EVALUATION OF CERTAIN BLACKGRAM VARIETIES FOR RESISTANCE TO PULSE BRUCHID, Callosobruchus maculatus (F.)
266 / 49
Authors
-
S. V. S. GOPALA SWAMY
Post Harvest Technology Centre, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural Univeristy, Bapatla- 522 101
-
M. SESHA MAHALAKSHMI
Post Harvest Technology Centre, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural Univeristy, Bapatla- 522 101
-
J. SOUFRAMANIEN
Post Harvest Technology Centre, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural Univeristy, Bapatla- 522 101
Abstract
A laboratory experiment was conducted to know the relative susceptibility of blackgram varieties to pulse beetle at Post Harvest Technology Centre, Bapatla during 2014-15. The Trombay blackgram varieties- TU 80 and TU 68 were found resistant to the pulse bruchid as the number of eggs, 2.67 and 3.0/ 100 seeds, respectively and adults, 1.33 and 4.33 emerged were significantly less compared to the other varieties. The variety LBG 752 recorded higher number of eggs, 25.67 /100 seeds and 189.0 adults emerged in 80 days. Grain damage was 0.33 and 1.0% and percent weight loss was 0.04 and 0.1, which were also significantly less in TU 80 and TU 68 when compared to LBG 752 (99.33% and 39.53%).The developmental periods of pulse beetle on TU 80 and TU 68 were also longer compared to LBG 752 and TU 72 indicating the presence of some antibiotic constituents.
References
1. Beenam, S and Ranjana, S., 2011. Nutritional
2. changes in stored chickpea, Cicer arietinum
3. in relation to bruchid damage. Journal of Stored
4. Products and Post Harvest Research. 2: 110-
5. Dharmasena, C. M. D and Subasinghe, S. M. C. 1986.
6. Resistance of mung (Vigna radiata) to
7. Callosobruchus spp. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae).
8. Tropical Agriculture.142: 1–6.
9. Divya, P., Kanakadurga, K and Udayababu, P. 2013.
10. Studies on the effect of biochemical and
11. physico-chemical characters on bruchid
12. (Callosobruchus chinensis L.) resistance in
13. horse gram accessions. Journal of Food
14. Legumes. 26 (1&2): 70-74.
15. Duraimurugan, P., Pratap, A., Singh, S. K and
16. Gupta, S.2014. Evaluation of screening
17. methods for bruchid beetle (Callosobruchus
18. chinensis) resistance in greengram (Vigna
19. radiata) and blackgram (Vigna mungo)
20. genotypes and influence of seed physical
21. characteristics on its infestation.Vegetos- An
22. International Journal of Plant Research. 27(1):
23. -67.
24. Gopala Swamy, S. V. S., Ramana, M. V and Radha
25. Krishna, Y. 2010. Screening of urdbean
26. cultivars against Callosobruchus chinensis.
27. Indian Journal of Plant Protection, 38 (1): 53-
28. Keneni, G., Bekele, E., Getu, E., Imtiaz, M., Damte,T
29. and Mulate B.2011. Breeding food legumes for
30. resistance to storage insect pests: Potential
31. and Limitations. Sustainability. 3: 1399-1415.
32. Kuldeep, T., Shashi, B., Prasad, T. V and
33. Sriniwasan, K. 2012. Differential reaction of
34. cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) genotypes to
35. pulse-beetle (Callosobruchus maculatus).
36. Vegetos- An International Journal of Plant
37. Research. 25 (2): 367 – 374.
38. Lazar, L., Panickar, B and Patel, P. S. 2014. Impact
39. of biochemicals on the developmental stages
40. of pulse beetle, Callosobruchus
41. maculatus infesting greengram. Journal of
42. Food Legumes. 27 (2): 121-125.
43. Sambasiva Rao, N and Seshamahalakshmi, M. 2014.
44. Screening of Trombay blackgram varieties for
45. their resistance against Callosobruchus
46. maculates (F.) under ambient conditions.
47. Andhra Agricultural Journal. 61 (3): 723 – 725
48. Sarwar, Md. 2013. Exploration on resource of
49. resistance in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)
50. genotypes to gram pod borer Helicoverpa
51. armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera). African
52. Journal of Agricultural Research. 8(26): 3431-
53. Somta, C., Somta, P., Tomooka, N., Ooi, P. A. C.,
54. Vaughan, D.A and Srinivas, P. 2008.
55. Characterization of new sources of mungbean
56. (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) resistance to
57. bruchids, Callosobruchus spp. (Coleoptera:
58. Bruchidae). Journal of Stored Products
59. Research. 44: 316-321.
60. Soundararajan, R. P., Chitra, N and Geeta, S. 2013.
61. Host plant resistance to insect pests of grain
62. legumes - A review. Agricultural Reviews.
63. (3): 176-187.
64. Venugopal, K. J., Janarthanan, S and Ignacimuthu,
65. S. 2000. Resistance of legume seeds to the
66. bruchid, Callosobruchus maculatus:
67. metabolites relationship. Indian Journal of
68. Experimental Biology. 38: 471-476.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The author owns the article's copyright until the article is accepted for publication. After acceptance, the author(s) assigns the article's copyright jointly to both the authors and the Publishers of the Journal of Research ANGRAU (ANGRAU) and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License.
