Screening of germplasm of urdbea against pod borer complex

Introduction

Black gram, Vigna mungo L. (Hepper) often referred as urdbean, mash kalai, black mapte etc., belongs to the family Fabaceae (Ali and Gupta, 2012). It is a major source of protein in our diet and are often referred as "poor man's meat" (Reddy, 2010). It contributes 10% of national pulse production. It is an important pulse crop, which positioned a unique status in Indian agriculture and it stands 4 th in area and production among the pulses. India is its primary origin and is mainly cultivated in Asian countries including Pakistan, Myanmar and parts of Southern Asia. Nutritional and industrial values of urdbean is very popular among all pulses (Nene, 2006) [5] . Urdbean serves as a valuable livestock feed, boosting a rich nutrient profile. Abundant in protein (25 g), calcium (0.13), fat (1.3 g), phosphorus (385 mg/100 g), sodium (38 mg), potassium (983 mg), iron (42 g), fiber (0.9 g), it's a powerhouse of essential nutrients. Additionally, it contains high levels of phosphoric acid, making it a nutritious option for both animals and humans (Anonymous, 2018) [2] . There are number of insect pests belonging to different orders which cause damage to black gram among in India. They are whitefly (Bemisia tabaci), jassid (Empoasca spp.), green leafhopper (Nephotettix spp.), grasshopper (Atractomorpha spp.), blister beetle (Mylabris pustulata), leaf webber (Grapholita critica), grey weevil (Myllocerus spp.), tobacco caterpillar (Spodoptera litura), spotted pod borer (Maruca vitrata), hairy caterpillar (Spilosoma obliqua), and gram caterpillar (Helicoverpa armigera) (Kumar et al., 2007) [4] .

Materials and Methods

The experiment was carried out during Kharif 2023-2024 at the Research and Instructional Farm of Indira Gandhi Krishi vishwavidyalaya in Raipur (C.G.), by growing a total of 40 urdbean germplasm in RBD [Randomized Block Design] design with 2 replications. The crop was sown on 25 th July during Kharif 2023-24; maintaining a row to row and plant to plant spacing of 30 cm × 10 cm, respectively. The observations were recorded as (i) Pod damage (%), Per cent pods damaged were separated on the basis of shape and size of the hole of different pod borers in 100 randomly collected pods from each plot at the time of harvest and the nature of damage of Helicoverpa armigera is large round and regular holes on the pods while Maruca vitrata cause irregular scraping and holes on the pods. (ii) Yield Afterward, the total number of pods and the number of damaged pods by pod borers on each demarcated plant were counted and converted into percentage. The percentage of pod damaged and grain yield Kg/ ha were estimated with the help of following formula:

The percentage of pod damage at maturity of test entry is compared with that of the check cultivar in the trial. The test entries are then graded using a formula derived from Abott (1925):

Where, P. D. = Mean of% pod damaged

The pest resistance percentage is then converted to 1 to 9 rating adopting the following scale:

Statistical analysis

The data obtained were statistically analyzed after using the appropriate transformation. Data obtained from the population complex of pod borer larvae were converted to a square root transformation; Using the formula (√x + 0.5), data on pod and grain damage from plants were first collected and then converted to percentage. Percentage data were processed under the sin -1 arcsine transform (√x/100) before statistical analysis. Then these transformed data were analyzed using the analysis of variance [ANOVA] method described by Gómez and 18 Gómez (1984). The "F" test was used at a 5 per cent level of significance. The following formulae were used for standard error, critical difference and coefficient of variance estimations:

Result and Discussion (A) Screening of germplasm of urdbean against gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner)

The infestation of gram pod borer was measured in terms of percent pod damage (Table 1) during the harvesting stage of the crop. The germplasm differed significantly in terms of percent pod damage, which ranged from 1.00 to 5.50% (Table 1). Among the tested germplasm, the minimum pod damage by H. armigera wasobserved in germplasm LBG 1002 with 1.00%, whereas the maximum pod damage was observed in RUB 15-02 with 5.50%. The current findings are in agreement with Chandekar et al., (2022) [3] , who noted that among the tested germplasm, the least pod damage by H. armigera was observed in germplasm DKU116 with 0.5%. The maximum pod damage was observed in germplasm BCU 20 -10 with 9.5%.

Similarly, Vaishnav et al., (2023) [9] , who noted that, the germplasm differed significantly in terms of percent pod damage, which ranged from 1.0 to 8 percent. Among the tested germplasm, the minimum pod damage by H. armigera was observed in germplasm KPU 2061 with 1.00 percent, where the maximum pod damage was observed in germplasm IU 05-2 with 8.00 percent.

(B) Screening of germplasm of urdbean against, Spotted pod borer Maruca vitrata (Geyer)

Among the tested germplasm, the minimumpod damage by M. vitrata was observed in germplasm JLPU 813-12 with 6.50%, whereas the maximum pod damage was observed in PU 1920 with 21.00%. (table 1). the germplasm showed significant difference with each other for percentage pod damage, which varied from 6.50% to 21.00%. The current findings are in agreement with Chandekar et al., (2022) [3] , who noted that the germplasm showed significant differences with each other for per cent pod damage, which varied from 3.5 per cent to 26.00 per cent. Among the tested germplasm, the minimum pod damage by M. vitrata was observed in germplasm KUG 878 with 3.5 per cent, respectively. Whereas the maximum pod damage was observed in IPU 11-02 with 26 per cent. Similarly, Vaishnav et al., (2023) [9] , who noted that, the germplasm showed significant differences with each other for percent pod damage, which varied from 4.50% to 16.50%. Among the tested germplasm, the minimum pod damage by M. vitrata was observed in germplasm SKNU 2005 with 4.50 percent, Whereas the maximum pod damage was observed in IPU 19-27 with 16.5 percent. The present findings are consistent with those of Sundararajan and Chitra (2014) [8] , who reported that pod damage caused by Maruca vitrata ranged from 0 to 14.0 per cent germplasms, CBG 08-008 exhibited the least pod damage, while CBG 08-037 exhibited the most. 1).

These findings are in agreement with Chandekar et al., (2022) [3] , who reported that the highest grain yield was obtained from the germplasm RVSU 21-2 (754.83 kg/ha), followed by LBG 787 (741.67 kg/ha). The germplasm Daftri 471 had the lowest grain yield (448.33 kg/ha), followed by the germplasm IPU 19-9 (485 kg/ha). Similarly, Vaishnav et al. (2023) [9] who reported that the maximum grain yield was obtained by the germplasm MBG 1133 (420.00 kg/ha), followed by LBG 941 (398.33.00 kg/ha). In contrast, germplasm JLPU 819-18 has the lowest grain yield (166.67 kg/ha), followed by germplasm PU 31(178.33kg/ha).

Conclusion

A number of criteria were used to assess, the resistance of 40 germplasm, including grain yield and the percentage of pod damage. Significant variations among the analyzed germplasm were noted during the screening process. The pod borers that had the least impact on the germplasms LBG 1002 and JLPU 813-12 in terms of pod damage were Helicoverpa armigera and Maruca vitrata. Maximum grain yield was produced by genotype LBG 1002, while the lowest grain yield was produced by germplasm PU1920. Among the 40 urdbean germplasm screened 4 germplasm are categorized under resistant category followed by 7 germplasm under moderately resistant category, 7 germplasm are categorized under tolerant category, 17 germplasm under equal to check, and 5 germplasm are categorized under moderately susceptible. None of the germplasm was found to be under immune, highly resistant, susceptible and highly susceptible category.

References

1. Ali M, Gupta S. Carrying capacity of Indian agriculture pulse crops. 2012.
2. Anonymous. AESA-based IPM package: black gram (urd), green gram (moong). Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India; 2018.
3. Chandekar P, Singh V, Bhagat M, Patel MK. Screening of different germplasm of urdbean against pod borer complex. Pharma Innov J. 2022;11(10):1185-1187.
4. Kumar R, Ali S, Chandra U. Seasonal incidence of insect-pests on black gram (Vigna mungo) and its correlation with abiotic factors. Ann Plant Prot Sci. 2007;15(2):366-369.
5. Nene YL. Indian pulses through the millennia. Asian Agri Hist. 2006;10:179-202.
6. Nigam K, Bhagat PK, Painkra GP, Painkra KL, Chouksey N, Jaiswal SK. Screening of blackgram genotypes against pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera Hubner). J Plant Dev Sci. 2022;14(8):707-711.
7. Reddy AA. Regional disparities in food habits and nutritional intake in Andhra Pradesh, India. Reg Sect Econ Stud. 2010;10-12.
8. Soundararajan RP, Chitra N. Field screening of black gram, Vigna mungo L. germplasm for resistance against pod borer complex. Indian J Entomol. 2014;76(2):142148.
9. Vaishnav N, Singh V, Bhagat M, Patel MK, Vaishnav N. Screening of urdbean germplasm against pod borers. Pharma Innov J. 2023;12(12):3143-3147.