Evaluation of Pigeonpea Accessions and Selected Lines for Reaction to

Saxena, K. B.; Chandrasena, G. D. S. N.; Hettiarachchi, K.; Iqbal, Yasir; Fonseka, H.; Jayasekera, S.

doi:10.2135/cropsci2002.0615

Cited by 10 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The high level of natural incidence of Maruca provides an opportunity for evaluation of pigeonpea germplasm under field conditions [13]. Screening of the germplasm accessions revealed a large variation in Maruca damage to flowers and pods.…”

Section: Screening Of Pigeonpea Genotypes For Insects Resistancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Data on pod damage and larval counts indicated that the resistance was conditioned through yield compensation mechanisms. Further studies in these lines indicated that by using the resistant genotypes, it is possible to reduce the number of insecticide sprays for economic yields [13].…”

Section: Screening Of Pigeonpea Genotypes For Insects Resistancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Maruca is a serious insect pest of early pigeonpea; yield losses due to Maruca damage in pigeonpea ranged up to 100%. The development of resistant cultivars and germplasm is one of the best means for controlling this insect [13]. Scale insect (Ceroplastodes cajani) has also been noticed to reduce yield of pigeonpea [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Conventional and Molecular Approaches towards Genetic Improvement in Pigeonpea for Insects Resistance

Choudhary¹,

Raje²,

Datta³

et al. 2013

AJPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millspaugh] is an important food legume of the semi-arid tropics (SAT) sustaining livelihood of millions of people. Stagnant and unstable yield per hectare all over the world is the characteristic feature of this crop. This is primarily ascribed to its susceptibility/sensitivity to a number of biotic and abiotic factors. Among biotic factors, insects such as pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera), pod fly (Melanoagromyza obtusa) and spotted borer (Maruca vitrata) substantially damage the crop and result in significant economic losses. Management of these insects by genetic means has always been considered environment friendly approach. However, genetic improvement has always been impeded by limited genetic variability in the primary gene pool of pigeonpea. Wild species present in the secondary and tertiary gene pools have been reported to carry resistance for such insects. However, transfer of resistance through conventional backcrossing has not been much successful. It calls for gene introgression through marker assisted backcrossing (MABC) or advanced backcross breeding (AB breeding). In this review, we have attempted to assess the progress made through conventional and molecular breeding and suggested the ways to move further towards genetic enhancement for insects resistance in pigeonpea.

show abstract

Section: Screening Of Pigeonpea Genotypes For Insects Resistancementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Screening Of Pigeonpea Genotypes For Insects Resistancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conventional and Molecular Approaches towards Genetic Improvement in Pigeonpea for Insects Resistance

Choudhary¹,

Raje²,

Datta³

et al. 2013

AJPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The loss caused due to Maruca was estimated to be about 84 per cent (Dharmasena et al, 1992) accounting to US $ 30 million (Saxena et al, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In-Vivo and field evaluation of spinetoram 12 SC against Lampides boeticus on pigeonpea

Kumar

Muthukrishnan

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The young larvae of L. boeticus damage flowers and pods. A new biological insecticide molecule, spinetoram 12 SC was evaluated for acute toxicity on greenhouse environment reared L. boeticus and persistence on pigeonpea pods at laboratory; and effect on L. boeticus on pigeonpea at field conditions during 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. Acute toxicity studies revealed that LC 50 's of spinetoram on third instar larvae after 24, 48 and 72 hours after treatment were 6.71, 2.23 and 1.28 ppm respectively. In persistence studies, spinetoram 12 SC 27 g a.i./ha was upto 11 DAT and 14 DAT for spinetoram 12 SC 36 and 45 g a.i./ha. More than 50 per cent mortality was observed in spinetoram 12 SC at 45 g a.i./ha upto 9 DAT, spinetoram 12 SC at 27 and 36 g a.i./ha, spinosad 45 SC 78 g a.i./ha and emamectin benzoate 5 SG at 11 g a.i./ha upto 7 DAT, monocrotophos 36 SL at 500 g a.i./ha upto 5 DAT, respectively. Results indicated that spinetoram 12 SC was significantly effective at 36 and 45 g a.i./ha when sprayed thrice at 15 days interval and minimized the incidence of L. boeticus on pigeonpea plants and increases the grain yield. All the spinetoram doses did not show any phytotoxic symptoms on pigeonpea plants.

show abstract

“…Helicoverpa causes heavy loss up to 60% with an annual loss estimated to be US $ 400 million in pigeonpea (Anonymous, 2007). The loss caused due to Maruca was estimated to be about 84 percent (Dharmasena et al, 1992) accounting to US $ 30 million (Saxena et al, 2002). Maruca is basically a hidden pest and completes its larval development inside the web formed by rolling and tying together leaves, flowers, buds and pods.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of some Bio- pesticides against some Important Lepidopteron Pests of Pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.) at Pantnagar, Uttarakhand, India

Jaba¹,

Meena²,

Rakesh³

2014

GJAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The field experiment conducted to evaluate the relative efficacy of eight biopesticides against gram pod borer Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner), legume pod borer, Marucavitrata (Geyer) and E. zinkenellainfesting Pigenopea during Kharif season 2010. The population was recorded at different days after spraying of insecticides and it was found that the number of larvae varied non-significantly different from the control in both spray application. Significant effect of biopesticides on percent webbing by M. vitrata, at First spray application showed minimum (32.00/25shoots) in NSKE 5.0 % @ 50 g/lit .The pod borer M. vitrata was found lowest in Spinosad 45%ww @73g.ai/ha (4.50%) , followed by NSKE 5 % (4.81%) and B. bassiana DOR SC @ 1.89gm/lit (5.39%) as compared to control (14.49%). The percent pod damage by H. armigera varied significantly which was minimum (27.84%) in Spinosad 45%ww @73g.ai/ha followed by B. bassiana WP @ 1.5kg/ha (28.58%) and B. bassiana DOR SC @ 1.89gm/lit (28.73%) in comparison to control (51.68%). Grain yield varied from maximum of 1200 kg/ha in Spinosad 45%ww @73g.ai/ha followed by 1191.67 kg/ha in B. bassiana DOR SC @ 1.89gm/lit as compared to 708.33kg/ha in untreated control.

show abstract

Evaluation of Pigeonpea Accessions and Selected Lines for Reaction to

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

Conventional and Molecular Approaches towards Genetic Improvement in Pigeonpea for Insects Resistance

Conventional and Molecular Approaches towards Genetic Improvement in Pigeonpea for Insects Resistance

In-Vivo and field evaluation of spinetoram 12 SC against Lampides boeticus on pigeonpea

Evaluation of some Bio- pesticides against some Important Lepidopteron Pests of Pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.) at Pantnagar, Uttarakhand, India

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About