JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND CROP SCIENCE Journal homepage: www.jakraya.com/journal/jacs

ORIGINAL ARTICLE Field Screening of Greengram Genotypes against vitrata in Summer

Sandhya Rani C*, G Ramachandra Rao, MSV Chalam, P Anil Kumar and V Srinivasa Rao

Department of Entomology, Agricultural College, Bapatla-522 101, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Abstract Varietal preference of spotted pod borer, M. vitrata to 110 different *Corresponding Author: genotypes including 10 released varieties as check was monitored under field condition during summer seasons. No genotype was found as resistant Sandhya Rani C to M. vitrata with nil infestation. The five genotypes, KM-9-128 (3.5%), KM-9-136 (5.8%), RMG-492 (8.34%), LGG-527 (9.5%) and LGG-538 Email: [email protected] (10.0%) were found as tolerant and twenty one genotypes showed Received: 21/10/2014 susceptibility with a range from 12.59 (MGG-332) to 20.0 (IPM-02-03 and LGG-522) percent and 13 genotypes were highly susceptible with a range Revised: 26/11/2014 from 43.25 (KM-8-662) to 68.39% (KM-173) pod damage. The remaining showed moderate susceptibility with a range from 20.21 (UPM-99-3) to Accepted: 27/11/2014 40.0 (KM-2241) percent.

Keywords : Greengram, Field screening Maruca vitrata, Summer season.

1. Introduction the year in different seasons / situations. It is known to or greengram ( Vigna radiata L. cause economic loss of 20 - 25 % and yield loss of 2- Wilczek) is the important pulse crop of India and it 84% in greengram (Vishakanthaiah and Jagadeesh occupies an area of about 3 mha with a production of Babu, 1980) and accounting to US $ 30 million . Zahid 0.25 MT and 425 kg ha -1 productivity (NAIP report et al. (2008) reported 20–30% pod damage in submitted by CRIDA, 2012). Andhra Pradesh is the 4 th mungbean. Hence, exploitation of host plant resistance, major state of India contributing 15.5% of the national an economically viable and eco-friendly IPM measure production of greengram with 351 kg ha -1 average against Maruca has become imperative to find out productivity. Greengram is cultivated throughout the resistance source with higher yield. year in all cropping seasons due to its short duration and suitability to crop rotation and crop mixtures. As 2. Material and Methods Kharif season is becoming uncertain to get the Investigation was carried out to screen the greengram crop due to climatic changes, it is grown as possible resistance source against Maruca with sole crop in water retentive heavy soils during rabi Hundred and ten (110) greengram genotypes procured (September to December) and cultivated as relay crop from different institutions were used as source material in Kharif rice fallows during late rabi (December - for the screening study (Table 1). The experiment was February). During summer, it is grown as a sole crop laid out in the farm of Agricultural Research Station, with adequate irrigation facilities. With the Madhira in RBD with 2 replications and hundred and introduction of Bt-cotton, most of the farmers are ten genotypes including ten check varieties as preferring greengram after completion of Bt-cotton treatments. The experiment sown on February 10 th , crop (February - April) by virtue of its short duration 2010 and February 4 th , 2011. The length of each line and drought tolerance in summer. The low productivity was 4 m and spacing between two lines of each in greengram may be attributed to factors like limited genotype was 30 cm and intra row spacing adopted was varietal improvement, low resilience to soil moisture 10 cm and an unsown row was kept between two stress, pest infestation etc., among them, ravage of entries for easiness of record observations of each pests is important. Among the pod borers, genotype. pod borer, Maruca vitrata is the serious Observations from bud initiation stage to pod concern to the greengram farmers of Andhra Pradesh, maturity stage were recorded on number of Maruca which cause damage mainly at reproductive phase of infested buds, infested flowers, webs per plant from the crop. Because of its extensive host range and randomly selected 5 plants per plot at weekly interval. destructiveness, it became a persistent pest in pulses At the time of harvest by identifying the characteristic particularly on greengram, as it is available throughout damage

Journal of Agriculture and Crop Science | Year-2014 | Volume 1 | Pages 18-25 © 2014 Jakraya Publications (P) Ltd Sandhya Rani et al…Field Screening of Greengram Genotypes against Maruca Vitrata in Summer

Table 1: Seed characters of greengram genotypes screened against M. vitrata

S. Genotype Seed Lustre Seed colour Seed shape Seed size 100 seed No Name weight (g) 1 Asha Shining Green Drum Medium 3.8 2 BAR-02/22 Dull Green Drum Medium 3.2 3 BDYR Shining Green Ovoid Bold 6.5 4 COGG -912 (C) Shining Green Drum Bold 5.6 5 EC-19515(C) Shining Green Drum Bold 5.5 6 GG-9 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.5 7 GG -10 Shining Green Drum Medium 3.7 8 GG -16 Shining Dark Green Drum Medium 3.8 9 GG-17 Dull Yellow Green Drum Medium 5.0 10 IPM-02-03 Shining Green Drum Bold 5.5 11 IPM -02 -14 Shining Green Drum Bold 5.7 12 KARS- 22 Shining Green Drum Medium 3.5 13 KARS- 27 Shining Ash Green Drum Medium 4.7 14 KARS-165 Dull Green Drum Medium 3.7 15 KARS -166 Dull Green Drum Medium 4.3 16 KM-173 Dull Ash Green Drum Medium 3.7 17 KM -195 Dull Ash Green Drum Medium 3.6 18 KM-200 Shining Green Drum Medium 3.8 19 KM-203 Shining Yellow Green Ovoid Medium 4.7 20 KM-2241 Shining Green Ovoid Bold 5.1 21 KM -8-651 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.8 22 KM-8-652 Shining Green Drum Medium 3.8 23 KM-8-653 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.0 24 KM -8-654 Shining Green Drum Medium 3.7 25 KM -8-655 Shining Green Drum Medium 3.7 26 KM-8-656 Shining Green Drum Medium 3.8 27 KM -8-657 Shining Green Drum Medium 3.8 28 KM -8-658 Shining Dull Green Drum Medium 4.7 29 KM-8-659 Shining Green Drum Medium 3.6 30 KM-8-660 Shining Green Ovoid Medium 3.7 31 KM -8-661 Shining Green Ovoid Medium 4.3 32 KM-8-662 Shining Green Ovoid Medium 3.7 33 KM-8-664 Dull Ash Green Drum Medium 4.5 34 KM-8-666 Dull Ash Green Drum Medium 4.3 35 KM -8-667 Shining Green Drum Medium 3.8 36 KM-8-668 Dull Ash Green Drum Medium 4.9 37 KM -9-121 Dull Green Drum Medium 4.9 38 KM-9-122 Dull Yellow Green Ovoid Medium 4.8 39 KM-9-123 Shining Yellow Green Ovoid Bold 5.2 40 KM-9-126 Shining Green Ovoid Medium 4.9 41 KM -9-128 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.9 42 KM-9-134 Dull Green Drum Medium 4.8 43 KM-9-136 Shining Yellow Green Ovoid Medium 5.0 44 KSAS -06/44 Dull Dark Green Drum Medium 3.4 45 KSAS -06/245 Shining Black Drum Medium 2.3 46 KSAS-06/378 Dull Black Drum Small 2.9 47 KSAS-06/407 Dull Black Drum Medium 3.0 48 LGG -477 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.9 49 LGG-491 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.5 50 LGG-497 Dull Dark Green Ovoid Medium 3.7 51 LGG-502 Shining Green Drum Medium 3.8 52 LGG-521 Shining Dark Green Drum Medium 4.91 53 LGG-522 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.0 54 LGG -527 Shining Yellow Green Drum Medium 4.1 55 LGG-528 Shining Yellow Green Drum Medium 4.5 56 LGG-538 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.3

Journal of Agriculture and Crop Science | Year-2014 | Volume 1 | Pages 18-25 © 2014 Jakraya Publications (P) Ltd 19 Sandhya Rani et al…Field Screening of Greengram Genotypes against Maruca Vitrata in Summer

57 LGG-540 Shining Green Drum Medium 3.7 58 LGG-541 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.7 59 LGG -542 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.4 60 LGG-543 Shining Yellow Green Drum Medium 4.1 61 LGG-544 Shining Green Drum Bold 5.1 62 LGG-545 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.8 63 LGG-547 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.8 64 LGG-549 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.8 65 LGG -551 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.3 66 Line – 76 Shining Black Ovoid Small 2.9 67 M.MUNG Dull Ash Green Drum Medium 3.4 68 MGG- 295(C) Dull Dark green Drum Medium 3.7 69 MGG-330 Shining Green Ovoid Medium 3.6 70 MGG-332 Shining Green Ovoid Medium 3.8 71 MGG -335 Dull Ash Green Drum Medium 3.5 72 MGG-336 Dull Green Drum Medium 3.6 73 MGG-341 Dull Green Drum Medium 4.0 74 MGG-347(C) Dull Light green Drum Medium 3.8 75 MGG -348(C) Dull Light green Drum Medium 3.8 76 MGG-349 Dull Ash Green Drum Medium 3.8 77 MGG-350 Dull Ash Green Drum Medium 3.7 78 MGG -351 Dull Ash Green Drum Medium 3.8 79 MGG-353 Shining Green Drum Medium 3.9 80 MGG-356 Shining Green Drum Medium 3.8 81 MGG -359 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.0 82 MGG-360 Dull Ash Green Drum Medium 4.5 83 MGG-361 Shining Dark Green Drum Medium 4.0 84 MGG-367 Shining Dark Green Drum Medium 4.3 85 ML-1299 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.4 86 NDS-391 Dull Black Drum Small 2.9 87 NM-1 Shining Black Green Drum Medium 4.0 88 NS -04 -112 Shining Dark Green Drum Medium 3.7 89 NSKMS-72 Shining Green Oval Medium 3.0 90 NSKMS-174 Shining Green Oval Medium 3.3 91 PANT-M-5(C) Shining Green Drum Bold 6.3 92 PDM-54(C) Shining Green Drum Medium 4.1 93 PUSA-9531 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.9 94 P.VISHAL(C) Shining Yellow Green Ovoid Bold 6.3 95 RMG-492 Shining Green Drum Bold 5.1 96 SM-131 Dull Black Green Drum Medium 4.3 97 SML-668(C) Shining Yellow Green Ovoid Bold 5.2 98 TARM -1 Shining Black Green Drum Bold 5.8 99 UPM-84-178 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.8 100 UPM-99-3 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.4 101 V-90 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.1 102 WGG-2(C) Dull Ash Green Drum Bold 5.9 103 WGG-42 Shining Green Oval Bold 5.9 104 WGG -43 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.3 105 WGG-44 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.8 106 WGG-45 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.2 107 WGG-46 Dull Ash Green Drum Bold 5.2 108 WGG -47 Dull Ash Green Drum Medium 4.4 109 WGG-48 Shining Green Drum Medium 4.1 110 WGG -49 Shining Green Drum Bold 5.7 symptoms due to Maruca per cent pod damage was Coordinated Research on Pulses (AICRP) evaluation recorded from randomly selected 100 pods from each system for pod borers, as none of the genotypes plot. The genotypes were also categorized based on 1-9 showed resistance with nil infestation. scale per cent pod damage suggested by All India -

Journal of Agriculture and Crop Science | Year-2014 | Volume 1 | Pages 18-25 © 2014 Jakraya Publications (P) Ltd 20 Sandhya Rani et al…Field Screening of Greengram Genotypes against Maruca Vitrata in Summer

391, NKMS-72 and 174 were showed only vegetative Scale Pest reaction Pest incidence growth without any reproductive phase in summer (1-9) season. 1 No infection No damage 3 Moderately < 10% of affected pods 3.3 Flower Infestation (%) resistant Flower infestation was ranged from 0.19 (NS- 5 Susceptible 11-20% of affected pods 7 Moderately 21-40% of affected pods 04-112) to 45.96 (KM-8-661) percent. The highest susceptible flower infestation was recorded in the genotypes KM- 9 Highly > 40% of affected pods 8-661 (45.96%), MGG-348 (36.81%), MGG-295 susceptible (34.44%), LGG-544 (34.1%), LGG-540 (33.94%), MGG-347 (33.34%), KM-9-123 (33.06%), LGG-528 3. Results and Discussion (32.85%), KM-8-662 (32.74%), MGG-367 (32.2%), Under natural field conditions, cumulative data KM-8-666 (30.69%) and V-90 (30.56%). The lowest (Table 2) on mean number of M. vitrata larvae and flower infestation was recorded in the genotypes NS- webs per plant, per cent bud infestation, floral 04-112 (0.19), BAR-02/22 (2.31%), KM-9-134 infestation and pod damage caused by M. vitrata was (8.76%), KM-9-136 (9.89%), KARS-27 (10.19%), assessed in hundred and ten (110) genotypes of MGG-360 (10.58%) and IPM-02-03 (11.54%). greengram from bud initiation stage to pod maturity The greengram genotypes MGG 295, LGG 544, stage during summer, 2009-10 and 2010-11 and results LGG 528, MGG 348, KM-8-668, KM-9-123, LGG 540 revealed that there were significant differences in and LGG 551 which recorded highest bud and flower reaction among the genotypes against Maruca infestation were recorded higher yields during summer infestation. (Fig 1). This type of reaction might be due to the compensatory mechanism and rejuvenation capability 3.1 Larval Incidence (No. /Plant) of the genotypes. Food material/chemical constituent of Data on mean larval population revealed that, grains in resistant genotypes inhibited the growth of there was a highly significant difference between the larvae, pupae and adults by means of antibiosis. genotypes and it was varied from 0-3.55 larvae per plant. The highest population was recorded in the 3.4 Webs Per Plant genotypes LGG-543 (3.55), LGG-542 (3.15), LGG-544 Mean numbers of webs per plant were ranged and LGG-540 (3.1), MGG-361 and LGG-541(2.9), from 1.0 (NS-04-112) to 4.6 (LGG-521). The highest PDM-54, KM-9-126, KM-8-668 (2.75), where as the number of webs recorded in the genotypes LGG- lowest population was recorded in the genotypes, 521(4.6), LGG-522, KM-9-134, KM-8-660, Km-8-659, KARS-166 (0.5), KARS-165 (0.65), KM-9-134 (0.8), GG-17(4.5), KM-8-651(4.3), MGG-367, BGG-549, KARS-22 and MGG-350 (0.9). LGG-545, LGG-542, LGG-527(4.2), WGG-49, SM- 131, PANT M-5, ML-1299, MGG-361, MGG-332, 3.2 Bud Infestation (%) Madhira Mung, LGG-541, LGG-538, LGG-497, LGG- During summer, bud infestation recorded in 477 (4.1), Pusa-9531, NM-1, MGG-350 (4.05), KM-9- hundred and ten genotypes was ranged from 0.75 (NS- 123 and GG-10 (4.0). The lowest number of webs per 04-112) to 32.75 (MGG-295) percent. The lowest bud plant was recorded with genotypes NS-04-112, KSAS- infestation was noticed in the genotypes NS-04- 06/44 (1.0), Asha, KM-9-121 and RMG-492 (1.1). 112(0.75%), KARS-27(4.75%), KARS-165 (5.0%), KM-9-136 (5.8%), KARS-166 (6.25%), LGG-538 3.5 Per Cent Pod Damage (7.5%), KM-195 (7.75%), WGG-47 and WGG-48 The mean per cent pod damage by M. vitrata (8.0%), LGG-497 (8.25%), WGG-2 (8.28%), WGG-42 was ranged between 3.5 (KM-9-128) to 68.39 (KM- (8.57%), IPM-02-03 (8.65%), LGG-477 (9.23%), 173) per cent. The genotypes, KM-9-128 (3.5%), KM- BAR-02/22 (9.25%), RMG-492 (9.48%), WGG-49 9-136 (5.8%), RMG-492 (8.34%), LGG-527 (9.5%) (9.5%), WGG-45 and WGG-46 (10.0%). The highest and LGG-538 (10.0%) were recorded the lowest pod bud infestation was recorded in the genotypes MGG- damage. The highest pod damage was observed in the 295 (32.75%), KM-8-661 (31.25%), LGG-544 genotypes, KM-173 (68.39%) followed by MGG-295 (29.0%), LGG-528 (27.89%), MGG-347 (27.75%), (62.75%), LGG-528 (62.29%), KM-8-660 (58.04%), KM-8-662 (26.25%), KM-173 (26.14%), MGG-348 Line-76 (53.04%), IPM-02-14 (51.49%), KM-8-654 and Pusa-9531 (25.75%) and MGG-361 (24.65%). (48.87%), LGG-544 (47.43%), KM-8-661 (45.61%), The genotypes, KSAS-06/144, KSAS-06/245, KM-8-658 (43.94%), KM-9-121 (43.87%), KM-8-658 KSAS-06/378, KSAS-06/407, KSAS-06/232, NDS- (43.94%) and KM-8-662 (43.25%).

Journal of Agriculture and Crop Science | Year-2014 | Volume 1 | Pages 18-25 © 2014 Jakraya Publications (P) Ltd 21 Sandhya Rani et al…Field Screening of Greengram Genotypes against Maruca Vitrata in Summer

Table 2: Reaction of Greengram genotypes against M. vitrata during Summer

Mean Per cent infestation by S. Genotype Mean no. of M. vitrata (Pooled data Scale Webs per plant Reaction No. Name larvae/ pl of 2009-10 & 2010-11) (1-9) Bud Floral Pod damage 1 Asha 1.90 1.10 14.17 18.54 17.86 5 Susceptible 2 BAR-02/22 0.00 0.00 9.25 2.31 28.90 7 MS 3 BDYR 1.10 3.50 16.50 15.38 34.35 7 MS 4 COGG912 1.30 4.10 14.75 17.19 25.73 7 MS 5 EC-19515 1.90 3.25 12.00 18.00 24.24 7 MS 6 GG-9 1.70 3.60 13.75 13.83 32.37 7 MS 7 GG-10 1.90 4.00 12.25 12.74 24.85 7 MS 8 GG-16 1.60 3.10 14.25 14.66 22.69 7 MS 9 GG-17 1.60 4.50 17.75 15.84 35.77 7 MS 10 IPM-02-03 1.75 3.50 8.65 11.54 20.00 5 Susceptible 11 IPM-02-14 1.70 3.90 18.95 15.61 51.49 9 HS 12 KARS- 22 0.90 2.00 22.50 13.13 63.38 9 HS 13 KARS- 27 1.00 3.30 4.75 10.19 0.00 -- -- 14 KARS-165 0.65 1.50 5.00 12.50 0.00 -- -- 15 KARS-166 0.50 2.90 6.25 15.06 6.21 -- -- 16 KM-173 2.05 1.20 26.14 21.54 68.39 9 HS 17 KM-195 2.30 1.25 7.75 11.69 19.90 5 Susceptible 18 KM-200 1.90 1.30 13.00 15.25 30.89 7 MS 19 KM -203 1.90 1.20 15.75 22.69 28.13 7 MS 20 KM-2241 2.10 3.90 19.50 18.38 40.0 7 MS 21 KM-8-651 1.30 4.30 16.00 13.75 35.43 7 MS 22 KM -8-652 2.10 2.00 13.00 14.39 25.77 7 MS 23 KM-8-653 2.30 1.60 21.54 28.34 34.43 7 MS 24 KM-8-654 1.70 3.60 18.00 26.18 48.87 9 HS 25 KM -8-655 1.90 3.60 18.34 27.46 22.60 7 MS 26 KM-8-656 1.90 2.20 10.56 21.31 16.80 5 Susceptible 27 KM-8-657 1.70 2.30 17.25 17.96 38.45 7 MS 28 KM-8-658 1.45 2.40 23.84 28.89 43.94 9 HS 29 KM-8-659 1.30 4.50 15.25 15.06 22.26 7 MS 30 KM-8-660 1.50 4.50 22.25 19.48 58.04 9 HS 31 KM-8-661 1.65 2.20 31.25 45.96 45.61 9 HS 32 KM-8-662 1.70 3.10 26.25 32.74 43.25 9 HS 33 KM-8-664 1.90 3.20 16.75 27.29 15.44 5 Susceptible 34 KM-8-666 1.90 3.10 17.75 30.69 27.04 7 MS 35 KM-8-667 2.50 3.50 21.00 29.25 30.51 7 MS 36 KM-8-668 2.75 2.50 22.75 26.69 34.14 7 MS 37 KM-9-121 2.70 1.10 21.50 27.88 43.87 9 HS 38 KM-9-122 2.60 3.10 17.00 29.75 22.99 7 MS 39 KM -9-123 2.35 4.00 24.25 33.06 32.37 7 MS 40 KM-9-126 2.75 3.00 19.00 25.75 29.94 7 MS 41 KM-9-128 2.70 3.50 10.31 25.64 3.5 3 Tolerant 42 KM -9-134 0.80 4.50 11.05 8.76 36.87 7 MS 43 KM-9-136 1.20 2.50 5.80 9.89 5.8 3 Tolerant 44 KSAS-06/44 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- -- 45 KSAS -06/245 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- -- 46 KSAS-06/378 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- -- 47 KSAS -06/407 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- -- 48 LGG-477 2.25 4.10 9.23 11.91 18.25 5 Susceptible 49 LGG-491 1.90 3.20 12.75 24.19 23.80 7 MS 50 LGG-497 1.10 4.10 8.25 13.67 17.90 5 Susceptible 51 LGG-502 1.75 3.20 10.50 14.44 21.35 7 MS 52 LGG-521 2.30 4.60 11.25 19.16 18.59 5 Susceptible 53 LGG-522 2.10 4.50 11.92 21.95 20.00 5 Susceptible 54 LGG-527 2.10 4.20 22.00 26.76 9.50 3 Tolerant 55 LGG-528 2.30 3.10 27.89 32.85 62.29 9 HS 56 LGG-538 1.90 4.10 7.50 16.69 10.00 3 Tolerant 57 LGG-540 3.10 3.20 21.75 33.94 37.20 7 MS 58 LGG-541 2.90 4.10 17.00 22.48 22.54 7 MS 59 LGG-542 3.15 4.20 20.75 28.06 35.80 7 MS 60 LGG-543 3.55 3.10 18.50 27.73 24.65 7 MS

Journal of Agriculture and Crop Science | Year-2014 | Volume 1 | Pages 18-25 © 2014 Jakraya Publications (P) Ltd 22 Sandhya Rani et al…Field Screening of Greengram Genotypes against Maruca Vitrata in Summer

61 LGG-544 3.10 2.20 29.00 34.10 47.43 9 HS 62 LGG-545 2.20 4.20 16.25 19.66 26.00 7 MS 63 LGG-547 2.50 3.10 18.25 23.84 26.00 7 MS 64 LGG-549 2.10 4.20 13.00 12.85 31.00 7 MS 65 LGG-551 2.05 3.10 20.00 28.18 34.54 7 MS 66 Line – 76 1.80 3.20 23.00 27.13 53.04 9 HS 67 M.MUNG 2.00 4.10 16.50 13.13 26.05 7 MS 68 MGG- 295 2.10 2.10 32.75 34.44 62.72 9 HS 69 MGG-330 1.10 2.20 19.25 23.56 24.72 7 MS 70 MGG-332 2.30 4.10 12.69 24.17 12.59 5 Susceptible 71 MGG-335 2.25 2.90 21.00 27.75 30.51 7 MS 72 MGG-336 1.20 3.60 19.25 18.31 34.09 7 MS 73 MGG-341 2.10 3.05 21.84 26.31 24.80 7 MS 74 MGG -347 2.20 2.10 27.75 33.34 23.63 7 MS 75 MGG-348 2.40 2.20 25.75 36.81 28.77 7 MS 76 MGG-349 2.10 3.90 10.60 18.03 14.10 5 Susceptible 77 MGG -350 0.90 4.05 13.02 16.91 30.36 7 MS 78 MGG-351 2.10 3.10 18.00 20.03 38.43 7 MS 79 MGG-353 2.20 3.90 19.00 27.63 26.65 7 MS 80 MGG -356 2.30 2.55 15.84 25.49 22.10 7 MS 81 MGG-359 2.50 2.10 18.72 28.30 23.10 7 MS 82 MGG-360 1.20 3.10 10.82 10.58 24.30 7 MS 83 MGG-361 2.90 4.10 24.65 28.96 35.25 7 MS 84 MGG-367 2.30 4.20 18.40 32.20 23.00 7 MS 85 ML-1299 1.50 4.10 16.50 16.80 18.43 5 Susceptible 86 NDS-391 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- -- 87 NM-1 1.70 4.05 21.00 24.00 39.93 7 MS 88 NS-04-112 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- -- 89 NSKMS 72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- -- 90 NSKMS 174 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- -- 91 PANT-M-5 2.60 4.10 15.00 26.04 17.75 5 Susceptible 92 PDM-54 2.75 3.40 15.00 24.75 22.00 7 MS 93 PUSA-9531 2.45 4.05 25.75 29.50 31.09 7 MS 94 P.VISHAL 1.80 2.10 14.00 19.85 15.00 5 Susceptible 95 RMG-492 2.10 1.10 9.48 19.54 8.34 3 Tolerant 96 SM-131 1.90 4.10 10.50 19.01 22.03 7 MS 97 SML -668 1.80 3.10 15.50 21.69 34.52 7 MS 98 TRRM-1 1.90 2.05 15.50 28.48 28.07 7 MS 99 UPM-84-178 2.20 2.20 18.00 26.06 26.77 7 MS 100 UPM -99 -3 2.20 3.10 12.50 21.88 20.21 7 MS 101 V-90 2.50 3.70 14.25 30.56 24.19 7 MS 102 WGG-2 2.50 3.10 8.28 13.88 19.31 5 Susceptible 103 WGG -42 1.80 3.60 8.57 13.02 24.94 7 MS 104 WGG-43 1.90 3.90 10.35 16.76 21.47 7 MS 105 WGG-44 1.90 3.55 11.00 23.75 19.04 5 Susceptible 106 WGG-45 1.90 3.60 10.00 14.35 17.60 5 Susceptible 107 WGG-46 1.50 3.60 10.00 16.53 16.68 5 Susceptible 108 WGG-47 2.10 3.70 8.00 15.20 16.24 5 Susceptible 109 WGG-48 1.90 3.70 8.00 14.60 18.63 5 Susceptible 110 WGG-49 1.80 4.10 9.50 11.75 21.96 7 MS G. Mean 1.84 3.00 15.12 20.13 26.09 SEM+ 0.12 0.50 5.03 1.64 3.48 C.D 0.05% * 0.34 1.41 14.09 4.61 9.76 C.V % 9.43 23.79 7.02 11.55 18.88 MS= Moderately Susceptible; HS = Highly Susceptible; * = Significant

3.6 Categorization of Genotypes Based on 1-9 genotypes, KM-9-128 (3.5%), KM-9-136 (5.8%), Scale RMG-492 (8.34%), LGG-527 (9.5%) and LGG-538 During summer also, hundred and ten screened (10.0%) were found as tolerant (Scale-3) to M. vitrata greengram genotypes were categorized in to five pod damage (Fig 3). Chhabra et al . (1988) reported that groups, viz., resistant (scale-1), tolerant (Scale-3), mungbean cultivars viz., LU-3, LU-15, LU-33, LU- susceptible (Scale-5), moderately susceptible (Scale-7) 173, LU-190, LU-196, LU-397, LU-426 and LU-434 and highly susceptible (Scale-9) based on per cent pod were resistant to pod borers such as Lampides boeticus , damage (Fig 2). No genotype was found as resistant M. vitrata and H. armigera . Sahoo et al . (1989) studied (Scale-1) to M. vitrata with nil infestation. The five the varietal susceptibility of greengram and reported that PDM-54-146, ML 131 and ML 372 cultivars were-

Journal of Agriculture and Crop Science | Year-2014 | Volume 1 | Pages 18-25 © 2014 Jakraya Publications (P) Ltd 23 Sandhya Rani et al… Field Screening of Greengram Genotypes against Maruca Vitrata in Summer

Bud infestation (%) Floral infestation (%) Pod damage (%) Plot Yield (g) UP

Fig 1: Greengram genotypes with high bud and floral infestation (Summer)

11 Tolerant(Scale-3) 12 33

21 61

Fig 2: Grouping of greengram genotypes based on 1 -9 scale (Summer )

KM-9-128 KM-9-136 RMG-492 LGG-527 LGG -538 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 No. of Webs/ Bud Floral Pod Larvae / Plant infestation infestation damage plant (%) (%) (%)

Fig 3: Reaction of greengram genotypes tolerant to M. vitrata during summer proved resistant to pod borers. Gangwar and Ahmed 14-2, UPM-83-6 and UPM 83 -10 were moderately (1991) reported that pod damage due to Maruca in resistant to pod borer’s viz., M. testulalis , H. armigera, mungbean at Port Blair, Andaman was high in the Catechrysops cnejus and L. boeticus and recorded pod range of 29.9 (in S-8) to 39.2 (in Co -3) and the most damage ranging from 1-4 per cent. Pandey and Mishra resistant varieties were ML-65, B -101 and B-103. (1992) reported that five greengram crosses viz. ML-5 Sahoo and Hota (1991) reported that the greengram X PIMS1, PIMS 1 X P226, ML -5 X P226, T44 X UPM genotypes JRUM1, JRUM11, JRUM33, DP1703, LAM 79-3-4, ML80 X UPM 79 -3-4 and a parent ML5

Journal of Agriculture and Crop Science | Year-2014 | Volume 1 | Pages 18-25 © 2014 Jakraya Publications (P) Ltd 24 Sandhya Rani et al…Field Screening of Greengram Genotypes against Maruca Vitrata in Summer recorded consistently lower pod and grain damage (0- between pod length and incidence was positive and 5%) by M. testulalis , C. cnejus and L. boeticus . significant. Lengthy pods were found more susceptible Sandhya Rani et al . (2012) evaluated 12 OVT entries to M. vitrata . Swarnalatha (2007) evaluated 25 during rabi and reported that, Maruca pod borer greengram genotypes and reported that LGG 505, ML damage ranged from 11.6 (MGG 364) to 25.7% (MGG 267, LGG 502, LGG 407, LGG 460 and LGG 485 356) and the entries, MGG 364 (11.6 %), MGG 365 were resistant to M. testulalis than other genotypes . (14.3%) and MGG 363 (14.6%) were found to be Sandhya Rani et al. (2008) evaluated 12 OVT tolerant. greengram entries against Maruca in Rabi season and The results revealed that there are twenty one reported that the entries MGG 358, MGG 359, MGG genotypes showed susceptibility and lay under scale-5 360, MGG 364, MGG 366, MGG 367 were tolerant, with a range from 12.59 (MGG-332) to 20.0 (IPM-02- but in the present study these genotypes showed 03 and LGG-522) percent. There are sixty one contrary results as they were moderately susceptible genotypes were categorized as moderately susceptible due to Maruca . It indicates that seasonal variation to Maruca pod damage and laid under scale 7 with a might play role in the greengram genotypes against range from 20.21 (UPM-99-3) to 40.0 (KM-2241) Maruca. percent. The high per cent pod damage with scale 9 was recorded in 13 genotypes ranging from 43.25 4. Conclusion (KM-8-662) to 68.39 (KM-173) percent. The tolerant genotypes KM-9-128 (3.5%), KM- Halder et al . (2006) screened ten greengram 9-136 (5.8%), RMG-492 (8.34%), LGG-527 (9.5%) cultivars against Maruca and reported that, LGG-450 and LGG-538 (10.0%) might be utilized in resistance was highly susceptible and LGG 497 was highly breeding programmes against M. vitrata pod damage tolerant. They also reported that the differences in pod and may be recommended for summer season for their length among different cultivars were also found to cultivation in the endemic areas. influence pod damage by M. vitrata . The correlation

References Chhabra KS, Kooner BS, Sharma AK, Saxena AK and cultivars to the leaf beetles and pod borer complex. Shanmugasundaran S (1988). Mungbean Environmental Ecology, 7 (2): 345-347. Proceedings of Second International Symposium. Sandhya Rani C, Eswari KB and Sudarshanam A (2008). Bangkok, Thailand, 16-22. Field evaluation of Mung bean ( Vigna radiata L.) Gangwar B and Ahmed R (1991). Performance of OVT entries in Kharif and Rabi seasons against mungbean varieties under Andaman and Nicobar thrips and Maruca vitrata (Geyer). The Journal of Island condition. Indian Journal of Pulses Research, Research ANGRAU, 36(2):17-22. 4(1): 115-116. Sandhya Rani C, Eswari KB and Sudarshanam A (2012). Halder B, Srivastava CP and Joshi N (2006). Comparative Reaction of Greengram ( Vigna radiata L.) OVT efficacy of some newer insecticides against the entries against major insect pests in Rabi season. The major insect pests of short duration pigeonpea. Andhra Agricultural Journal, 59(1): 87- 92. Pestology, 30(9): 32-35. Swarnalatha P (2007). Germplasm screening and National Agricultural Innovation Project report submitted insecticidal management of pest complex in by Central Research Institute for Dryland greengram ( Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek). M.Sc.(Ag.) Agriculture, 2012. Thesis Acharya NG Ranga Agricultural University, Pandey R and Mishra DS (1992). Field reaction of Rajendranagar, Hyderabad. greengram germplasm against jassids and pod Vishakanthaiah M and Jagadeesh babu CS (1980). borers. Indian Journal of Entomology , 54(4): 433- Bionomics of the tur webworm, Maruca testulalis 439. (: Pyralidae). Mysore Journal of Sahoo BK and Hota AK (1991). Field screening of Agricultural Sciences , 14: 529-532. greengram germplasm against insect pest and Zahid MA, Islam MM and Begum MR (2008). disease complex . Madras Agricultural Journal, 78 Determination of economic injury levels of Maruca (1-4): 84-86. vitrata in Mungbean. Journal of Agricultural Rural Sahoo BK, Sontakhe BK and Ruth LK (1989). Varietal Development, 6(1 and 2): 91-97. susceptibility of different greengram and blackgram

Journal of Agriculture and Crop Science | Year-2014 | Volume 1 | Pages 18-25 © 2014 Jakraya Publications (P) Ltd 25