Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:14:33.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Plant characteristics and Mechanisms of Resistance in Field Bean to the Pod Borer Adisura Atkinsoni Moore and Screening the Germplasm to the Aphid, Aphis craccivora Koch Damage*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

A. K. Chakravarthy  and
S. Lingappa
A. K. Chakravarthy
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore-560065, India
S. Lingappa
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore-560065, India
Get access

Abstract

Field screening of Lablab niger germplasm for 3 years revealed that two cultivars, PLS-24 and PLS-16-1 consistently displayed resistance to pod borer, Adisura atkinsoni Moore larval boring and egg laying. Observations at different intervals of plant growth permitted a comprehensive evaluation of cultivar response to the pod borer complex.

Preliminary tests indicated pod colour, pubescence and fragrance to be associated with the borer resistance in L. niger. However, none of the characters per se imparted resistance or susceptibility, partly or fully. Cumulative effect of the aforesaid characters appeared to impart borer resistance to Adisura. Pod wall did not form a physical barrier to Adisura larval entry. Positive relationship existed with amount of chloroplast and susceptibility, and starch grains and resistance in four cultivars studied for anatomical details. Anthocyanin pigment in the pod wall was associated with resistance in L. niger to Adisura.

Based on field and laboratory evaluations of Lablab niger cultivars to the bean aphid, Aphis craccivora damage, the “local” and H-2, rated as highly susceptible to borers, reacted as resistant and PLS-24 and PLS-16-1 rated as resistant to borers reacted as highly susceptible to the aphid attack. It is therefore imperative that promising Lablab niger cultivars be evaluated for resistance to both the sucking and chewing insect pests.

Under artificial infestation conditions the resistant cultivars exhibited susceptibility to larval boring by Adisura, but confirmed resistance to ovipositional response. Non-preference for oviposition was the most important factor in imparting resistance to the borer damage in L. niger. Factors inducing host preference for larva and for adult were different and independent. PLS-24 and PLS-16-1 contained significant degrees of antibiosis as demonstrated by reduced larval survival, larval and pupal weights, prolonged larval duration and altered sex ratio.

Cultivars that sustained low levels of seed yield loss at high infestation levels were identified as tolerant. MS-9579 and IC-661-1 exhibited low degree of tolerance. Resistant cultivars proved non-tolerant even to slight infestations (ca 10%) received under field conditions.

Résumé

Des examens sur le terrain du germplasm Lablab niger, pendant 3 ans, ont révélé que deux espèces, PLS-24 et PLS-16-1 ont montré une résistance régulière à l'insecte térébrant de la cosse, Adisura atkinsoni Moore, à sa percée de larves et sa ponte d'oeufs. Des observations à différents intervalles de la croissance de la plante ont permis une évaluation complète de la réponse des espèces au complexe de l'insecte térébrant.

Des tests préliminaires ont démontré que la couleur de la cosse, sa pubescence et son odeur devaient être associées à la résistance du L. niger. Cependant, aucune des ces caractéristique ne donnait per se la résistance, que ce soit partiellement ou totalement. Ce ne sont que les effets cumulés des caractéristiques décrites ci-dessus qui semblaient donner àu L. niger la résistance contre le térébrant. La paroi de la cosse ne semblait pas former de barrière physique à l'entrée larvale de l'Adisura. Une relation positive existait entre la quantité de chloroplaste, la susceptibilité, les graines d'amidon et la résistance de quatre espèces étudiées pour des détails anatomiques. Le pigment Anthocyanin sur la paroi de la cosse a été associé à la résistance du L. niger contre l'Adisura.

Sous des conditions d'infestation artificielle, les espèces résistantes ont prouvé une susceptibilité face à la percée larvale de l'Adisura mais ont confirmé leur résistance à sa réponse ovipositionnelle. Le facteur le plus important dans l'attribution de la résistance aux dommages du térébrant dans le L. niger fut la non-préférence pour l'oviposition. Les facteurs provoquant la préférence de logement chaz la larve et chez l'adulte sont très différents et indépendants. PLS-24 et PLS-16-1 contenaient des quantités significatives d'antibioses, comme cela a été démontré par une survie larvale réduite, les poids larvaux et pupaux, la durée larvale prolongée et les ratio de sexe modifies.

Les espèces qui ont connu des niveaux bas de pertes de productivité des graines à de hauts niveaux d'infestation ont été définis comme tolérants. MS-9579 et IC-661–1 ont montré des niveaux de tolérance bas. Les espèces résistantes se sont montrées non tolérantes même face à des infestations mineures (Ca 10%) reçues dans des conditions de terrain.

Keywords

Lablab nigerscreeningmechanisms of resistanceAdisura atkinsoniAphis craccivoraLablab nigerétudesmécanismes de résistanceAdisura atkinsoniAphis craccivora
Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , August 1988 , pp. 441 - 452
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1988

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

Aiyer, Y. N. A. K. (1949) Field crops of India. Govt. Press, Bangalore, pp. 564.Google Scholar
Ambekar (1927) Bull. Dep. agric, Bombay, No. 146, 38.Google Scholar
Anonymous (1951) The wealth of India—Raw materials—III. Ministry of Natural Resources and Sci. Res. C.S.I.R., New Delhi, 104–106.Google Scholar
Ayyanger, R. G. N. and Nambiar, K. K. K. (1941) Lablab—the garden bean. Indian Fmg. 2, 469.Google Scholar
Bindra, O. S. and Jakhmola, (1967) Incidence of and losses caused by some pod-infesting insectsin different varieties of pigeon-pea (Cajanus cajan (L) Millsp.). Indian J. agric. Sci. 37, 177–186.Google Scholar
Biswas, H. G. and Das, K. L. (1938) Vitamin C in Shim. Sci. cult. 4, 665.Google Scholar
Chakravarthy, A. K. (1977) Pod borer resistance in Lablab niger Medick cultivars with special reference to the pod borer, Adisura atkinsoni Moore (Lepidoptera Noctuidae) M.Sc. thesis, U.A.S., Bangalore.Google Scholar
Chakravarthy, A. K. (1983) Relative abundance of field bean (Lablab niger Medick) pod-borers and distribution pat452 terns of the borer, Adisura atkinsoni Moore. Insect Sci. Applic. 4, 401–406.Google Scholar
Chakravarthy, A. K. and Lingappa, S. (1984) Comparison of germplasm evaluation parameters in Lablab niger Medick to borer attack. Insect Sci. Applic, 5, 31–32.Google Scholar
Chari, M. S. and Patel, H. K. (1967) Bionomics of Tur plume moth (Marasmarcha liphanes Meyrick) on pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan Millsp.). Andhra agric. J. 14, 158–164.Google Scholar
Clark, W. J., Harris, F. A., Maxwell, P. G. and Hartwig, E. E. (1970) Resistance of certain soybean cultivars to bean leaf beetle, striped blister beetle and bollworm. J. Econ. Ent. 65, 1669–1672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandes, A. A. and Nagendrappa, G., (1979) Chemical constituents of Dolichos lablab pod exudate. Agric. Fa. Chem. 27, 795–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Govindan, R. (1974) Insects of the field bean (Lablab niger var. lignosus Medikus). M.Sc. Thesis, U.A.S., Bangalore.Google Scholar
Hsu, C. F., Kuo, S. R., Han, Y. M., Chang, J. and Li, M. C. (1965) A preliminary study on the resistance of soybeans to the soybean pod borer, Leguminivora glycinivorella. Mats. (In Chinese). Acta. Phytophyl. Sin. 4, 111–118.Google Scholar
James, W. T. and Canerday, T. D. (1968) Resistance of Southern peas to the cowpea curculio. J. Econ. Ent. 61, 1327–1329.Google Scholar
Joshi, R. C. (1982) Natural enemies on different pests of agricultural importance in and around Hyderabad. Sci. and cult. 48, 385–388.Google Scholar
Katagihallimath, S. S. and Siddappaji, C. (1962) Observations on the incidence of lepidopterous pod borers of Dolichos lablab and the results of preliminary insecticidal trials to control them. 2nd All India Congr. Zool.Google Scholar
Krishnamurthi, B. and Appanna, M. (1948) The major pod borer (Adisura atkinsoni M.) of Dolichos lablab (Avare) Agric. College and Res. Institute, Bangalore. Ent. Ser. Bull. No. 13.Google Scholar
Llewellyn, M. and Qureshi, A. L. (1978) The energetics and growth efficiency of Aphis fabae reared on different parts of the broad bean plant (Vicia faba). Ent. exp. appl. 10, 347–357.Google Scholar
Ma, W. C. (1976) Mouthparts and receptors involved in feeding behaviour and sugar perception in the African armyworm, Spodoptera exempta. In Host plant in relation to insect behaviour and reproduction (Edited by Jermy, T.) Plenum Press, N.Y.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, S. (1962) Studies on varietal differences of soybean with respect to the injury caused by the soybean pod borer, Leguminivora glycinivorella Mats. (In Japanese). Rep. Hokkaido natn. agric. Exp. Stn. No. 58.Google Scholar
Maxwell, F. G. (1972) Host plant resistance to insect; Nutritional and pest management relationships. In Insect and mite nutrition. (Edited by Rodriguez, J. G.) North Holland Publishing Co., London, pp. 599–609.Google Scholar
Nishijima, Y. (1960) Host plant preference of the soybean pod borer, Grapholitha glycinivorella Mats. Ent. Exp. appl. 3, 38–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niyogi, S. P., Narayana, N. and Desai, B. G. (1932) Studies in the nutritive value of Indian vegetable food-stuffs. Part II. Indian J. Med. Res. 19, 475–483.Google Scholar
Painter, R. H. (1968) Insect Resistance in Crop Plants. Lawrence: Univ. Kansas.Google Scholar
Perrin, R. M. (1978) The effect of some cowpea varieties on the development and survival of larvae of the seed moth, Cydia ptychora Meyrick. Bull. Ent. Res. 68, 57–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rai, B. and Sehgal, V. K. (1975) Field resistance of Brassica germplasm to mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi (Kalt.), Sci. Cult. 41, 444–445.Google Scholar
Regupathy, A., Palaniswamy, G. A. and Krishnan, R. H. (1970) Assessment of loss in seed yield bypod borers in certain varieties of field bean. Madras Agric. J. 57, 274–278.Google Scholar
Swaminathan, M. (1938) Studies in the nutritive value of proteins, of certain food stuffs in nutrition. Indian J. Med. Res. 25, 374–398.Google Scholar
Uchida, T. and Okada, L. (1937) On the relation between the oviposition of Grapholitha glycinivorella Mats and the number of hairs on soybean pods (In Japanese). Oyo Dobuts. Zasshi. 9, 100–104.Google Scholar
Venkatiswaran, S. L. and Sreenivasaya, M. (1940) The ‘Tryosinase’ from Dolichos lablab. Curr. Sci. 9, 21.Google Scholar