Field Screening of Greengram Genotypes against Maruca ...jakraya.com/journal/download.php?file=1-jabesArticle_10.pdf · KM-9-136 (5.8%), RMG-492 (8.34%), LGG-527 (9.5%) and LGG-538

Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Sciences | Year-2014 | Volume 01 | Pages 53-60 © 2014 Jakraya

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL, BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Journal homepage: www.jakraya.com/journal/jabes

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Field Screening of Greengram Genotypes against Maruca vitrata in Summer Sandhya Rani C*, G Ramachandra Rao, MSV Chalam, P Anil Kumar and V Srinivasa Rao Department of Entomology, Agricultural College, Bapatla-522 101, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, India. *Corresponding Author: Sandhya Rani C Email: [email protected] Received: 21/10/2014 Revised: 26/11/2014 Accepted: 27/11/2014

Abstract Varietal preference of spotted pod borer, M. vitrata to 110 different

genotypes including 10 released varieties as check was monitored under field condition during summer seasons. No genotype was found as resistant to M. vitrata with nil infestation. The five genotypes, KM-9-128 (3.5%), KM-9-136 (5.8%), RMG-492 (8.34%), LGG-527 (9.5%) and LGG-538 (10.0%) were found as tolerant and twenty one genotypes showed susceptibility with a range from 12.59 (MGG-332) to 20.0 (IPM-02-03 and LGG-522) percent and 13 genotypes were highly susceptible with a range from 43.25 (KM-8-662) to 68.39% (KM-173) pod damage. The remaining showed moderate susceptibility with a range from 20.21 (UPM-99-3) to 40.0 (KM-2241) percent. Keywords: Greengram, Field screening Maruca vitrata, Summer season.

1. Introduction Mung bean or greengram (Vigna radiata L.

Wilczek) is the important pulse crop of India and it occupies an area of about 3 mha with a production of 0.25 MT and 425 kg ha-1 productivity (NAIP report submitted by CRIDA, 2012). Andhra Pradesh is the 4th major state of India contributing 15.5% of the national production of greengram with 351 kg ha-1 average productivity. Greengram is cultivated throughout the year in all cropping seasons due to its short duration and suitability to crop rotation and crop mixtures. As Kharif season is becoming uncertain to get the greengram crop due to climatic changes, it is grown as sole crop in water retentive heavy soils during rabi (September to December) and cultivated as relay crop in Kharif rice fallows during late rabi (December -February). During summer, it is grown as a sole crop with adequate irrigation facilities. With the introduction of Bt-cotton, most of the farmers are preferring greengram after completion of Bt-cotton crop (February - April) by virtue of its short duration and drought tolerance in summer. The low productivity in greengram may be attributed to factors like limited varietal improvement, low resilience to soil moisture stress, pest infestation etc., among them, ravage of insect pests is important. Among the pod borers, legume pod borer, Maruca vitrata is the serious concern to the greengram farmers of Andhra Pradesh, which cause damage mainly at reproductive phase of the crop. Because of its extensive host range and destructiveness, it became a persistent pest in pulses particularly on greengram, as it is available throughout

the year in different seasons / situations. It is known to cause economic loss of 20 - 25 % and yield loss of 2-84% in greengram (Vishakanthaiah and Jagadeesh Babu, 1980) and accounting to US $ 30 million. Zahid et al. (2008) reported 20–30% pod damage in mungbean. Hence, exploitation of host plant resistance, an economically viable and eco-friendly IPM measure against Maruca has become imperative to find out resistance source with higher yield.

2. Material and Methods

Investigation was carried out to screen the possible resistance source against Maruca with Hundred and ten (110) greengram genotypes procured from different institutions were used as source material for the screening study (Table 1). The experiment was laid out in the farm of Agricultural Research Station, Madhira in RBD with 2 replications and hundred and ten genotypes including ten check varieties as treatments. The experiment sown on February 10th, 2010 and February 4th, 2011. The length of each line was 4 m and spacing between two lines of each genotype was 30 cm and intra row spacing adopted was 10 cm and an unsown row was kept between two entries for easiness of record observations of each genotype.

Observations from bud initiation stage to pod maturity stage were recorded on number of Maruca infested buds, infested flowers, webs per plant from randomly selected 5 plants per plot at weekly interval. At the time of harvest by identifying the characteristic damage

Sandhya Rani et al…Field Screening of Greengram Genotypes against Maruca Vitrata in Summer


54

Table 1: Seed characters of greengram genotypes screened against M. vitrata

S. No

Genotype Name

Seed Lustre Seed colour Seed shape Seed size 100 seed weight (g)

1 Asha Shining Green Drum Medium 3.8 2 BAR-02/22 Dull Green Drum Medium 3.2 3 BDYR Shining Green Ovoid Bold 6.5 4 COGG-912 (C) Shining Green Drum Bold 5.6 5 EC-19515(C) Shining Green Drum Bold 5.5 6 GG-9 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.5 7 GG-10 Shining Green Drum Medium 3.7 8 GG-16 Shining Dark Green Drum Medium 3.8 9 GG-17 Dull Yellow Green Drum Medium 5.0 10 IPM-02-03 Shining Green Drum Bold 5.5 11 IPM-02-14 Shining Green Drum Bold 5.7 12 KARS- 22 Shining Green Drum Medium 3.5 13 KARS- 27 Shining Ash Green Drum Medium 4.7 14 KARS-165 Dull Green Drum Medium 3.7 15 KARS-166 Dull Green Drum Medium 4.3 16 KM-173 Dull Ash Green Drum Medium 3.7 17 KM-195 Dull Ash Green Drum Medium 3.6 18 KM-200 Shining Green Drum Medium 3.8 19 KM-203 Shining Yellow Green Ovoid Medium 4.7 20 KM-2241 Shining Green Ovoid Bold 5.1 21 KM-8-651 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.8 22 KM-8-652 Shining Green Drum Medium 3.8 23 KM-8-653 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.0 24 KM-8-654 Shining Green Drum Medium 3.7 25 KM-8-655 Shining Green Drum Medium 3.7 26 KM-8-656 Shining Green Drum Medium 3.8 27 KM-8-657 Shining Green Drum Medium 3.8 28 KM-8-658 Shining Dull Green Drum Medium 4.7 29 KM-8-659 Shining Green Drum Medium 3.6 30 KM-8-660 Shining Green Ovoid Medium 3.7 31 KM-8-661 Shining Green Ovoid Medium 4.3 32 KM-8-662 Shining Green Ovoid Medium 3.7 33 KM-8-664 Dull Ash Green Drum Medium 4.5 34 KM-8-666 Dull Ash Green Drum Medium 4.3 35 KM-8-667 Shining Green Drum Medium 3.8 36 KM-8-668 Dull Ash Green Drum Medium 4.9 37 KM-9-121 Dull Green Drum Medium 4.9 38 KM-9-122 Dull Yellow Green Ovoid Medium 4.8 39 KM-9-123 Shining Yellow Green Ovoid Bold 5.2 40 KM-9-126 Shining Green Ovoid Medium 4.9 41 KM-9-128 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.9 42 KM-9-134 Dull Green Drum Medium 4.8 43 KM-9-136 Shining Yellow Green Ovoid Medium 5.0 44 KSAS-06/44 Dull Dark Green Drum Medium 3.4 45 KSAS-06/245 Shining Black Drum Medium 2.3 46 KSAS-06/378 Dull Black Drum Small 2.9 47 KSAS-06/407 Dull Black Drum Medium 3.0 48 LGG-477 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.9 49 LGG-491 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.5 50 LGG-497 Dull Dark Green Ovoid Medium 3.7 51 LGG-502 Shining Green Drum Medium 3.8 52 LGG-521 Shining Dark Green Drum Medium 4.91 53 LGG-522 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.0 54 LGG-527 Shining Yellow Green Drum Medium 4.1 55 LGG-528 Shining Yellow Green Drum Medium 4.5 56 LGG-538 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.3



55

57 LGG-540 Shining Green Drum Medium 3.7 58 LGG-541 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.7 59 LGG-542 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.4 60 LGG-543 Shining Yellow Green Drum Medium 4.1 61 LGG-544 Shining Green Drum Bold 5.1 62 LGG-545 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.8 63 LGG-547 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.8 64 LGG-549 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.8 65 LGG-551 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.3 66 Line – 76 Shining Black Ovoid Small 2.9 67 M.MUNG Dull Ash Green Drum Medium 3.4 68 MGG- 295(C) Dull Dark green Drum Medium 3.7 69 MGG-330 Shining Green Ovoid Medium 3.6 70 MGG-332 Shining Green Ovoid Medium 3.8 71 MGG-335 Dull Ash Green Drum Medium 3.5 72 MGG-336 Dull Green Drum Medium 3.6 73 MGG-341 Dull Green Drum Medium 4.0 74 MGG-347(C) Dull Light green Drum Medium 3.8 75 MGG-348(C) Dull Light green Drum Medium 3.8 76 MGG-349 Dull Ash Green Drum Medium 3.8 77 MGG-350 Dull Ash Green Drum Medium 3.7 78 MGG-351 Dull Ash Green Drum Medium 3.8 79 MGG-353 Shining Green Drum Medium 3.9 80 MGG-356 Shining Green Drum Medium 3.8 81 MGG-359 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.0 82 MGG-360 Dull Ash Green Drum Medium 4.5 83 MGG-361 Shining Dark Green Drum Medium 4.0 84 MGG-367 Shining Dark Green Drum Medium 4.3 85 ML-1299 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.4 86 NDS-391 Dull Black Drum Small 2.9 87 NM-1 Shining Black Green Drum Medium 4.0 88 NS-04-112 Shining Dark Green Drum Medium 3.7 89 NSKMS-72 Shining Green Oval Medium 3.0 90 NSKMS-174 Shining Green Oval Medium 3.3 91 PANT-M-5(C) Shining Green Drum Bold 6.3 92 PDM-54(C) Shining Green Drum Medium 4.1 93 PUSA-9531 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.9 94 P.VISHAL(C) Shining Yellow Green Ovoid Bold 6.3 95 RMG-492 Shining Green Drum Bold 5.1 96 SM-131 Dull Black Green Drum Medium 4.3 97 SML-668(C) Shining Yellow Green Ovoid Bold 5.2 98 TARM-1 Shining Black Green Drum Bold 5.8 99 UPM-84-178 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.8 100 UPM-99-3 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.4 101 V-90 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.1 102 WGG-2(C) Dull Ash Green Drum Bold 5.9 103 WGG-42 Shining Green Oval Bold 5.9 104 WGG-43 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.3 105 WGG-44 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.8 106 WGG-45 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.2 107 WGG-46 Dull Ash Green Drum Bold 5.2 108 WGG-47 Dull Ash Green Drum Medium 4.4 109 WGG-48 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.1 110 WGG-49 Shining Green Drum Bold 5.7

symptoms due to Maruca per cent pod damage was recorded from randomly selected 100 pods from each plot. The genotypes were also categorized based on 1-9 scale per cent pod damage suggested by All India -

Coordinated Research on Pulses (AICRP) evaluation system for pod borers, as none of the genotypes showed resistance with nil infestation.



56

Scale (1-9)

Pest reaction Pest incidence

1 No infection No damage 3 Moderately

resistant < 10% of affected pods

5 Susceptible 11-20% of affected pods 7 Moderately

susceptible 21-40% of affected pods

9 Highly susceptible

> 40% of affected pods

3. Results and Discussion

Under natural field conditions, cumulative data (Table 2) on mean number of M. vitrata larvae and webs per plant, per cent bud infestation, floral infestation and pod damage caused by M. vitrata was assessed in hundred and ten (110) genotypes of greengram from bud initiation stage to pod maturity stage during summer, 2009-10 and 2010-11 and results revealed that there were significant differences in reaction among the genotypes against Maruca infestation. 3.1 Larval Incidence (No. /Plant)

Data on mean larval population revealed that, there was a highly significant difference between the genotypes and it was varied from 0-3.55 larvae per plant. The highest population was recorded in the genotypes LGG-543 (3.55), LGG-542 (3.15), LGG-544 and LGG-540 (3.1), MGG-361 and LGG-541(2.9), PDM-54, KM-9-126, KM-8-668 (2.75), where as the lowest population was recorded in the genotypes, KARS-166 (0.5), KARS-165 (0.65), KM-9-134 (0.8), KARS-22 and MGG-350 (0.9). 3.2 Bud Infestation (%)

During summer, bud infestation recorded in hundred and ten genotypes was ranged from 0.75 (NS-04-112) to 32.75 (MGG-295) percent. The lowest bud infestation was noticed in the genotypes NS-04-112(0.75%), KARS-27(4.75%), KARS-165 (5.0%), KM-9-136 (5.8%), KARS-166 (6.25%), LGG-538 (7.5%), KM-195 (7.75%), WGG-47 and WGG-48 (8.0%), LGG-497 (8.25%), WGG-2 (8.28%), WGG-42 (8.57%), IPM-02-03 (8.65%), LGG-477 (9.23%), BAR-02/22 (9.25%), RMG-492 (9.48%), WGG-49 (9.5%), WGG-45 and WGG-46 (10.0%). The highest bud infestation was recorded in the genotypes MGG-295 (32.75%), KM-8-661 (31.25%), LGG-544 (29.0%), LGG-528 (27.89%), MGG-347 (27.75%), KM-8-662 (26.25%), KM-173 (26.14%), MGG-348 and Pusa-9531 (25.75%) and MGG-361 (24.65%).

The genotypes, KSAS-06/144, KSAS-06/245, KSAS-06/378, KSAS-06/407, KSAS-06/232, NDS-

391, NKMS-72 and 174 were showed only vegetative growth without any reproductive phase in summer season. 3.3 Flower Infestation (%)

Flower infestation was ranged from 0.19 (NS-04-112) to 45.96 (KM-8-661) percent. The highest flower infestation was recorded in the genotypes KM-8-661 (45.96%), MGG-348 (36.81%), MGG-295 (34.44%), LGG-544 (34.1%), LGG-540 (33.94%), MGG-347 (33.34%), KM-9-123 (33.06%), LGG-528 (32.85%), KM-8-662 (32.74%), MGG-367 (32.2%), KM-8-666 (30.69%) and V-90 (30.56%). The lowest flower infestation was recorded in the genotypes NS-04-112 (0.19), BAR-02/22 (2.31%), KM-9-134 (8.76%), KM-9-136 (9.89%), KARS-27 (10.19%), MGG-360 (10.58%) and IPM-02-03 (11.54%).

The greengram genotypes MGG 295, LGG 544, LGG 528, MGG 348, KM-8-668, KM-9-123, LGG 540 and LGG 551 which recorded highest bud and flower infestation were recorded higher yields during summer (Fig 1). This type of reaction might be due to the compensatory mechanism and rejuvenation capability of the genotypes. Food material/chemical constituent of grains in resistant genotypes inhibited the growth of larvae, pupae and adults by means of antibiosis. 3.4 Webs Per Plant

Mean numbers of webs per plant were ranged from 1.0 (NS-04-112) to 4.6 (LGG-521). The highest number of webs recorded in the genotypes LGG-521(4.6), LGG-522, KM-9-134, KM-8-660, Km-8-659, GG-17(4.5), KM-8-651(4.3), MGG-367, BGG-549, LGG-545, LGG-542, LGG-527(4.2), WGG-49, SM-131, PANT M-5, ML-1299, MGG-361, MGG-332, Madhira Mung, LGG-541, LGG-538, LGG-497, LGG-477 (4.1), Pusa-9531, NM-1, MGG-350 (4.05), KM-9-123 and GG-10 (4.0). The lowest number of webs per plant was recorded with genotypes NS-04-112, KSAS-06/44 (1.0), Asha, KM-9-121 and RMG-492 (1.1). 3.5 Per Cent Pod Damage

The mean per cent pod damage by M. vitrata was ranged between 3.5 (KM-9-128) to 68.39 (KM-173) per cent. The genotypes, KM-9-128 (3.5%), KM-9-136 (5.8%), RMG-492 (8.34%), LGG-527 (9.5%) and LGG-538 (10.0%) were recorded the lowest pod damage. The highest pod damage was observed in the genotypes, KM-173 (68.39%) followed by MGG-295 (62.75%), LGG-528 (62.29%), KM-8-660 (58.04%), Line-76 (53.04%), IPM-02-14 (51.49%), KM-8-654 (48.87%), LGG-544 (47.43%), KM-8-661 (45.61%), KM-8-658 (43.94%), KM-9-121 (43.87%), KM-8-658 (43.94%) and KM-8-662 (43.25%).



57

Table 2: Reaction of Greengram genotypes against M. vitrata during Summer

S. No.

Genotype Name

Mean no. of larvae/ pl

Webs per plant

Mean Per cent infestation by M. vitrata (Pooled data of 2009-10 & 2010-11)

Scale (1-9)

Reaction

Bud Floral Pod damage 1 Asha 1.90 1.10 14.17 18.54 17.86 5 Susceptible

2 BAR-02/22 0.00 0.00 9.25 2.31 28.90 7 MS 3 BDYR 1.10 3.50 16.50 15.38 34.35 7 MS 4 COGG912 1.30 4.10 14.75 17.19 25.73 7 MS 5 EC-19515 1.90 3.25 12.00 18.00 24.24 7 MS 6 GG-9 1.70 3.60 13.75 13.83 32.37 7 MS 7 GG-10 1.90 4.00 12.25 12.74 24.85 7 MS 8 GG-16 1.60 3.10 14.25 14.66 22.69 7 MS 9 GG-17 1.60 4.50 17.75 15.84 35.77 7 MS 10 IPM-02-03 1.75 3.50 8.65 11.54 20.00 5 Susceptible 11 IPM-02-14 1.70 3.90 18.95 15.61 51.49 9 HS 12 KARS- 22 0.90 2.00 22.50 13.13 63.38 9 HS 13 KARS- 27 1.00 3.30 4.75 10.19 0.00 -- -- 14 KARS-165 0.65 1.50 5.00 12.50 0.00 -- -- 15 KARS-166 0.50 2.90 6.25 15.06 6.21 -- -- 16 KM-173 2.05 1.20 26.14 21.54 68.39 9 HS 17 KM-195 2.30 1.25 7.75 11.69 19.90 5 Susceptible 18 KM-200 1.90 1.30 13.00 15.25 30.89 7 MS 19 KM-203 1.90 1.20 15.75 22.69 28.13 7 MS 20 KM-2241 2.10 3.90 19.50 18.38 40.0 7 MS 21 KM-8-651 1.30 4.30 16.00 13.75 35.43 7 MS 22 KM-8-652 2.10 2.00 13.00 14.39 25.77 7 MS 23 KM-8-653 2.30 1.60 21.54 28.34 34.43 7 MS 24 KM-8-654 1.70 3.60 18.00 26.18 48.87 9 HS 25 KM-8-655 1.90 3.60 18.34 27.46 22.60 7 MS 26 KM-8-656 1.90 2.20 10.56 21.31 16.80 5 Susceptible 27 KM-8-657 1.70 2.30 17.25 17.96 38.45 7 MS 28 KM-8-658 1.45 2.40 23.84 28.89 43.94 9 HS 29 KM-8-659 1.30 4.50 15.25 15.06 22.26 7 MS 30 KM-8-660 1.50 4.50 22.25 19.48 58.04 9 HS 31 KM-8-661 1.65 2.20 31.25 45.96 45.61 9 HS 32 KM-8-662 1.70 3.10 26.25 32.74 43.25 9 HS 33 KM-8-664 1.90 3.20 16.75 27.29 15.44 5 Susceptible 34 KM-8-666 1.90 3.10 17.75 30.69 27.04 7 MS 35 KM-8-667 2.50 3.50 21.00 29.25 30.51 7 MS 36 KM-8-668 2.75 2.50 22.75 26.69 34.14 7 MS 37 KM-9-121 2.70 1.10 21.50 27.88 43.87 9 HS 38 KM-9-122 2.60 3.10 17.00 29.75 22.99 7 MS 39 KM-9-123 2.35 4.00 24.25 33.06 32.37 7 MS 40 KM-9-126 2.75 3.00 19.00 25.75 29.94 7 MS 41 KM-9-128 2.70 3.50 10.31 25.64 3.5 3 Tolerant 42 KM-9-134 0.80 4.50 11.05 8.76 36.87 7 MS 43 KM-9-136 1.20 2.50 5.80 9.89 5.8 3 Tolerant 44 KSAS-06/44 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- -- 45 KSAS-06/245 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- -- 46 KSAS-06/378 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- -- 47 KSAS-06/407 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- -- 48 LGG-477 2.25 4.10 9.23 11.91 18.25 5 Susceptible 49 LGG-491 1.90 3.20 12.75 24.19 23.80 7 MS 50 LGG-497 1.10 4.10 8.25 13.67 17.90 5 Susceptible 51 LGG-502 1.75 3.20 10.50 14.44 21.35 7 MS 52 LGG-521 2.30 4.60 11.25 19.16 18.59 5 Susceptible 53 LGG-522 2.10 4.50 11.92 21.95 20.00 5 Susceptible 54 LGG-527 2.10 4.20 22.00 26.76 9.50 3 Tolerant 55 LGG-528 2.30 3.10 27.89 32.85 62.29 9 HS 56 LGG-538 1.90 4.10 7.50 16.69 10.00 3 Tolerant

57 LGG-540 3.10 3.20 21.75 33.94 37.20 7 MS 58 LGG-541 2.90 4.10 17.00 22.48 22.54 7 MS 59 LGG-542 3.15 4.20 20.75 28.06 35.80 7 MS 60 LGG-543 3.55 3.10 18.50 27.73 24.65 7 MS



58

61 LGG-544 3.10 2.20 29.00 34.10 47.43 9 HS 62 LGG-545 2.20 4.20 16.25 19.66 26.00 7 MS 63 LGG-547 2.50 3.10 18.25 23.84 26.00 7 MS 64 LGG-549 2.10 4.20 13.00 12.85 31.00 7 MS 65 LGG-551 2.05 3.10 20.00 28.18 34.54 7 MS 66 Line – 76 1.80 3.20 23.00 27.13 53.04 9 HS 67 M.MUNG 2.00 4.10 16.50 13.13 26.05 7 MS 68 MGG- 295 2.10 2.10 32.75 34.44 62.72 9 HS 69 MGG-330 1.10 2.20 19.25 23.56 24.72 7 MS 70 MGG-332 2.30 4.10 12.69 24.17 12.59 5 Susceptible 71 MGG-335 2.25 2.90 21.00 27.75 30.51 7 MS 72 MGG-336 1.20 3.60 19.25 18.31 34.09 7 MS 73 MGG-341 2.10 3.05 21.84 26.31 24.80 7 MS 74 MGG-347 2.20 2.10 27.75 33.34 23.63 7 MS 75 MGG-348 2.40 2.20 25.75 36.81 28.77 7 MS 76 MGG-349 2.10 3.90 10.60 18.03 14.10 5 Susceptible 77 MGG-350 0.90 4.05 13.02 16.91 30.36 7 MS 78 MGG-351 2.10 3.10 18.00 20.03 38.43 7 MS 79 MGG-353 2.20 3.90 19.00 27.63 26.65 7 MS 80 MGG-356 2.30 2.55 15.84 25.49 22.10 7 MS 81 MGG-359 2.50 2.10 18.72 28.30 23.10 7 MS 82 MGG-360 1.20 3.10 10.82 10.58 24.30 7 MS 83 MGG-361 2.90 4.10 24.65 28.96 35.25 7 MS 84 MGG-367 2.30 4.20 18.40 32.20 23.00 7 MS 85 ML-1299 1.50 4.10 16.50 16.80 18.43 5 Susceptible 86 NDS-391 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- -- 87 NM-1 1.70 4.05 21.00 24.00 39.93 7 MS 88 NS-04-112 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- -- 89 NSKMS 72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- -- 90 NSKMS 174 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- -- 91 PANT-M-5 2.60 4.10 15.00 26.04 17.75 5 Susceptible 92 PDM-54 2.75 3.40 15.00 24.75 22.00 7 MS 93 PUSA-9531 2.45 4.05 25.75 29.50 31.09 7 MS 94 P.VISHAL 1.80 2.10 14.00 19.85 15.00 5 Susceptible 95 RMG-492 2.10 1.10 9.48 19.54 8.34 3 Tolerant 96 SM-131 1.90 4.10 10.50 19.01 22.03 7 MS 97 SML-668 1.80 3.10 15.50 21.69 34.52 7 MS 98 TRRM-1 1.90 2.05 15.50 28.48 28.07 7 MS 99 UPM-84-178 2.20 2.20 18.00 26.06 26.77 7 MS 100 UPM-99-3 2.20 3.10 12.50 21.88 20.21 7 MS 101 V-90 2.50 3.70 14.25 30.56 24.19 7 MS 102 WGG-2 2.50 3.10 8.28 13.88 19.31 5 Susceptible 103 WGG-42 1.80 3.60 8.57 13.02 24.94 7 MS 104 WGG-43 1.90 3.90 10.35 16.76 21.47 7 MS 105 WGG-44 1.90 3.55 11.00 23.75 19.04 5 Susceptible 106 WGG-45 1.90 3.60 10.00 14.35 17.60 5 Susceptible 107 WGG-46 1.50 3.60 10.00 16.53 16.68 5 Susceptible 108 WGG-47 2.10 3.70 8.00 15.20 16.24 5 Susceptible 109 WGG-48 1.90 3.70 8.00 14.60 18.63 5 Susceptible 110 WGG-49 1.80 4.10 9.50 11.75 21.96 7 MS G. Mean 1.84 3.00 15.12 20.13 26.09 SEM+ 0.12 0.50 5.03 1.64 3.48 C.D 0.05% * 0.34 1.41 14.09 4.61 9.76 C.V % 9.43 23.79 7.02 11.55 18.88

MS= Moderately Susceptible; HS = Highly Susceptible; * = Significant 3.6 Categorization of Genotypes Based on 1-9 Scale

During summer also, hundred and ten screened greengram genotypes were categorized in to five groups, viz., resistant (scale-1), tolerant (Scale-3), susceptible (Scale-5), moderately susceptible (Scale-7) and highly susceptible (Scale-9) based on per cent pod damage (Fig 2). No genotype was found as resistant (Scale-1) to M. vitrata with nil infestation. The five

genotypes, KM-9-128 (3.5%), KM-9-136 (5.8%), RMG-492 (8.34%), LGG-527 (9.5%) and LGG-538 (10.0%) were found as tolerant (Scale-3) to M. vitrata pod damage (Fig 3). Chhabra et al. (1988) reported that mungbean cultivars viz., LU-3, LU-15, LU-33, LU-173, LU-190, LU-196, LU-397, LU-426 and LU-434 were resistant to pod borers such as Lampides boeticus, M. vitrata and H. armigera. Sahoo et al. (1989) studied the varietal susceptibility of greengram and reported that PDM-54-146, ML 131 and ML 372 cultivars were-

Sandhya Rani et al…Field Screening of Greengram Genotypes against Maruca Vitrata

Journal of Agricultural, Biological© 2014 Jakraya

Fig 1: Greengram genotypes with high bud

Fig 2: Grouping of greengram genotypes based on 1

Fig 3: Reaction of greengram genotypes tolerant to proved resistant to pod borers. (1991) reported that pod damage due to mungbean at Port Blair, Andaman was high in the range of 29.9 (in S-8) to 39.2 (in Coresistant varieties were ML-65, BSahoo and Hota (1991) reportedgenotypes JRUM1, JRUM11, JRUM33, DP1703, LAM

Bud infestation (%)

Pod damage (%)

1211

05

1015202530

No. of Larvae /

plant

KM-9-

Field Screening of Greengram Genotypes against Maruca Vitrata

al, Biological and Environmental Sciences | Year-2014 | Volume

59

Greengram genotypes with high bud and floral infestation (Summer)

Fig 2: Grouping of greengram genotypes based on 1-9 scale (Summer

Fig 3: Reaction of greengram genotypes tolerant to M. vitrata during summer

proved resistant to pod borers. Gangwar and Ahmed pod damage due to Maruca in

mungbean at Port Blair, Andaman was high in the 8) to 39.2 (in Co-3) and the most

65, B-101 and B-103. Sahoo and Hota (1991) reported that the greengram genotypes JRUM1, JRUM11, JRUM33, DP1703, LAM

14-2, UPM-83-6 and UPM 83resistant to pod borer’s viz., Catechrysops cnejus and damage ranging from 1-(1992) reported that five greengramX PIMS1, PIMS 1 X P226, ML79-3-4, ML80 X UPM 79

Bud infestation (%) Floral infestation (%)

Pod damage (%) Plot Yield (g) UP

33

2161

Tolerant(Scale-3)

No. of Larvae /

plant

Webs/ Plant

Bud infestation

(%)

Floral infestation

(%)damage

-128 KM-9-136 RMG-492 LGG-527

Field Screening of Greengram Genotypes against Maruca Vitrata in Summer

ume 01 | Pages 53-60

floral infestation (Summer)

scale (Summer)

during summer

6 and UPM 83-10 were moderately viz., M. testulalis, H. armigera,

and L. boeticus and recorded pod -4 per cent. Pandey and Mishra

(1992) reported that five greengram crosses viz. ML-5 X PIMS1, PIMS 1 X P226, ML-5 X P226, T44 X UPM

4, ML80 X UPM 79-3-4 and a parent ML5

Floral infestation (%)

Pod damage

(%)

LGG-538



60

recorded consistently lower pod and grain damage (0-5%) by M. testulalis, C. cnejus and L. boeticus. Sandhya Rani et al. (2012) evaluated 12 OVT entries during rabi and reported that, Maruca pod borer damage ranged from 11.6 (MGG 364) to 25.7% (MGG 356) and the entries, MGG 364 (11.6 %), MGG 365 (14.3%) and MGG 363 (14.6%) were found to be tolerant.

The results revealed that there are twenty one genotypes showed susceptibility and lay under scale-5 with a range from 12.59 (MGG-332) to 20.0 (IPM-02-03 and LGG-522) percent. There are sixty one genotypes were categorized as moderately susceptible to Maruca pod damage and laid under scale 7 with a range from 20.21 (UPM-99-3) to 40.0 (KM-2241) percent. The high per cent pod damage with scale 9 was recorded in 13 genotypes ranging from 43.25 (KM-8-662) to 68.39 (KM-173) percent.

Halder et al. (2006) screened ten greengram cultivars against Maruca and reported that, LGG-450 was highly susceptible and LGG 497 was highly tolerant. They also reported that the differences in pod length among different cultivars were also found to influence pod damage by M. vitrata. The correlation

between pod length and incidence was positive and significant. Lengthy pods were found more susceptible to M. vitrata. Swarnalatha (2007) evaluated 25 greengram genotypes and reported that LGG 505, ML 267, LGG 502, LGG 407, LGG 460 and LGG 485 were resistant to M. testulalis than other genotypes. Sandhya Rani et al. (2008) evaluated 12 OVT greengram entries against Maruca in Rabi season and reported that the entries MGG 358, MGG 359, MGG 360, MGG 364, MGG 366, MGG 367 were tolerant, but in the present study these genotypes showed contrary results as they were moderately susceptible due to Maruca. It indicates that seasonal variation might play role in the greengram genotypes against Maruca. 4. Conclusion

The tolerant genotypes KM-9-128 (3.5%), KM-9-136 (5.8%), RMG-492 (8.34%), LGG-527 (9.5%) and LGG-538 (10.0%) might be utilized in resistance breeding programmes against M. vitrata pod damage and may be recommended for summer season for their cultivation in the endemic areas.

References Chhabra KS, Kooner BS, Sharma AK, Saxena AK and

Shanmugasundaran S (1988). Mungbean Proceedings of Second International Symposium. Bangkok, Thailand, 16-22.

Gangwar B and Ahmed R (1991). Performance of mungbean varieties under Andaman and Nicobar Island condition. Indian Journal of Pulses Research, 4(1): 115-116.

Halder B, Srivastava CP and Joshi N (2006). Comparative efficacy of some newer insecticides against the major insect pests of short duration pigeonpea. Pestology, 30(9): 32-35.

National Agricultural Innovation Project report submitted by Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, 2012.

Pandey R and Mishra DS (1992). Field reaction of greengram germplasm against jassids and pod borers. Indian Journal of Entomology, 54(4): 433-439.

Sahoo BK and Hota AK (1991). Field screening of greengram germplasm against insect pest and disease complex. Madras Agricultural Journal, 78 (1-4): 84-86.

Sahoo BK, Sontakhe BK and Ruth LK (1989). Varietal susceptibility of different greengram and blackgram

cultivars to the leaf beetles and pod borer complex. Environmental Ecology, 7 (2): 345-347.

Sandhya Rani C, Eswari KB and Sudarshanam A (2008). Field evaluation of Mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) OVT entries in Kharif and Rabi seasons against thrips and Maruca vitrata (Geyer). The Journal of Research ANGRAU, 36(2):17-22.

Sandhya Rani C, Eswari KB and Sudarshanam A (2012). Reaction of Greengram (Vigna radiata L.) OVT entries against major insect pests in Rabi season. The Andhra Agricultural Journal, 59(1): 87- 92.

Swarnalatha P (2007). Germplasm screening and insecticidal management of pest complex in greengram (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek). M.Sc.(Ag.) Thesis Acharya NG Ranga Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad.

Vishakanthaiah M and Jagadeesh babu CS (1980). Bionomics of the tur webworm, Maruca testulalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Mysore Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 14: 529-532.

Zahid MA, Islam MM and Begum MR (2008). Determination of economic injury levels of Maruca vitrata in Mungbean. Journal of Agricultural Rural Development, 6(1 and 2): 91-97.

Documents

Field Screening of Greengram Genotypes against Maruca ...jakraya.com/journal/download.php?file=1-jabesArticle_10.pdf · KM-9-136 (5.8%), RMG-492 (8.34%), LGG-527 (9.5%) and LGG-538