Population dynamics of Helicoverpa Armigera Hübner and their biorational management on chickpea (Cicer Arietinum L.)

Introduction

Pulses constitute a staple food for the vegetarian population of India and many neighbouring countries. They possess several desirable characteristics that make them valuable crops. Nutritionally, pulses contain approximately 24% protein, 59.6% carbohydrates, and 3.2% minerals, making them an important source of dietary protein and essential nutrients. People use its green leaves and pods in their daily meals as green vegetables and germinated grains for delightful dishes, including excellent breakfast dishes (Sharma et al., 2024) [28] . Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is one of the most important pulse crops cultivated worldwide. Globally, it is grown over an area of 16.62 million hectares, with a production of 16.25 million tonnes and an average productivity of 991 kg ha⁻¹. In the diet, chickpeas are used whole, fried, or boiled as seeds and in split form as dal. India leads the globe in both chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) production and consumption (Sharma et al., 2024) [28] . India is the largest producer of chickpea, contributing about 72.32% of the world's production, followed by Australia (6.32%), Pakistan (5.83%), Turkey (3.91%), and Myanmar (3.82%). In India, chickpea occupies about 41% of the total area under pulse cultivation and contributes nearly 48% of the total pulse production. During 2024-25, the crop was cultivated over an area of 121.82 lakh hectares, producing 125.14 lakh tonnes with an average productivity of 1,062 kg ha⁻¹. In Uttar Pradesh, chickpea was grown on 6.64 lakh hectares, yielding 7.16 lakh tonnes with an average productivity of 984 kg ha⁻¹ during the same period (Anonymous, 2025) [5] . b Despite its economic and nutritional importance, chickpea productivity is adversely affected by several iotic constraints. Among these, the gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner), is the most destructive insect pest, causing substantial yield losses. The weather has a big impact on the life cycles, reproduction, and movement of invertebrate pests like insects, mites, and others. (Yadav et al., 2025a) [32,33,34] . In India, annual losses due to H. armigera infestation in chickpea and pigeon pea have been estimated to exceed ₹12,000 million (Anonymous, 1996) [6] . Under an average temperature of 28°C, the life cycle of H. armigera from egg to adult is completed in approximately 30-34 days (Zalucki, 1986) [37] . The larvae attack the crop from the seedling stage to maturity, feeding on leaves, flowers, and pods, thereby reducing both yield and quality. Pod damage caused by H. armigera in chickpea has been reported to range from 3.5% to 73.5%, depending on environmental conditions and pest intensity (Patnaik et al., 1991) [21] . Helicoverpa armigera is highly destructive owing to its migratory behaviour, polyphagous nature, and remarkable adaptability to diverse climatic conditions. IPM is a decision support system where cultural, mechanical, genetic, biological and regulatory methods are incorporated. (Yadav et al., 2026) [35] . Chemical insecticides continue to play a significant role in the effective management of this pest worldwide (Abbas, 2015) [1] . Insecticides dominate the biopesticide segment, comprising more than 94% of the market, and the vast majority of these sales are derived from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner (Bt). (Yadav et al., 2025b) [32,33,34] . Among the available management options, chemical control remains one of the most practical, cost-effective, and rapid approaches for minimizing crop losses, and it continues to be widely adopted by farmers. However, the indiscriminate use of conventional insecticides has raised concerns regarding insecticide resistance, environmental contamination, and adverse effects on non-target organisms. Therefore, the evaluation of biorational insecticides has gained considerable importance as a safer and more sustainable alternative for integrated pest management. Biopesticides, including entomopathogenic fungi and bacteria, offer promising, ecofriendly pest management options. (Yadav et al., 2025c) [32,33,34] . Indigenous products viz. Neem products are not only effective against crop pests but also ecologically safe and free from residual problems. (Kumar et al., 2024) [18] . Keeping these facts in view, the present investigation was undertaken to evaluate the bio-efficacy of different biorational insecticides against Helicoverpa armigera on chickpea under the agro-climatic conditions of the Bundelkhand region.

Methods and Materials

The present investigation entitled "Population dynamics of Helicoverpa armigera Hübner and their biorational management on chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)" was carried out at the Experiment, Department of Entomology, Rainfed Agricultural Research Farm Narayan Bagh, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi (U.P.). During Rabi season of 2025-26. The crop was sown on 15 th November with a plot size of 2.5 X 2.5 m 2 . The variety sown was JG-14, and an RBD design was used for management. Eight treatments were used 8 and replicated three times. The larval population were counted from 5 randomly selected plants at weekly intervals starting from germination to harvesting. In standard weather week basis with a view to study the impact of different weather parameters on pest incidence, a simple correlation between the population of the pest and weather parameters was worked out.

Observations to be recorded • Estimation of larval population from different biorational insecticides • Per cent pod damage due to H. armigera • Yield (kg/ha) • Cost-benefit ratio

Results and Discussion

The data on larval population were recorded on 5 randomly selected plants at weekly intervals from 3 different dates of sowing the crop. The population dynamics of larvae were recorded from the crop germination to harvesting.

Population dynamic of H. armigera

The larval population varied from week to week and the larval population was recorded as nil at the vegetative stage of the crop and the population increased at an increasing rate at the reproductive stage up to maturity. Among the crop, highest larval population was recorded with the incidence of larval population (3.0 larva /5 plant) was recorded in 51 th , 52 th , 6 th , 7 th , 9 th and 10 th standard weeks and larval population (2.0 larva /5 plant) was recorded in 49 th , 50 th , 5 th , 8 th , 11 th and 12 th standard weeks and larval population (2.0 larva /5 plant) was recorded in 4 th while larval population was nil in the rest standard weeks. Similarly, Singh et al. (2005) [24] reported that larval population increased gradually until the first week of December, afterwards declined until the end of January and again population increased from mid-February to the second week of April. Shah and Shahzad (2005) [27] also reported that a positive correlation existed between the larval instars and overall density of H. armigera and the average maximum and minimum temperatures, whereas a negative correlation existed between the larval density and the average morning relative humidity. The correlation of population dynamics of H. armigera with maximum temperature had a highly significant positive correlation with larval population of H. armigera, whereas minimum temperature was negative corelative significant and relative humidity had a nonsignificant correlation, while rainfall had a non-significant correlation with larval population of H. armigera. The larval population of H. armigera was recorded at the vegetative stage of the crop and continued until the crop reached the reproductive stage. Therefore, it becomes important to explore the relationship of pest population with current seasonal weather parameters (Prasannakumar and Chander, 2014) [22] . Weather factors such as temperature and relative humidity greatly influence the insect pest population (Siswanto et al., 2008) [29] . The H. armigera population peaks influence with favourable weather factors viz., temperature, humidity and rainfall (Tripathi and Sharma, 1985) [30] . The correlation coefficients between larval population and maximum temperature and with minimum temperature (Dindore et al., 2020) [10,12] .

Effect of biorational insecticides against h. armigera

The data on larval population were recorded on 5 randomly selected plants in each plot at weekly intervals, starting from 49 th standard week up to the maturity of the crop (13 th standard week) during 2025-26. The larval incidence was noticed at a later stage of pod formation. The larval population of H. armigera was significantly at par in all the treatments before the spray. After one week of the spray, the larval population was diminished and varied from treatment to treatment. The minimum larval population was recorded in Indoxacarb 15.8 EC, Bacillus thuringenesis, Chlorantraniliprole 18.5 SC and Spinosad 45 SC (1.33 larvae/5 plant), Flubendiamide 39.35 SC (1.66 larvae/5 plant), NSKE @ 5% (2.66 larvae/5 plant), Azadirachtin 1000 ppm (2.66 larvae/5 plant) and highest larval population was recorded in the control (3.50 larvae/5 plant). Gautam et al. (2018) [13,14] reported that all the treatments were found significantly superior over the control and Indoxcarb 15.8 EC performed best among the treatments, followed by neem oil. Anandhi et al. (2011) [2] corroborate the result; Indoxacarb 15.8 EC significantly suppressed the pod borer population, followed by spinosad and among the plant products, neem seed kernel extract was the best treatment. Sachan and Lal (1990) [23] also reported that the use of NSKE @ 5 % was highly effective in suppressing the pod borer population. Before second spray the incidence of H. armigera in chickpea was varied from treatment to treatment which are Chlorantraniliprole 18.5 SC (2.00 larvae/5 plant), Indoxacarb 15.8 EC, Flubendiamide 39.35 SC (2.33 larvae/5 plant), Spinosad 45 SC, Bacillus thuringenesis (2.66 larvae/5 plant), NSKE @ 5% (3.00 larvae/5 plant), Azadirachtin 1000 ppm (3.00 larvae/5 plant) and population were increased continues in control and highest larval population was recorded (4.20 larvae/5 plant). After second spray the incidence of H. armigera was noticed in different treatments, Indoxacarb 15.8 EC + Chlorantraniliprole 18.5 SC (0.33 larvae/5 plant) is significantly superior over all the treatments which are Chlorantraniliprole 18.5 SC + Neem Oil (0.66 larvae/5 plant), Bacillus thurengenesis + Profenophos 50 EC, NSKE@ 5% + Spinosad 45 SC, Flubendiamide 39.35 SC + NSKE @ 5%, Spinosad 45 SC + Azadirachtin 1000 (1.00 larvae/5 plant) and Azadirachtin 1000 ppm + Bacillus thurengenesis (1.33 larvae / 5 plant) were at par with each other and all the treatment were significantly superior over control (4.50 larvae / 5 plant) to reduce the larval population of H. armigera. Gautam et al. (2018) [13] reported that all the treatments were found significantly superior over control and Indoxcarb 15.8 EC performed best among the treatments, followed by neem oil. Anandhi et al. (2011) [2] corroborate the result; Indoxacarb 15.8 EC significantly suppressed the pod borer population, followed by spinosad and among the plant products, neem seed kernel extract was the best treatment. Sachan and Lal (1990) [23] also reported that the use of NSKE @ 5 % was highly effective in suppressing the pod borer population. [23] also reported that the use of NSKE @ 5 % was highly effective to suppress the pod borer population.

Acknowledgement

Acknowledgement-The authors are thankful to the Head & Director, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, for providing the necessary facilities to conduct the experiments.

References

1. Abbas G, Hassan N, Farhan M, Karar H. Effect of selected insecticides on Helicoverpa armigera Hubner. Adv Entomol. 2015; 3:16-23.
2. Anandhi DMP, Elamathi S, Simon S. Evaluation of biorational insecticide for management of Helicoverpa armigera in chickpea. Ann Plant Prot Sci. 2011;19(1):207-209.
3. Anonymous. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International (CABI). Distribution maps of plant pests. Wallingford, UK: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International; 2024-2025. No. 378.
4. Anonymous. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers' Welfare, Government of India. Pulses in India: retrospect and prospects-2025. 2017. p. 23-50.
5. Anonymous. Annual report. Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT); 1996.
6. Bhatnagar VS, Davies JC. Factors affecting populations of gram pod borer, Heliothis armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), in the period 1974-77 at Patancheru (Andhra Pradesh). Bull Entomol. 1978;19:52-64.
7. Chakraborti S, Chatterjee ML. Bioefficacy of azadirachtin and other neem pesticides against the pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubn.), on chickpea. J Appl Zool Res. 1999;10(2):118-122.
8. Deshmukh SG, Sureja BV, Jethva DM, Chatar VP. Field efficacy of different insecticides against Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) infesting chickpea. Legume Res. 2010;33(4):269-273.
9. Dindor MA, Bindu P, Chaudhri SJ. Population dynamics of pod borer Helicoverpa armigera on chickpea. Indian J Entomol. 2020;82(2):330-332.
10. Dinesh K, Bharu R, Singh R, Kavita K, Choudhary RS. Relative efficacy of newer insecticides and biopesticides against Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.) in chickpea. J Entomol Zool Stud. 2017;5(3):455-462.
11. Dindore MA, Haque MA, Prodhan MZH. Incidence and damage severity of pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner), in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Bangladesh J Sci Ind Res. 2020;44(2):221-224.
12. Gautam MP, Chandra U, Yadav SK, Jaiswal R, Giri SK, Singh SN. Studies on population dynamics of gram pod borer Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). J Entomol Zool Stud. 2018;6(1):904-906.
13. Gautam MP, Chandra U, Singh SN, Yadav SK, Giri SK. Studies on efficacy of botanicals against Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2018; Special Issue 7:612-618.
14. Hossain MA, Haque MA, Prodhan MZH. Incidence and damage severity of pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner), in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Bangladesh J Sci Ind Res. 2008;44(2):221-224.
15. Kulat SS, Nimbalkar SA, Radke SG, Tambe VJ. Evaluation of biopesticides and neem seed extract against Helicoverpa armigera on chickpea. Indian J Entomol. 1999;61(1):19-21.
16. Kumar V, Srivastava AK. Seasonal incidence of Heliothis armigera (Hubner) in gram crop. Plant Arch. 2017;17(1):216-218.
17. Kumar R, Yadav K, Gangwar B, Sharma V. Population dynamics of major lepidopteran insect pests on cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata). Int J Adv Biochem Res. 2024;8(8S):832-835. DOI:10.33545/26174693. 2024.v8.i8Sl.1937.
18. Mehta PK, Sood AK, Kashyap NP. Loss assessment in chickpea due to Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) in the mid-hills of Himachal Pradesh. Insect Environ. 2000; 6:89-90.
19. Nath P, Rai R. Study of key mortality factors in the population dynamics of chickpea pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Noctuidae: Lepidoptera), infesting chickpea, Cicer arietinum L. Trop Ecol. 1999;40(2):281-288.
20. Patnaik HP, Rath LK, Senapati B, Behera PK. Incidence of Helicoverpa armigera on chickpea and its population phenology in north central plateau zone of Orissa. Orissa J Agric Res. 1991;4(3-4):137-142.
21. Prasannakumar NR, Chander S. Weather-based brown plant hopper prediction model at Mandya, Karnataka. J Agrometeorol. 2014;16(1):126-129.
22. Sachan JN, Lal SS. Role of botanical insecticides in Helicoverpa armigera management. Paper presented at: National Symposium on Problems and Prospects of Botanical Pesticides in Integrated Pest Management; 1990 Jan 21-22;
23. Singh V, Siag RK, Prakash V. Seasonal occurrence of larval population of H. armigera (Hubner) on chickpea in northwest Rajasthan. Indian J Pulses Res. 2005;18(1):92-93.
24. Singh A, Ali S, Gupta PK. Bio-efficacy of insecticides against gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hüb.) in chickpea. Ann Plant Prot Sci. 2014;22(2):257-259.
25. Shah ZA, Shahzad MK. Fluctuation patterns of different developmental stages of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on chickpea (Cicer arietinum) and their relationship with the environment. Entomol Fenn. 2005; 16:201-206.
26. Sharma V, Yadav K, Kumar R, Gangwar B. Management of gram pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera L.) by bio-rational pesticides. Int J Agric Ext Soc Dev. 2024;7(8S):200-203. DOI:10.33545/26180723. 2024.v7.i8Sd.979.
27. Siswanto RM, Dzolkhifli O, Elna K. Population fluctuation of Helopeltis antonii Signoret on cashew Anacardium occidentale L. in Java, Indonesia. Pertanika J Trop Agric Sci. 2008; 31:191-196.
28. Tripathi SR, Sharma SK. Population dynamics of Heliothis armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on gram in the Terai belt of N.E. Uttar Pradesh. Giorn Ital Entomol. 1985; 2:347-353.
29. Waseem MA, Thakur S. Population dynamics of gram pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera Hubner) in chickpea. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2019;8(3):2840-2844.
30. Yadav K, Yadav AK, Bala B. Impact of climate change on insects. In: Yadav AK, Tiwari S, Yadav P, Singh S, Tiwari M, editors. Frontier in Entomological Science. [Place of publication]: EdTech Publications; 2025. p. 29-44. ISBN:9789347510298.
31. Yadav T, Yadav K, Yadav A, Landge A. Biorational insecticides and future trends. In: Yadav AK, Tiwari S, Yadav P, Singh S, Tiwari M, editors. Frontier in Entomological Science. [Place of publication]: EdTech Publications; 2025. p. 1-14. ISBN:9789347510298.
32. Yadav K, Gangwar B, Yadav A, Yadav T. Bioefficacy of selected indigenous products and biopesticides against eggplant shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guenée. J Entomol Res. 2025;49:967-970. DOI:10.5958/0974-4576.2025.00165.6.
33. Yadav K, R D, Sudam DA, Bachaspati S, Swain SK, Sanjay Raj S, et al. Integrated pest management: a holistic approach to sustainable agriculture and ecosystem health. Uttar Pradesh J Zool. 2026;47(1):162-174. DOI:10.56557/upjoz/2026/v47i15446.
34. Zahid MA, Isiam MM, Reza MH, Prodhan MHZ, Begum MR. Determination of economic injury levels of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) in chickpea. J Agric Res. 2008;33(3):555-563.
35. Zalucki MP, Daglish G, Firempong S, Twine P. The biology and ecology of Heliothis armigera (Hubner) and Heliothis punctigera Wallengren (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Aust J Zool. 1986;34(6):779-814.
36. Pandey RK, Singh GR, Tripathi A. Role of natural enemies on larval population of Helicoverpa armigera on chickpea sown on different dates. Shashpa. 2005;12(1):35-37.