacology. Functional Ecosystems and Communities. 2: 88-94. 
  3. Anonymous (2019). Project Co-ordinators report 2018-19. All Indian Co-ordinated Research project on chickpea, ICAR-Indian Institute of Pulses Research. pp.1-42
  4. Ballhorn, D.J., Kautz S., Jensen M., Schmitt I., Heil M. and Hegeman, A.D. (2011). Genetic and environmental interactions determine plant defense against herbivores. Ecology. 99: 313-326.
  5. Bennett, R.N. and Wallsgrove, R.M. (1994). Secondary metabolites in plant defense mechanisms. New Phytologist. 127(4): 617-633.
  6. Bernards, M.A. and Bastrup-Spohr, L. (2008). Phenylpropanoid metabolism induced by wounding and insect herbivory. In: Induced PlantResistance to Herbivory, [Schaller A (ed).] Springer, Berlin, pp 189-211.
  7. Bheemaraya, Rachappa, V., Teggelli R., Yelshetty, S. and Amaresh, Y.S. (2019). Biological activity of pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) influenced by chickpea genotypes. Legume Research. 42(3): 421-425.
  8. Bhonwong, A., Stout, M.J., Attajarusit, J., Tantasawat, P. (2009). Defensive role of tomato polyphenol oxidase against cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera) and Beet army worm (Spodoptera exigua). Journal of Chemical Ecology. 35: 28-38.
  9. Blanco-Labra, A., Chagolla- lopez, A., Martinez-Gallardo, N. and Valdes-Rodriguez, S. (1995). Further characterization of the 12 kDa protease/alpha amylase inhibitor present in maize seeds. Journal of Food Chemistry. 19: 27-41.
  10. Bradford, M.M. (1976). Rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Analytical Biochemistry. 72: 248-254.
  11. Cates, R.G. (1980). Feeding patterns of monophagus, oligophagus and polyphagous insect herbivores; the effect of resource abundance and plant chemistry. Oecologia. 46(1): 22-31.
  12. Chakravarty, S., Srivastava, C.P. and Keval, R. (2018). Biology of Helicoverpa armigera on chickpea-based artificial diet under laboratory conditions. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences. 26 (2): 265-269.
  13. Dixit, G.P., Sarvjreet Singh, Jayalakshmi, V., Srivastava, A.K. and Gaur, P.M. (2017). Chickpea improvement-Accomplish- -ments, challenges and strategies. National symposium on Pulses for Nutritional Security and Agricultural Sustainability, IIPR, Kanpur, pp.45. 
  14. FAOSTAT (2016). Food and Agriculture Organisation of United Nations (FAO) StatisticalDatabases, http://faostat.fao.org.
  15. Golla, S.K., Sharma, H.C., Rajasekhar, P., Mishra, S.P. and Jaba, J. (2020). Biochemical components of wild relatives of chickpea confer resistance to pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera. Arthropod-Plant Interactions. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11829-020-09768-3.
  16. Haralu, S., Karabhantanal, S.S., Naidu, G.K. and Jagginavar, S.B. (2018). Biophysical and biochemical basis of resistance to pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) in chickpea. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies. 6(5): 873-878.
  17. 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 arietinum (L.) and its efficacy against Helicoverpa armigera. Brazil Journal of Plant Physiology. 20(4): 313-322.
  18. Kaur R., Gupta A.K. and Taggar G.K. (2014). Role of catalase, H2O2 and phenolics in resistance of pigeonpea towards Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). Acta Physiologiae Plantarum. 36: 1513-1527.
  19. Kaur, A., Grewal, S.K., Singh R. and Rachana D. and Bhardwaj (2017). Induced defense dynamics in plant parts is requisite for resistance to Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) infestation in chickpea. Phytoparasitica. 45: 559-576.
  20. Kooner, B.S. and Cheema H.K. (2006). Evaluation of pigeonpea genotypes for resistance to podborer complex. Indian Journal of Crop Science. 1(1-2): 194-196.
  21. Narayanamma, L.V., Sharma, H.., Vijay, P.M., Gowda, C.L.L. and Sriramulu, M. (2013). Expression of resistance to the pod borer Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in relation to high performance liquid chromatography fingerprints of leaf exudates of chickpea. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science. 33: 276-282.
  22. Nelson, N. (1944). A photometric adaptation of the Somogyi method for the determination of glucose. Journal of Biological Chemistry.153: 375-380.
  23. Panzuto M., Mauffettes Y. and Albert P.J. (2002). Development, gustatory and behavioral responses of larvae, Choristoneura rosaceanato tannic acid and glucose. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 28: 145-160.
  24. Parde, V.D., Sharma, H.. and Kachole, M.S. (2012). Protease inhibitors in wild relatives of pigeonpea against the cotton bollworm/legume pod borer Helicoverpa armigera. American Journal of Plant Sciences. 3:627-635.
  25. Reed, W.C., Sithanantham, C.S. and Lateef, S.S. (1987). Chickpea insect pests and their control. In: The Chickpea. (Eds. M.C. Saxena and K.B. Singh). CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK. pp.283-318. 
  26. Roeder K.A. and Behmer S.T. (2014). Lifetime consequences of food protein-carbonhydrate content for an insect herbivore. Functional Ecology. 28: 1135-1143.
  27. Ruttoh, E.K., Mulwa, R.M.S., Ngode, L., Gohole, L., Towett, B. and Njogu, et al., (2013). Screening for host plant resistance to Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in selected chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes in Kenya. Egerton Journal of Science and Technology. 13: 39-55.
  28. Seth, R.K. and Sharma, V.P. (2002). Growth, development, reproductive competence and adult behavior of Spodoptera litura (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) reared on different diets. Pp 15-22. 
  29. Sharma, H.C., Pampapathy, G., Lanka, S.K. and Ridsdill-Smith, T.J. (2005). Antibiosis mechanism of resistant to pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera in wild relatives of chickpea. Euphytica. 142: 107-117.
  30. Sharma, H.C., Pampapathy, G., Lanka, S.K. and Ridsdill-Smith, T.J. (2004). Evaluation of wild relatives of chickpea (Cicer spp.) for resistance to pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). Indian Journal of Plant Genetic Resources. 17(1): 17–26.
  31. 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 pigeon pea. Arthropod- Plant Interactions. 3(3): 151-161.
  32. Sharma, H.C., Pampathy, G., Dhillon, M.K. and Ridsdill-Smith, J.T. (2005a). Detached leaf assay to screen for host plant resistance to Helicoverpa armigera. Journal of Economic Entomology. 98(2): 568-576.
  33. Sharma, P., Jha, A.B., Dubey, R.S. and Pessarakli, M. (2012). Reactive oxygen species, oxidative damage and antioxidative defense mechanism in plants under stressful conditions. Journal of Botany. 12: 1-26. 
  34. Singh, T.H., Singh, G., Sharma, K.P. and Gupta, S.P. (1972). Resistance of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) to cotton jassid, Amrasca devastans Distant (Homoptera: Jassidae). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 42(5): 521-525.
  35. Singleton, V.L., Orthofer, R. and Lamuela-Raventos, R.M. (1999). Analysis of total phenols and other oxidation substrates and antioxidants by means of Folin–Ciocalteu Reagent. Methods in Enzymology. 299: 152-178.
  36. Somogyi, M. (1952). Notes on sugar determination. Journal of Biological Chemistry.195: 19–23.
  37. Walling, L.L. (2000). The myriad plant responses to herbivores. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation. 19: 195-216.
  38. War, A.R., Paulraj, M.G., War, M.Y. and Ignacimuthu, S. (2012). Differential defensive response of groundnut germplasms to Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Journal of Plant Interactions. 7(1): 45-55.
  39. War, A.R., Paulraj, M.G., War, M.Y., Ignacimuthu, S. and Sharma, H.C. (2013). Defensive responses in groundnut against chewing and sap sucking insects. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation. 32: 259-272.
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)