Advertisement
Evaluation of Wild Relatives of Chickpea for Resistance to Pod Borer,Helicoverpa armigera
Upcoming SlideShare
 Validity of an a-mode ultrasound scanner for the assessment of adipose tissue Validity of an a-mode ultrasound scanner for the assessment of adipose tissue
Loading in ... 3
1 of 1
Advertisement

More Related Content

Similar to Evaluation of Wild Relatives of Chickpea for Resistance to Pod Borer,Helicoverpa armigera(20)

More from ICRISAT(20)

Advertisement

Evaluation of Wild Relatives of Chickpea for Resistance to Pod Borer,Helicoverpa armigera

  1. Gashaw Sefera1,2, Hussien Mohammed2, Douglas R Cook3 and Hari C Sharma*1 1International Crops Research Institute for Semi Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru 502314, Telangana, India. 2 Hawassa University, Hawassa, Ethiopia. 3Univerity of California, Davis, USA. *Email: h.sharma@cgiar.org Introduction Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is an important grain legume in Asia, East Africa, the Mediterranean, Australia, and North America. Chickpea productivity is constrained by several biotic and abiotic stresses, of which Helocoverpa armigera is the most devastating pest worldwide (Sharma 2005). Low to moderate levels of resistance have been identified in the cultivated germplasm, but high levels of resistance have been observed in the wild relatives of chickpea (Sharma et al., 2005a,b). To increase levels and diversify the basis of resistance to H. armigera, it is important to evaluate the wild relatives to identify accessions with different mechanisms of resistance to this pest. Materials and methods Twenty six accessions of chickpea wild relatives along with four checks were grown under greenhouse condition at ICRISAT, Patancheru, India. The material was evaluated at 30 (vegetative stage) and 60 (reproductive stage) days after seedling emergence (DAE) by using the detached leaf assay (Sharma et al., 2005c). Ten neonate larvae were released on the leaves, and the cups kept in the laboratory at 27+2oc and 45 to 65% RH. There were three replicates in a completely randomized design. Observations were recorded on leaf damage rating (DR) (1 = <10% leaf area damaged and 9 = >80% leaf area damaged), larval survival (5), and larval weight at 5 days after initiating the experiment. Two fully expanded leaves with a bud were taken from each accession at 45 DAE for estimating organic acids by High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC). a Results and Discussion References Sharma H. C., Pampapathy G., Lanka S. K. & Ridsdill-Smith T. J. 2005b. Antibiosis mechanism of resistance to pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera in wild relatives of chickpea. Euphytica 142: 107–117 Sharma H.C., Pampapathy, G., Dhillon M. K., and Ridsdill-Smith J.T. 2005c. Detached Leaf Assay to Screen for Host Plant Resistance to Helicoverpa armigera. J. Econ. Entomol. 98(2): 568-576 Sharma H.C., Pampapathy, G., Lanka S.K., and Ridsdill-Smith J.T. 2005a. Exploitation of Wild Cicer reticulatum Germplasm for Resistance to Helicoverpa armigera. J. Econ. Entomol. 98(6): 2246-2253 Sharma HC (ed.). 2005. Heliothis/Helicoverpa Management: Emerging Trends and Strategies for Future Research. New Delhi, India: Oxford & IBH, and Science Publishers, USA. 469 pp. Simmonds M.S.J and Stevenson P. C. 2001. Effects of isoflavonoids from Cicer on larvae of Helicoverpa armigera. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 27: 965–977. Evaluation of Wild Relatives of Chickpea for Resistance to Pod Borer, Helicoverpa armigera The wild accessions of chickpea have also showed significant variation for their organic acid contents. Oxalic acid was present in all entries, while malic acid and acetic acid were present only in a few accessions (Table 2). The amounts of oxalic acid ranged from 0.95 mg/g in EC868761 to 19.19 mg/g in cultivated resistant check, ICC506EB on dry weight basis. Malic acid was found only in 5 wild accessions (EC868754, EC868760, EC868761, EC868766, and EC868769) ranging from 1.37mg/g to 11.56mg/g; while acetic acid was found only in 2 wild accessions (13.7mg/g in EC868756 and 4.32mg/g in EC868769). Table 2. Estimation of organic acids (mg/g of fresh and dry weight) in different chickpea wild accessions Accession 1 Alternate Accession ID Collectors accession ID Damage rating (1-9) Larval survival (%) Larval weight (g) HSI 30 DAE 60DAE 30 DAE 60DAE 30 DAE 60DAE 30 DAE 60DAE EC 868746 TR 83097 Bari1_092 6.0  0.7 4.6  0.5 75  5 84  5 2.46  0.3 1.51  0.2 3.08  0.4 2.75  0.2 EC 868747 TR 83104 Bari2_072n2 4.6  0.5 4.6  0.5 68  5 82  8 1.7  0.1 1.38  0.1 2.53  0.3 2.47  0.3 EC 868748 TR 83113 Bari3_072c 5.6  0.5 4  0.7 82  6 84  5 2.37  0.3 1.43  0.1 3.50  0.6 3.05  0.4 EC 868749 TR 83120 Bari3_100 4.2  0.8 4.8  0.8 76  6 74  5 2.57  0.2 1.94  0.1 4.75  0.7 3.02  0.2 EC 868750 TR 83126 Bari3_106D 4.4  0.5 2.4  0.5 70  7 72  8 1.54  0.3 1.63  0.3 2.47  0.6 4.91  0.6 EC 868751 TR 83038 Besev_075 5.4  0.5 2.8  0.4 86  6 80  10 1.50  0.3 1.34  0.2 2.42  0.6 3.85  0.4 EC 868752 TR 83041 Besev_079 3.8  0.4 3.4  0.5 76  6 68  8 1.49  0.2 0.85  0.1 2.97  0.2 1.70  0.3 EC 868753 TR 83171 CudiA_152 3.0  0.7 2.2  0.4 58  5 64  5 1.30 0.1 0.83  0.2 2.59  0.4 2.42  0.4 EC 868754 TR 83192 CudiB_022C 6.0  0.7 4.6  0.5 94  6 86  5 1.70  0.2 1.31  0.0 2.69  0.5 2.46  0.2 EC 868755 TR 83052 Derei_070 4.6  0.5 6.4  0.5 78  5 80  10 1.48  0.3 1.97  0.1 2.52  0.4 2.46  0.2 EC 868756 TR 83054 Derei_072 3.6  0.5 5  0.7 82  8 82  8 1.27  0.2 1.21  0.2 2.94  0.6 2.02  0.5 EC 868757 TR 82993 Egill_073 4.4  0.5 5.4  0.5 76  6 94  5 1.65  0.2 1.67  0.3 2.91  0.7 2.93  0.6 EC 868758 TR 82998 Egill_065 4.6  0.5 7.8  0.4 78  8 80  10 1.13  0.2 1.77  0.2 1.94  0.5 1.82  0.4 EC 868759 TR 83005 Kalka_064 4.6  0.5 6.8  0.4 82  4 86  5 1.32  0.1 1.26  0.2 2.38  0.3 1.59  0.2 EC 868760 TR 83068 Kayat_077 3.8  0.8 5.2  0.8 64  5 90  7 2.14  0.2 1.05  0.2 3.67  0.4 1.84  0.3 EC 868761 TR 83023 Kesen_075 5.4  0.5 4.8  0.8 78  8 94  5 2.23  0.3 1.37  0.2 3.22  0.4 2.70  0.4 EC 868762 TR 83162 Oyali_084 5.8  0.4 5.6  0.5 82  8 78  8 1.96  0.2 1.43  0.1 2.77  0.3 1.99  0.2 EC 868763 TR 83076 Sarik_067 6.0  0.7 5  0.7 96  5 96  9 1.93  0.3 1.47  0.2 3.12  0.6 2.83  0.4 EC 868764 TR 83084 Savur_063 3.8  0.4 5.2  0.4 68  4 90  7 2.75  0.3 2.20  0.2 4.96  0.7 3.80  0.1 EC 868765 TR 83197 Sirna_060 3.2  0.8 3.4  0.5 58  8 78  8 0.49  0.2 0.74  0.1 0.95  0.5 1.72  0.3 EC 868766 TR 83135 Cermi_075 2.4  0.5 4.6  0.5 58  4 64  5 1.35  0.1 1.71  0.3 3.35  0.6 2.37  0.3 EC 868767 TR 82973 Deste_080 4.4  0.5 4.6  0.5 68  8 76  5 1.80  0.2 1.30  0.2 2.78  0.2 2.16  0.4 EC 868768 TR 82956 Gunas_062 4.4  0.5 3.6  0.5 66  5 80  7 0.82  0.3 0.98  0.2 1.29  0.6 2.18  0.5 EC 868769 TR 82990 Karab_092 2.2  0.4 5.6  0.5 44  5 76  5 0.60  0.2 1.43  0.1 1.26  0.6 1.95  0.2 EC 868770 TR 82958 Ortan_066 5.6  0.5 6.2  0.8 72  8 82  8 1.06  0.2 1.43  0.2 1.37  0.3 1.91  0.4 EC 868771 TR 82983 S2Drd_065 5.2  0.8 6.8  0.4 70  7 88  8 2.39  0.2 1.90  0.2 3.26  0.4 2.45  0.1 IG 72953 (R) 3.4  0.5 5.6  0.5 68  4 94  5 1.80  0.3 1.50  0.3 3.63  0.7 2.50  0.3 ICC506EB (R)* 2.6  0.5 3.2  0.4 70  7 80  7 1.21  0.1 1.10  0.1 3.33  0.4 2.76  0.3 ICC3137 (S)* 3.6  0.5 6.4  0.5 80  7 82  8 2.58  0.1 2.19  0.1 5.80  0.7 2.82  0.3 ICCV95334 (S)* 3.0  0.7 4.4  0.5 70  7 74  5 1.98  0.1 2.39  0.1 4.75  0.7 4.05  0.4 Mean 4.3  1.2 4.8  1.4 73  12 81  10 1.69  0.6 1.48  0.4 2.97  1.2 2.58  0.8 SE 0.27** 0.26** 2.82** 3.27** 0.11** 0.08** 0.23** 0.16** Table 1. Response of wild accessions accessions to feeding by the neonate larvae of H. armigera (detached leaf assay). NB. 1- EC 868746 – EC868765 are C. reticulatum, and EC 868766– EC868771 are C. echinospermum, DAE- Days after emergence, R-Resistant check, S- Susceptible check, SE-Standard Error of mean,* Cultivated chickpea, ** highly significant difference Plate 1. Reaction of chickpea wild accessions to damage by Helicoverpa armigera larvae at the vegetative stage. Accessions 1 Alternate Accession ID Collectors accession ID Oxalic acid (mg/g) of Malic acid (mg/g) of Acetic acid (mg/g) of Fresh weight Dry weight Fresh weight Dry weight Fresh weight Dry weight EC 868746 TR 83097 Bari1_092 1.04 4.89 _ _ _ _ EC 868747 TR 83104 Bari2_072n2 1.90 9.98 _ _ _ _ EC 868748 TR 83113 Bari3_072c 1.21 7.10 _ _ _ _ EC 868749 TR 83120 Bari3_100 0.67 4.11 _ _ _ _ EC 868750 TR 83126 Bari3_106D 1.11 6.07 _ _ _ _ EC 868751 TR 83038 Besev_075 2.34 13.39 _ _ _ _ EC 868752 TR 83041 Besev_079 1.19 6.61 _ _ _ _ EC 868753 TR 83171 CudiA_152 1.00 5.64 _ _ _ _ EC 868754 TR 83192 CudiB_022C 0.46 1.80 0.35 1.37 _ _ EC 868755 TR 83052 Derei_070 2.40 12.61 _ _ _ _ EC 868756 TR 83054 Derei_072 0.93 4.78 _ _ 2.66 13.70 EC 868757 TR 82993 Egill_073 0.59 4.47 _ _ _ _ EC 868758 TR 82998 Egill_065 2.03 9.59 _ _ _ _ EC 868759 TR 83005 Kalka_064 0.64 3.52 _ _ _ _ EC 868760 TR 83068 Kayat_077 0.63 3.34 0.46 2.44 _ _ EC 868761 TR 83023 Kesen_075 0.16 0.95 1.37 8.03 _ _ EC 868762 TR 83162 Oyali_084 0.44 2.34 _ _ _ _ EC 868763 TR 83076 Sarik_067 0.65 3.51 _ _ _ _ EC 868764 TR 83084 Savur_063 1.32 6.82 _ _ _ _ EC 868765 TR 83197 Sirna_060 0.40 2.46 _ _ _ _ EC 868766 TR 83135 Cermi_075 0.30 1.62 2.10 11.56 _ _ EC 868767 TR 82973 Deste_080 0.87 5.22 _ _ _ _ EC 868768 TR 82956 Gunas_062 1.59 10.85 _ _ _ _ EC 868769 TR 82990 Karab_092 0.30 1.79 1.78 10.65 0.72 4.32 EC 868770 TR 82958 Ortan_066 0.64 3.92 _ _ _ _ EC 868771 TR 82983 S2Drd_065 0.60 3.02 _ _ _ _ IG 72953 (R) 1.99 9.89 _ _ _ _ ICC506EB (R)* 3.23 19.19 _ _ _ _ ICC3137 (S)* 1.01 6.62 _ _ _ _ ICCV95334 (S)* 1.78 11.96 _ _ _ _ Mean 1.11 6.05 1.21 6.81 1.69 9.01 SE 0.008** 0.04** 0.05 0.29 0.14 0.7 EC 868753, EC 868765, EC 868768, EC 868769 and the resistant check, ICC506EB exhibited resistance to H. armigera larvae at one or both the growth stages. Larval survival and weight, which measure antibiosis mechanisms of resistance, were the major components of resistance to H. armigera in wild accessions of C. reticulatum. The high resistance of 506EB was associated with high levels of oxalic acid. However, the amounts of oxalic acid in the wild accessions were comparatively lower, but the high levels of antibiosis observed might be due to the presence of isoflavonoids (Simmonds and Stevenson 2001), and other components that are absent in the cultivated chickpea. Conclusions • The C. reticulatum accessions EC 868753, EC 868765, EC 868768 and EC 868769, and the resistant check, ICC506EB exhibited high levels of resistance to H. armigera larvae at one or both the growth stages. • High levels of antibiosis observed in the wild relatives might be due to the presence of isoflavonoids and other biochemical components, in addition to poor nutritional quality. The wild accessions of chickpea showed significant variation for leaf DR, larval survival, larval weight and host suitability index (Table 1). Leaf DR ranged from 2.2 – 6.0, and 2.2 – 7.8 during vegetative and reproductive stages, respectively. Larval survival varied from 44 – 96% during vegetative stage, and 64 – 96% during the flowering stage. Larval weight ranged from 0.49 to 2.75mg during the vegetative stage, and 0.74 mg to 2.39 mg during the reproductive stage. The test materials also showed significant variation for host suitability index (HSI) (0.95 – 5.80 and 1.59 – 4.91 during the vegetative and reproductive stages, respectively). NB. 1 - EC 868746 – EC868765 are C. reticulatum, and EC 868766– EC868771 are C. echinospermum, R-Resistant check, S- Susceptible check, SE-Standard Error of mean. * Cultivated chickpea. ** highly significant difference
Advertisement