INTRODUCTION:

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) commonly known as Bengal gram and locally as
Chana and ‘Gram,’ is an important food legume crop. It has been traditionally recognized
as an indispensable constituent of Indian diet. The pulses are rich in protein (20 to 25%)
and several essential amino acids.
In the world, chickpea is cultivated in about 10.4 million hectares and producing
8.57 million tones of seeds with a productivity of 824 kg ha -1. As many as 45 countries,
including India, growing chickpea, but dozen of countries together contribute 96 per cent
to the global production. India grows chickpea on about 7.58 million hectares of land and
producing 6.91 million tones of seeds with a productivity of 780 kg ha-1, which represent
31.7 per cent and 45.70 percent of the national pulse acreage and production, respectively
(Anon., 2007). Major chickpea producing states in India are Madhya Pradesh, Uttar
Pradesh, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat and Karnataka which together
contribute 93 per cent of the production from 92 per cent of area (Ali and Kumar, 2005).
In Gujarat, chickpea is cultivated in about 2,14,800 hectares of land, producing 0.21
million tones of seeds with a productivity of 979 kg ha-1. The main chickpea growing
districts in Gujarat state are Dahod, Jamnagar, Ahmadabad, Porbandar, Surat, Kheda and
Surendranagar. In Anand district, chickpea is grown in about 86,100 hectares of land and
producing 2,00,300 tones of seeds with 2327 kg ha-1 productivity (Anon., 2008).
The damage caused by insect pests is one of the main constraints which limit the
production of chickpea. Pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) Hardwick is
predominant species causing economic damage to chickpea crop. The yield loss in
chickpea due to pod borer was reported as 10 to 60 per cent in normal weather conditions
(Vaishampayan and Veda, 1980), while it was 50 to 100 per cent in favorable weather
conditions, particularly in the state where frequent rain and cloudy weather is prevailing
during the crop season (Patel, 1979).
A little information is available on population dynamics through pheromone traps,
varietal screening and bio-efficacy of different botanical insecticides for the management
of gram pod borer, H. armigera. Therefore, the studies on the insect pests of chickpea
will be conducted with following objectives.

1
9. Objectives:
1. Population dynamics of H. armigera through pheromone trap.
2. Screening of promising genotypes of chick pea against H. armigera.
3. Eco-friendly management of H. armigera under field condition.
10. A brief resume of work done
An attempt is made to review the available literature on population dynamics
through pheromone trap, screening of promising different genotypes and bio-efficacy of
different botanicals and microbial insecticides against pod borer, H. armigera infesting
chickpea.

10.1. Population dynamics of H. armigera through pheromone trap.

Srivastava et al., (1991) reported that maximum moth catches were obtained in
14 and 15th standard week, i.e. during the first fortnight of April in northern part of
th

Pakisthan.

Nakat and Ghorpade (1999) found that the activity of H. armigera was maximum
(98 to 134 moths/3 traps/ week) during last week of December, 96 moths to third week of
January and 97 moths in chickpea crop. They also observed that the highest activity of
the pest during 39th and 40th standard meteorological week (STW) followed by peak
during 43rd and 44th standard meteorological weeks.

Gupta et al., (2004) at Pantnagar in Uttar Pradesh studied population dynamics of

H. armigera through pheromones traps in the fields of chickpea and sunflower using sex
pheromones and reported that the major infestation of H. armigera was recorded in
March and April with maximum moth catches of 70% during the last fortnight of March
and first fortnight of April.

As per the report of Kant and Kanaujia (2008), maximum moth (76.71
moths/trap) was recorded during 16th standard week where as larval population was 76.6
and 46.8 larva/10 plants during 14th standard week in high density area and low density
area respectively. Further, they also reported highly significant correlation between moth
catches by the pheromone traps and larval population infesting chickpea crop.

Hossain et al., (2008) monitored the chick pea pod borer and its activities
throughout the year by installing pheromone traps at Pulses Research Center, Ishurdi,
Pabna during January 2004 to December 2006 and observed that catching of moths was
increased gradually and reached its peak in the month of April and then gradually
decreased and diminished to zero in the last week of July. No catches were observed up
to December.

Reena et al., (2009) studied the influence of chickpea on natural enemies of gram
pod borer, H. armigera and monitored the adult population through pheromone traps. The
peak of catches was recorded during 14-15th STW.

2
10.2. Screening of promising genotypes of chick pea against H. armigera.

Bhatt and Patel (2001) evaluated chickpea cultivars against H. armigera during
Rabi 1998-1999, Among the eleven cultivars tested, the per cent pod damage was lower
(9.55%) in Chaffa and highest (18.49%) in PG 81-1-1 while highest grain yield (1250
kg/ha) recorded in cultivar ICCC.

Rajput et al., (2003) evaluated eight genotypes against H. armigera under the
field condition at NIA, Tandojam (Pakistan) and observed that genotype C-727 was
relatively resistant against this pest as compared to other genotypes.

Kaur et al., (2005) screened 184 genotypes of chickpea. Against H. armigera and
lowest pod damage (30.87%) was recorded in genotype IPC 96-3 and proved to be leaf
susceptible where as, genotype C-727 proved to be highly susceptible as it recorded the
highest (70.65%) pod damage.

Shahzad et al., (2005) among the 12 chickpea genotypes, the minimum pod
damage due to H. armigera was observed in genotype Pb-91 and proved to be tolerant.
Genotype Hassan-2k found highly susceptible and recorded the highest (92.2%) pod
damage.

Patil et al., (2007) evaluated twenty five genotypes of chickpea against H.

armigera at the International Chickpea Helicoverpa Resistant Nursery (ICHRN),
M.P.K.V. Rahuri and reported that the highest (14.90%) pod damage was recorded in
genotype RIL 7 and genotype ICC 16374 categorized as resistance/tolerance against H.
armigera with minimum pod damage (5.05%).

Deshmukh et al., (2010) screened fifteen genotypes/cultivars of chickpea against

H. armigera, BG-372, HC-1, SAKI-9516, Vijay and Avrodhi were found comparatively
less susceptible as they harboured lower larval population (1.07 to 1.32 larvae/plant), also
had lower damage to pods (11.41 to 14.16%) and higher grain yield (1375 kg/ha to 1187
kg/ha) than remaining cultivars. Further, the cultivars, Dahod Yellow and BG-256 were
also less susceptible and gave good grain yield even though having high larval population
(2.52 and 2.47 larvae/plant) and high pod damage (22.81 and 20.49%).

10.3. Efficacy of botanical insecticides against H. armigera under field condition.

Singh et al., (1985) observed that percentage pod damage due to H. armigera was
much less in pigeonpea plot treated with Ethanolic extract neem seed kernel (2%).

Sarode et al., (1995) revealed that all the HNPV and NSKE combinations
performed better than single sprays of each. The application of HNPV 500 LE ha-1 +
NSKE 6% recorded maximum larval reduction of 79.8 and 65.2% at 7 and 14 days after
spraying, respectively. also recorded significantly the highest yield of (1770 kg ha-1 ).
Kumar and Prasad (2002) recorded the highest larval reduction (75.25 to 100 %)
of H.armigera in chickpea plot treated with lufenuron + Profenophos @ 600 ml/ha at the
time of 50% flowering /pod initiation.

3
 Yadav et al., (2004) Among various treatments, chickpea plots treated with Delfin
WG @ 1 kg ha-1 recorded minimum number of H. armigera larvae followed by HaNPV,
Achook, and endosulfan with significant increase in yield over control.

Visalakshimi et al., (2005) reported that application of neem effectively reduced

the oviposition of H.armigera throughout the crop period. Among various IPM
components (neem 0.06%, HaNPV 250 L/ha, bird perches one/plot, endosulfan 0.07%),
neem and HaNPV found as effective as endosulfan in the terms of reduction larval
population and pod damage, further, endosulfan comparatively found toxic to natural
enemies present in chickpea eco-system.

Reddy et al., (2010) studied the efficacy of common insecticides viz., neem seed
kernel extract (NSKE), HaNPV, Endosulfan were tested alone and in combination against
gram pod borer, H. armigra in chickpea. Result showed that larval reduction was highest
with NSKE 1.66% + HaNPV 250LE/ha + Endosulfan 0.023% followed by NSKE 1.66%
+ Endosulfan 0.023%, NSKE 2.5% + HaNPV 250LE sprayed twice at 15 days interval,
respectivly.

Prasad et al., (2010) four different concentrations (0.1,0.125, 0.2 and 0.25ml x108
spores/ml) were sprayed topically against most damaging IVth instar larvae of H.
armigera, a dose dependent mortality was observed that went up to 76.7 percent with
highest dose of 0.25ml x108 spores/ml. Dunett test revealed percent mortality significant
at 1 and 5 percent level with different doses.

11. Proposed programme of work and methodology

11.1. Population dynamics of H.armigera through pheromone trap.

11.1.1 Experimental details:

1. Location : Agronomy farm, B.A.C.A, A.A.U., Anand

2. Year of commencement : Rabi, 2010-2011
3. Crop and Variety : Chickpea, GG-1
4. Spacing : 30 x 10 cm
5. Plot size : 20 x 20 sq.m.

11.1.2 Observations to be recorded:

1) Moths/trap/week
2) Population of H. armigera (eggs and larvae)
3) Pod damage

11.1.3. Methodology

A field experiment will be conducted at college Agronomy farm. Chickpea crop

will be sown in Rabi 2010 and raised by adopting standard agronomical practices in large
plot (20 x 20 m2). Experimental plot will be kept free from insecticidal spray. Pheromone
trap will be installed with the height of 0.5 m above ground level. Rubber dispenser septa
will be changed every 3 weeks to maintain catch efficacy of trap. A small amount of
4
insecticide dust will be sprinkled in the polythene sleeve to kill the moths trapped in it.
The male moths trapped in the polythene sleeve traps will be counted in a week
throughout the crop season. The population of eggs and larvae will also be recorded at
weekly interval. For the purposes 20 plants will be selected randomly and number of
egg(s) as well as larva(e) will be recorded per plant. The data on moth catches will also
be correlated with the abiotic factors to see any impact on the population of H.armigera

11.2 Screening of promising genotypes of chick pea against H. armigera.

11.2.1 Details of Experiment
1) Location : Agronomy farm, B.A.C.A, A.A.U., Anand

2) Crop : Chickpea

3) Year of commencement : 2010-11

4) Design : Randomized Block Design

5) Treatments : 10 (genotypes)

6) Replications : Four (4)

Genotypes: Received from Pulse Research Station, AAU, Derol.

No. Genotypes No. Genotypes

1. GJG – 0834 6. GJG –0714
2. GJG – 820 7. GJG – 0723
3. GJG – 804 8. GJG – 0726
4. GJG – 0315 9. GJG – 840
5. GAG – 0515 10. GG – 1 (c)

7) Plot size : Gross : 2.4 × 4.0 m

Net: 1.8 × 3.8 m

8) Spacing : 30 × 10 cm

11.2.2. Observations to be recorded

1) Number of egg(s) and larva(e) per plant/weak

2) Pod damage at green pod and at harvest stage

3) Grain yield (kg/plot).

11.2.3. Methodology

5
 A field experiment for screening of different genotypes along with one
susceptible check (GG-1) will be conducted at college Agronomy farm. Different
genotypes of gram will be sown in Rabi 2010 and raised by adopting standard
agronomical practices. Experimental plot will be kept free from insecticidal spray. For
recording observations, 20 plants will be selected randomly from each plot and number of
egg(s) and larva(e) will be recorded. In order to record the pod damage at green pod stage
and at harvesting stage, 100 pods will be selected randomly from each plot area and
plucked them. These pods will be brought to the laboratory. Pods will be sorted out into
healthy and damaged pods due to H. armigera and per cent pod damage will be worked
out. The gram genotypes will be categorized into different categories of resistance as
described by Patel et al. (2002).

11.3 Eco-friendly management of H. armigera under field condition.

11.3.1. Details of Experiment:

1) Location : Agronomy farm, B.A.C.A., A.A.U., Anand

2) Crop and variety : Chickpea, GG-1

3) Year of commencement : 2010-11

4) Design : Randomized Block Design (RBD)

5) Treatments : 10

6) Replications : 4

6
 No. Name of insecticide Concentration (%) and quantity
(ml or g per 10 liters of water)

T1 Neem oil (Azadirachta indica) 0.3% (30 ml )

T2 Neem seed kernel extract 5% (50 gm )

(Azadirachta indica)

T3 Neem leaf extract 10% (100gm )

(Azadirachta indica)

T4 Adulsa leaf extract 10% (100 gm )

(Adhatoda vasica)

T5 Garlic bulb extract 5% (50 gm )

(Allium sativum)

T6 Naffatia (Ipomoea fistulosa) 5% (50 gm )

T7 Bacillus thuringiensis 0.750 kg/ha

T8 Beauveria bassiana 0.25 ml x 108 spores/ml

T9 HaNPV 250 LE/ha

T10 Control (water spray)

7) Plot size :

7) Plot size : Gross : 2.4 × 4.0 m

Net : 1.8 × 3.8 m

8) Spacing : 30 × 10 cm

11.2.2. Observations to be recorded

1. Number of egg(s) and larva(e) per plant

2. Pod damage at green pod and at harvest stage
3. Seed yield (kg/plot)

7
11.2.3. Methodology
Chickpea crop will be raised by following standard agronomic practices.
Observations on number of egg(s) and larva(e) of H. armigera per plant will be
recorded on 20 randomly selected plants from net plot area before first spray and
3, 5, 7 and 10 days after each spray application. Pod damage at green pod and
harvesting stage will be recorded as per the methodology described in Point
No.11.2. First spray application will be made on appearance of the pest or
flowering on 50 per cent plants and second at pod setting on 50 per cent plants.
For recoding parasitism in H. armigera 10 larvae of H. armigera will be collected
from the each treatment replication-wise and brought to the laboratory. Individual
larvae will be recorded till their adult stage to see the emergence of parasites if
any.

12. Method of analysis

Statistical analysis will be carried out by following standard procedure (Steel and
Torrie, 1960) at the Department of Agril. Statistics, BACA, AAU, Anand.

13. Facilities needed as well as those available at the centre

Facilities available in the Department of Entomology, B. A. College of
Agriculture, AAU, Anand will be utilized for studying the various aspects.

14. Collaboration with other departments

• Department of Agricultural Statistics, B. A. College of Agriculture, AAU, Anand.
• Department of Agricultural Meteorology, B. A. College of Agriculture, AAU,
Anand.
• Agronomy Farm, B. A. College of Agriculture, AAU, Anand.

References:
Ali, M. and Kumar, S (2005). Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) research in India:
Accomplishment and future strategies. Indian J. Agril. Sci., 75 (3): 125-133.

Anonymous (2007). http://faostat.fao.org

Anonymous (2008).http://agri.gujarat.gov.in

8
Bhatt N. J. and Patel, R. K. (2001). Screening of chickpea cultivars for their resistance to
gram pod borer H. armigera. Indian J. Ent. 63 (3): 277-280.

Deshmukh, S. G., Sureja, B. V., Jethva, D.M., Sonune, V. R., Joshi, D.M. (2010) Field
screening of chickpea germplasms against pod borer, H. armigera. Legume
Res., 33 (2): 150 – 151.

Gupta, S., Kanaujia, S. and Kanaujia, K. R. (2004). Population dynamics of Helicoverpa

armigera (Hubner) based on moth catches on chickpea and sunflower using
sex pheromone. Plant Protection Bulletin (Faridabad). 56 (1/2): 14-16.

Hossain M. A. (2008). Monitoring and Evaluation of Chickpea Pod-Borer H. armigera

(Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) by Using Pheromone Traps. Bangladesh J.
Sci. Ind. Res. 43(3): 419-426.

Kaur, H., Gupta, S. K., Singh, D. and Singh, K. (2005). Preliminary evaluation of
chickpea genotypes for resistance to pod borer and wilt complex. ICPN. 12:
39-40.

Kumar, B. and Prasad, D. (2002). Evaluation of Neem based insecticides and

biopesticides against H. armigera infesting chickpea. Ind. J. Ent. 64 (4):411-
417.

Nakat, S.K. and Ghorpade, S.A. (1999). Monitoring of H.armigera (Hubner) in field
crops by synthetic trap catches. Pestology. 11:35-37.

Patel, I. S., Prajapati, B. G., Patel, G. M. and Pathak, A. R. (2002). Response of castor
genotypes to castor semilooper, Achaea janata (Fab.). J. Oilseed Res. 19 (1):
153.

Patel, R.K (1979). Unusual outbreak of gram pod borer on gram in Madhya Pradesh.
Science and culture. 45 (1): 335-336.

Patil, S. K., Shinde, G. P. and Jamadagni, B. M. (2007). Reaction of short-duration

chickpea genotypes for resistance to gram pod borer Helicoverpa armigera in
Maharashtra, India. I J. of SAT, Agril., Res. 5(1):1-2.

Prasad, A. Syed, N. and Purohit, S. (2010) Beauveria bassiana (balsamo) vuillemin : a

successful biopesticide against key pest helicoverpa armigera (hubner).
International J. of Pharma and Bio Sci. V1(2)2010.

Rajput, A. A., Sarwar, M., Ahmed, M., Siddiqi, Q. H., and Toufiq, M. (2003). Evaluation
for resistance in some local and exotic chickpea genotypes against H. armigera
(Hubner). Pak. J. of Agril. Sci. 6 (18):1612-1615.

Reddy, V., Anandhi, p., Elamathi, S., Simon, S. (2010) Efficacy of some common
insecticides for the management of pod borer helicoverpa armigera (hubner)
on chick pea at field condition. Legume Res., 33 (1): 74 - 75

Reena, S. K., Singh, Sinha B. K., and. Jamwal B. S. (2009). Management of gram pod
borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) by intercropping and monitoring
through pheromone traps in chickpea. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci. 22(3): 524-526.

9
Sarode, S. V., Deotale R. O., and Patil P. P. (1995). Performance of H. armigera HNPV
combined with NSKE against the gram pod borer on chickpea. ICPN. 2:35-37.

Shahzad, K., Iqbal, A., Khalil, S., and Khattak, S. (2005). Response of different chickpea
(Cicer aritinum) genotypes to the infestation of pod borer (Helicoverpa
armigera) with relation to trichomes. Res. J. Agril.Bio. Sci. 1(1): 120-124.

Singh R. P., Singh Y. and singh S. P. (1985). Field evaluation of neem (Azadirachta
inadica A. Juss) seed kernel extracts against the pod borers of pigeon pea,
(Cajanus cajan L.) Millsp. Ind. J. Ent. 47(1): 111-112.

Srivastava, C. P. , Pimbert, M. P. and Ahmed, K. (1991). Monitoring of H.armigera with

Pheromone Traps. ICN. 25:20-22.

Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. (1980). Principles and procedures of statistics. Publ.

McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.

Kant K., and Kanaujia K.R. (2008). Relationship between moth catches in pheromone
trap and larval population development of Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.) in
chickpea. Environment and Ecology. 26(2A): 780-782.

Visalakshmi, V., Ranga, G.V. and Arjuna Rao, P. (2005). Integrated Pest Management
strategy against Helicoverpa armigera in chickpea. Indian J. Plant Prot. 33
(1) 17-22.

Yadav, P., Maghodia, A. B. and Vyas, R. V. (2004). Efficacy of microbial bioagents

against Helicoverpa armigera on Chickpea. ICPN. 11:41-43.

10