Advertisement
Confronting lepidoptera pod-borer problem on chickpea through international collaboration and research
Upcoming SlideShare
Evaluation of Brassica Germplasm for Resistance sources against White RustEvaluation of Brassica Germplasm for Resistance sources against White Rust
Loading in ... 3
1 of 1
Advertisement

More Related Content

Similar to Confronting lepidoptera pod-borer problem on chickpea through international collaboration and research(20)

Advertisement

More from ICRISAT(20)

Recently uploaded(20)

Advertisement

Confronting lepidoptera pod-borer problem on chickpea through international collaboration and research

  1. Confronting the Lepidoptera Pod-Borer Problem on Chickpea Through International Collaboration and Research Dec 2009 HC Sharma1 , J Ridsdill-Smith3 , SL Clement2 and G Pampapathy1 For more information, contact: HC Sharma, Principal Scientist (Entomology), e-mail: h.sharma@cgiar.org 1 International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India. 2 USDA, ARS Plant Germplasm Introduction and Testing Research Unit, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6402 USA. 3 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Entomology, Private Bag 5, Wembley 6913, Australia. Funding: U.S. Agency for International Development (U.S.) and Grains Research and Development Corporation (Australia). Introduction Pod-boring Lepidoptera (Helicoverpa spp.) are serious constraints to chickpea (Cicer arietinum) production in India and Australia, and occasional pests (Spodoptera) of chickpea in the US. In India, the widespread use of insecticides to control H. armigera on cotton, high value vegetables, and grain legumes has led to high levels of resistance to conventional insecticides. Host plant resistance is an effective management option, but cultivated chickpea has low to moderate levels of resistance to Helicoverpa and Spodoptera. In the absence of good genetic variation for pod-borer resistance in the Cicer primary gene pool, searches for resistance have been expanded to wild relatives (secondary and tertiary gene pools). Plants and Insects Germplasm repositories at ICRISAT (India), Australian Centre for Legume Improvement Program at Tamworth, New South Wales, and the USDA-ARS Western Regional Plant Introduction Station, Pullman, Washington (US) provided seed of Cicer accessions. Perennial species: C. canariense, C. macracanthum, C. microphyllum, C. pungens. Annual species: C. bijugum, C. cuneatum, C. echinospermum, C. judaicum, C. pinnatifidum, C. reticulatum, C. yamashitae. Cultivated chickpea: (C. arietinum) genotypes ICC 506 (moderately resistant check), ICCC 37 (susceptible check), and Annigeri (commercial landrace cultivar). Helicoverpa cultures were maintained at ICRISAT (H. armigera) and CSIRO, Perth, Australia (H. punctigera) laboratories using standard methods. Larvae for screenings in Pullman, Washington will be reared from eggs of Spodoptera exigua purchased from a commercial supplier. Resistant Screening Methods Detached leaf assay: Branches from potted plants embedded in agar-agar medium in plastic cups and infested with larvae (Fig. 1). Caged larvae on potted glasshouse plants (Fig. 2) Exposure of field plants to natural infestations. Data were recorded on leaf damage, larval survival and larval weights. Results To date, we have screened over 150 accessions of wild Cicer for resistance to H. armigera, and high levels of resistance identified in the accessions of perennial (Table 1) and annual species (Fig. 3). Also, resistance to Australian native budworm H. punctigera exists in some, but not all wild Cicer accessions. Table 1. Evaluation of perennial wild Cicer for resistance to H. armigera. Accession Species Resistance index (RI)1 (Detached leaf assay) Damage rating2 (Open field trial) Status ICC 17138 C. pungens 1.71 3.0 Resistant ICC 17202 C. canariense 0.73 1.0 Highly resistant ICC 17230 C. microphyllum 1.04 4.0 Resistant ICC 17238 C. microphyllum 0.71 2.0 Highly resistant ICC 17243 C. microphyllum 0.52 1.5 Highly resistant ICC 17244 C. microphyllum 0.30 1.0 Highly resistant ICC 17247 C. microphyllum 0.29 1.0 Highly resistant ICC 17248 C. microphyllum 0.09 2.0 Highly resistant ICC 17249 C. microphyllum 0.18 2.0 Highly resistant Annigeri C. arietinum 2.63 8.5 Landrace line ICC 506 C. arietinum 3.75 9.0 Desi cultivar3 ICCC 37 C. arietinum 3.40 9.0 Susceptible check 1 RI = leaf damage rating x larval weight / (100-percentage survival). 2 Damage rating (1=<10% leaf area damaged; 9=>80% leaf area damaged). 3 Resistant. High levels of Helicoverpa resistance have also been detected in wild annual C. reticulatum, which is noteworthy because hybridizations of cultivated chickpea with this wild species are readily obtained and the progenies are fertile. Thus, it should be possible to endow cultivated chickpea with pod-borer resistance genes from wild Cicer. Cicer reticulatum Cicer echinospurmum Cicer bijugum Cicer arietinum Kabuli chickpea cv. Sierra C. pinnatifidum Collecting Cicer microphyllum in India, and inspecting and conducting insect bioassay in Pullman, USA. Cicer cuneatum Fig. 2. No-choice cage technique. Fig. 1. Detached leaf assay. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 IG69948 IG70032 IG70033 IG72931 IG70039 IG70002 IG70010 IG69947 IG69980 IG70019 IG70003 IG69979 ICC506 Annigeri ICCC37 Accessions Larvalweight(mg) Wt. (mg) 10 DAR C. arietinum C.pinnatifidum C.judaicum C.judaicum C.judaicum C.pinnatifidum C.bijugum C.bijugum C.bijugum C.judaicum C.bijugum C.bijugum C.cuneatum Spodoptera exigua Helicoverpa armigera Helicoverpa punctigera Helicoverpa on cultivated chickpea Spodoptera on cultivated chickpea Fig. 3. Weights of Helicoverpa armigera larvae at 10 days after releasing the larvae on leaves of wild relatives of chickpea.
Advertisement