Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T15:20:48.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relationship Between Helicoverpa armigera Hubner and Maruca vitrata (Geyer) Abundance, Damage and Yield Loss in Short-Duration Pigeonpeas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

C. Durairaj ,
T. G. Shanower ,
V. R. Bhagwat ,
M. I. Khan  and
D. A. Dodia
C. Durairaj*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Entomology, Tamil Nadu Agrl.University Coimbatore, 641003, India
T. G. Shanower
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru-502 324, Andhrapradesh, India USDA – Agricultural Research Service, 1500 North Central Avenue, Sidney, MT 59270, USA
V. R. Bhagwat
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru-502 324, Andhrapradesh, India
M. I. Khan
Affiliation:
Pulse Research Unit, Dr Panjabrao, Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeety, Akola-444 104, Maharashtra, India
D. A. Dodia
Affiliation:
Main Pulse Research Station, Gujarat Agricultural University, Sardar Krishi Nagar-385 506, Gujarat, India
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The relationship between abundance of the lepidopteran borers Helicoverpa armigera Hubner and Maruca vitrata (Geyer) and damage and yield loss in short-duration pigeonpeas was studied in two multilocation trials in 1995–1996 and 1996–1997 rainy seasons at four locations in India: Patancheru (Andhra Pradesh), Akola (Maharashtra), Sardarkrishi Nagar (Gujarat) and Vamban (Tamil Nadu). Larval populations of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) and Maruca vitrata (Geyer) were correlated with pod damage and grain yields. Significant correlation of location, years and genotype on insect population, level of damage and grain yield was obtained. The effect of plant type on lepidopteran pod damage was also observed. The relationships between pod damage, yield and larval population of Helicoverpa and Maruca are discussed.

Résumé

La relation entre l'abondance des lépidoptères foreurs Helicoverpa armigera Hubner et Maruca vitrata (Geyer), les dégâts et les pertes de rendement des cultures du pois cajan en cycle court a été étudiée dans deux essais multilocaux pendant les saisons des pluies 1995–1996 et 1996–1997, dans 4 localités de l'Inde: Patancheru (Andhra Pradesh), Akola (Maharashtra), Sardarkrishi Nagar (Gujarat) and Vamban (Tamil Nadu). Les niveaux de populations larvaires d'Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) et Maruca vitrata (Geyer) sont corrélées avec les dégâts des gousses et les rendements en graines. Une corrélation significative a été obtenue avec la localité, l'année, le génotype des populations d'insectes, le niveau des dégâts et les rendements en graines. L'effet du type de plante sur les dégâts sur gousse a également été observé. La relation entre les dégâts sur gousse, le rendement et les niveaux de population d'Helicoverpa et de Maruca sont discutés.

Keywords

short-duration pigeonpeaHelicoverpa armigeraMaruca vitratapest damage-yield losspois cajan en cycle courtHelicoverpa armigeraMaruca vitratadégâtperte de rendement
Type
Research Articles
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , September 2003 , pp. 251 - 258
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 2003

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

REFERENCES

Anonymous (1994–1995) Consolidated report on kharif pulses (Entomology) All india Coordinated Pulses Improvement Project on Pigeonpea. Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur. 83 pp.Google Scholar
Anonymous (1996–1997) Consolidated report on kharif pulses. All India Coordinated Pulses Improvement Project on Pigeonpea. Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur. 240 pp.Google Scholar
Anonymous (1998) Project Coordinator's Report. All India Coordinated Research Project on Pigeonpea. Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur. 28 pp.Google Scholar
Ariyanayagam, R. P. and Singh, N. B. (1994) Pigeonpea breeding: Accomplishments and challenges. Plant Breeding Abstract 64, 773–782.Google Scholar
ICRISAT [International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics] (1992) The Medium Term Plan, Vol.1. Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru, Andra Pradesh.Google Scholar
Lal, S. S., Yadava, C. P. and Sachan, J. N. (1992) Assessment of pod borers damage on pigeonpea in different agro ecological zones of Uttar Pradesh. Indian J. Pulses Res. 5, 174–178.Google Scholar
Lateef, S. S. and Reed, W. (1984) Review of crop losses caused by insect pests in pigeonpea internationally and in India, pp. 284–291. In Crop Losses Due to Insect Pests. Special issue of Indian Journal of Entomology. The Entomological Society of India, Hyderabad Branch, Vol. II.Google Scholar
Lateef, S. S. and Reed, W. (1990) Insect pests of pigeonpea, pp. 193–242. In Insect Pests of Tropical Food Legumes (Edited by Singh, S. R.). Wiley, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
Manjunath, T. M., Bhatnagar, V. S., Pawar, C. S. and Sithanantham, S. (1989) Economic importance of Heliothis spp., pp. 197–228. In India and an Assessment of Their Natural Enemies and Host Plants. Proc. Workshop Biol. Control of Heliothis; Increasing the Effectiveness of Natural Enemies (Edited by King, E. G. and Jackson, R. D.). Far East. Reg. Res. Off., US. Dep. Agric. New Delhi.Google Scholar
Nene, Y. L. and Sheila, V. K. (1990) Pigeonpea: Geography and Importance. CAB Int. Wallingford. 14 pp.Google Scholar
Nene, Y. L., Hall, S. D. and Sheila, V. K. (eds) (1990) The Pigeonpea. CAB Int. Wallingford. 490 pp.Google Scholar
Patel, A. J. and Dhulin, F. K. (1990) Present status of Helicoverpa armigera in pulses and strategies for its management in Gujarat. In Helicoverpa Management: Current Status Future Strategies (Edited by Sachan, J. N.). Proc. of First National Workshop held at Directorate of Pulses, Research, Kanpur, India, 30–31 August 1990.Google Scholar
Saxena, K. B., Lateef, S. S., Fonseka, H. H. D., Ariyararne, H. P. and Dharamsena, C. M. D. (1996) Maruca testulalis damage in determinate and indeterminate lines of pigeonpea in Sri Lanka. Int. Chickpea Pigeonpea Newsl. 91, 383–390.Google Scholar
Sheldrake, A. R., Narayanan, A. and Venkataratnam, N. (1979) The effect of flower removal on the seed yield of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan). Ann. Appl. Biol. 91, 383–390.Google Scholar
Sison, M. L. J. and Shanower, T. G. (1994) Development and survival of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on short duration pigeonpea. J. Econ. Entomol. 87, 1749–1753.Google Scholar
Tabo, R., Ezueh, M. I., Ajayi, O., Asiegbu, J. E. and Singh, L. (1995) Pigeonpea production and utilization in Nigeria. Int. Chickpea and pigeonpea Newsl. 2, 47–49.Google Scholar
Tripathi, S. R. and Singh, R. (1989) Effect of different pulses on development, growth and reproduction of Heliothis armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Insect Sci. Applic. 10, 145–148.Google Scholar
Valand, V. M. and Patel, J. R. (1992) Bio-ecology of Heliothis armigera Hubner in Gujarat. Agric. Sci. Dig. 12, 82–84.Google Scholar
Venugopal Rao, N., Tirumala Rao, K. and Subba Rao, A. (1992) Present status of Helicoverpa armigera in pulses and strategies for its management in Andhra Pradesh, pp. 68–74. In Helicoverpa Management: Current Status Future Strategies (Edited by Sachan, S. N.), Proc. of First National Workshop held at Directorate of Pulses, Research, Kanpur, India 30–31 August, 1990.Google Scholar
Yadava, C. P. and Lai, S. S. (1996–1997) Relationship between insect abundance, damage in yield loss in short duration pigeonpea. Annual Report for 1996–1997. Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur. pp. 28–29.Google Scholar