Sucking pests incidence on green gram genotypes correlating with yield

Introduction

Greengram (Vigna radiata L.) is locally called as "Mungbean". India is the world's largest producer of mungbean, contributing 54% of global production and occupying 65% of the global acreage. Mungbean has a significant impact on human nutrition in addition to enhancing soil fertility through atmospheric nitrogen fixation. India is major producer of green gram in the world but it grown in all states. It is cultived in about 40.38 lakh hectares with total production of 31.5 lakh tonnes with productivity of 783 kg/ha and contribute about 11% to total pulse production in the year 21-22. Among the many reasons for low green gram productivity in the country, damage caused by insect pests is one of the most significant. Nearly 64 insect pest species have been identified on green gram in India, however just a few are known to cause economic damage over a vast area. Among all insect pests attack on mungbean, sucking pests, viz., aphids, whiteflies, jassids, and thrips, and are the most notorious insect pests that attack mungbean (Khattak et al., 2004) [4] . Number of insect pests infest mungbean, causing significant losses to the leaves, stems, flowers, buds, and pods and harming the seedling stage. (Ujagir and Sehgal, 1988) [6] . And because mungbean is available throughout the year in a variety of seasons and circumstances, it turned into a persistent pest of pulses. In order to identify a resistance source with a better yield, screening based on host plant resistance responses-an economically viable genotyping measure against sucking insect pests-became necessary.

Methodology

The experiment was carried out during kharif 2022 at agriculture research farm, Badnapur, MH, India will assess the incidence of insect pests on 31 genotypes of green gram sown in a Randomized Block Design with three replications for evaluation in the first week of July 2022. Location of experiment has subtropical climate carrier under central Maharashtra platue zone with average rainfall of about 650 mm received mostly during June to September. The minimum and maximum temperature is during the last five year15.25 °C and 43.85 °C respectively and the mean relative humidity range from 30-91 per cent. Each genotypes was sown at 3 rows of 4m lengh at 30cm plant to plant spacing. Sucking pest population was recorded at weekly intervals from five randomly selected plants particularly approached on top, middle and bottom trifoliate leaf of the plant. Data presented as total number of sucking pests per trifoliate leaf of each genotype. The data obtained was then after subjected to √ x + 0.5 transformation before analysis. Each net plot's total grain yield was recorded. and calculated on hectare basis. The data statistically analyzed by standard analysis of variance method suggested by Panse and Sukhatme (1967) [5] .

Results and Discussion

Aphid population

The result of aphid population ranged in between 5.44 to 10.06 aphids/trifoliate leaf (Table 1 [1] . While Bhople et al. (2017) [2] also found that Phule M-702-1 had the lowest aphid population and PKV AKM had the highest aphids. The genotype with average five to seven aphids/trifoliate leaf were BM 2021-2, ATM 2022-06, PM 811-4, BM 2011-4, AKM 16-08, PM 811-8,ATM 2022-07, ATM 2022-05.

Whitefly population

Tagger and Gill (2012) [12] found moderately resistant genotypes had the lowest whitefly population. This experimental result of whitefly population in range of 0.94 to 3.06 whiteflies/trifoliate leaf (Table 1 [11] findings that PDM-91-249 was a reliable source of resistance. Some other genotypes showed one to two whiteflies/ trifoliate leaf.

Thrips population

Thrips population ranged in between of 0.61 to 2.44 thrips/trifoliate leaf (Table 1

Leafhopper population

Result of leafhopper population ranged in between of 1.39-3.50 leafhoppers/trifoliate leaf. (Table 1; fig 1) ATM 2022-06 with minimal leafhopper population (1.39 leafhoppers/ trifoliate leaf). Singh and Singh (2014) [8] and Singh et al. (2019) [9] they found that the lowest leaf hopper population was observed in KM-2293 followed by TMB-36 and Pusa-1271 and the highest population was observed in BM-

Grain Yield

The grain yields were were calculated according to results maximum grain yield was reported in BM 2002-2909 (1528 kg/ha) with mean 5.67 aphids, 1.00 whitefly, 0.67 thrips and 1.72 leafhopper infestation per trifoliate leaf and lowest yield of ATM 2022-05 (708 kg/ha) with mean 6.89 aphids, 1.44 whitefly, 1.06 thrips and 2.00 leafhopper. Results of Singh and Singh (2019) [9] coincide as PM-5 (7.72 q/ha) followed by IPM 3061 (6.96 q/ ha) and HUM-16 (6.58 q/ ha) and the least from IPM 306-6 (3.11 q/ ha) closely followed by IPM 05-3-22 (3.23 q/ ha), ML 5 (3.30 q/ ha) and SM 48 (3.13 q/ ha). The yield in local check cultivar, HUM-12 was 4.13 q/ ha affected by sucking pest infestation.

Conclusions

Screening of 31 genotypes against sucking pests. The least population of aphid was observed on PM 809-12 with 5.44 aphid/ trifoliate leaf and highest in Phule chetak with 10.06 aphid/trifoliate leaf. Similar same trend observed in case whitefly as the genotypes most prevalent entry was PM 809-10 with 0.94 whiteflies /trifoliate leaf and Phule chetak (3.06) whiteflies/ trifoliate leaf found most susceptible to infection. ATM 2022-06 (0.94), BM 2021-2 (1.00) whiteflies/ trifoliate leaf. In respect of thrips, the least infestation of thrips found in cultivars ATM 2022-06 with 0.61 thrips/trifoliate leaf exhibited tolerant entry among all and most susceptible genotypes to infection were found Phule chetak (2.28) and TAM 127 (2.44) thrips/trifoliate leaf. Similarly, the least population of leafhopper was found in ATM 2022-06 with 1.39 leafhoppers/ trifoliate leaf and genotype like Phule-chetak (3.11), ATM 2022-02 (3.44), TAM 127 (3.50) leafhopper/trifoliate leaf which shows highest population. From overall performance, mungbean genotypes PM 809-10 And ATM 2022-06 were recorded tolerant to whiteflies, aphids, Thrips and leaf hopper. Whereas genotypes Phule chetak and TAM 127 were found highly susceptible to whiteflies, aphids, Thrips and leaf hopper.

References

1. Abdullah-Al-Rahad M, Rahman MS, Akter T, Akter J, Rahman MA, Aziz SMS. Varietal screening of mungbean against whitefly and aphid. J Biosci Agric Res. 2018;18(1):1478-1487.
2. Bhople SK, Dhandge SR, Aravindarajan G, Patange NR. Varietal screening of mungbean genotype for their resistance against pest complex of mungbean. AGRES -An Int e-J. 2017;6(1):123-128.
3. Chauhan R, Singh AK, Sharma KA, Ali A. Screening of mungbean (Vigna radiata) germplasm against major sucking pests. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2018;7(5):1784-1787.
4. Khattak MK, Ali S, Chishti JI. Varietal resistance of mungbean (Vigna radiata L.) against whitefly (Bemisia tabaci Genn.), jassid (Amrasca devastans), and thrips (Thrips tabaci Lind.). Pak Entomol. 2004;26(1):9-12.
5. Singh M, Bairwa DK, Dadrwal BK, Chauhan J. Screening of green gram genotypes for resistance against sucking insect pests. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2019;8(2):933-938.
6. Singh SK, Singh PS. Screening of mungbean (Vigna radiata) genotypes against major insect pests. Curr Adv Agric Sci. 2014;6(1):85-87.
7. Singh SK, Singh PS. Screening of green gram genotypes against spotted pod borer Maruca vitrata. Indian J Entomol. 2019;81(4):740-743.
8. Taggar GK, Gill RS, Sandhu JS. Evaluation of blackgram [Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper] genotypes to the attack of whitefly Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) under screen-house conditions. Acta Phytopathol Entomol Hung. 2013;48(1):53-62.
9. Yadav GS, Dahiya B. Screening of some mungbean genotypes against major insect pests and yellow mosaic virus. Ann Agric Biol Res. 2000;5(1):71-73.
10. Taggar GK, Gill RS. Preference of Whitefly, Bemisia tabaci, towards blackgram genotypes: Role of morphological leaf characteristics. Phytoparasitica. 2012; 40:461-474.