Screening of chickpea genotypes for resistance to Helicoverpa armigera with emphasis on biophysical and biochemical traits

Introduction

Pulses are important sources of proteins, vitamins and minerals and are popularly known as "Poor man's meat" (Reddy et al., 2018) [1] . According to Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), optimum per capita requirement of pulses per day to maintain normal health is 85 gm (Anonymous, 2024). Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), commonly known as gram, is cultivated across tropical, subtropical and temperate regions, with major production in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan and Maharashtra. Chickpea seeds are nutritionally rich, comprising approximately 21.5% protein, 4.5% fat and 64.5% carbohydrates. (Gautam et al., 2018) [2] . Chickpea is broadly classified into two cultivated types; Desi and Kabuli. The Desi type has brown seeds, smaller grain size and a thicker seed coat, whereas kabuli type has white seeds, larger grains and a thinner seed coat. Approximately 80-85% of chickpea cultivation in Asia and Africa consists of the desi type (Zhang et al., 2024) [3] . Chickpea production is constrained by a range of biotic and abiotic factors. Among the biotic constraints, numerous insect pests inflict damage at different growth stages of the crop. A total of eleven insect pest species has been identified as major pests of chickpea. Among these, the gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner), is the most destructive (Chowdappa et al., 2026) [4] . Gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) is one of the most notorious insect pests infesting pulses. A single larva of Helicoverpa armigera can damage about 25 to 30 pods of chickpea during its lifetime. It feeds on tender shoots and young pods, creating holes in the pods and partially inserting its body inside to consume the developing seeds (Devi et al., 2024) [5] . Plants have several morphological and physiological traits that are inherited from a basic defensive system that protects them from potential attackers like insects and other pests. The discovery and application of host plant resistance as a crucial part of pest management globally have received fresh impetus as a result of crop germplasm evaluation for insect resistance, Ghugal et al., (2015) [6] .

Material and methods

Thirty-six chickpea genotypes comprising 29 desi and seven kabuli types were evaluated at the Pulses Improvement Project, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, during rabi 2025-26. The plot size was 4.0 × 2.6 m and crop spacing was 30 × 10 cm. The experiment was conducted in a randomized block design with two replications. The observation on number of larvae was made at weekly interval from five randomly tagged plants on of each genotype. For estimation of per cent pod damage, no. of healthy and injured pods per plant was recorded and the per cent pod damage was calculated and final grain yield was also assessed (q/ha) at harvest stage. The pest susceptibility rating was calculated and rated as per the method given by Lateef and Sachan (1990).

Assessment of biophysical traits

Thirty pods were selected randomly from each genotype for recording pod length, pod width and pod wall thickness using an electronic vernier caliper.

Trichome density and length were assessed on pods using a binocular microscope. The methodology was based on the procedure described by Bozzola and Russell (1999), with plant material cleared using glacial acetic acid before microscopic examination.

Estimation of biochemical constituents

Total phenol

Total phenolic content was estimated using the Folin-Ciocalteu method given by Singleton et al., (1999) [7] , using catechol as the standard.

Flavonoid

Flavonoid content was estimated following Chang et al., (2002) [8] . The sample was extracted using 80% aqueous methanol. The extract was reacted with aluminium chloride and potassium acetate. Quercetin was used as the standard.

Tannin

Tannin content was estimated using the Folin-Dennis procedure described by Sadasivam et al. (1992) [9] , and the results were expressed in relation to tannic acid standards.

Protein

Protein content was estimated by the Lowry et al., (1951) [10] method using the Folin-Ciocalteu reagent.

Trypsin inhibitor

Trypsin inhibitor activity was estimated according to Kakade et al., (1969) [11] using BAPNA as the substrate.

Results and discussion

Larval population of H. armigera on different chickpea genotypes

The population of H. armigera larvae was observed in the range of 0.10 to 2.90 larvae per plant on the chickpea genotypes. Among desi genotypes the least number of larval population was recorded on genotypes Phule G-1703-6-6 (0.10 larvae/plant) followed by Phule G-1823-15-21 (0.20 larvae/plant). In contrast, the highest larval population was observed in Phule G-1801-5-5 (2.90 larvae/plant. Among kabuli genotypes Kripa (0.30 larvae/plant) recorded minimum num-ber of larval population followed by ICCV 211306 (1.18 larvae/plant). The highest population recorded in the check Virat 2.30 larvae/plant.

Per cent pod damage due to H. armigera

The pod damage due to pod borer was observed to vary from 4.38 to 22.58 per cent on different genotypes. The lowest per cent pod damage among the desi genotypes was recorded in Phule G-1703-6-6 (4.38%) followed by Phule G-1823-15-21 (5.73%). The highest per cent pod damage recorded in Phule G-1801-5-5 (21.06%). Among the kabuli genotypes, Kripa recorded the lowest pod damage (5.22%), followed by ICCV 211306 (8.33%) while the check Virat recorded highest per cent pod damage (22.58%).

Grain yield

The grain yield of genotypes under study ranged from 11.22 to 23.10 q/ha. Among the desi genotypes, the highest grain yield was recorded in Phule G-1703-6-6 (23.10 q/ha), followed by Phule G-1623-3-4 (21.30 q/ha). The lowest grain yields were recorded in Phule G-1801-5-5 (11.22 q/ha). Among the kabuli genotypes, ICCV 211306 recorded the highest yield (20.87 q/ha), followed by ICCV 211303 (18.87 q/ha). The lowest grain yields were recorded in Phule G-191327 (12.22 q/ha).

Pest susceptibility rating of chickpea genotypes

The pest susceptible rating of the present investigation was ranged from 2 to 7. Pest susceptibility rating (PSR) 2 is recorded in Kripa. The present findings are in agreements with Ramegowda et al., (2007) [12] who recorded lowest 1.16 larvae per plant Genotypes P-1772B which was at par with Phule -G-95412 (1.32). The pod damage was significantly less in Phule G-92028 (13.32%). Deepak et al., (2018) [13] recorded the pest susceptible rating of the present investigation was ranged from 3 to 8. Jakhar et al., (2018) [14] screened 15 chickpea genotypes maximum yield (326.94 kg/ha) minimum pod damage (33.26%) and PSR (3) was recorded on GNG 1581 while, in HK-2 minimum yield (136.94 kg/ha) and PSR (7) was observed. Similar findings found in Sadar et al., (2018) [15] who reported 0.34 larvae/plant in Phule G 12403.

Biophysical attributes of chickpea against H. armigera

Biophysical characters (Table 3) showed that, pod length of chickpea genotypes varied from 1.23 to 2.48 cm, highest pod length was recorded in Phule G-1822-17-10 (1.96 cm) in desi genotype whereas, kabuli genotype recorded pod length of (2.48 cm) in ICCV 211303. Pod width ranged from 0.81 to 1.42 cm, NC-7 (1.13 cm) and ICCV 211303 (1.42 cm) showed highest pod width in desi and kabuli genotype respectively. Pod wall thickness varied from 0.21 to 0.49 mm. The thickest pod wall was recorded in Phule G-1623-3-4 (0.47 mm) in desi and Kripa (0.49 mm) in kabuli genotype. 4 revealed that, Pod length, Pod wall thickness and Trichome density showed a negative but non-significant correlation with larval population and pod damage. Pod width showed weak positive non-significant correlation and Trichome length exhib ited significant negative correlation with larval population (r = -0.537) and pod damage (r = -0.559). Yadav et al., (2021) [16] also reported trichome number, length and density influenced the resistance/ susceptibility levels of Helicoverpa armigera in chickpea. Similar parameters investigated by Udavant et al., (2024) [17] . Mishra et al., (2025) [18] reported highest trichome density (39.40/mm²) and trichome length (368.20 µm) in IPC 2021-16, suggesting enhanced mechanical resistance. Similarity is also seen in Dhivya et al., (2025) [19] who assessed the density and length of trichomes on the leaves and pods.

Biochemical attributes of chickpea genotypes against H. armigera

Total phenol content in chickpea genotypes varied from 0.99 to 1.62 mg/g. The highest Total phenol was observed in Phule G-1823-15-21 (1.62 mg/g) and ICCV 211306 (1.39 mg/g) in desi and kabuli genotype respectively. Flavonoid content ranged from 0.38 to 1.58. Phule G-1822-17-10 (1.58 mg/g) showed highest flavonoid among desi and Kripa (1.08 mg/g) among kabuli genotypes. Tannin range of content varied from 4.69 to 9.34. Phule G-1805-5-4 and Phule G-1822-17-10 showed highest tannin (9.34 mg/g) among desi genotypes and Kripa (6.54 mg/g) among kabuli genotypes. Protein per cent in chickpea ranged from 17.22 to 24.24%. Phule G-1801-5-5 (24.24%) and Virat (22.09%) showed highest protein per cent in desi and kabuli genotypes, respectively. Range of trypsin inhibitor varied from 2.09 to 9.76. Phule G-1703-6-6 (9.76 TIU/g) showed highest trypsin inhibitor content in desi genotypes while, ICCV 211306 showed highest trypsin inhibitor content (5.95 TIU/g) in kabuli genotypes of chickpea. Total phenol, flavonoid, tannin and trypsin inhibitor also showed a significant negative correlation with larval population and per cent pod damage (Table 6). Protein content showed a significant positive correlation with larval population (r = 0.805**) and per cent pod damage (r = 0.721**). Present findings are also similar with Sai et al., (2021) where phenol, flavonoid, tannin and trypsin inhibitor showed negative correlation with per cent pod damage and Protein content showed a significant positive correlation. Similarly, Divija et al., (2024) [20] reported germplasm with higher phenol, tannin, flavonoid and trypsin inhibitor content recorded minimum per cent pod damage, while protein content showed positive correlation with the per cent pod damage by H. armigera. Sane et al., (2025) [21] reported antibiosis is linked to pod thickness and higher levels of phenolics, flavonoids, and proteinase inhibitors, which negatively affect insect growth and survival. Flavonoids can inhibit digestive enzymes in the pest, reducing protein digestion.

Conclusion

Among the 36 chickpea genotypes evaluated, Phule G-1703-6-6 (desi) recorded the lowest larval population (0.10 larva/plant) and pod damage (4.38%), while Kripa (kabuli) recorded 0.30 larva/plant and 5.22% pod damage. Highest yield observed in Phule G-1703-6-6 (desi) and ICCV 211306 (kabuli). The pest susceptible rating was ranged from 2 to 7 and Pest Susceptibility Rating 2 is recorded in Kripa. Kripa (kabuli) was found highly resistant and Phule G-1703-6-6 (desi) was found least susceptible. Larval population of H. armigera and per cent pod damage showed significant positive correlation with protein, significant negative correlation with trichome length, phenol, flavonoid, tannin and trypsin inhibitor, non-significant positive correlation with pod width and nonsignificant negative correlation with pod length, pod wall thickness and trichome density.

References

1. Reddy MS, Agnihotri M. Screening of chickpea tolerant genotypes against pod borer Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) at hotspot Pantnagar. International Journal of Chemical Studies. 2018;6(4):590-594.
2. Gautam MP, Chandra U, Yadav S, Jaiswal R, Giri S, Singh S. Studies on population dynamics of garm pod borer Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies. 2018;6:904-906.
3. Zhang J, Wang J, Zhu C, Singh RP, Chen W. Chickpea: Its Origin, Distribution, Nutrition, Benefits, Breeding, and Symbiotic Relationship with Mesorhizobium Species. Plants (Basel, Switzerland). 2024;13(3):429.
4. Chowdappa SD, Nebapure SM, Syamala RR, Chandel RK, Shashank PR. Morphological and molecular identification of pod borer complex infesting chickpea and their associated natural enemies. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science. 2026;46(1):687-695.
5. Devi R, Chandra U, Kumar P, Singh SK, Rajak RK. Population Dynamics of Helicoverpa armigera in Chickpea, (Cicer arietinum L.). Journal of Advances in Biology & Biotechnology. 2024;27(5):389-396.
6. Ghugal SG, Shrivastava SK. Evaluation of different chickpea genotypes against Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) under unprotected and protected condition. The Ecoscan. 2015;7:31-34.
7. Singleton VL, Orthofer R, Lamuela-Raventós RM. Analysis of total phenols and other oxidation substrates and antioxidants by means of Folin-Ciocalteu reagent. Methods in Enzymology. 1999;299:152-178.
8. Chang C, Yang M, Wen H, Chern J. Estimation of total flavonoid content in propolis by two complementary colorimetric methods. Journal of Food and Drug Analysis. 2002;10(3):178-182.
9. Sadasivam S, Manickam A. Biochemical Methods for Agricultural Sciences. New Delhi: Wiley Eastern Limited; 1992.
10. Lowry OH, Rosebrough NJ, Farr AL, Randall RJ. Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 1951;193(1):265-275.
11. Kakade ML, Simons N, Liener IE. An evaluation of natural vs. synthetic substrates for measuring the antitryptic activity of soybean samples. Cereal Chemistry. 1969;46:518-526.
12. Ramegowda GK, Rachappa V, Patil RK, Lingappa S. Field screening of chickpea genotypes against Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). Journal of Entomological Research. 2007;31(1):23.
13. Deepak V, Singh PS, Singh SK. Screening of chickpea genotypes against gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera Hübner. Journal of Food Legumes. 2018;31(2):101-105.
14. Jakhar P, Kumar Y, Janu A. Varietal screening in chickpea against gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.) in field conditions using biochemical parameters. Ekin Journal of Crop Breeding and Genetics. 2018;4(2):33-38.
15. Sadar SR, Bantewad SD, Jayewar NE. Evaluation of Different Chickpea Genotypes against Pod Borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2018;(6):585-592.
16. Yadav MK, Das L, Ramalakshmi V, Sunil NR, Nayak SB, Padhi D. Morphological and biochemical traits in chickpea resistance against Helicoverpa armigera Hubner (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Entomon. 2021;46(4):343-348.
17. Udavant R, Bantewad S, Pawar A, Bhede B. Biochemical and biophysical responses against Helicoverpa armigera Hub. (Noctuidae: Lepidoptera) in chickpea. International Journal of Advanced Biochemistry Research. 2024;8(4):525-532.
18. Mishra PK, Chandra A, Gk S, Mondal B, Kumar V, Verma SK, Srivastava M, Maurya CL. Host-plant Morphological and Biochemical Determinants Affecting Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Susceptibility to the Pod Borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). Journal of Advances in Biology & Biotechnology. 2025;28(11):791-799.
19. Dhivya G, Petchiammal KI, Devasena N, Parveen S, Katherine SP. A comparative analysis on glandular and non-glandular trichomes over leaves and pod surfaces of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes. Pharma Innovation. 2025;14(3):56-62.
20. Divija SD, Agnihotri M, Reddy MS. Morphological and Chemical Components of Resistance to Pod Borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) in Chickpea Germplasm. Legume Research: An International Journal. 2024;47(10).
21. Sane Y, El Fakhouri K, Boulamtat R, Sobeh M, El Bouhssini M. Defense Mechanisms of Chickpea against Chickpea Pod Borer, Helicoverpa armigera and Chickpea Leafminer, Liriomyza cicerina: from Plant Morphology to Molecular Level. ACS Omega. 2025;10(30):32587-32605.
22. Sai Reddy MS, Agnihotri M, Divija SD, Belal B, Karthik S. Host plant resistance profiling of chickpea genotypes against Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) through SEM and GC-MS studies. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science. 2022.