Assessment of chickpea genotypes for the source of resistance against Helicoverpa armigera (Huuml;bner)

Introduction

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), belonging to the Fabaceae family, is the third most important pulse crop globally (Jukanti et al., 2012) [10] and plays a crucial role in various cropping systems. It is known as Bengal gram, cultivated in tropical and subtropical regions, particularly in countries such as India, Pakistan, Australia, and Turkey (FAO, 2023) [5] . Chickpea is nutritionally rich, having 17-20% protein, 52-70% carbohydrates, 4-10% fat, and essential minerals like phosphorus, calcium, and iron (Shrestha et al., 2011; Zaman et al., 2012) [27,28] . It also contributes significantly to sustainable agriculture due to its nitrogenfixing ability and tolerance to high temperatures during flowering (Cumming and Jenkins, 2011) [3] . Globally, Bengal gram is grown in an area of about 14 million hectares with the productivity of 1221.8 kg/ha, making it a staple of Rabi season pulses in the world and area of about 10.7 million hectares and productivity of 1261 kg/ha in India. (FAO STAT, 2024) [6] . Despite its significance, chickpea yields have shown limited improvement over the past decade compared to cereals, largely due to various abiotic (wind, rainfall, humidity, and temperature) and biotic stresses (diseases, insect pests, and weeds) (Sharma, 2005) [24] . Among biotic factors, insect pests are the major contributors to yield losses, with the gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner), being the most destructive and considered the key pest (Reed et al., 1987) [17] . This pest, which is prevalent in Asia, Africa, and Australia, damages plants by feeding on leaves, flowers, and pods. Female H. armigera moths lay eggs on leaves, flowers, and young pods. Early instar larvae often destroy seedlings, while later instars bore into pods and consume developing seeds, resulting in yield losses ranging from 10.53% to 80%, depending on pest population density and environmental conditions (Khan and Faizullah, 1999; Sarwar et al., 2009; Ruttoh et al., 2013) [11,21,18] . Studies have shown that larvae can cause up to 26.27% yield loss under unprotected conditions, with losses escalating to 73.50% when six larvae are present per meter of row length (Singla and Singh, 2020) [25] .

The finding of Sehgal and Ujagir (1990) [29] documented pod damage in chickpea by Helicoverpa armigera ranging from 42.6% to 90% at Pantnagar during the Rabi seasons of 1979-80 and 1987-88. Also, the research conducted by Jaba et al. (2017) [9] reveals that pod damage ranged from 53.49% on ICCV 10 to 91.63% on ICC 14872, with a damage rate of 71.88% on the control cultivar L 550 throughout the rabi seasons of 2012-13 and 2013-14. H. armigera is a serious pest of several crops worldwide due to its high mobility, fecundity, and overlapping generations (Sarode, 1999) [20] . The pest's high fecundity, facultative diapause, insecticide resistance, and wide host range including crops like cotton, okra, and pigeonpea (Patankar et al., 2001) [15] make it particularly challenging to manage. Pod damage caused by this pest has been reported to vary widely, from 4.09% to 90.90%, depending on environmental and management conditions (Wakil et al., 2005; Sarwar, 2013) [26,22] . Despite the efficacy of insecticides in managing H. armigera in chickpea and other crops (Nimbalkar et al., 2009) [14] , their indiscriminate use has resulted in significant resistance to conventional insecticides (Kranthi et al., 2002) [12] . Due to the economic importance of chickpea and the destructive impact of H. armigera, this study was conducted to screen chickpea genotypes for resistance against this pest. Evaluations were performed under natural field conditions to identify sources of resistance. These resistant genotypes can serve as a foundation for breeding programs aimed at developing high-yielding, insect-resistant cultivars, thereby contributing to sustainable chickpea production and enhanced food security.

Material and Methods

During Rabi season 2022-23 and 2023-24, the trials were carried out at Crop Research centre, GBPUAT, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand, India. Under field conditions, twenty-five genotypes of chickpea with diverse growth habits were selected from the coordinated trails of All India coordinated research project (AICRP) on rabi pulses (chickpea). Along with these genotypes, three checks ICC 3137 (National susceptible check), ICCL 86111 (National resistant check), and PG 186 (Pantnagar local check) were evaluated against gram pod borer, H. armigera. Under proper agronomic practices, the genotypes were seeded in 3 rows of 2 m row length each during the first week of December in an unprotected Randomised Block Design (RBD) using 3 replications. Weeding and intercultural practices were conducted as required. The chickpea crop was cultivated without insecticidal treatments to allow the unrestricted increase of the pest insects and its natural enemies. On five randomly selected plants, observations have been taken about the egg and larvae population during the vegetative stage, 50% flowering stage, and 50% maturity stage, in addition to the percentage of pod damage and the yield of grains. According to the Pest Resistance Susceptible Rating (PRSR) grade (1-9), which goes from 1 (Immune) to 9 (Highly susceptible), genotypes were categorised as either resistant or susceptible (Lateef and Reed, 1980) [13] . A comparison was conducted between the percentage of pod damage at maturity among genotypes. The following formula was then used to grade the genotypes:

Evaluation of selected chickpea genotypes for resistance to H. armigera during 2023-24

Twelve potential chickpea genotypes selected from preliminary screening of twenty-four genotypes were planted in randomized block design with three checks ICC 3137 (susceptible check), ICCL 86111 (resistant check) and PG 186 (local check), for confirmation of resistance. The observations recorded were presented in Table 3 and Table 4.

Number of eggs and larvae per plant

During the vegetative stage, the lowest mean egg population per plant was recorded on IG2020- [16] , who observed the lowest larval counts per plant in genotypes P-1772B, Phule-G-95412, and BGD-103, with values of 1.16, 1.32, and 1.38, respectively. Conversely, the highest larval infestations were recorded on genotypes BGD-245, GNG-1000, and GBS-963. These results are further corroborated by the studies of Deshmukh et al.

(2010) [4] and Chandra and Nanda (2013) [2] .

Percent pod damage and Pest Resistance Susceptible Rating

The percentage of pod damage varied significantly, ranging from 44.72 to 93.74%. The lowest pod damage ( [7] , who identified significantly lower pod damage percentages of 11.86% and 10.84% on BGD-237, while the highest pod damage percentages were observed on JAKI-5226 and BK-36, comparable to H-82-2, OLS-8663, ICC-11322, ICC-90039, KW-104, PHULE 0954198, GBS-963, ICC-438, and Annigeri-1. These findings are also consistent with the studies of Hossain et al. (2008) [8] and Shafique et al. (2009) [23] . Similarly, Jaba et al. (2017) [9] reported mean pod damage percentages ranging from 68.49% to 100%. PRSR obtained between 3 and 4 by comparing pod damage of test genotypes with susceptible check ICC3137(Table 4).

Out of twelve test genotypes, one genotype NBeG 506 recorded PRSR rating of 3 resistant which were at par with resistant check ICCL 86111. Whereas CSJK-132 and IG 21-03 have recorded PRSR rating 4 as compared with susceptible check ICC 3137 recorded PRSR rating 6. The current research findings align with those of Sanap and Jamadagni (2005) [19] regarding H. armigera in chickpea.

Grain yield

The grain yield in genotypes varied between 515. 16 4)

The current findings are consistent with Chandra and Nanda (2013) [2] , who reported the highest yields of 14.73 and 14.45 quintals per hectare from GNG-1488 and RSG-931, respectively. These genotypes exhibited the least susceptibility, while the lowest yields of 11.04 and 12.70 quintals per hectare were observed in BG-256 and RSG-895, respectively, which were highly susceptible to H. armigera and are in close agreement with Mansour and Mohammad (2014) [1] , who reported that the Hawata cultivar produced the highest seed yield at 1482 kg/ha, followed by Atmore with 1276 kg/ha, and Shandi with 1246 kg/ha.

Principal component analysis and correlation coefficients matrix analysis

The principal component analysis resulted in the grouping of the test genotypes into different categories (Fig. 1). 2).

Results of the correlation coefficient matrix indicated that the percent pod damage was positively correlated to larval count at flowering and podding stages while negatively correlated at vegetative stage. The percent pod damage was also found positively correlated to egg count at flowering stage and negatively correlated at vegetative and podding stage. The number of days to 50% flowering was positively correlated with larval count at vegetative stage and percent pod damage. In Matrix, strong negative correlation between pod damage and yield, reinforcing that higher pod damage results in lower yields. These correlations highlight critical factors in chickpea resistance to H. armigera. Therefore, correlation highlights and PCA analysis provide a basis for selecting genotype for breeding programs aimed at improving resistance and yield under field conditions.

Conclusions

Host plant resistance is a very effective and promising strategy for managing pod borer populations in chickpea cultivation systems. This research showed that H. armigera infestation significantly varied among different genotypes, which in turn affected chickpea yield. Varieties with higher H. armigera populations showed more damaged pods. Additionally, environmental factors played a significant role in the population dynamics of this pest on chickpea crops.

The study concluded that based on lower egg laying, larval population, percent pod damage, and PRSR values, the genotypes NBeG 506, CSJK-132, IG 21-03 were found to be the least preferred by H. armigera. Therefore, they could serve as a source of resistance for developing chickpea varieties resistant to H. armigera. These findings observed differences in relative resistance to pod borer populations across the evaluated genotypes. Pest-resistant genotypes may be adapted to their specific environmental conditions, offering targeted, persistent protection while conserving beneficial species. Furthermore, these characteristics must be integrated into chickpea breeding programs in accordance with modern ecological and consumer requirements for safer and more sustainable farming methods. Understanding the importance of chickpea genotypes for the integrated management of H. armigera, we advise farmers to use authorized resistant cultivars and to include these qualities into future breeding plans.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementThe authors extend their gratitude to the Norman E. Borlaug Crop Research Centre (NEBCRC), G. B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, for providing the necessary facilities to conduct this research.

References

1. Mansour AAE, Mohamed AA. Evaluation of different chickpea genotypes for resistance against pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) under field conditions, Sudan. International Journal of Agriculture Innovations and Research. 2014;2(6):11471149.
2. Chandra S, Nanda US. Varietal screening of chickpea against pod borer in hyper arid partial irrigated western plain zone of Rajasthan. Indian Journal of Entomology. 2013;75(2):175-177.
3. Cumming G, Jenkins L. Chickpea: effective crop establishment, sowing window, row spacing, seeding depth and rate. Northern Pulse Bulletin. 2011;7:6-10.
4. Deshmukh SG, Sureja BV, Jethva DM, Sonune VR, Joshi MD. Field screening of chickpea germplasms against pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). Legume Research: An International Journal. 2010;33(2):150-151.
5. FAO. World Food and Agriculture -Statistical Yearbook 2023. Rome. FAO. 2023. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc8166en.
6. Agriculture area and production report. Available at: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL. Date accessed: 14 December 2024.
7. Gowda CLL, Ramesh S, Chandra S, Upadhyaya HD. Genetic basis of pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera) resistance and grain yield in desi and kabuli chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under unprotected conditions. Euphytica. 2005;145(1):199-214.
8. Hossain A, Haque A, Prodhan MZH. Effect of pod characteristics on pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera Hubner) infestation in chickpea. SAARC Journal of Agriculture. 2008;6(1):51-60.
9. Jaba J, Devrani A, Agnihotri M, Chakravarty S. Screening of chickpea cultivars against pod borer Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) under unprotected conditions. Journal of Experimental Zoology. 2017;20(2):835-843.
10. Jukanti AK, Gaur PM, Gowda CL, Chibbar RN. Nutritional quality and health benefits of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.): A review. British Journal of Nutrition. 2012;108(1):11-26.
11. Khan SM, Faizullah S. Varietal performance of gram and comparative effectiveness of three insecticides against gram pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera Hb.). Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences. 1999;2:14351437.
12. Kranthi KR, Jadhav DR, Kranthi S, Wanjari RR, Ali SS, Russel DA. Insecticide resistance in five major insect pests of cotton in India. Crop Protection. 2002;21:449-460.
13. Lateef SS, Reed W. Development of a methodology for open field screening for insect pest resistance in pigeon pea. In: Nene YL, Kumble V, editors. Proceedings of International Workshop on Pigeonpea; 1980;
14. Nimbalkar RK, Shinde SS, Tawar DS, Muley SP. Response of cotton bollworm Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to different insecticides in Maharashtra, India. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2009;5(2):250-255.
15. Patankar AG, Giri AP, Harsulkar AM, Sainari MN, Deshpande VV, Ranjekar PK, Gupta VS. Complexity in specificities and expression of Helicoverpa armigera gut proteinases explains the polyphagous nature of the insect pest. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. 2001;31:453-464.
16. Ramegowda GK, Rachappa V, Patil RK, Lingappa S. Field screening of chickpea genotypes against Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner). Journal of Entomological Research. 2007;31(1):23-27.
17. Reed WC, Sithanantham CS, Lateef SS. Chickpea insect pests and their control. In: Saxena MC, Singh KB, editors. The Chickpea. Wallingford, Oxon, UK: CAB International; 1987. p. 283-318.
18. Ruttoh EK, Mulwa RMS, Ngode L, Gohole B, Towett N, Njogu S, Kimurto PK. Screening for host plant resistance to Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in selected chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes in Kenya. Egerton Journal of Science and Technology. 2013;13:39-55.
19. Sanap MM, Jamadagni BM. Screening of chickpea for resistance to pod borer Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) at Rahuri, Maharashtra, India. International Chickpea and Pigeonpea Newsletter. 2005;12:37-39.
20. Sarode SV. Sustainable management of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). Pestology. 1999;13(2):279-284.
21. Sarwar M, Ahmad N, Toufiq M. Host plant resistance relationships in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) against gram pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera Hubner). Pakistan Journal of Botany. 2009; 41(6):3047-3052.
22. Lepidoptera). African Journal of Agricultural Research. 2013;8:3431-3435.
23. Shafique M, Nadeem S, Hamed M, Atta BM, Shah TM. Performance of some advanced desi chickpea genotypes against pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) resistance. Pakistan Journal of Zoology. 2009;41(4):277-280.
24. Sharma HC. Heliothis/Helicoverpa management, emerging trends and strategies for future research. New Delhi, India: Oxford and IBH; 2005. p. 469.
25. Singla A, Singh R. Estimation of avoidable yield losses in chickpea caused by Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Phytoparasitica. 2020;48:755-765.
26. Wakil W, Ashfaq M, Hassan M, Javed A. Evaluation of different chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes against Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.) in Rawalpindi. Pakistan Entomologist. 2005;27:37-40.
27. Shrestha R, Neupane RK, Adhikari NP. Status and future prospects of pulses in Nepal. Paper presented at regional workshop on pulse production; 2011 Oct 2425;
28. Zaman K, Shah IA, Khan MM, Ahmad M. Macroeconomic factors determining FDI impact on Pakistan's growth. South Asian Journal of Global Business Research. 2012;1:79-95.
29. Sehgal VK, Ujagir R. Effect of synthetic pyrethroids, neem extracts and other insecticides for the control of pod damage by Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) on chickpea and pod damage-yield relationship at Pantnagar in northern India. Crop protection. 1990 Feb 1;9(1):29-32.