Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) Special Issue-11: 940-950

International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences ISSN: 2319-7706 Special Issue-11 pp. 940-950 Journal homepage: http://www.ijcmas.com

Original Research Article

Reaction of Local Land Races and Popular Cultivars of Finger Millet [ (L.) Gaertn.,] against Earhead Caterpillars

N. M. Chikkarugi1*, L. Vijaykumar2, H. R. Raveendra1 and B. Shivanna3

1Zonal Agricultural Research Station, V.C. Farm, Mandya, 571405, 2College of Agriculture, V.C. Farm, Mandya, 571405, India 3Department of Agril Entomology, CoA, UAS, Bangaluru, India University of Agricultural Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

*Corresponding author

ABSTRACT

A field experiment was conducted at randomized completely block design (RCBD) replicated thrice at the “G” block, Zonal Agricultural Research Station, Vishweshwaraiah Canal Farm, Mandya . A set of 32 genotypes under local landraces were selected and sown in three lines of 3-meter row with a spacing of 30 × 10 cm between rows and plants respectively against screening of different earhead caterpillars of finger millet viz., Archips

micaceana, Somena scintillans, Cryptoblabes angustipennella, Nola analis, Cydia sp., K e yw or ds Helicoverpa armigera, Pyrausta phoenicealis, Corcyra cephalonica, Stathmopoda sp. and Spodoptera frugiperda. Results revealed that, out of 32 local land races, none of the Finger millet, Earhe ad genotypes were found under highly resistant category, whereas, two genotypes Hulubele caterpillars and (0.31 larvae/earhead) and Purna (0.31 larvae/earhead) found resistant and 15 genotypes local land races reacted as moderately resistant (0.35 to 0.38 larvae/earhead), 11 genotypes found susceptible (1.11 to 1.18 larvae/earhead) and 4 genotypes considered as highly susceptible (1.78 to 1.99 larvae/earhead). During different stages of earhead, there was no incidence of earhead caterpillars during flowering stage, steady increase in the level of incidence was noticed at milky stage and gradually increased to reach their peak during dough stage, and further during maturity stage, the population became drastically reduced.

Introduction is a Greek word meaning „Goddess of Cereals” (Chalam and Venkateshwaralu Finger millet, Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn 1965), The earliest archeological proof of its is important climate resilient small millet, cultivation is from Ethiopia, circa 3000 B.C. forms staple nourishment for many African Finger millet arose in Uganda and and Asian countries of the world including neighboring parts of Africa thousands of India, wherever it is cultivated. It is also years ago and spread over to India by 1000 known as bird‟s foot, mandua, maruva, B.C (National Research Council 1996). madua, nagli and nachni in different regions of the country and as “ragi” in south India Earlier to the introduction of maize, ragi was and African millet and red millet in English the staple food crop in South Africa, and it is (Rachie and Peters, 1977) belongs to family still a significant food crop in southern India. „‟. Eleusine, the generic name, which It ranks fourth among the millets in the world

940

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) Special Issue-11: 940-950

(Hulse et al., 1980) after sorghum, pearl species of lepidopteran earhead caterpillars millet and foxtail millet. This crop is widely viz., Cryptoblabes angustipennella Hamps, C. cultivated in Asia and Africa, especially in gnidiella (Mill), Eublemma (Autoba) silicula India, Srilanka, Malaysia, China, Japan and Swinh, Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.), most parts of central and east Africa both Cacoecia epicyrta Meur, Stathmopoda under rainfed and irrigated conditions. In theoris Meyr, Archips micaceanus (Wlk.) and India this crop is grown throughout the Sitotroga cerealella (Oliv.) are occasionally country for both grain and forage, more than becomes serious (Anon., 2014). These, half of the area and production are lepidopteran earhead caterpillars are concentrated in southern India. becoming important species and major production constraints in all regions, The major finger millet growing states are especially southern parts of India Karnataka, Uttarakhand, Tamil Nadu, (Krishnamurthi and Usman, 1952). Maharashtra, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat and cultivated over an area of 11.94 In southern parts of Karnataka, the farmers lakh ha with total production of about 19.85 are facing serious problem of finger millet lakh tonnes and with productivity of 1662 Kg earhead caterpillars since from decades ha-1 during the year 2017-18 (Anon, 2018). (Anon., 2018) especially in both kharif and Karnataka is the major contributor nearly 65 rabi seasons regularly. In view of the % of finger millet both in area and production growing need for the improvement in yield in the country and Tamil Nadu has the and due to the fact that finger millet earhead highest productivity (3714 Kg ha-1), followed caterpillars are one of the major constraints by Puducherry (2889 Kg ha-1). This crop for yield reduction, hence an attempt has being cultivated in rainfed as well as irrigated been made to know the reaction of various situation. The crop is being grown throughout local land races of finger millet to different the year and up to 90 % of the area under species earhead caterpillar. rainfed condition particularly during kharif season. Materials and Methods

The crop is being attacked by over 57 insect To assess the level of infestation of earhead species (Sharma and Davies 1988) of which, caterpillar, a field experiment was laid out in shoot fly (Atherigona miliaceae Malloch), Randomized Completely Block Design stem borer ( inferens Wlk.), white (RCBD) replicated thrice at the “G” block, stem borer (Saluria inficita (Wlk.)), flea Zonal Agricultural Research Station, beetle (Chaetocnema sp), red headed hairy Vishweshwaraiah Canal Farm, Mandya. A set caterpillar (Amsacta albistriga Walk.), Bihar of 32 genotypes under local landraces were hairy caterpillar (Spilarctia obliqua Walk.), selected and sown in three lines of 3-meter oriental armyworm (Mythimna separata row with a spacing of 30 × 10 cm between Walk.), aphids, Histeronura setariae, ragi rows and plants respectively. The root aphid Tetraneura nigriabdominalis were recommended packages of practices were considered as important. followed for rising of the crop from sowing to till harvesting. In each test genotype, the During earhead stages mainly attacked by number of earhead caterpillars (species wise) two hemipteran earhead bugs viz., mirid bug was recorded on 10 randomly selected (Calocoris angstatus Leth.) and rice bug, earhead at flowering, milky, dough and Leptocorisa acuta (Thunb), and several maturity stage and mean population was

941

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) Special Issue-11: 940-950 worked out. Further, the data on the mean scintillans, C. angustipennella, N. analis, larval population and level of incidence was Cydia sp., H. armigera, P. phoenicealis, C. classified as follows. cephalonica, Stathmopoda sp. and S. frugiperda on four fist type earhead Classification of finger millet genotypes genotypes at different stage of the crop viz., flowering, milky, dough and maturity stage The means (X̅ ) and standard deviation (σ) of during kharif 2018 and 2019 to know severity larval population per earhead were recorded status of earhead caterpillars at different at flowering, milky, dough and maturity stages of earhead. In each genotype, 20 stages of earheads were pooled and mean earheads were selected randomly and larval population was computed on each observations on the number of earhead genotype for grouping of resistance category. caterpillars infesting were recorded. The Further, classification/grouping of finger mean number of larval population was millet genotypes to genotypic resistance was worked out species wise. The replicated data assessed preliminarily by considering mean were subjected for ANOVA (Gomez and larval population per earhead as per Croxton Gomez, 1984; Hosmand, 1988) and means and Cowden (1964). were separated by Tukey‟s HSD (Tukey, 1965) for interpretation. Highly resistant Results and Discussions Genotypes with total larval mean population per earhead scale less than X̅ -2σ. Among 32 local land races were evaluated against earhead caterpillars viz., A. Resistant micaceana, S. scintillans, C. angustipennella, N. analis, Cydia sp., H. armigera, P. Genotypes with total larval mean population phoenicealis, C. cephalonica, Stathmopoda per earhead scale range between X̅ -2σ to X̅ -σ. sp. and S. frugiperda during kharif 2018 and 2019, the incidence of earhead caterpillar Moderately resistant during flowering stage was nil. However, the total mean larval population at milky stage Genotypes with total larval mean population (X̅ = 1.11 ± 0.18) was varied between 0.34 to per earhead scale range between X̅ -σ to X̅ . 1.65 larvae per earhead. Similarly, at dough and maturity stage of crop, the total mean Susceptible larval population was ranged between 0.57 to 4.09 (X̅ = 1.40 ± 0.37) and 0.02 to 0.22 (X̅ = Genotypes with total larval mean population 0.75 ± 0.05) larvae/earhead, respectively, out per earhead scale range between X̅ to X̅ +σ. of 32 local land races, none of the genotypes were found under highly resistant category, Highly susceptible whereas, two genotypes, Hulubele (0.31 larvae/earhead) and Purna (0.31 Genotypes with total larval mean population larvae/earhead) found resistant and 15 per earhead scale range between X̅ +σ to genotypes reacted as moderately resistant X̅ +2σ and above. (0.35 to 0.38 larvae/earhead), 11 genotypes found susceptible (1.11 to 1.18 Further, observation were made on different larvae/earhead) and 4 genotypes considered caterpillar species viz., A. micaceana, S. as highly susceptible (1.78 to 1.99

942

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) Special Issue-11: 940-950 larvae/earhead). Similar trend was noticed in At milky stage, total mean of four fist both the years of the study. The details of earheads shapes genotypes recorded 1.6 ± genotypes with mean larval population under 0.05 and 1.7 ± 0.07 total mean larval each entry, at different stages viz., milky, populations per earhead during 2018 and dough and maturity of earhead presented in 2019, respectively. An average of 1.7 ± 0.06 table 1 and genotypes under different lepidopteron species complex was found per categories of resistance presented in table 2. earhead. At dough stage, the incidence was almost doubled and as many as 3.7 ± 0.23 These findings are in confirmation with the and 3.9 ± 0.28 larval populations per earhead results of Paul et al., (1980) who reported was noticed during 2018 and 2019, that, loose earhead entries viz., N-13, SPV- respectively. An average of 3.8 ± 0.24 210 and SPV-287 were found to be resistant. larve/earhead, (Figure 1). Further, there was a While compact earhead genotypes viz., SPV- drastically decrease in the mean larval 122 and SPV-369 exhibited highly population at maturity stage i.e., 0.20 ± 0.01 susceptible reaction against H. armigera in and 0.20 ± 0.02 during 2018 and 2019, sorghum. Similarly, Kulkarni (1976), Wilson respectively with a mean larval population of (1976), Kundu and Sharma (1977), 0.20 ± 0.02. During maturity stage of the Anonymous (1982), Murthi and Harinarayana earhead, caterpillars harboured lesser (1989), Mote and Murthy (1989), Gagre incidence due to higher predatory activity and (1990), Kishore (1991), Kishore (1994), proved less sheltered for caterpillars as Bhadviya (1995), Sharma et al., (1998), Patel opening of ear shape and grain hardness (2011), Shivanand and Deshapande (2011), occur. These results are in confirmation with Raipuriya (2014), Dharmendra (2015), Patil the findings of Mital et al., (1980) who et al., (2018), Raveendra et al., (2018), reported that, the sorghum earhead Patidar (2016), Patidar et al., (2019) and caterpillar, C. gnidiella population was Sharanabasappa (2004) in green gram, were highest during dough stage of crop and recorded and reported similar observations. declined with grain hardening and maturity. Similar studies were reported by, Ramadan et Among test genotypes representing different al., (2004), Hosam and Gepaly (2019) and earhead shape, four fist type genotypes were Hegde (1989) selected to study the occurrence of different earhead species complex of lepidopteron It is concluded that among 32 local land races caterpillars during kharif 2018 and 2019. A of finger millet evaluated, genotypes viz., significant level of incidence were observed hulubele and purna found resistant to earhead based on mean larval population among caterpillar species and inferred that, breeders different earhead stages at flowering, milky, may endorse to go for these finger millet dough and maturity stage of the of the crop. genotypes to combat the menace of earhead However, there was no incidence of earhead caterpillars species complex incidence in caterpillars during flowering stage. From Cauvery command area. Further, maximum flowering to milky stage a steady increase in level of incidence was noticed at dough stage the level of incidence was noticed and the of earhead, moderate at milky, minimum at population gradually increased to reach their maturity stage and there was no incidence peak during dough stage, and further during during flowering stage of four susceptible maturity stage, the population became genotypes studied. drastically reduced as grain hardiness and opening of earheads begins (Figure 1).

943

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) Special Issue-11: 940-950

Table.1 Reaction of local land races fingermillet genotypes against incidence of earhead caterpillars at different stages of earhead, kharif 2018 and 2019

Mean number of larvae per earhead Sl. Genotypes Milky Dough Maturity Mean No 2018 2019 Mean 2018 2019 Mean 2018 2019 Mean 2018 2019 Mean 0.30 0.38 0.34 0.53 0.61 0.57 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.28 0.34 0.31 1 Hulubele (0.89) (0.93) (0.91) (1.00) (1.04) (1.02) (0.71) (0.72) (0.72) (0.88) (0.91) (0.90) 0.33 0.37 0.35 0.53 0.62 0.58 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.29 0.34 0.31 2 Purna (0.90) (0.92) (0.91) (0.99) (1.03) (1.01) (0.71) (0.72) (0.72) (0.89) (0.91) (0.90) 0.33 0.41 0.37 0.63 0.71 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.37 0.35 3 B.K.Ragi (0.89) (0.93) (0.91) (1.02) (1.05) (1.03) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.91) (0.93) (0.92) 0.39 0.46 0.43 0.73 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.40 0.39 4 HBP-76 (0.94) (0.98) (0.96) (1.10) (1.10) (1.10) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.93) (0.95) (0.94) 0.36 0.44 0.40 0.63 0.60 0.62 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.34 0.35 0.34 5 HR-374 (0.92) (0.97) (0.95) (1.06) (1.05) (1.06) (0.72) (0.71) (0.72) (0.91) (0.92) (0.92) 0.35 0.42 0.38 0.60 0.64 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.35 0.34 6 HR-911 (0.92) (0.95) (0.94) (1.04) (1.06) (1.05) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.90) (0.92) (0.91) 0.41 0.46 0.44 0.73 0.70 0.72 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.38 0.39 0.39 7 Indaf-7 (0.94) (0.96) (0.95) (1.09) (1.07) (1.08) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.94) (0.94) (0.94) 0.44 0.51 0.47 0.63 0.70 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.40 0.38 8 Indaf-8 (0.97) (1.00) (0.99) (1.06) (1.09) (1.08) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.93) (0.95) (0.94) 0.42 0.47 0.45 0.73 0.75 0.74 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.39 0.41 0.40 9 Indaf-9 (0.96) (0.98) (0.97) (1.11) (1.12) (1.11) (0.72) (0.71) (0.72) (0.94) (0.95) (0.95) 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.73 0.75 0.74 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.39 0.40 0.39 10 Indaf-15 (0.96) (0.96) (0.96) (1.10) (1.11) (1.11) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.94) (0.95) (0.94) 0.47 0.44 0.46 0.77 0.72 0.74 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.42 0.39 0.41 11 GPU-28 (0.98) (0.97) (0.98) (1.12) (1.10) (1.11) (0.73) (0.71) (0.72) (0.92) (0.94) (0.95) 0.38 0.43 0.41 0.63 0.69 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.37 0.36 12 GPU-66 (0.93) (0.96) (0.94) (1.05) (1.07) (1.06) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.91) (0.93) (0.92) 0.38 0.50 0.44 0.60 0.72 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.41 0.37 13 MR-1 (0.94) (1.00) (0.97) (1.05) (1.11) (1.08) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.91) (0.95) (0.93) 14 MR-2 0.37 0.43 0.40 0.60 0.68 0.64 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.32 0.37 0.35

944

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) Special Issue-11: 940-950

(0.93) (0.96) (0.94) (1.04) (1.08) (1.06) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.91) (0.93) (0.92) 0.38 0.47 0.42 0.67 0.74 0.71 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.35 0.41 0.38 15 MR-6 (0.93) (0.98) (0.96) (1.07) (1.11) (1.09) (0.71) (0.72) (0.72) (0.92) (0.95) (0.94) 0.41 0.45 0.43 0.67 0.72 0.70 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.36 0.40 0.38 16 KMR-301 (0.95) (0.97) (0.96) (1.07) (1.10) (1.08) (0.71) (0.72) (0.71) (0.93) (0.95) (0.94) 0.42 0.47 0.45 0.63 0.72 0.68 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.36 0.40 0.38 17 KMR-340 (0.96) (0.98) (0.97) (1.06) (1.10) (1.08) (0.72) (0.71) (0.72) (0.93) (0.95) (0.94) 0.96 1.09 1.03 2.09 2.28 2.19 0.09 0.13 0.11 1.05 1.17 1.11 18 Giddaragi (1.21) (1.26) (1.23) (1.61) (1.67) (1.64) (0.76) (0.79) (0.78) (1.24) (1.29) (1.27) 0.86 0.91 0.89 2.02 2.21 2.12 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.98 1.07 1.03 19 K.K.Ragi (1.16) (1.18) (1.17) (1.58) (1.64) (1.61) (0.76) (0.77) (0.76) (1.22) (1.25) (1.24) 0.95 1.00 0.98 2.08 2.43 2.26 0.10 0.12 0.11 1.04 1.18 1.11 20 Indaf-3 (1.20) (1.22) (1.21) (1.60) (1.71) (1.66) (0.77) (0.79) (0.78) (1.24) (1.30) (1.27) 1.01 1.08 1.05 2.29 2.49 2.39 0.09 0.13 0.11 1.13 1.23 1.18 21 Indaf-5 (1.23) (1.25) (1.24) (1.67) (1.73) (1.70) (0.76) (0.80) (0.78) (1.28) (1.32) (1.30) 0.86 0.98 0.92 2.25 2.47 2.36 0.10 0.10 0.10 1.07 1.18 1.13 22 PR-202 (1.16) (1.21) (1.19) (1.66) (1.72) (1.69) (0.77) (0.77) (0.77) (1.25) (1.30) (1.28) 0.89 1.05 0.97 1.87 2.13 2.00 0.09 0.16 0.13 0.95 1.11 1.03 23 GPU-26 (1.17) (1.23) (1.20) (1.54) (1.62) (1.58) (0.76) (0.81) (0.79) (1.20) (1.27) (1.24) 0.88 1.10 0.99 2.04 2.16 2.10 0.08 0.12 0.10 1.00 1.13 1.06 24 GPU-45 (1.17) (1.26) (1.21) (1.59) (1.63) (1.61) (0.76) (0.78) (0.77) (1.22) (1.28) (1.25) 0.89 1.05 0.97 1.85 1.98 1.92 0.11 0.16 0.13 0.95 1.06 1.01 25 GPU-48 (1.18) (1.24) (1.21) (1.53) (1.58) (1.55) (0.78) (0.81) (0.79) (1.20) (1.25) (1.23) 0.85 1.03 0.94 2.03 2.17 2.10 0.09 0.11 0.10 0.99 1.10 1.05 26 KMR-204 (1.16) (1.23) (1.20) (1.59) (1.63) (1.61) (0.76) (0.78) (0.77) (1.22) (1.27) (1.24) 0.95 1.11 1.03 2.20 2.29 2.25 0.08 0.11 0.10 1.08 1.17 1.12 27 KMR-630 (1.20) (1.26) (1.23) (1.64) (1.67) (1.65) (0.76) (0.78) (0.77) (1.26) (1.29) (1.27) 0.81 0.92 0.87 2.17 2.22 2.19 0.10 0.13 0.12 1.03 1.09 1.06 28 L-5 (1.14) (1.19) (1.17) (1.63) (1.65) (1.64) (0.77) (0.79) (0.78) (1.24) (1.26) (1.25) 1.49 1.65 1.57 3.63 3.86 3.75 0.20 0.21 0.21 1.77 1.91 1.84 29 Hamsa (1.41) (1.47) (1.44) (2.03) (2.08) (2.06) (0.84) (0.84) (0.84) (1.51) (1.55) (1.53) 1.60 1.82 1.71 3.58 3.98 3.78 0.19 0.24 0.22 1.79 2.01 1.90 30 GPU-67 (1.45) (1.52) (1.49) (2.02) (2.12) (2.07) (0.82) (0.86) (0.84) (1.51) (1.59) (1.55)

945

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) Special Issue-11: 940-950

1.53 1.76 1.65 3.48 3.51 3.50 0.19 0.20 0.20 1.73 1.82 1.78 31 GE4449 (1.42) (1.50) (1.46) (1.99) (2.0) (2.00) (0.83) (0.83) (0.83) (1.49) (1.52) (1.51) 1.57 1.73 1.65 4.00 4.18 4.09 0.21 0.23 0.22 1.93 2.05 1.99 32 Udurumallige (1.44) (1.49) (1.46) (2.12) (2.16) (2.14) (0.83) (0.85) (0.85) (1.56) (1.60) (1.58) Mean (X̅ ) 1.09 1.13 1.11 1.38 1.41 1.40 0.75 0.76 0.75 1.10 1.13 1.12 SD (σ) 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.22 0.23 0.22 SE m ± 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.04 *Figures in parentheses indicates √x+0.5 transformed values.

Table.2 Field reaction of genotypes under local land races to the incidence of earhead caterpillar, kharif 2018 and 2019

Number of Scale range Classification Category Genotypes genotypes < 0.67 < X̅ -2σ Highly resistant - -

0.67 - 0.90 X̅ -2σ to X̅ -σ Resistant 2 Hulubele and Purna B.K.Ragi, HBP-76, HR-374, HR-911, Indaf-7, Indaf-8, 0.90 - 1.12 X̅ -σ to X̅ Moderately resistant 15 Indaf-9, Indaf-15, GPU-28, GPU-66, MR-1, MR-2, MR-6, KMR-301 and KMR-340 Giddaragi, K.K. Ragi, Indaf-3, Indaf-5, PR-202, GPU- 1.12 - 1.34 X̅ to X̅ +σ Susceptible 11 26, GPU-45, GPU-48, KMR-204, KMR-630 and L-5 1.34 - 1.56 X̅ +σ to X̅ +2σ Highly susceptible 4 Hamsa, GPU-67, GE4449 and Udurumallige

946

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) Special Issue-11: 940-950

Figure.1 Occurrence of different earhead caterpillar species on different stages of finger millet

*Observation recorded from four fist earhead finger millet genotypes under local landraces

947

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) Special Issue-11: 940-950

Acknowledgement JNKVV, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, India. We thank to Chairman and advisory Gomez KA, Gomez AA. Statistical committee for timely guidance and Procedures for Agricultural Research specimen identification by Niche area of with Emphasis on Rice. International excellence on of insect and mite, Rice Research Institute, Los Banos, UAS, GKVK, Bangalore and AICRP on Philippines. 1984; pp. 268. Small Millets, V. C. Farm, Mandya for Hegde SK. Studies on the earhead providing genotypes and infrastructure caterpillar, Crytoblabes facility for conducting of the experiments. anguistipennella Hamson (: Pyralidae) on finger References millet (Eleusine coracana Gratn.) and its management. M. Sc. Thesis Annonymus. 2018, http://indiastat.com. (Unpub.).1989; Univ. Agril. Sci., Annonymus. Annual Progress Report (2017- Bangalore. 18). ICAR-AICRP on Small Millets, Hosam MKH, El-Gepaly. Insect fauna of Bengaluru. pests and their natural enemies Annonymus. Annual report (2014). All India inhabiting sorghum-panicles in co-ordinated pearl millet Egypt. Egyptian Journal of improvement project, Indian Council Biological Pest control. 2019; of Agricultural Research, Jodhpur. 29(80): 1-10. Annonymus. Progress report (1982). ICAR- Hosmand RA. Statistical Methods for AICSIP and Co-operative Agencies. Agricultural Sciences. Timber press, Bhadviya DK. Evaluation of different Portland, Oregon, USA. 1988; pp. sorghum genotypes for their reaction 405. to the pest complex. M.Sc. Thesis Hulse JH, Laing EM, Pearson OE. Sorghum (Unpub.). 1995; JNKVV., Jabalpur, and the millets: their composition Madhya Pradesh, India. and nutritive value. London, Chalam GV, Venkateshwaralu J. Academic Press. 1980; pp. 997. Introduction to Agricultural Botany Kishore P. Chemical control of stem borers. in India. Asia publishing House, Int. Workshop on Sorghum Stem New Delhi. 1965; pp. 449. Borers, ICRISAT, Patancheru, India. Croxton EC, Cowden DJ. Applied Statistics, 1994; pp. 73-79. Prentice Hall of India, New Delhi. Kishore P. Sources of resistance amongst 1964; pp. 843. world pearl millet, Pennisetum Dharmendra A. Performance of sorghum typhoides (Burm.), germplasms to [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] important insect pests. Journal of genotypes against shoot and panicle Entomological Research. 1991; pests and impact of method and 15(3): 212-217. application time of nitrogen on their Krishnamurthy B, Usman S. The ragi stem incidence. M.Sc. Thesis (Unpub.). borer Sesamia inferens Walker. 2015; RVSKVV, Gwalior, Madhya Bulletin of the Department of Pradesh, India. Agriculture, Mysore state. Gagre DC. Screening of sweet sorghum Entomology series no 15. 1952; varieties against major insect pests. pp.70. M.Sc. Thesis (Unpub.). 1990;

948

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) Special Issue-11: 940-950

Kulkarni KA. Studies on sorghum earhead Sowing In Madhya Pradesh. M.Sc. worms. Sorghum Newsletter. 1976; Thesis (Unpub.). 2016; Rajmata 19: 19-20. Vijyaraje Scindia Krishi Vishwa Kundu KS, Sharma PB. Occurrence of Vidyalaya, Gwalior, Madhya resistance mechanism to Helicoverpa Pradesh, India. armigera in sorghum. Insect Science Patil S, Choudhary RK, Ojha B. Reaction of and Its Application. 1977; 15: 825- sorghum genotypes for shoot and 827. panicle pests in timely and late sown Mital VP, Kaden JR, Desai KB. Relative crop. Journal of Plant Development abundance of earhead worms in Sciences. 2018; 10(7): 403-407. Sorghum. Sorghum Newsletter. Paul MD, Prasad rao GP, Kumarswamy VC. 1980; 23: 79. Screening of earhead pests of Mote UN, Murthy DK. Loss of sorghum sorghum in Maghi (kharif) areas of grains due to the density of earhead Andhra Pradesh. Sorghum caterpillar. Journal of Maharashtra Newsletter. 1980; 23: 77. Agricultural Universities. 1989; Rachie KO, Peters LV. The Eleusines: A 14(3): 384-386. Review of the World Literature. Murthy TK, Harinarayana G. Insect-pests of International Crops Research small millets and their management Institute for the Semi – Arid in India, in Small millets in global Tropics.1977; 1 – 11 – 256, agriculture (eds A. Seetharam, K. Begumpet, Hyderabad, Andhra W. Riley, and G. Harinarayana), Pradesh, India. Proceedings of the First International Raipuriya N. Influence of method and small millets workshop, October-29- application time of nitrogen on pest November-2, 1986, Bangalore, incidence and reaction of sorghum Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. genotypes for insect pests in timely Ltd., New Delhi. 1989; pp. 255-270. sown crop. M.Sc. Thesis (Unpub.). National Research Council (NRC). National 2014; Rajmata Vijyaraje Scindia science education standards. 1996; Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Gwalior, No. National Academy Press. Madhya Pradesh, India. Washington: D.C. Ramadan AKS, Ibtisam AEH, Mohamed Patel R. Reaction of sorghum genotypes AEM, Adel ME. A Preliminary against major insect pests and their study on the semi-looper worm, natural enemies. M.Sc. Thesis Autoba (Eublemma) gayneri (roth.) (Unpub.). 2011; Rajmata Vijyaraje (lepidoptera: ), a new pest Scindia Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, of maize in egypt. Bulletin of the Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, India. Entomological Society of Egypt. Patidar R, Singh SB, Kamde N, Patidar R. 2004; 81: 173-183. Reaction of different sorghum Raveendra HR, Vijaykumar L, Chikkarugi hybrids against sorghum insect pest NM, Umashankar HG. Seasonal infestation. Journal of Entomology Incidence of Major Diseases and and Zoology Studies. 2019; 7(5): 13- Earhead Caterpillars on Finger Millet 21. [Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn.,]. Patidar R. Performance of Hybrid Research Journal of Agricultural Genotypes of Sorghum against Shoot Sciences. 2018; 10(1): 82-85. and Panicle Pests at Two Dates of

949

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) Special Issue-11: 940-950

Sharanabasappa, Basavanagoud K, International Sorghum and Millets Kajjidoni ST. Screening of Newsletter. 1998; 39: 147-149. Greengram Germplasm Lines for Shivanand TW, Deshapande VP. Screening their Reaction to Apion amplum of sorghum genotypes resistance to (Faust) (Coleoptera: Apionidae), earhead caterpillar. International Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Journal of Plant Protection. 2011; Sciences. 2004; 17(1):117-120. 4(1): 153-155. Sharma HC, Davies JC. Insect and other Tukey JW. The technical tools of statistics. pests of millets. Sorghum and American Statistician, 1965; 19: 23- millets information center, 28. Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India: Wilson AGL. Varietal response of grain ICRISAT. 1988; pp. 142. sorghum to infestation by Heliothis Sharma HC, Mukuru SZ, Kibuka J. armigera. Experimental Agriculture. Helicoverpa armigera Incidence in 1976; 12: 257-265. Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana Gaertn.) at Kiboko, Kenya.

950