Advertisement

International Journal of Tropical Insect Science

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 251–258 | Cite as

Relationship Between Helicoverpa armigera Hubner and Maruca vitrata (Geyer) Abundance, Damage and Yield Loss in Short-Duration Pigeonpeas

  • C. DurairajEmail author
  • T. G. Shanower
  • V. R. Bhagwat
  • M. I. Khan
  • D. A. Dodia
Research Article

Abstract

The relationship between abundance of the lepidopteran borers Helicoverpa armigera Hubner and Maruca vitrata (Geyer) and damage and yield loss in short-duration pigeonpeas was studied in two multilocation trials in 1995–1996 and 1996–1997 rainy seasons at four locations in India: Patancheru (Andhra Pradesh), Akola (Maharashtra), Sardarkrishi Nagar (Gujarat) and Vamban (Tamil Nadu). Larval populations of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) and Maruca vitrata (Geyer) were correlated with pod damage and grain yields. Significant correlation of location, years and genotype on insect population, level of damage and grain yield was obtained. The effect of plant type on lepidopteran pod damage was also observed. The relationships between pod damage, yield and larval population of Helicoverpa and Maruca are discussed.

Key Words

short-duration pigeonpea Helicoverpa armigera Maruca vitrata pest damage-yield loss 

Résumé

La relation entre l’abondance des lépidoptères foreurs Helicoverpa armigera Hubner et Maruca vitrata (Geyer), les dégâts et les pertes de rendement des cultures du pois cajan en cycle court a été étudiée dans deux essais multilocaux pendant les saisons des pluies 1995–1996 et 1996–1997, dans 4 localités de l’Inde: Patancheru (Andhra Pradesh), Akola (Maharashtra), Sardarkrishi Nagar (Gujarat) and Vamban (Tamil Nadu). Les niveaux de populations larvaires d’Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) et Maruca vitrata (Geyer) sont corrélées avec les dégâts des gousses et les rendements en graines. Une corrélation significative a été obtenue avec la localité, l’année, le génotype des populations d’insectes, le niveau des dégâts et les rendements en graines. L’effet du type de plante sur les dégâts sur gousse a également été observé. La relation entre les dégâts sur gousse, le rendement et les niveaux de population d’Helicoverpa et de Maruca sont discutés.

Mots Clés

pois cajan en cycle court Helicoverpa armigera Maruca vitrata dégât perte de rendement 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anonymous (1994-1995) Consolidated report on kharif pulses (Entomology) All india Coordinated Pulses Improvement Project on Pigeonpea. Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur. 83 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Anonymous (1996-1997) Consolidated report on kharif pulses. All India Coordinated Pulses Improvement Project on Pigeonpea. Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur. 240 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Anonymous (1998) Project Coordinator’s Report. All India Coordinated Research Project on Pigeonpea. Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur. 28 pp.Google Scholar
  4. Ariyanayagam R. P. and Singh N. B. (1994) Pigeonpea breeding: Accomplishments and challenges. Plant Breeding Abstract 64, 773–782.Google Scholar
  5. ICRISAT [International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics](1992) The Medium Term Plan, Vol.1. Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru, Andra Pradesh.Google Scholar
  6. Lal S. S., Yadava C. P. and Sachan J. N. (1992) Assessment of pod borers damage on pigeonpea in different agro ecological zones of Uttar Pradesh. Indian J. Pulses Res. 5, 174–178.Google Scholar
  7. Lateef S. S. and Reed W. (1984) Review of crop losses caused by insect pests in pigeonpea internationally and in India, pp. 284–291. In Crop Losses Due to Insect Pests. Special issue of Indian Journal of Entomology. The Entomological Society of India, Hyderabad Branch, Vol. II.Google Scholar
  8. Lateef S. S. and Reed W. (1990) Insect pests of pigeonpea, pp. 193–242. In Insect Pests of Tropical Food Legumes (Edited by Singh S. R.). Wiley, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
  9. Manjunath T. M., Bhatnagar V. S., Pawar C. S. and Sithanantham S. (1989) Economic importance of Heliothis spp., pp. 197–228. In India and an Assessment of Their Natural Enemies and Host Plants. Proc. Workshop Biol. Control of Heliothis; Increasing the Effectiveness of Natural Enemies (Edited by King E. G. and Jackson R. D.). Far East. Reg. Res. Off., US. Dep. Agric. New Delhi.Google Scholar
  10. Nene Y. L. and Sheila V. K. (1990) Pigeonpea: Geography and Importance. CAB Int. Wallingford. 14 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Nene Y. L., Hall S. D. and Sheila V. K. (eds) (1990) The Pigeonpea. CAB Int. Wallingford. 490 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Patel A. J. and Dhulin F. K. (1990) Present status of Helicoverpa armigera in pulses and strategies for its management in Gujarat. In Helicoverpa Management: Current Status Future Strategies (Edited by Sachan J. N.). Proc. of First National Workshop held at Directorate of Pulses, Research, Kanpur, India, 30–31 August 1990.Google Scholar
  13. Saxena K. B., Lateef S. S., Fonseka H. H. D., Ariyararne H. P. and Dharamsena C. M. D. (1996) Maruca testulalis damage in determinate and indeterminate lines of pigeonpea in Sri Lanka. Int. Chickpea Pigeonpea Newsl. 91, 383–390.Google Scholar
  14. Sheldrake A. R., Narayanan A. and Venkataratnam N. (1979) The effect of flower removal on the seed yield of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan). Ann. Appl. Biol. 91, 383–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sison M. L. J. and Shanower T. G. (1994) Development and survival of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on short duration pigeonpea. J. Econ. Entomol. 87, 1749–1753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tabo R., Ezueh M. I., Ajayi O., Asiegbu J. E. and Singh L. (1995) Pigeonpea production and utilization in Nigeria. Int. Chickpea and pigeonpea Newsl. 2, 47–49.Google Scholar
  17. Tripathi S. R. and Singh R. (1989) Effect of different pulses on development, growth and reproduction of Heliothis armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Insect Sci. Applic. 10, 145–148.Google Scholar
  18. Valand V. M. and Patel J. R. (1992) Bio-ecology of Heliothis armigera Hubner in Gujarat. Agric. Sci. Dig. 12, 82–84.Google Scholar
  19. Venugopal Rao N., Tirumala Rao K. and Subba Rao A. (1992) Present status of Helicoverpa armigera in pulses and strategies for its management in Andhra Pradesh, pp. 68–74. In Helicoverpa Management: Current Status Future Strategies (Edited by Sachan S. N.), Proc. of First National Workshop held at Directorate of Pulses, Research, Kanpur, India 30–31 August, 1990.Google Scholar
  20. Yadava C. P. and Lai S. S. (1996-1997) Relationship between insect abundance, damage in yield loss in short duration pigeonpea. Annual Report for 1996-1997. Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur. pp. 28–29.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ICIPE 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Durairaj
    • 1
    Email author
  • T. G. Shanower
    • 2
    • 3
  • V. R. Bhagwat
    • 2
  • M. I. Khan
    • 4
  • D. A. Dodia
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural EntomologyTamil Nadu Agrl. University CoimbatoreIndia
  2. 2.International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid TropicsAndhrapradeshIndia
  3. 3.USDA — Agricultural Research ServiceSidneyUSA
  4. 4.Pulse Research Unit, Dr PanjabraoDeshmukh Krishi VidyapeetyMaharashtraIndia
  5. 5.Main Pulse Research StationGujarat Agricultural UniversityGujaratIndia

Personalised recommendations