Screening for resistance against bruchid (Callasobruchus maculatus) damage in blackgram

Indhu S M; Manivannan N; Mahalingam A; Zadda Kavitha; Souframanien J

doi:10.56093/ijas.v90i6.104778

Authors

Indhu S M Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Pudukkottai 622 303, India
Manivannan N Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Pudukkottai 622 303, India
Mahalingam A Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Pudukkottai 622 303, India
Zadda Kavitha Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Pudukkottai 622 303, India
Souframanien J Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Pudukkottai 622 303, India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v90i6.104778

Keywords:

Blackgram, Bruchid resistance, Callasobruchus maculatus, Seed damage

Abstract

Bruchid (Callasobruchus sp.) is the most devastating pest causing severe damage to the blackgram seeds during storage. Hence it is essential to identify a genotype which is resistant to bruchids. A total of 61 blackgram genotypes were artificially screened for their resistance against Callasobruchus maculates at National Pulses Research Center, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Pudukkottai during 2017. Among the genotypes TU 68 had comparatively less number of adult emergence in 40, 50, 60, 70, 105 days after infestation, less seed damage (%) and less seed weight loss (%). Genotype TU 68 was found to be resistant in the confirmatory experiment also. Less number of adult emergences even at the end of 105 days indicated the prolonged developmental period which is also a mechanism of bruchid resistance. TU 68 was derived from the interspecific cross TU 94-2 × Vigna mungo var. silvestris. TU 68 could be utilized in the hybridization programme to develop high yielding blackgram variety inbuilt bruchid resistance.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Dongre T, Pawar S and Harwalkar M. 1993. Resistance to Callosobruchus maculatus (F.)(Coleoptera: Bruchidae) in pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.) and other Cajanus species. Journal of Stored Products Research 29(4): 319–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-474X(93)90047-8

MULLARP. 2017. Project Coordinator's Report (Mungbean and Urdbean), MULLaRP, IIPR, Kanpur.

Ramzan M, Chahal B and Judge B. 1990. Storage losses to some commonly used pulses caused by pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.). Journal of Insect Science 3(1): 106–08.

Sehgal S and Sachdeva J. 1985. Preference of Callosobruchus maculatus F. for oviposition and growth on certain new varieties of chickpea. Bulletin of Grain Technology 23(3): 210–14.

Soundararajan R, Geetha S, Chitra N and Dinakaran D. 2013. Resistance in Vigna mungo var silvestris against bruchids, Callosobruchus maculatus (F.). Annals of Plant Protection Sciences 21(2): 279–82.

STAR. 2014. Biometrics and Breeding informatics, PBGB Division, International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos, Laguna.

Swamy S G, Mahalakshmi M S and Souframanien J. 2016. Evaluation of certain blackgram varieties for resistance to pulse bruchid, Callosobruchus maculatus (F.). Journal of Research ANGRAU 44: 8–13.

Talekar N S. 1988. Biology, damage, and control of bruchid pests of mungbean. Mungbean: Proceedings of the Second International symposium, pp 329–42. Shanmugasundaram S and McLean B T (Eds.). AVRDC, Shanhua, Taiwan.

Tripathi K, Chauhan S K, Gore P G, Prasad T, Srinivasan K and Bhalla S. 2015. Screening of cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] accessions against pulse-beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis (L.). Legume Research 38: 675–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18805/lr.v38i5.5949

Yadav T and Pant N. 1974. Developmental responses of Callosobruchus chinensis and C. maculatus to different pulses. Entomologists 4: 58.