Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:46:32.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of no-choice cage, detached leaf and diet incorporation assays to screen chickpeas for resistance to the beet armyworm Spodoptera exigua (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2013

M. Shankar ,
H.C. Sharma ,
T. Ramesh Babu  and
D. Sridevi
M. Shankar
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru 502324, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University (ANGRAU), Rajendranagar 500030, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India
H.C. Sharma*
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru 502324, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India
T. Ramesh Babu
Affiliation:
Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University (ANGRAU), Rajendranagar 500030, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India
D. Sridevi
Affiliation:
Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University (ANGRAU), Rajendranagar 500030, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India
*
*E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

It i.s difficult to compare genotypic resistance to insects across seasons and locations because of the variation in the onset and severity of insect infestation. Therefore, in this study, we used the no-choice cage technique and detached leaf and artificial diet incorporation assays for evaluating chickpea genotypes for resistance to the beet armyworm Spodopteraexigua (Hubner). The results indicated that the no-choice cage technique was not useful for evaluating chickpea genotypes for resistance to S. exigua. In the detached leaf assay, leaf feeding by S. exigua larvae was significantly lower in ICC 12 475 and RIL 20 genotypes at the vegetative stage and in ICC 10 393, ICC 12 475, KAK 2, RIL 20 and RIL 25 genotypes at the flowering stage, while larval weight gain was lower in insects reared on EC 583264, ICC 10 393, ICC 12 475 and RIL 20 genotypes at the vegetative stage; and in those reared on ICC 10 393, ICC 12 475, EC 583264, ICCL 86 111, KAK 2, RIL 20 and RIL 25 genotypes at the flowering stage in plants raised under greenhouse conditions. In plants raised under field conditions, the EC 583260, ICC 12 475, ICCL 86 111, ICCV 10, KAK 2, RIL 20 and RIL 25 genotypes in the November sowing and the KAK 2, ICC 3137, ICCL 86 111 and RIL 25 genotypes in the December sowing suffered low leaf damage at the vegetative stage; and EC 58 320, EC 583264, ICC 12 745 and RIL 25 genotypes in the November sowing and the EC 583264, ICC 3137, ICC 12 475, 1CCL 86 111, KAK 2, RIL 20 and RIL 25 genotypes in the December sowing suffered low leaf damage at the flowering stage, while low larval weights were recorded in insects reared on the ICC 12 475, EC 583264, ICCL 86 111 and RIL 25 genotypes at the flowering stage. In the diet incorporation assay, the survival of S. exigua larvae reared on diets with leaf powder of the ICC 12 475, ICC 10 393 and RIL 25 genotypes was significantly lower, while a significant reduction in larval weights was recorded in those reared on diets with leaf powder of the ICC 10 393, ICC 12 475, ICCL 86 111, KAK 2, RIL 25 and ICC 3137 genotypes. The fecundity of insects was also reduced in insects reared on diets with leaf powder of the RIL 25, RIL 20, ICCV 10, ICCL 86 111, ICC 12 475, ICC 3137, KAK 2 and ICC 10 393 genotypes. The results suggest that detached leaf assay could be used for large-scale screening of chickpea genotypes for resistance to S. exigua, while the diet incorporation assay could be used to gain additional information on the antibiosis mechanism of resistance to this insect.

Keywords

chickpeaSpodoptera exiguahost plant resistancescreening techniquesdetached leaf assaydiet incorporation assay
Type
Research Papers
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 22 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahmed, K., Lal, S. S., Morris, H., Khalique, F. and Malik, B. A. (1990) Insect pest problems and recent approaches to solving them on chickpea in South Asia, pp. 165–168. In Chickpea in the Nineties: Proceedings of 2nd International Workshop on Chickpea Improvement, 4–8 December 1989 (edited by Waloby, B. J. and Hall, S. D.). International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India.Google Scholar
Armes, N. J., Bond, G. S. and Cooters, R. J. (1992) The Laboratory Culture and Development of Helicoverpa armigera. Issue 57 of Natural Resources Institute Bulletin Series. Natural Resources Institute, Chatham, UK.Google Scholar
Chen W., Sharma H. C. and Muehlbauer F. (2011) Compendium of Chickpea and Lentil Diseases and Pests. The American Phytopathological Society, St Paul, Minnesota, USA, 165 pp.Google Scholar
Clement, S. L., Sharma, H. C., Muehlbauer, F. J., Elberson, L. R., Mattinson, D. S. and Fellman, J. K. (2010) Resistance to beet armyworm in a chickpea recombinant inbred line population. Journal of Applied Entomology 134, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowgill, S. E. and Lateef, S. S. (1996) Identification of antibiotic and antixenotic resistance to Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in chickpea. Journal of Economic Entomology 89, 224–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, T. G., Parthasarathy Rao, P. and Grisko-Kelley, H. (2000) The pulse economy in the mid-1990s: a review of global and regional developments, Vol. 34, pp. 1–29. In Linking Research and Marketing Opportunities for Pulses in the 21st Century (edited by Knight, R.). Current Plant Science and Biotechnology in Agriculture Series. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Lateef, S. S. (1985) Gram pod borer Heliothis armigera (Hub.) resistance in chickpeas. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 14, 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lateef, S. S. and Sachan, J. N. (1990) Host plant resistance to Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.) in different agro-economical conditions, pp. 181–189. In Chickpea in the Nineties: Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Chickpea, 4–8 December 1989 (edited by van Rheenen, H. A., Saxena, M. C., Walby, B. J. and Hall, S. D.). ICRISAT, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narayanamma, V. L., Sharma, H. C., Gowda, C. L. L. and Sriramulu, M. (2008) Incorporation of lyophilized leaves and pods into artificial diets to assess the antibiosis component of resistance to pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in chickpea. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science 27, 191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narayanamma, V. L., Sharma, H. C., Vijay, P. M., Gowda, C. L. L. and Sriramulu, M. (2013) Expression of resistance to pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), in relation to high performance liquid chromatography finger prints of leaf exudates of chickpea. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science. doi:10.1017/S1742758413000234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, K. M. and Daly, J. C. (2000) Plant–toxin interactions in transgenic Bt cotton and their effect on mortality of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 93, 1293–1299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reed, W., Cardona, C., Sithanantham, S. and Lateef, S. S. (1987) Chickpea insect pests and their control, pp. 283–318. In The Chickpea (edited by Saxena, M. C. and Singh, K. B.). CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Shankar, M., Ramesh Babu, T., Sridevi, D. and Sharma, H. C. (2013) Incidence and biology of beet armyworm, Spodoptera exigua in chickpea in Andhra Pradesh. Indian Journal of Plant Protection (in press).Google Scholar
Sharma, H. C. (2005) Heliothis/Helicoverpa Management: Emerging Trends and Strategies for Future Research. Oxford and IBH, New Delhi, India. 469 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, H. C., Gowda, C. L. L., Stevenson, P. C., Ridsdill-Smith, T. J., Clement, S. L., Ranga Rao, G. V., Romies, J., Miles, M. and El Bouhssini, M. (2007) Host plant resistance and insect pest management in chickpea, pp. 520–537. In Chickpea Breeding and Management (edited by Yadav, S. S., Redden, R. R., Chen, W. and Sharma, B.). CAB International, Wallingford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, H. C., Pampapathy, G., Dhillon, M. K. and Ridsdill-Smith, T. J. (2005 a) Detached leaf assay to screen for host plant resistance to Helicoverpa armigera. Journal of Economic Entomology 98, 568–576.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sharma, H. C., Pampapathy, G. and Kumar, R. (2005 b) Standardization of cage techniques to screen chickpeas for resistance to Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in greenhouse and field conditions. Journal of Economic Entomology 98, 210–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sharma, H. C., Sujana, G. and Manohar Rao, D (2009) Morphological and chemical components of resistance to pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera in wild relatives of pigeonpea. Arthropod–Plant Interactions 3, 151–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yadav, S. S., Kumar, J., Yadav, S. K., Singh, S., Yadav, V. S., Turner, N. C. and Redden, R. (2006) Evaluation of Helicoverpa and drought resistance in desi and kabuli chickpea. Plant Genetics Resources 4, 198–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoshida, M., Cowgill, S. E. and Wightman, J. A. (1995) Mechanisms of resistance to Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in chickpea: role of oxalic acid in leaf exudate as an antibiotic factor. Journal of Economic Entomology 88, 1783–1786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar