Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on chickpea: Biology, damage, ecology, resistance and integrated management: A review

Introduction

Chickpea is a major pulse crop cultivated across Asia, Africa, the Mediterranean region and other semi-arid environments. Its importance extends beyond grain production because it provides dietary protein, minerals and dietary fibre and contributes biologically fixed nitrogen to cropping systems. However, chickpea productivity is constrained by a range of abiotic and biotic stresses. Insect pests are particularly important because they can directly reduce the number and weight of harvested seeds. Among these pests, H. armigera is one of the most destructive because larvae attack multiple plant parts and are especially damaging during flowering and pod formation. The pest is commonly known as gram pod borer, chickpea pod borer or cotton bollworm depending on the crop and region. The biology of H. armigera contributes strongly to its pest status. It is highly polyphagous and has been recorded from a very large number of host plants. Its larvae pass through several instars, and older larvae are particularly damaging because they consume large amounts of plant tissue and bore into pods. The reproductive structures provide protected feeding sites and make direct contact with insecticides less reliable. EFSA's pest categorisation notes that the species has more than 180 recorded host species from over 45 families and that larvae feeding inside reproductive structures can be difficult to detect and control. Resistance to insecticides is also widely documented at the species level.

In chickpea, the management challenge is intensified by the crop's relatively narrow genetic base for high levels of pod-borer resistance and by the variable expression of resistance across environments. Research during 2010-2026 has therefore concentrated on understanding plant-insect interactions, screening germplasm, identifying biochemical and molecular mechanisms of resistance, establishing economic thresholds, improving biological control, and integrating selective insecticides with non-chemical tactics. Patil et al. (2017) [1] emphasized that sustainable management requires resistant cultivars, agronomic practices, monitoring and biological control rather than reliance on repeated insecticide use. The present review summarizes research published during 2010-2026 on H. armigera associated with chickpea. The discussion covers taxonomy and identification, distribution, biology and seasonal ecology, crop damage and yield loss, monitoring and economic thresholds, host plant resistance, transgenic and molecular approaches, cultural management, biological control, botanicals, chemical management, insecticide resistance, integrated pest management, recent precisionapplication technologies and future research priorities.

Taxonomy, distribution and pest status

Helicoverpa armigera belongs to Order Lepidoptera, Family Noctuidae, and is closely related to other Helicoverpa species. Accurate identification is important because the genus contains morphologically similar species. Molecular tools can complement morphological identification where species discrimination is difficult. The species is distributed across Asia, Africa, Europe, Australia and other regions and is capable of long-distance movement. Evidence from India has demonstrated facultative migratory flight behaviour, indicating that populations may move between landscapes and crops and thereby complicate local forecasting and resistance management. The pest is important in chickpea because its occurrence overlaps the reproductive phase of the crop. Larvae feed initially on leaves and tender tissues, but the most economically important injury generally occurs on flowers and pods. A single larva may damage multiple pods, and the presence of feeding holes, frass and partially consumed seeds can reduce both quantity and quality of grain. Patil et al. (2017) [1] reviewed the pest as capable of causing very high damage under favourable conditions and emphasized that indiscriminate pesticide use can create residues, resistance, pest resurgence and adverse effects on beneficial organisms. The literature also shows strong geographical variation in pest pressure. Temperature, relative humidity, crop phenology, host availability and landscape composition influence seasonal abundance. Consequently, recommendations developed in one agro-ecological zone should not automatically be transferred to another without local validation.

Biology and life cycle

Adult moths are generally nocturnal and females lay eggs singly or in small numbers on young leaves, flowers and other suitable plant parts. Egg laying is influenced by host preference, plant surface characteristics and crop phenology. After hatching, larvae begin feeding on tender tissues. Young larvae may remain on foliage, whereas older larvae move to flowers and pods. Mature larvae are robust and may vary in colour, with longitudinal stripes and characteristic markings; however, field identification should be supported by standard entomological keys when necessary. The larval stage is the principal damaging stage. As larvae grow, their consumption increases markedly and they become capable of boring into pods. Pupation occurs in soil, and adults emerge to continue the cycle. The number of generations and duration of each stage depend on temperature, host quality and environmental conditions. Because the insect can survive on numerous cultivated and wild hosts, off-season reservoirs can contribute to early infestation of chickpea.

Host plant quality affects larval growth and nutritional performance. Comparative studies of H. armigera on different host plants demonstrate that host chemistry can alter consumption, growth, development and nutritional indices. In chickpea, biochemical compounds on leaves and pods can therefore contribute to resistance by reducing feeding or impairing larval development. These effects form the biological basis for antixenosis and antibiosis.

Aspect

Nature and symptoms of damage in chickpea

Damage by H. armigera changes with crop stage. During early vegetative growth, larvae feed on leaves and tender shoots, producing irregular holes. During flowering, larvae feed on flowers and reproductive tissues. At pod development, the pest becomes much more damaging because larvae bore holes into pods and consume developing seeds. A typical pod may show a circular feeding hole with frass around the opening. Seeds may be partially or completely consumed, and damaged pods may dry prematurely or fail to contribute marketable grain. The relationship between larval density and yield loss is not linear under all conditions. Plant stage, pod load, genotype, weather and duration of infestation influence the final loss. Akanksha and Singh quantified yield reductions ranging from 8.80 to 51.20% in threshold experiments on chickpea, with the greatest reduction observed at three larvae m-1 row. Their regression-based estimates gave an economic injury level of 2.08 larvae m-1 row and an economic threshold level of 1.56 larvae m-1 row under the experimental conditions. Earlier field protection experiments also demonstrated the magnitude of potential loss. Deshmukh et al. reported that effective protection increased chickpea grain yield by 683 kg ha-1, equivalent to a 69.98% increase over the untreated comparison in their experiment; the calculated avoidable yield loss was 41.17%. Such results should be interpreted as site-and season-specific estimates rather than universal loss coefficients.

In a Moroccan study, H. armigera was also confirmed as a major chickpea pest, and the authors emphasized the need to quantify local yield loss before defining control thresholds. This reinforces the importance of regional economic injury studies rather than using a single threshold across all chickpea production systems.

Study / period

Key quantitative observation

Monitoring and surveillance

Monitoring is the foundation of IPM because the decision to control H. armigera should depend on pest density, crop stage and expected economic loss. Field scouting should include direct counts of eggs and larvae, assessment of flower and pod damage, and observation of natural enemies. Sampling should be systematic across the field because larval populations are often aggregated rather than uniformly distributed. Pheromone traps are useful for detecting adult activity and identifying periods of population increase. Patil et al. (2017) [1] emphasized pheromone monitoring as an important component of sustainable management. Trap catches do not directly equal larval density, however, and should be combined with field scouting. A practical programme therefore uses pheromone traps for early warning and plant sampling for action decisions. Economic thresholds provide a bridge between monitoring and intervention. The threshold of approximately 1.56 larvae m-1 row reported by Akanksha and Singh provides a useful example, but thresholds must be validated for cultivar, region, crop value and control cost. Thresholds may also differ between vegetative and reproductive stages because the economic value of flowers and pods changes as the crop develops. [2] extended the genomic approach using 173 chickpea genotypes evaluated over two years and genotyped with a 50K Axiom CicerSNP array. They detected 53 marker-trait associations for mean larval population, seven for percentage pod damage and two common associations for pest resistance. A common marker, Affx_123255526 on chromosome Ca2, was associated with larval population, pod damage and pest resistance. Candidate genes included SCAMPs, quinone oxidoreductase and NB-LRR proteins, indicating possible links with secretion of defence compounds, oxidative responses and immune-related signalling. These findings create opportunities for marker-assisted selection, genomic prediction and gene pyramiding. Nevertheless, QTL validation across environments is essential. Resistance alleles may have modest effects individually, and genotype × environment interactions can alter phenotypic expression. Future breeding programmes should therefore combine field screening, molecular markers, biochemical profiling and agronomic selection. The 2026 proteomic and metabolomic studies further indicate that chickpea resistance is regulated through interconnected defence pathways. Comparative proteomics has implicated early jasmonic-acid signalling and linoleic-acid-derived compounds in resistance, while crop wild relatives contain diverse secondary metabolites with potential anti-herbivore activity. Integrating these datasets may reveal candidate genes and metabolites that can be used in pre-breeding and precision breeding.

Parameter

Resistance mechanism

Transgenic and gene-based approaches

Because conventional resistance in cultivated chickpea is often moderate, transgenic approaches have been investigated to introduce stronger protection. Ganguly et al. developed transgenic chickpea lines expressing fused Cry1Ab/Ac genes using constitutive and podspecific promoters. The rationale was to increase toxin expression in the tissues most important for protection against pod borer.

Research on chickpea-mediated effects of Bt showed that resistant genotypes can act together with Bt to reduce larval survival and development. Dhillon and Sharma also examined tritrophic interactions involving Bt-treated chickpea, H. armigera and the parasitoid Campoletis chlorideae. Their findings showed that adverse effects on the parasitoid were largely indirect, through early mortality or reduced quality of the insect host. This highlights the need to evaluate transgenic or microbial technologies within a broader ecological framework.

Singh et al. (2022) [3] evaluated transgenic chickpea carrying a codon-modified Vip3Aa gene. Vip3Aa is of interest because its receptor interactions differ from those of classical Cry proteins, offering a possible route for resistance management and broader protection against lepidopteran pests. The study supports continued evaluation of Vip proteins as an alternative or complementary technology, although biosafety, resistance management, regulatory requirements and farmer acceptance must be considered. Transgenic approaches should not be treated as a replacement for IPM. High-dose expression, refuge strategies, toxin rotation or pyramiding, monitoring for resistance and integration with natural enemies are important principles for maintaining durability. Further research is required before any technology is considered suitable for widespread deployment.

Cultural and agronomic management

Agronomic practices influence pest abundance by changing crop phenology, canopy structure and host availability. Early or timely sowing can sometimes help the crop escape periods of peak H. armigera pressure. Optimum plant density can alter canopy microclimate and make larvae easier to detect. Excessive nitrogen may increase plant attractiveness or nutritional quality for herbivores, so balanced nutrient management is preferable to excessive nitrogen application. Patil et al. (2017) [1] summarized several agronomic tactics, including early sowing, optimum plant density and balanced fertilizer management. Trap or intercrops such as coriander, mustard, linseed, sun-flower, sorghum and marigold have also been reported as components of pest management programmes. Their effectiveness depends on spatial arrangement, timing and local pest ecology, and they should be considered complementary rather than universally effective. Bird perches can increase predation by insectivorous birds, while conservation of flowering resources can support parasitoids and predators. Removal of alternate host weeds around the field may reduce pest reservoirs in some situations, although indiscriminate weed removal can also eliminate natural enemies and therefore requires ecological consideration. The practical value of cultural methods is greatest when they are combined with monitoring and biological control. Because no single agronomic tactic can consistently prevent infestation, combinations should be locally evaluated for cost, labour demand and compatibility with mechanized chickpea production.

Biological control

Biological control is central to sustainable management of H. armigera. Important microbial agents include HaNPV, Bacillus thuringiensis and entomopathogenic fungi such as Beauveria bassiana. Parasitoids such as Habrobracon hebetor and Campoletis chlorideae can also contribute to natural mortality. Conservation of indigenous predators and parasitoids is particularly important because repeated broad-spectrum insecticide use can disrupt these populations.

HaNPV is highly specific to H. armigera and is therefore attractive for IPM. Field studies have shown that HaNPV-based schedules can suppress larvae effectively, especially when applications are timed against young larvae. Yadav et al. compared management schedules in chickpea and found that three HaNPV sprays were statistically comparable with a flubendiamide schedule in their experiments. Combination schedules involving HaNPV and selective insecticides also performed well. Bacillus thuringiensis produces insecticidal proteins that act primarily through the larval midgut. Its efficacy can depend on formulation, exposure, larval age and plant chemistry. Research by Paramasiva et al. showed that chickpea leaf-surface compounds can influence the biological activity of Bt, although organic-acid concentrations naturally present on chickpea did not eliminate Cry1Ac activity. This indicates that plant-microbe-insect interactions must be considered when optimizing Bt use. Beauveria bassiana is another useful biological option. Bajya et al. evaluated B. bassiana against chickpea pod borer and considered its safety to natural enemies. Entomopathogenic fungi can be particularly useful in resistance-management programmes because their modes of infection differ from conventional neurotoxic insecticides.

Allahyari et al. evaluated combinations of HaNPV and Btk with

Habrobracon hebetor and demonstrated the potential for pathogenparasitoid synergy. Such approaches are consistent with the IPM principle of combining mortality factors that act through different mecha-nisms. However, compatibility, timing and environmental conditions must be considered before field-scale adoption. Recent work in 2026 reported a native B. thuringiensis strain, NIBSM Bt-18, formulated as a 1% talc-based biopesticide. The study reported suppression of larvae and pod damage by up to 70% and chickpea yield increases of 7-49% across regions. These findings illustrate the continuing development of locally adapted microbial products.

Biological agent

Chemical control and newer insecticides

Chemical insecticides remain important when H. armigera populations exceed economic thresholds. However, the objective of modern chemical management is not maximum insecticide use; it is timely, selective and economical intervention. Older broad-spectrum compounds have progressively been supplemented or replaced by newer chemistries such as diamides, oxadiazines, spinosyns and insect growth regulators. Wadaskar et al. reported strong suppression of H. armigera on chickpea with flubendiamide, rynaxypyr, emamectin benzoate and spinosad, with reported reductions of 94.3-99.9% over control at 7 and 14 days after application in their experiment. Such results show the value of selective chemistry, but repeated use of one active ingredient can accelerate resistance. Akanksha and Singh evaluated insecticidal modules under Punjab conditions. Three applications of indoxacarb produced 0.00 larvae m-1 row, 1.41% pod damage and 1950 kg ha-1 grain yield compared with 29.22% pod damage and 1140 kg ha-1 grain yield in the un-treated control; the reported benefit:cost ratio was 6.9. These results demonstrate that well-timed chemical control can protect yield, but the study should not be interpreted as a recommendation for repeated indoxacarb use because resistance has since been documented in chickpea-associated populations.

The selection of an insecticide should therefore consider mode of action, local resistance status, crop stage, pre-harvest interval, effects on natural enemies and label recommendations. Tank mixtures and repeated use of compounds with similar target sites should be avoided unless specifically justified by resistance-management guidelines.

Recent precision-application studies are also relevant. Kambrekar et al. (2026) [4] compared drone and knapsack application of insecticides against H. armigera in chickpea, reflecting a move towards precision delivery. Drone spraying may improve timeliness and reduce labour requirements, but spray coverage, droplet size, weather conditions, operator training, regulatory compliance and cost must be evaluated before adoption.

Insecticide resistance

Resistance is one of the most important threats to long-term H. armigera management. The species has a history of resistance to multiple insecticide classes because of strong selection pressure, high reproductive capacity and gene flow. Resistance can involve target-site mutations, metabolic detoxification, reduced penetration and behavioural mechanisms. Chickpea production is affected because populations may move among chickpea, cotton, pigeonpea, tomato and other host crops. Kaur et al. investigated inheritance of Cry1Ac resistance in H. armigera from India, demonstrating the genetic basis of resistance to Bt toxin exposure. Although that study was not restricted to chickpea, it illustrates the capacity of H. armigera populations to evolve resistance to novel toxins. Bade et al. (2024) [5] specifically examined H. armigera infesting chickpea in western Maharashtra. Solapur populations showed a 7.00fold resistance ratio to indoxacarb 15.8% EC, while chlorantraniliprole, cyantraniliprole, emamectin benzoate and spinosad remained toxic to the tested populations. The findings demonstrate spatial variation in susceptibility and reinforce the need for local resistance monitoring. Resistance management should include rotation among effective modes of action, avoidance of unnecessary applications, use of economic thresholds, preservation of natural enemies and integration of microbial or host-resistance tactics. Where transgenic technologies are used, toxin pyramiding and appropriate resistance-management plans become essential. or botanical tactics can be considered. When the threshold is exceeded, a selective insecticide with a suitable mode of action may be used. Follow-up scouting is essential to determine whether the intervention worked and whether additional treatment is justified.

Resistance-management principle Practical implication

Integrated pest management framework for chickpea

The literature from 2010-2026 strongly supports an integrated rather than single-tactic approach. The first layer is prevention through timely sowing, balanced crop nutrition, optimum plant density and management of alternate hosts. The second layer is monitoring through field scouting and pheromone traps. The third layer is biological regulation through predators, parasitoids, HaNPV, Bt and entomopathogenic fungi.

Recent advances during 2020-2026

The recent literature shows a transition from conventional efficacy trials to systems-level pest management. Genomics has enabled identification of QTLs and marker-trait associations. Proteomics and metabolomics are revealing defence pathways and compounds.

Conclusion

Helicoverpa armigera remains a major insect constraint to chickpea because of its polyphagy, high reproductive potential, concealed pod feeding, mobility and capacity to develop resistance. Research published from 2010 to 2026 demonstrates that sustainable management is best achieved through integration of monitoring, economic thresholds, resistant cultivars, biological control, botanicals, selective insecticides and resistance-management practices.

Host plant resistance has progressed from phenotypic screening towards biochemical, genomic, proteomic and metabolomic approaches. QTLs, SNP markers and candidate defence genes provide valuable resources for developing resistant cultivars.

References

1. Patil SB, Goyal A, Chitgupekar SS, Kumar S, El-Bouhssini M. Sustainable management of chickpea pod borer: A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 2017;37:20.
2. Rehman SA, Gul S, Parthiban M, Isha I, Sai Reddy MS, Chitikineni A, Thudi M, Penmetsa RV, Varshney RK, Mir RR. Genetic resources and genes/QTLs for gram pod borer resistance in chickpea from the Western Himalayas. The Plant Genome. 2024;17:e20483.
3. Singh P, Sujayanand GK, Thakur S, Rathore M, Verma OP, Singh NP, Das A. Evaluation of transgenic chickpea harboring codonmodified Vip3Aa against gram pod borer. PLOS ONE. 2022;17:e0270011.
4. Kambrekar DN, Mallapur CP, Krishanaraj PU, Nidagundi K, Naveen, Aruna J, Jambagi SR. Comparative assessment of drone and knapsack sprayers for pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera management in chickpea. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2026;96(8).
5. Bade AS, Bhamare VK. Insecticidal resistance in Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) infesting chickpea. Indian Journal of Entomology. 2024;86(1):204-207.
6. Allahyari R, Aramideh S, Safaralizadeh MH, Rezapanah M, Michaud JP. Synergy between parasitoids and pathogens for biological control of Helicoverpa armigera in chickpea. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata. 2020;168:70-75.
7. Akanksha, Singh R. Development of Economic Threshold Level and Economic Injury Level for Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) in chickpea. Journal of Food Legumes. 2018;31(3):157-161.
8. Bajaya DR, Ranjith M, Raza SK. Evaluation of Beauveria bassiana against chickpea pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera and its safety to natural enemies. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2015;85(3):378-381.
9. Barmukh R, Roorkiwal M, Jaba J, Chitikineni A, Mishra SP, Sagurthi SR, Munghate R, Sharma HC, Varshney RK. Development of a dense genetic map and QTL analysis for pod borer Helicoverpa armigera resistance component traits in chickpea. The Plant Genome. 2021;14:e20071.
10. Dhillon MK, Sharma HC. Chickpea-mediated effects of Bacillus thuringiensis on Helicoverpa armigera and its larval parasitoid, Campoletis chlorideae. Journal of Applied Entomology. 2010;134:682-693.
11. EFSA Panel on Plant Health. Scientific Opinion on the pest categorisation of Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner). EFSA Journal. 2014;12:3833.
12. Fite T, Tefera T, Negeri M, Damte T, Tejada Moral M. Effect of Azadirachta indica and Milletia ferruginea extracts against Helicoverpa armigera infestation management in chickpea. Cogent Food & Agriculture. 2020;6.
13. Ganguly M, Molla KA, Karmakar S, Datta K, Datta SK. Development of pod borer-resistant transgenic chickpea using a pod-specific and a constitutive promoter-driven fused cry1Ab/Ac gene. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 2014;127:2555-2565.
14. Honnakerappa SB, Udikeri SS. Insecticide usage pattern against Helicoverpa armigera in Karnataka State, India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2018;7:875-882.
15. Kaneria PB, Kabaria BB, Chudasama KA, Patel TM, Bharadiya AM. Effect of weather parameters on the seasonal incidence of Helicoverpa armigera infesting chickpea in Saurashtra conditions, Gujarat, India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2018;7:548-552.
16. Kaur P, et al. Inheritance of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac toxin in Helicoverpa armigera from India. Pest Management Science. 2011;67:1294-1302.
17. International Journal of Agriculture and Food Science https://www.agriculturaljournals.com 26648458, 2026, 8(7), Downloaded from https://www.doi.org/10.33545/2664844X.2026.v8.i7h.2005 by International Journal of Agriculture and Food Science on [03/10/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://www.agriculturaljournals.com) for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
18. Mahajan G, Dwivedi SA, Shaniware Y, Bachhav S, Kale D. Integrated management and seasonal dynamics of Helicoverpa armigera in chickpea: A review. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports. 2025;31(6):96-102.
19. Mondal N, Singh P, Kaushik A, Ghosh A, Talukdar M, Moirangthem K. Integrated insights on host plant resistance and indigenous technical knowledge in chickpea for Helicoverpa armigera management. Journal of Advances in Biology & Biotechnology. 2025;28(9):722-729.
20. Patil J, Aralimarad P, Wali V, Dave S, Bheemanna M, Ashoka J, et al. Evidence for facultative migratory flight behavior in Helicoverpa armigera in India. PLOS ONE. 2021;16:e0245665.
21. Paramasiva I, Sharma HC, others. Influence of oxalic and malic acids in chickpea leaf exudates on the biological activity of Cry1Ac towards Helicoverpa armigera. Journal of Insect Physiology. 2013.
22. Paramasiva I, et al. Diversity in gut microflora of Helicoverpa armigera populations from different regions in relation to biological activity of Bacillus thuringiensis δ-endotoxin Cry1Ac. Archives of Insect Biochemistry and Physiology. 2014.
23. Sree Latha E, Sharma HC. Antixenosis mechanism of resistance to Helicoverpa armigera in chickpea. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2018;7:1233-1238.
24. Vudutha S, Sharma HC, Arjuna Rao P. Interaction between host plant resistance and biological activity of Bacillus thuringiensis in managing Helicoverpa armigera in chickpea. Crop Protection. 2011;30:962-969.
25. War WA, Rasool J, Bhat AA, Sheikh SA, Hussain K, Parthiban M, Fatimah N. An overview of the biological aspects, nature of damage and strategies for managing the gram pod borer in chickpea: A review. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports. 2024;30:643-659.
26. Wadaskar RM, Ughade J, Patil AN. Bioefficacy of newer insecticides for management of pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera of chickpea. Indian Journal of Plant Protection. 2016.
27. Yadav PC, Swaminathan R, Yadav SK, Dangi NL. Efficacy of management schedules against gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera in chickpea. Indian Journal of Plant Protection. 2020;44(3).
28. Younas A, Wakil W, Khan Z, Shaaban M, Prager SM. The efficacy of Beauveria bassiana, jasmonic acid and chlorantraniliprole on larval populations of Helicoverpa armigera in chickpea crop ecosystems. Pest Management Science. 2017;73:418-424.