<p>Pest resistant cultivar is an effective, cheap and environmentally safe component of integrated pest management programme. Systemic screening of pigeon-pea germplasms/cultivars in various areas of the country have been made against pod borer complex. Therefore, present investigation was carried out to identify the susceptibility of cultivars against pod borer complex.</p><p>A field trial evaluating the <italic>Maruca</italic> resistance pigeon pea cultivars against pod borer complex was laid out at Crop Research Center, G.B.P.U.A. & T., Pantnagar in RBD manner having six replication. Fifteen <italic>Maruca</italic> resistant cultivars were supplied by the ICRISAT (AP). These cultivars were sown in three lines keeping plant to plant distance 20 cm and row to row spacing 30 cm. The variety UPAS 120 was taken as check cultivar. Based on per cent pod damage data, the test cultivar were divided in to different categories (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib001">Lateef & Reed, 1981</xref>).</p><p>On perusal of data (<xref ref-type="table" rid="tab001">Table 1</xref>), it was observed that the MPG 537, ICPL 151 and ICPL 88034 were the least susceptible to <italic>M. testulalis</italic> and cvs. MPG 664-MI-2M16, ICPL 151 and ICPL 84023 were the least susceptible to <italic>H. armigera</italic> and <italic>M. abtusa</italic> ICPH 8, MPG 537, ICPL 84052, ICPL 187-1-7 and ICPL 151 were the least susceptible. Cv. ICPL 151 gave maximum grain yield (525 g/10 plants). Singh <italic>et al</italic>. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib002">2001</xref>) reported KA-35 as resistant (2.6% damage only). <table-wrap id="tab001"><label>Table 1</label><caption><p>Per cent pod damage by pod borer complex (<italic>Maruca testulalis, Helicoverpa armigera</italic> and <italic>Melanagromyza abtusa</italic>) and sample yield at harvesting in <italic>Maruca</italic> tolerant/resistant cultivars of pigeon pea</p></caption><table><thead><tr><th rowspan="3">Test cultivars</th><th colspan="3" align="center">% pod damage by</th><th rowspan="3" align="center">Sample yield g/10 plants</th></tr><tr><th colspan="3"><hr /></th></tr><tr><th align="center"><italic>M. testulatis</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>H. armigera</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M. obtusa</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><hr /></td></tr><tr><td>ICPH 8</td><td align="center">2.6</td><td align="center">2.8</td><td align="center">18.4</td><td align="center">290</td></tr><tr><td>MPG 537</td><td align="center">0.4</td><td align="center">2.6</td><td align="center">13.0</td><td align="center">249</td></tr><tr><td>M1-2-M16-MPH 664</td><td align="center">2.0</td><td align="center">1.5</td><td align="center">23.0</td><td align="center">122</td></tr><tr><td>ICPL 87</td><td align="center">3.2</td><td align="center">5.6</td><td align="center">42.0</td><td align="center">186</td></tr><tr><td>ICPL 187-1-</td><td align="center">1.1</td><td align="center">9.6</td><td align="center">18.8</td><td align="center">393</td></tr><tr><td>ICPL 151</td><td align="center">0.7</td><td align="center">1.7</td><td align="center">17.4</td><td align="center">525</td></tr><tr><td>ICPL 269</td><td align="center">1.8</td><td align="center">3.3</td><td align="center">29.6</td><td align="center">275</td></tr><tr><td>ICPL 84023</td><td align="center">1.6</td><td align="center">1.7</td><td align="center">28.1</td><td align="center">174</td></tr><tr><td>ICPL 84031</td><td align="center">2.2</td><td align="center">3.0</td><td align="center">12.9</td><td align="center">125</td></tr><tr><td>ICPL 84052</td><td align="center">2.4</td><td align="center">3.5</td><td align="center">15.0</td><td align="center">165</td></tr><tr><td>ICPL 85010</td><td align="center">2.5</td><td align="center">5.9</td><td align="center">21.3</td><td align="center">124</td></tr><tr><td>ICPL 85012</td><td align="center">1.0</td><td align="center">3.9</td><td align="center">25.4</td><td align="center">203</td></tr><tr><td>ICPL 86012</td><td align="center">1.0</td><td align="center">2.9</td><td align="center">35.8</td><td align="center">215</td></tr><tr><td>ICPL 88034</td><td align="center">0.7</td><td align="center">2.3</td><td align="center">19.5</td><td align="center">417</td></tr><tr><td>Check</td><td align="center">0.8</td><td align="center">2.4</td><td align="center">16.9</td><td align="center">219</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References

APPS

Annals of Plant Protection Sciences

0971-3573

Society of Plant Protection Sciences

apps-13-1-066

SHORT COMMUNICATION

Susceptibility of Pigeon-pea Cultivars to Major Insect Pests

Srivastava

Ritu

Sehgal

V.K.

Department of Entomology, G.B. Pant Univ. of Agri. & Tech., Pantnagar 263 145, India

1532005

131245246

<p>Pest resistant cultivar is an effective, cheap and environmentally safe component of integrated pest management programme. Systemic screening of pigeon-pea germplasms/cultivars in various areas of the country have been made against pod borer complex. Therefore, present investigation was carried out to identify the susceptibility of cultivars against pod borer complex.</p><p>A field trial evaluating the <italic>Maruca</italic> resistance pigeon pea cultivars against pod borer complex was laid out at Crop Research Center, G.B.P.U.A. & T., Pantnagar in RBD manner having six replication. Fifteen <italic>Maruca</italic> resistant cultivars were supplied by the ICRISAT (AP). These cultivars were sown in three lines keeping plant to plant distance 20 cm and row to row spacing 30 cm. The variety UPAS 120 was taken as check cultivar. Based on per cent pod damage data, the test cultivar were divided in to different categories (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib001">Lateef & Reed, 1981</xref>).</p><p>On perusal of data (<xref ref-type="table" rid="tab001">Table 1</xref>), it was observed that the MPG 537, ICPL 151 and ICPL 88034 were the least susceptible to <italic>M. testulalis</italic> and cvs. MPG 664-MI-2M16, ICPL 151 and ICPL 84023 were the least susceptible to <italic>H. armigera</italic> and <italic>M. abtusa</italic> ICPH 8, MPG 537, ICPL 84052, ICPL 187-1-7 and ICPL 151 were the least susceptible. Cv. ICPL 151 gave maximum grain yield (525 g/10 plants). Singh <italic>et al</italic>. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib002">2001</xref>) reported KA-35 as resistant (2.6% damage only). <table-wrap id="tab001"><label>Table 1</label><caption><p>Per cent pod damage by pod borer complex (<italic>Maruca testulalis, Helicoverpa armigera</italic> and <italic>Melanagromyza abtusa</italic>) and sample yield at harvesting in <italic>Maruca</italic> tolerant/resistant cultivars of pigeon pea</p></caption><table><thead><tr><th rowspan="3">Test cultivars</th><th colspan="3" align="center">% pod damage by</th><th rowspan="3" align="center">Sample yield g/10 plants</th></tr><tr><th colspan="3"><hr /></th></tr><tr><th align="center"><italic>M. testulatis</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>H. armigera</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M. obtusa</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><hr /></td></tr><tr><td>ICPH 8</td><td align="center">2.6</td><td align="center">2.8</td><td align="center">18.4</td><td align="center">290</td></tr><tr><td>MPG 537</td><td align="center">0.4</td><td align="center">2.6</td><td align="center">13.0</td><td align="center">249</td></tr><tr><td>M1-2-M16-MPH 664</td><td align="center">2.0</td><td align="center">1.5</td><td align="center">23.0</td><td align="center">122</td></tr><tr><td>ICPL 87</td><td align="center">3.2</td><td align="center">5.6</td><td align="center">42.0</td><td align="center">186</td></tr><tr><td>ICPL 187-1-</td><td align="center">1.1</td><td align="center">9.6</td><td align="center">18.8</td><td align="center">393</td></tr><tr><td>ICPL 151</td><td align="center">0.7</td><td align="center">1.7</td><td align="center">17.4</td><td align="center">525</td></tr><tr><td>ICPL 269</td><td align="center">1.8</td><td align="center">3.3</td><td align="center">29.6</td><td align="center">275</td></tr><tr><td>ICPL 84023</td><td align="center">1.6</td><td align="center">1.7</td><td align="center">28.1</td><td align="center">174</td></tr><tr><td>ICPL 84031</td><td align="center">2.2</td><td align="center">3.0</td><td align="center">12.9</td><td align="center">125</td></tr><tr><td>ICPL 84052</td><td align="center">2.4</td><td align="center">3.5</td><td align="center">15.0</td><td align="center">165</td></tr><tr><td>ICPL 85010</td><td align="center">2.5</td><td align="center">5.9</td><td align="center">21.3</td><td align="center">124</td></tr><tr><td>ICPL 85012</td><td align="center">1.0</td><td align="center">3.9</td><td align="center">25.4</td><td align="center">203</td></tr><tr><td>ICPL 86012</td><td align="center">1.0</td><td align="center">2.9</td><td align="center">35.8</td><td align="center">215</td></tr><tr><td>ICPL 88034</td><td align="center">0.7</td><td align="center">2.3</td><td align="center">19.5</td><td align="center">417</td></tr><tr><td>Check</td><td align="center">0.8</td><td align="center">2.4</td><td align="center">16.9</td><td align="center">219</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>ReferencesLateef

S.S.

Reed

(1981). Survey of insect pest damage in farmers field in India.Int. Pigeon pea Newsl.17: 37-40.Singh

D.P.

Singh

R.P.

Singh

S.K.

Kumar

Arvind

(2001). Screening of pigeon pea promising genotypes against pod fly.Ann. Pl. Protec. Sci.9: 319-320.