Standardization of Cage Techniques to Screen Chickpeas for Resistance to Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Greenhouse and Field Conditions

Abstract

Because of variations in insect populations and staggered flowering of chickpea, Cicer arietinum L., genotypes, it is difficult to compare the genotypic performance across seasons and locations. We standardized a cage technique to screen chickpeas for resistance to Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner). Leaf feeding by the larvae was significantly lower on ICC 506 than on ICCC 37 when the seedlings were infested with 20 neonates per five plants at 15 d after seedling emergence or 10 neonates per three plants at the flowering stage. Maximum differences in pod damage were observed when the plants were infested with six third-instar larvae per three plants in the greenhouse, and with eight larvae per plant under field conditions. Larval weights were significantly lower on ICC 506 than on ICCC 37 across growth stages and infestation levels. At the podding stage, percentage of reduction in grain yield was significantly greater on ICCC 37 and Annigeri than on ICCV 2 and ICC 506. The no-choice test can be used to screen segregating breeding material and mapping populations for resistance to H. armigera. It also provides useful information on antibiosis mechanism of resistance to H. armigera.

Mechanisms of resistance to Helicoverpa armigera and introgression of resistance genes into F1 hybrids in chickpea

“…Therefore, genotypic resistance to H. armigera was evaluated at the vegetative and flowering stages. At 15 days after seedling emergence (DAE), the test genotypes were infested with 20 neonates of H. armigera per five plants (Sharma et al 2005c). At the flowering stage, only three plants were retained in each pot, and infested with 20 neonate larvae, while at the podding stage, three plants were infested with six pre-weighed third-instar larvae.…”

“…The test genotypes were evaluated for leaf feeding visually on 1-9 scale (1 = \10% leaf area damaged, and 9 = [80% leaf area damaged) (Sharma et al 2005c). The number of larvae surviving after the feeding period were recorded in each replication, and placed in 25 ml plastic cups.…”

Resistance to beet armyworm in a chickpea recombinant inbred line population

“…Secondly, several RILs in the CRIL‐7 population were significantly more resistant to S. exigua than ICC 506 (table 2), a desi chickpea that has become the standard resistant or moderately resistant check for host plant resistance studies involving H. armigera (e.g. Sharma et al. 2005a, 2006; Cotter and Edwards 2006; Narayanamma et al.…”

“…Consequently, standard measurements of Cicer resistance include the quantification of weight gain by early‐stage larvae (e.g. Sharma 2005; Sharma et al. 2005a).…”

Breeding for biotic stress resistance in chickpea: progress and prospects

“…Host plant resistance has the potential to be a highly valuable part of an integrated pest management approach ). Greenhouse and field-based screening methodologies have been used with conventional breeding techniques to select for Helicoverpa resistant cultivars (Sharma et al 2005b). Open-field screening of 12,000 chickpea germplasm accessions at ICRISAT found some accessions had reduced susceptibility to H. armigera (Lateef 1985).…”