Welcome to International Network for Natural Sciences | INNSpub

Paper Details

Research Paper | August 1, 2016

VIEWS 1
| Download 3

Integrated management of Helicoverpa armigera on different genotypes of Kabuli chickpea in Punjab, Pakistan

Mumtaz Hussain, Khawaja Shafique Ahmad, Muhammad Majeed, Ansar Mehmood, Abdul Hamid, Malik Muhammad Yousaf, Muhammad Shafiq Chaudhry, Muhammad Jahangir Shah, Khadim Hussain, Bashir Ahmad, Abdul Qadir Khan

Key Words:


Int. J. Biosci.9(2), 110-119, August 2016

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12692/ijb/9.2.110-119

Certification:

IJB 2016 [Generate Certificate]

Abstract

Gram Pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera Hubner) is the most imperative constraint in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) production causing severe losses or there may be complete crop failure in spite of several rounds of insecticidal applications. The present study was designed to investigate the effect of neem application in controlling Pod borer on six different genotypic varieties (AZ-CM2, AZ-CM4, AZ-CM6, AZ-CM10, AZ-CM12 and Noor-91). The experiment was designed in a Split-Plot Design with three replicates. Different agronomic traits were recorded such as plant population, plant height, percentage flowering, physical maturity, number of pod per plant, infestation of pod borer and yield of chickpea. The results showed that plants treated with neem have high population (maximum in Noor-91 with 16.8 plants/m2 and minimum in AZ-CM12 with 2.9 plants/m2, plant height (46.7 cm in AZ-CM4 and 34.7cm in Noor-91), flowering (AZ-CM10 gave 50% flowers after 100.3 days), physical maturity (AZ-CM4 took maximum time (139.7 days) to attain 90% physical maturity while AZ-CM2 and AZ-CM4 took only 136.0 days to attain 90% physical maturity), average number of pods (Noor 91 has higher 19.4 and AZ-CM2 has lowest 12.1). Infestation of pod borer and % damage was found lower in neem sprayed plant. Overall highest yield was observed in plants treated with neem as compared to control and genotype dependent. It is concluded from the results that neem application has a significant effect in controlling pod borer and this effect varies genotype to genotype. Noor-91 was found to be more resistant towards pod borer.

VIEWS 1

Copyright © 2016
By Authors and International Network for
Natural Sciences (INNSPUB)
http://innspub.net
This article is published under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution Liscense 4.0

Integrated management of Helicoverpa armigera on different genotypes of Kabuli chickpea in Punjab, Pakistan

Ali R, Javed H, Gulzar A. 2016. Comparative development, survival and fecundity of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on different chickpea cultivars. Pakistan Journal of Zoology 48(1), 249-255.

Anonymous. 2008. Agricultural Statistics of Pakistan. Government of Pakistan, MINFAL, Econo-mic trade and investment wing, Islamabad pp. 22.

Armes NJ, Bond GS, Cooker RJ. 1993. The laboratory culturc and development of Helicoverpa armigera. Natural Resourccs Institute, Chaltam U.K. Bulletin 57.

Blum A. 2005. Drought resistance, water-use efficiency, and yield potential are they compatible, dissonant, or mutually exclusive? Crop and Pasture Science 56(11), 1159-1168.

Bruce YA, Gounou S, Chabi-Olaye A, Smith H, Schulthess F. 2004. The effect neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss) oil on oviposition development and reproductive potentials of Sesamia calamistis Hampson (Lepidoptera Noctuidae) and Eldana saccharina Walker (Lepidoptera Pyralidae). Agricultural and Forest Entomology 6, 1-10.

Dua R, Gowda C, Kumar HS, Saxena K, Govil J, Singh B, Kranthi S. 2001. Breeding for resistance to Helicoverpa: Effectiveness and limitations. Paper presented at the Helicoverpa workshop at ICRISAT, Patancheru, India.

Fitt GP, Cotter SC. 2005. The Helicoverpa problem in Australia. In Strategies for Helicoverpa Management: Prospects and Problems, H.C. Sharma (Ed) pp. 1-38.

Gowda C, Ramesh S, Chandra S, Upadhyaya H. 2005. Genetic basis of pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera) resistance and grain yield in desi and Kabuli Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under unprotected conditions. Euphytica 145(1-2), 199-214.

Hemati S, Naseri B, Ganbalani GN, Dastjerdi HR, Golizadeh A. 2012. Effect of different host plants on nutritional indices of the pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera. Journal of Insect Science 12(1), 55.

Hossain MA. 2009. Field screening of chickpea genotypes against pod borer. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Research 34(3), 517-521.

Hulse J. 1989. Nature, composition and utilization of grain legumes. Uses of Tropical Grain Legumes 27, 11.

Islam MD, Latif MA, Begum R, Razzaque MA, Akhtar AA. 2007. Effect of neem oil on food consumption, growth and development of Jute hairy caterpillar, Spilarctia obliqua (Walker). International Journal of Sustainable Agriculture and Technology 3(4), 1-5.

Jukanti AK, Gaur PM, Gowda CLL, Chibbar RN. 2012. Chickpea: nutritional properties and its benefits. The British Journal of Nutrition 108, 11-26. 

Kimurto P, Mulwa R, Towett B, Cheruiyot E, Gangarao R, Silim S, Varshney R. 2013. Screening for drought and pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera) tolerance in selected chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) germplasm in semi-arid areas of Kenya. Egerton Journal of Science and Technology 9, 23-30.

Klocke JA, Balandon FM, Barnby MA, Yamasaki RB. 1989. Limonoids, phenolics and furanocoumarins as insect antifeedants, repellents and growth inhibitory compounds. In Insecticides of plant origin, ACS Symposium Series 387, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC pp. 136-149.

Kranthi K, Jadhav D, Kranthi S, Wanjari R, Ali S, Russell D. 2002. Insecticide resistance in five major insect pests of cotton in India. Crop Protection 21(6), 449-460.

Krishnamurthy L, Kashiwagi J, Upadhyaya H, Gowda C, Gaur P, Singh S, Varshney R. 2013. Partitioning coefficient. A trait that contributes to drought tolerance in chickpea. Field Crops Research 149, 354-365.

Kumar J, Abbo S. 2001. Genetics of flowering time in chickpea and its bearing on productivity in semiarid environments. Advances in Agronomy 72, 107-138.

Kumari K, Kumar A, Saha T, Goswami TN. Singh SN. 2015. Biointensive management of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) in chickpea. Journal of Eco-friendly Agriculture 10(1), 50-52.

Lal SS, Yadava CP, Dias CAR. 1985. Assessment of crop losses in chickpea caused by Heliothis armigera. Plant Protection Bulletin 33, 27-35.

Lateef SS. 1985. Gram pod borer, Heliothis armigera (Hub.) resistance in chickpea. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment 14, 95-102.

Narayanamma VL, Gowda CLL, Sriramulu M, Ghaffar MA, Sharma HC. 2013. Nature of Gene Action an Maternal Effects for Pod Borer, Helicoverpa armigera Resistance and Grain Yield in Chickpea, Cicer arietinum. American Journal of Plant Sciences 4, 26-37.

Nardo EAD, De-Costa AS, Lorencao AL. 1997. Melia azadirach extract as an antifeedent to Bemisia tabaci (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). Florida Entomology 80(1), 92-94.

Rajput AA, Sarwar M, Ahmad N, Siddiqui Q, Toufiq M. 2003. Evaluation for resistance in some local and exotic chickpea genotypes against Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences 6(18), 1612-1615.

Rashid A, Saeed HA, Akhtar LH, Siddiqi SZ, Arshad M. 2003. Performance of advance chickpea strains against gram pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera Hubner). Asian Journal of Plant Sciences.

Saxena KN. 1969. Patterns of insect-plant relationships determining susceptibility or resistance of different plants to an insect. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 12, 751-766.

Shafique M, Nadeem S, Hamed M, Atta BM, Shah TM. 2009. Performance of some advance desi chickpea genotypes against pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) resistance. Pakistan Journal of Zoology 41(4), 277-280.

Sharma H, Pampapathy G, Lanka S, Ridsdill-Smith T. 2005. Antibiosis mechanism of resistance to pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera in wild relatives of chickpea. Euphytica 142(1-2), 107-117.

Singh O, Gowda C, Sethi S, Dasgupta T, Smithson J. 1992b. Genetic analysis of agronomic characters in chickpea. Theoretical and applied genetics 83(8), 956-962.

Singh O, Gowda CLL, Sethi SC, Lateef SS. 1992a. Breeding for resistance to Helicoverpa armigera pod borer in chickpea. Golden Jubilee Symposium of Indian Society of Genetics and Plant Breeding 4-6, New Delhi India.

Stevenson P, Green P, Simmonds M, Sharma H. 2005. Physical and chemical mechanisms of plant resistance to Helicoverpa: recent research on chickpea and pigeon pea. Heliothis/Helicoverpa management: emerging trends and strategies for future research 209-221.

Varshney RK, Graner A. Sorrells ME. 2013. Genomics-assisted breeding for crop improvement. Trends in Plant Science 10, 621-630.

Varshney RK, Mir RR, Bhatia S, Thudi M, Hu Y, Azam S, Gao J. 2014. Integrated physical, genetic and genome map of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Functional and integrative genomics 14(1), 59-73.

Verma S, Ramteke L, Sinha AK, Nandanwar AK, Paikara P. 2015. Effective Management of Gram pod borer Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) with combination of Neem Seed Kernel Extract (NSKE) and Flubendiamide 39.39 SC in Rain fed areas of Chhatt-isgarh. International Journal of Applied And Pure Science and Agriculture 1(8), 74-77.

Vinuela E, Medina P, Smagghe G, Budia F. 2003. Toxicity and absorption of azadirachtin, diflubenzuron, pyriproxyfen and tebufenozide after tropical application in predatory larvae of Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Environmental Entomology 32(1), 196-203.

Yelshetty S, Kotikal Y, Shantappanavar N, Lingappa S. 1996. Screening chickpea for resistance to pod borer in Karnataka, India. International Chickpea and Pigeonpea Newsletter 3, 41-43.

Yoshida M, Shanower TG. 2000. Helicoverpa armigera larval growth inhibition in artificial diet containing freeze-dried pigeonpea pod powder. Journal of Agricultural and Urban Entomology 17(1), 37-41.

SUBMIT MANUSCRIPT

Style Switcher

Select Layout
Chose Color
Chose Pattren
Chose Background