I N S T I T U T SEt4EGALkI S 5E RECHERCHES AGRI...
I N S T I T U T SEt4EGALkI S 5E RECHERCHES AGRI I:CILEE;
1 .S.R.A.
TRAINING REPORT
(Training frtrm March 16th to Nouember 22th
1 9 8 5 at 1 .C.R.,I .S.A.T. Patancheru,India)
BY
& ES 13 l-1
cl 1 lIlP+c
I::FNTI+E NfiTI C$&L DE LA RECHERCHE HGRC+KIMI QUE
(C.N.R.A.)
EAMBE’Y
.kIngenieur des taavaux de recherches
FORHORD
The traininq e f f e c t e d ait I.L.K.I.S.A.T. f r o m M a t - c h 1 6 t h t o
Nouember 2 2 t h 1 9 8 5 i s uery b e n e f i c i a l b e c a u s e o f t h e new
knowledge qot
in plant protection ,breedinq and statistics and
the learnt of workinq in computer.Thiç was possible account of the
2 monthc 4
spent at Cismania Universi ty
t o îearn E n q l i s h wich i E.
used a t ICHISAT.
I t w o u l d b e m o n o t o n o u s if t h e traininq office didnt
prouide uarious
p r o q r a m by t r i p s in technical a n d touristics
places.Hence t h e t r i p s i n t h e states o f Maharastra,Tamil. Nadu,
Karnataka and Hndra Pradesh helped us to beat the home sick wich
could disturb the training.Besides these trips permited us to see
t h e r e a r e diversities between t h e c,tateS i n this qreat
contry
t h a t is India .The tradi t i o n a l a n d modem t e c h n o l o q i e s o f
agriculture
change from one çtate to another,one district tu one
another or z.ome time within state or district.
Finely the trips sow us how i t is possible for the Semi
krid Tropics(S.AT.) farmers to diversify the trop production by
adoptinq plants wich are known as wild.
Also a certain number o f overviews gave u s a q e n e r a l
knowledge on
a l a r g e spléxter
of domain:economi ics,soc:~oloqy,
breedl nq
a n d
plant
protection,physioloqy,patholoqy
a n d
man an qemen t .
The
5er i es of lectures reminded beneficialy the qenetics,
statistic5. and agricultural experiments,research mananqemen t and
s o i f physics.
Al1
t h i s
overviews,lectures
a n d
t r i p s
would be
n o t
beneflcial i f experimentaltria1 z. were not conducted to sec the
practice in the field and in the laboratory.
Thus
tria15 o n piqeonpea insects
resistance
,pigeonpea
varietal trial,piqeonpea international yield tria1
r an t i lb i o s i 5
studies of Helic\\this armigera on piqeonpea selections and ,the
survey of pheromone trap were conducted.
One may ask why these tria15 on piqeonpea at the place of
cowpes(Vigna unguiculata) ,crop in wich our works are mainly çoncen
tratred in Seneqal?Indeed we w o u l d Le uery q l a d t u conduçt trials
in cowpea entorr~oloqy
to improve the knowleqde and technicz. in thiz.
crop,&tt ,a~. euery body know, IC:RISAT has only 5 mandated crops i n
wi ch
the trop improvement proqram is workinq.There for i t
would
be not beneficial to conduct tria1 with cowpea wich 15. net includ
i n
t heE.e
5 crop5.That.5. why w e cannot p u t a 5top to t h a n k t h e
Traininq Proqram Cffficers who helped us in the choice of
the
sub!ect and in a11 t h e rnan.angements
during the traininq.
we a r e qrateful t o D r Uswalt f o r all,specialy
f o r t h e daliy
help in the learnt to work in the computer and Dr F.Sinqh for hic.
dailtj advices.
.-,
L
We
c 3 n ri 0 t
put a 5. top
alscl t o t h a n k t h e persona1 o f
f’ tJ 1 P -C.
entornology ~ho maked the training more ben,ef icial by their
adv 1 ces, thei r
l e c t u r e s a n d t h e training in the field and in
t he
laboratory .
we are grateful to Drs Reed, the Principal entomolugist ,Lateef ,
Si thanontham,Dent ,Pawar and a11 the f ields and laboratory technici-
ans in Puies entornology for their daily help,
F i n e l y ,mrne t i m e was çpen t t o learn
to w o r k
i n
the
uw7pu ter , Hence
,this r e p o r t
and sorne data
analysi 5 a r e done
through the computer a
Diop (Senegal) monitoring
Heliothis populations in
pigeonpea
IMRODWTI ON
AS It 15 knc~wn,ICRlWT
1s c
r e e t e d
tee help national
prcrgr amc. i n t h e manangement of crlop productlun
b y c r e e t i n g new
uarieties w i c h a r e resistant to drought and pests and give high
grain yield.
Thus
a t 1 .C.R.I ,S,A.T.
thiç year, the def iciency of
r a i n f a l l w a s much
impur tant speci aly for
t h e e a r l y m a t u r i n g
genotypes
account uf t h e fact t h e flowering s t a g e coincide wi th
thls deficiency.The graph N u l l.et us set- t h e f l u c t u a t i o n of the
r a i n f a l l a n d d a t a taken in
t h e f ieldIpigeunpea international.
yie2d trial) sow u s t h e effect o f t h i s on, crops.The critical Cil:
the crop(floweringjfor the medium early varieties was at the end
o f Hugust and the begining o f September.The rainfall deficiency
compared to l a s t y e a r is lower of lY% f o r t h e period June 1 s t to
Cktober lSth.Pluç,at t h e flowerjng s t a g e , t h e deficiency is about
69%/1984 rainf ail ,
klsn a t
this stage ,as we cari see through the graphs of
Heliothis armigera,the of this insect was high and influenced the
pipeonpea production.
F o r a11 t h e s e problems 1 t is n e c e s s a r y f u r t h e S.A.7’.
scientists
te see how it is possible to find methods wich cari
help farmers in the erop production management.
Legumes ,amcang them Ca janus ca jan wi ch con tei n abcrut 20% of
p r ù t e i n merit o u r
attention.For 2.82 ha,pigeonpea give 1.33
tonnes/year .Accoun t
of
the hvman fond def iciency,i t
i s t hen
necessary te protect this trop against the :.pecter of insects Ni&
reduce the yield.It is the objective of these triais.
4
ICRISAT RfWFLL 1 9 8 5
1JlJNE TO 15 OCTOBER
--L-- --__ l_.___ .-
CL
-l
I
PIGEQNPEh TRIALS AND tKLIMH1 S ARMSQERA STUDIES
Pigeonpta!Cajanus
cajanj i s a papi lunceum wiçh i s grown
through the wold and rnainly in India.This pule wich is
important
i ri
f ood
product i un b y t h e proteins.,minerals
a n d
vi tamins
content ,knuw rnany pest darnaye.The rmst important diseases are the
wilt and the sterility rnosaic wich cari reduce cunsiderably
the
production specialy t h e late uarieties.(for t h e wilt) .The must
important insects are Heliothis armigera,Melanogromyza
obtus,
Cydia(Euco5ma)critica,Maruca
testulalis,Tanaostigmodes cajaninae.
The following list yive the rnajur insect pest uf piyeonpea.
LIST OF THE MfWOR iNSECT PESTS OF PIGEQNPEA IN INDIA
TABLE 1
I ----^-------------------------~-------------------------------~
------------------------------~------~------------------------~
i PEST GKOUP i
SÇIENTIFIC NfWE
l CCMt%N N&IE l
, - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
----------1---
, ===============================i
==============zE,
Il
l Phyllobius sp.
i Leaf weevils l
12
l Gonocephalum dorsogranosum l Soi 1 beetle
i
13 Seeling pestsfAlicides spp.
l Stern weevils I
14
and
IMyllocerus spp.
1 Leaf weevifs l
5 defoliators IC$hiomyia centroçematis
I Stem fly
i
[6
IMegachile 5pp.
i Leaf tut ter bees
17
l Caloptilia soyella
i Leaf rollev I
18
l CydiaiEucosmajcretica
I L e a f t i e r
19
Amsacta albistriga
i Hairy caterpiller
110
iDiacrysia(Plusiaforichalceal
Semilouper
1
111
i Colemania çphen,erioides
I Deccan winyless
112
i
i grasshopper
113
i
i
il4
ICeuthorrhynchus asperulusfi 1 Bud weevil
1
il5
IMylabris pustulatak
I Flower beetle i
116
IEuproctis subnotata
l Hairy caterpiller
1’17
Ilampides boeticus*
i Blue butterflies
118
ICatochrysops strabo
I
,I
II
l
i.lS Bud/flawers itfeliothis armig&aJc
I Tur pod borer i
I 20
pests
Exelastis atomisa
i Plurne muth i
1 2 1
Campylomma livida
I eugs
i 22
I
Creontiades pallidus
i Bugs
i
I 23
Megalurotrhips usitatus
i Flower thrips l
I 24
Taeniothrips nigricornis
I
”
Ii
i
125
i
126
~l~k,2O*,&k,17*
t
IL’7
IMaruca testulalis*
i Pod burer
I
IZLepidopteran
IEtiella zinckenellak
i
II
1,
I
129 pcid borers l Adisura atkinsoni
II
4,
I
i
I 30
1 A.marginalis
I
II
Il
i
/3:3
i 18
i
ISphenarches anisodactylus l Bean pl urne rrm t h
I
I
i
133 Dlpteran
IMelanagromyza
obtusa*
I Pod fly
I
I z.eed bore7
I
i
i
i
I
) 34
I Apion benignum
1 Seed weevi 1 I
135 Coleopteran
ICallosobruchus
chinensisk
I Bruchids
I
1% pod and
IC.maculatusA
l
I,
I
137 seed horer IC.theobrome*
I
1,
I
I
1
I
I
138 Hymeopteran ITanaostigmodes cajaninaek I
l
I
p o d borers \\
I
I
139
IClavigralla gi bbosa-k
1 Tur pod bug I
140
lC,scutellaris
I
11
II
u
1
141
(Nezara viridula
1 Stink bug I
142 Hemipteran
[Dolicuris indic:us
I
"
It
I
143 pests
IAnoplocnemis sp,
I Bugs
I
144
Iaxyryhachis tarandus
I Cow bug
I
"
146
IAphis craccivoïa
l Aphids
147
IAmrasca spp.
I Leaf hoppers
t
14B
ICicadella spectra
I Leaf huppeus 1
================================:===============================~=
*Insects found to be the major pests in many areas.
Çource:Dr.s.ç.Lateef
LIST OF INSECTS RECORDED AS MAJOR PESTS ON PIOEONPEA IN OTHER
CONTRIES BUT NOT RECORDED IN INDIA
TABLE 2
-------------------^_______________^____-----------------------~-
-------------------------------~-------------------------------~-
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
CONTRI!
-------------------------------~--~----------------------------~-
----------^--------------------~-------------------------------~-
Empoasca fabilis
Jassids
Trinidad
Oncides amputator
FIower beetle
Tanzania
Mylabris arnplectens
11
"
M.aperta
II
Il
Kenya
Coryna
apicicornis
II
I,
II
Acanthoscelides erythraeus
seed beetle '
Aulacophora
foveicollis
Pollen beetle '
Epicauta sp.
II
II
il
Heliothis zea
Pod borer
Caribbean
H.virescens
II
II
Peru
Elasmopalpus rubedinellus
"
‘,
Caribbean,Peru
Ancylostomia stercorea
II
' Tanzania,Trinidad,Peru
Pardasene vi rgulana
II II
Kenya
Melanagromyza chalcosoma
Pod fly
I,
. Acanthomia horrida
Pod bug
Tanzania,Kenya
H.torfientosicollis
8, II
",Nigeria, II
Microtermes sp.
Termi tes
Kenya
‘ Allondotermes sp.
II
I,
Gerocc~ccus catenorius
Scale insects
Nigeria
Source :Dr.s.s,.Lateef
1-PIGEONPEA TRIAL IlOR INSECT RESISTANCE
OBJECTIVES:Evaluation of
pigeonpea
insect pest
and
%he
susceptibility of çome genotypes.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
GENOTYPEÇ:BDN-1 , ICP 1691 , PPE 45 2 , ICP 1903-El
ICP 10466 , ICPL 84060 , ICP 7203 , ICP 909
REPLICATIONS: 3
DESIGN :RBD
PLOTS SIZE:BMX5M INTO 2 BEDS OF 4 ROWS EACH(0.75M BETWEEN ROWS
AND 2004 BETWEEN PLANTS.GROSS AREA=lSM"Z,NET PLOT=4.5M"Z.
THINING:DONE ON 9/7/1985.
Characters
like days to 50% flowering,plant height at
flowering and weekly insects counts(Heliothis armigera :eggs and
larvae,webs,bugs,beetles) were reccorded.
This tria1
is net yet finished and at harvesk
characters
like damaged pods by Heliothis armigera ,hemynopterian group,pod
fly and bugs Will be reccorded.
RESULtTS AND DISCUSSIONS
TABLE 3
---------I---------------~--------------------------~-----------
--------------------------.--------------------------.------------
TREATMENTS
150 %
I PLANT I
WEBS
1
HELIOTHIS ARMIGERAI
IFLObiER I HEIGHT I 1 COUNT l(3 COUNTS/5PLTS EAGH) l
_--_________!_!bay5!-!--!~~!--!!!~~~~~~~!--~~~~----!~~~~~~~----!
-------------------------~--------------------------~-----------
BDN-2
l
117
l
14.1
I
19
I
23
I
2
l
ICP 1691
1
122# 1
169
1
13-
l
o-
I
2
I
PPE-45-2
I
102
1
162
I 17
I
13
I
1
l
ICP 1903 El I
121
1
172# I
24#
I
o-
I
o-
ICP 10466 I
121
I
16’8 I 17
I
1
I
o-
ICPL S4060 I
120
I
167
1
13-
I
o-
I
#-
I
ICP 7203
I
94- 1
14.0 i 22
l
12
l
6#
l
ICP 909
I
103
1
138- I 13
I
5
I
o-
I
SEM (i-1
I 3.62 I
3.42 E
8.03
1
6.87
I
1.73
I
c.,v. (%)
I
6
I 4
I 47
l
10”
I
122
I
F REPS
i
2.60 I
0.69
F VARIETIES I
9.12**I 18.43**1
4.64-k* 1
3.96-k i
l.C)O(NS}I
--------------------------.--------------------------.------------
--------------------------.--------------------------.-------------
III
this
experiment,the
early
varieties
were
more
damaged
by Heliothis armigera.It is because the level of this insect
was
very
high
at the flowering stage
uf these
varieties {BDN 1,
ICP 7203,ICP 909 and PPE-45-Z).In this case,PPE-45-2 known as a
resistant ,show high
level of egg s and larvae if
':?P
cunsidere
others.The
later varietiebs like ICP 10466,
ICP 1903 El,
ICPL
84060 show less attactency.
I' r
4
2
z 42
wa
\\
ON PIGEONPEA
BLZA
L 0 .
G t
SELECTIONS
EGGS LEVEL AT
zz II
ICRISAT 1985
ARMIGERA
cn a
HELICITHIS
x
. i.
!
13W3
.
CATCHES AT
.
Saurce:Dr.Pawar
.
PHEROMDNE
.
i
ICRISAT 1985
ARMIGERA
HEI,ICYl-HIÇ
-
-
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
I.
The post harvest data Will give much informations about the
behevour
of the genotypes under these conditions.liowever we
cari
sec
the influence of the sowing date
according the cycle of the
plant.According to the graphe, 11,111 and IV,it would be recomman-
ble to suggest to the farmer to coincide the flowering
stage at
the end of
September and begining of October where the level of
t-le1 1 CI t t-i 1 5
ir-niiqera
is low.No dought,the plant
height,days 50%
flowering
and the level. of damage are related in thic,
case.Even
i f
the level
of webs is very high,this
insect(Cydia
cretica)
didnt taken our attention because the damage are influcing much
the yield.This experiment should be done again to confirm the
results
and it Will interesbing next year to add :3 or 4 date of
sowing to sec how will be the behevour of these genotypes.
II-EARLY MATWRING PIGEONPEA VARIETAL TRIAL
0BJECTIVES:compare
Pigeonpea selections under minimum treatments
of pesticide-, at Patan&erÜ(India,Kharif 1985)
MATERIAL AND METHODS
GENOTYPES: ICPL4 ,ICPL317 ,ICPLlSl ,ICPL87 ,ICPL31!5 ,ICPLBJll
REPLICATIONS :4
DESIGN : RBD
PLOTS SIZE:3MXSM INTO 2 BEDS OF 8 ROWS EACH(0.375 (CM BETWEEN ROWS
AND 10 CM BETWEEN PLANTS.GROSS AREA=l5 M”2, PLOT N:ET=4.5MA2.
FERTILIZER
:20-17-00
INSECTICIDE:2 Treatments(23/8,13/9)with Endosulfan were applyed.
WEEDING
:3 MANUAL (Z/i' , 17/7 , 22/8,'1985) WERE SUFFISANTS.
IRRIGATION: NIL
DATE OF SOWING:l9/6/1985
THINING:DONE ON 9/7/1985
Characters
like
days to 50% flowering,plant
height at
flowering,plant
stand at
harvest,yield,lO#
seeds
weight
and
percentage of grain were reccorded.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
TABLE 4
TREATMENTSI 50 %
/PLANT IPLANT
i GRAIN
1100 SEEDS ITHRESHINGI
IFLOWER IHEIGHTISTAND I YIELD I
WEIGH'T I
I
I (days)l (cm1 l~OOO/hal(Kglha~ I
(g)
I
(%)
I
----e--s--
----------l=======j======)==========l========~==========~====~====l
XCPL 4
I
72-
l
82
I
293#
1 781
I
6-
I
67
I
ICPL 317
I
79
I
82
l
237-
I
676
I
7
I
70#
I
ICPL 151
I
77
l
8SA 1 239
I
898#
I
9#
I
69
I
ICPL 8?
I
85#
I
75
I
263
l
509-
I
9#
I
61-
I
ICPL 315
I
72-
I
84
I
247
I
687
I
7
1
66
1
ICPL 8311 I
77
I
8541 I
262
I
764
l
8
I
68
I
SEM(t-1
l 1.85 I 2 . 8 5 I 19.81
i 145
1
0.23
I
2.55
1
C.V.
I%)
l
5
l
7
l
15
I
40
I
6
l
13
I
F REPS l 2.77
j
2 . ii 0 1 0.23 1 3.013(
1 2.22
I
2.77
I
F VARIETIES 6.51**l
1.861
1.11 l 0.83
l
28.14** 1 il..:15
l
--------____________---~----------------------------------------
---------____I_____-_---~----------------------------------.------
We
cari notice through the previous table than the difference
is not significative in plant height,in plant stand ,grain yield,
and threshing percentage,,The field was very"homogenious".
The following graphs sow how the difference is significative.
50% flowering:
Genotypes
: v4
VZ
v6
v3
vl
v 5
Days
: 85
79
77
7?
72
72
100 seeds weight:
Genotypes: V3
V4
V6
v5
vz
Vl
grams
: 8.5
8.5
8.3
7
6.5 5.5
I
lrl
-1
In grain yield the difference is significative at
S%.Indeed
during
this
season,the
field show some
heterogenious places
specialy
in the 3rd replication.This influenced hiqhly the of 3
genotypes.The ICPL 87 i s much lower than others.The results
must
be confimed next year.
III-PIGEONPEA INTERNATIONAL YIELII TRIAL
OBJECTIVES:as
for
the
early
maturing
pigeonjpea
varietal
trial,this
international
yield
tria1
has as purpose
the
comportment
of 5ome pigeonpea .More in this tria1
16 pigeonpea
are involved and it is compaund of 2 types of maturing varieties:
extra early maturing and medium.
GENOTYPES
EXTRA EARLY MATURING TYPES
ICPL 4 , ICPL 151 , ICPL 87 , ICPL 289 , ICPIL 312 ,
ICPL 316 , ICPL 146 , ICPL 155 , ICPL 8311 , ICPL 8324.
MEDIUM TYPES
ICPL 1 ,ICPL 6 ,ICPL, 81 ,ICPL 161 , ICPL 288 , ICPL 269
REPLICATIONS:3
DESIGN :RBD
PLOTS
SIZE :
3mx5m into 2 beds of 8 rows each(o.3'75 cm
between
rows and 10 cm between plants.Gr-oss area =15mA2,net plot=4.5m"Z.
DATE OF SOWING:25 /6 1985Iresowing ICPL 8324 On 16 ,/7/1985)
FERTILIZER:ZO-17-00
INSECTICIDE TREATMENTS:L on 23/8 AND
13/9
1'385
with
endosulfan(Thiodan) were applyed.
WEEDING:done on 11/7,7/8/1985.
THINING:DONE GN 18/7/1985.
In
this
tria1
thie
data
reccorded
are
: ,days tu
50%
flowering,plant
height,lOO
seeds
weight,grain
yield
(2
harvestsf,and percentage of grain.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
TABLE 5
-======================================================:========~===i
TREATMENTS
1 50%
1 PLANTIGRAIN YIELD
1100 SEEDSITHRESHI I
IFLOWERI HEIGHTIlST IZND i TOTAL1 WEIGHT I
I
I(days)l
(cm) E
( Kg/ha)
I
(g)
I
f %) I
-------_-_--
--e------w_- ------
------ ----~-- ---- ---- ------
---- ---- ------ ------~--
------.--- ------_-
----~---
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
ICPL 4
l 60
1 81
1513 1125 ; 738 I
- I 56
ICPL 151
l 64
1 82
1751 I 46 I 797 I
10
I 66
!
ICPL 87
I 68
I 75
1219 1478 I 696 I 11
I 64
I
ICPL 289
l 62
1 65-
1743 1 44 l 786 1
10
l 64
ICPL 312
1 61
I 67
1657 1 15 1 672 1
11
I 62
I
ICPL 3 1 6
l 50 - l 71
1565 1228 I 793 l
8
I 61
I
ICPL 146
1 66
I 79
1 4 1 4 1 9 9 1 5 1 3 l
9
I 59
I
ICPL 155
t 71
l 88
1221 1536 1 757 1
9
I 72#
ICPL 8311
I 64
I 84
17?9#I 41 l 840 1
10
I 67
1
ICPL 8324
l 69
I 81
l20,6-I 71 I 277 I
14:#
I
54-
I
ICPL 1
1 65
I 83
1524 I 34 I 558 I
8
I 67
i
ICPL 6
I 73
I 92 4:
1347 1323 l 669 l
9
I 60
I
ICPL 81
I 63
I 81
1601 I 10 I 611 I
7
I 63
I
ICPL 161
I 61
1 76
1602 I 26 l 628 l
9
I 58
1
ICPL 288
I 74# I 89
1207 1 98 I 305 l
I 57
ICPL 269
I 66
l 86
1593 I 22 l 616 I
1:
I 66
/
SEM (t-)
10.82
I 2.98
1116 155.21122.161
0.33
1
3.25
1
C.V. (%f
12.18 l 6
141
I 70 I 33 I
6
19
I
F REPS
Il
I 2.67
10.5310.881
0.891
1.5:2 i
3.29
1
F VARIETIES i50.53r*l 6.75**13.1**9.17**1.81 l
9,27** 1
2.18* I
As said
in the begining,this year
the
rainfall
very
deficient and the fatal drought of August wich coincided with the
flowering stage
affected
much this tria1 specialy
the medium
early
varieties.The
data were very irregular and it
i s
not
possible to withdraw one conclusion in this
conditions.We
cari
only
notice
the performance of ICPL 8311,ICPL 151,ICPL 289
and
the yield of
the medium early
varieties
specialy
the check
ICPL 87.
"RAPH IV
HELIOTHIS ARMIGEWI PHEROMONE CATCHES AT RCWlBB ON
PIGEONPEA INTERNATIONAL YIELD TRIAL
ICRISAT 1985
14
TRAINING PROGRAM IN PULSES ENTOMOLOGY
From August 26th ta 19 November 1985,the time wa-; mainly
used for training in ICRISAT Puises entomolegy laboratory,
The program learnt were:
Introduction:pest of pigeonpea
Pigeonpea field observation,pheromone trap installation.
Numbering of plants/pheromone trap catches.
Observations of peçts/peçts counts in the trial.
Parasites/predators of the pests of pigeonpea and GhiGkpea.
Pheromone trap studies.
Light trap stidies.
Pesticide applications and problemç in farmers field.
NPV in Heliothis an,d its,use as a biological agent.
Biology of pe5ts of pigeonpea.
Integrated pest control in pigeonpea.
Host plant resistance to pests.
Pratical aspects and problems of pests control.
Methodology of pests resistance screening.
Rearing of parasites.
Field experimentation and statitical designs.
Pod damage açsessments in pigeonpea.
Statistical analysis of data.
ANTIBIOSIS STUDIES OFHELIMHIS MlIGERA ON PIGIEONPEA
TO know the effect of resistant varieties on the
growth
and life of Heliothis armigera and 5ee how the antibiosis
could
be
used in
Integreted Pest
Mananement(IPM),this tria1 is
conduzted with
the
holp of r)rs Reed and Lateef of
the Pules
entomology program.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Larvae hatched on
14 September are reared in
laboratory
condition5 in "Percivia,l"incubator:
-Temperature
:zxt-1C
-Relative Humidi,ty :7Q%
-Light
:12 hour.5
Replications :lO
Treatments
:7 mixed with general articial diet.
l)A=dhal of ICP 1903 El(reistant to Heliothis armigerai
L)B=wole seed of ICP 1903 El
3)C=dhal of PPE 5il)(medium resistant to Hellothis arnï1Seua)
4)D=whole seedof PPE 50
?)E=dhal of ICP 169lisusceptible to Heliothis arrn:igc?r.~)
G)F=whoie seed of ICP 1691
?)G=dhal of Khabuli seed(chickpea susceptible) as a check.
15
COMPOSITION OF THE BASIC ARTICIAL PIEs
1)Flour of tested materialftwater)
75g
2)Ascorbic acid
1,170
3)Methyl-4-hydroxybenzoate
0.75g
4)Sorbic acid
0.379
5fAureomycin
1.87g
These compenents
6)Lin seed oil
1.87g
wi.11 be mixed
7)Vitamins solution
2.5ml
f irst.
8)Yeast tablets
12 9
9)Water
127.5ml
10)Agar agar
4.31g
These alto mixed
1l)tJater
202.5ml
and add ta t,he first
mixure.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Until November lZth,some larvae and pupae were still in
the
incubator and it take much time to a11 the results in this trial.
However some of the results of the results we got this experiment
as
sown in the next table cari help to give one impression
about
this subject.
DATA FROM THE AVERAGE OF 10 REPLICATIONS
TABLE 6
-------------------------------------------------~---------------
--------I----------------------------------------~---------------
IT ILARVALtSTILLiLARVALlPUPAElPUPALlSTILLlPUPALlFtUPALiADULTlSEXi
;; ;DE”‘” ~LARVAIPERIODIFORMElDEATHlPUPAElPERIOl~lEIGHlEMER~iRATl
i
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
i
IA
I (%)
I (“a) I(DAYS)I (“a) l (SS) I (“a) I(DAYS) Img)l (%) I M/FI
IT i
i
i
i
i
I
I
i
1
I
I
- - -
I ___ --- ------ ------ I ----- ----- I ------ ------ I ----- ----- ----- ----- I
i
I A 1
I
OI 27
i
801 OI
3/4i
,Bd
l OI
-
I OI OI
- I
l c I
20
I
0 I
30
I
801
O I
O I
16 1 256 I
80
i 7/1l
IDI
80
1
20 I
65
i
0 l
0 1
0 1
- i
-
i
-
i ?
I
I E l
30
I
0 i
33
i
70 i
30 l
10 l
>15@1
257
I
30 il/21
I F I
50
i
20 1 >63@ i
3 0 1
O I
30 , > 5@1 160 I
0 I ? I
IC!I
10
I
O I
22
i
90 i
20 1
30 I >17 l 265 l
40 /2/21
-------------------------------------------------~---------------
---------------^---------------------------------~---------------
The previous ta:ble sow clearly,the influence of the shell
on
the biology of Heliothis armigera.Hence the 3
treatments of
whole
seed show a high level of larval death and/or a long larval
period.The
highest
le,vel
of larval death is
recorded in
ICP
1903 El wich iç the moE;t resistant to Heliothis armlgera.Indeed,
the
testa
of this varietiec; contein a high level of polyphenols
and tanins wich are harmeful for the growth of irzects.
Againstly
what wse was expecting,the dhal of the
resistant
varieties
have the best percentage of adults and almost
the in
pupae formed comparatively to the susceptible and check.
We
cari
notice
tlnat a150 ,the weight of the
late
pupated
larvae is lesser than tlhe earlieyer formated ones.
No dought,the genotypes contents have influenced the biology
of
Helicit;tiis
armigera,but it is
difficult to withdraw a
definitive conclusion about it.
We Will be very glad to conduct this experiment in Senegal
with cowpea or other legume available.
IMPRESSIONS AND PROPOSALS
During this training,we have noticed that insect pests recorded in
pigeonpea(Cajahus
cajan) are almost the same as recorded in
cowpea (Uigna unguiculata) in Senegal.Therefore,most of the
methodologies
used
here
in ICRISAT cari be impiemented in
Senegal
conditions
for screening
the genotypes for
pest
susceptibility.
It would have been intersting to continue some of the
tria15
conducted like :Pigeonpea tria1 for
insecte
resiktance;
and the antibiosis studies
of Heliothiç
armigeria on pigeonpea.
This last experiment cari be used on Arnsacta moloneyi wich causè
much damage to cowpea in Senegal.
Also the techniques of screening(for about 3000 genotypes)used
in pigeonpea cari be tred on cowpea and that Will be interesting in
cowpea wich is a self polinated trop.
We should have spent more time with the pule entomologists
from the begining of courses to have a better understanding 4f
the field/laboratory experimentation.
1 7
1 .S.R.A.
TRAINING REPORT
(Training frtrm March 16th to Nouember 22th
1 9 8 5 at 1 .C.R.,I .S.A.T. Patancheru,India)
BY
& ES 13 l-1
cl 1 lIlP+c
I::FNTI+E NfiTI C$&L DE LA RECHERCHE HGRC+KIMI QUE
(C.N.R.A.)
EAMBE’Y
.kIngenieur des taavaux de recherches
FORHORD
The traininq e f f e c t e d ait I.L.K.I.S.A.T. f r o m M a t - c h 1 6 t h t o
Nouember 2 2 t h 1 9 8 5 i s uery b e n e f i c i a l b e c a u s e o f t h e new
knowledge qot
in plant protection ,breedinq and statistics and
the learnt of workinq in computer.Thiç was possible account of the
2 monthc 4
spent at Cismania Universi ty
t o îearn E n q l i s h wich i E.
used a t ICHISAT.
I t w o u l d b e m o n o t o n o u s if t h e traininq office didnt
prouide uarious
p r o q r a m by t r i p s in technical a n d touristics
places.Hence t h e t r i p s i n t h e states o f Maharastra,Tamil. Nadu,
Karnataka and Hndra Pradesh helped us to beat the home sick wich
could disturb the training.Besides these trips permited us to see
t h e r e a r e diversities between t h e c,tateS i n this qreat
contry
t h a t is India .The tradi t i o n a l a n d modem t e c h n o l o q i e s o f
agriculture
change from one çtate to another,one district tu one
another or z.ome time within state or district.
Finely the trips sow us how i t is possible for the Semi
krid Tropics(S.AT.) farmers to diversify the trop production by
adoptinq plants wich are known as wild.
Also a certain number o f overviews gave u s a q e n e r a l
knowledge on
a l a r g e spléxter
of domain:economi ics,soc:~oloqy,
breedl nq
a n d
plant
protection,physioloqy,patholoqy
a n d
man an qemen t .
The
5er i es of lectures reminded beneficialy the qenetics,
statistic5. and agricultural experiments,research mananqemen t and
s o i f physics.
Al1
t h i s
overviews,lectures
a n d
t r i p s
would be
n o t
beneflcial i f experimentaltria1 z. were not conducted to sec the
practice in the field and in the laboratory.
Thus
tria15 o n piqeonpea insects
resistance
,pigeonpea
varietal trial,piqeonpea international yield tria1
r an t i lb i o s i 5
studies of Helic\\this armigera on piqeonpea selections and ,the
survey of pheromone trap were conducted.
One may ask why these tria15 on piqeonpea at the place of
cowpes(Vigna unguiculata) ,crop in wich our works are mainly çoncen
tratred in Seneqal?Indeed we w o u l d Le uery q l a d t u conduçt trials
in cowpea entorr~oloqy
to improve the knowleqde and technicz. in thiz.
crop,&tt ,a~. euery body know, IC:RISAT has only 5 mandated crops i n
wi ch
the trop improvement proqram is workinq.There for i t
would
be not beneficial to conduct tria1 with cowpea wich 15. net includ
i n
t heE.e
5 crop5.That.5. why w e cannot p u t a 5top to t h a n k t h e
Traininq Proqram Cffficers who helped us in the choice of
the
sub!ect and in a11 t h e rnan.angements
during the traininq.
we a r e qrateful t o D r Uswalt f o r all,specialy
f o r t h e daliy
help in the learnt to work in the computer and Dr F.Sinqh for hic.
dailtj advices.
.-,
L
We
c 3 n ri 0 t
put a 5. top
alscl t o t h a n k t h e persona1 o f
f’ tJ 1 P -C.
entornology ~ho maked the training more ben,ef icial by their
adv 1 ces, thei r
l e c t u r e s a n d t h e training in the field and in
t he
laboratory .
we are grateful to Drs Reed, the Principal entomolugist ,Lateef ,
Si thanontham,Dent ,Pawar and a11 the f ields and laboratory technici-
ans in Puies entornology for their daily help,
F i n e l y ,mrne t i m e was çpen t t o learn
to w o r k
i n
the
uw7pu ter , Hence
,this r e p o r t
and sorne data
analysi 5 a r e done
through the computer a
Diop (Senegal) monitoring
Heliothis populations in
pigeonpea
IMRODWTI ON
AS It 15 knc~wn,ICRlWT
1s c
r e e t e d
tee help national
prcrgr amc. i n t h e manangement of crlop productlun
b y c r e e t i n g new
uarieties w i c h a r e resistant to drought and pests and give high
grain yield.
Thus
a t 1 .C.R.I ,S,A.T.
thiç year, the def iciency of
r a i n f a l l w a s much
impur tant speci aly for
t h e e a r l y m a t u r i n g
genotypes
account uf t h e fact t h e flowering s t a g e coincide wi th
thls deficiency.The graph N u l l.et us set- t h e f l u c t u a t i o n of the
r a i n f a l l a n d d a t a taken in
t h e f ieldIpigeunpea international.
yie2d trial) sow u s t h e effect o f t h i s on, crops.The critical Cil:
the crop(floweringjfor the medium early varieties was at the end
o f Hugust and the begining o f September.The rainfall deficiency
compared to l a s t y e a r is lower of lY% f o r t h e period June 1 s t to
Cktober lSth.Pluç,at t h e flowerjng s t a g e , t h e deficiency is about
69%/1984 rainf ail ,
klsn a t
this stage ,as we cari see through the graphs of
Heliothis armigera,the of this insect was high and influenced the
pipeonpea production.
F o r a11 t h e s e problems 1 t is n e c e s s a r y f u r t h e S.A.7’.
scientists
te see how it is possible to find methods wich cari
help farmers in the erop production management.
Legumes ,amcang them Ca janus ca jan wi ch con tei n abcrut 20% of
p r ù t e i n merit o u r
attention.For 2.82 ha,pigeonpea give 1.33
tonnes/year .Accoun t
of
the hvman fond def iciency,i t
i s t hen
necessary te protect this trop against the :.pecter of insects Ni&
reduce the yield.It is the objective of these triais.
4
ICRISAT RfWFLL 1 9 8 5
1JlJNE TO 15 OCTOBER
--L-- --__ l_.___ .-
CL
-l
I
PIGEQNPEh TRIALS AND tKLIMH1 S ARMSQERA STUDIES
Pigeonpta!Cajanus
cajanj i s a papi lunceum wiçh i s grown
through the wold and rnainly in India.This pule wich is
important
i ri
f ood
product i un b y t h e proteins.,minerals
a n d
vi tamins
content ,knuw rnany pest darnaye.The rmst important diseases are the
wilt and the sterility rnosaic wich cari reduce cunsiderably
the
production specialy t h e late uarieties.(for t h e wilt) .The must
important insects are Heliothis armigera,Melanogromyza
obtus,
Cydia(Euco5ma)critica,Maruca
testulalis,Tanaostigmodes cajaninae.
The following list yive the rnajur insect pest uf piyeonpea.
LIST OF THE MfWOR iNSECT PESTS OF PIGEQNPEA IN INDIA
TABLE 1
I ----^-------------------------~-------------------------------~
------------------------------~------~------------------------~
i PEST GKOUP i
SÇIENTIFIC NfWE
l CCMt%N N&IE l
, - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
----------1---
, ===============================i
==============zE,
Il
l Phyllobius sp.
i Leaf weevils l
12
l Gonocephalum dorsogranosum l Soi 1 beetle
i
13 Seeling pestsfAlicides spp.
l Stern weevils I
14
and
IMyllocerus spp.
1 Leaf weevifs l
5 defoliators IC$hiomyia centroçematis
I Stem fly
i
[6
IMegachile 5pp.
i Leaf tut ter bees
17
l Caloptilia soyella
i Leaf rollev I
18
l CydiaiEucosmajcretica
I L e a f t i e r
19
Amsacta albistriga
i Hairy caterpiller
110
iDiacrysia(Plusiaforichalceal
Semilouper
1
111
i Colemania çphen,erioides
I Deccan winyless
112
i
i grasshopper
113
i
i
il4
ICeuthorrhynchus asperulusfi 1 Bud weevil
1
il5
IMylabris pustulatak
I Flower beetle i
116
IEuproctis subnotata
l Hairy caterpiller
1’17
Ilampides boeticus*
i Blue butterflies
118
ICatochrysops strabo
I
,I
II
l
i.lS Bud/flawers itfeliothis armig&aJc
I Tur pod borer i
I 20
pests
Exelastis atomisa
i Plurne muth i
1 2 1
Campylomma livida
I eugs
i 22
I
Creontiades pallidus
i Bugs
i
I 23
Megalurotrhips usitatus
i Flower thrips l
I 24
Taeniothrips nigricornis
I
”
Ii
i
125
i
126
~l~k,2O*,&k,17*
t
IL’7
IMaruca testulalis*
i Pod burer
I
IZLepidopteran
IEtiella zinckenellak
i
II
1,
I
129 pcid borers l Adisura atkinsoni
II
4,
I
i
I 30
1 A.marginalis
I
II
Il
i
/3:3
i 18
i
ISphenarches anisodactylus l Bean pl urne rrm t h
I
I
i
133 Dlpteran
IMelanagromyza
obtusa*
I Pod fly
I
I z.eed bore7
I
i
i
i
I
) 34
I Apion benignum
1 Seed weevi 1 I
135 Coleopteran
ICallosobruchus
chinensisk
I Bruchids
I
1% pod and
IC.maculatusA
l
I,
I
137 seed horer IC.theobrome*
I
1,
I
I
1
I
I
138 Hymeopteran ITanaostigmodes cajaninaek I
l
I
p o d borers \\
I
I
139
IClavigralla gi bbosa-k
1 Tur pod bug I
140
lC,scutellaris
I
11
II
u
1
141
(Nezara viridula
1 Stink bug I
142 Hemipteran
[Dolicuris indic:us
I
"
It
I
143 pests
IAnoplocnemis sp,
I Bugs
I
144
Iaxyryhachis tarandus
I Cow bug
I
"
146
IAphis craccivoïa
l Aphids
147
IAmrasca spp.
I Leaf hoppers
t
14B
ICicadella spectra
I Leaf huppeus 1
================================:===============================~=
*Insects found to be the major pests in many areas.
Çource:Dr.s.ç.Lateef
LIST OF INSECTS RECORDED AS MAJOR PESTS ON PIOEONPEA IN OTHER
CONTRIES BUT NOT RECORDED IN INDIA
TABLE 2
-------------------^_______________^____-----------------------~-
-------------------------------~-------------------------------~-
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
CONTRI!
-------------------------------~--~----------------------------~-
----------^--------------------~-------------------------------~-
Empoasca fabilis
Jassids
Trinidad
Oncides amputator
FIower beetle
Tanzania
Mylabris arnplectens
11
"
M.aperta
II
Il
Kenya
Coryna
apicicornis
II
I,
II
Acanthoscelides erythraeus
seed beetle '
Aulacophora
foveicollis
Pollen beetle '
Epicauta sp.
II
II
il
Heliothis zea
Pod borer
Caribbean
H.virescens
II
II
Peru
Elasmopalpus rubedinellus
"
‘,
Caribbean,Peru
Ancylostomia stercorea
II
' Tanzania,Trinidad,Peru
Pardasene vi rgulana
II II
Kenya
Melanagromyza chalcosoma
Pod fly
I,
. Acanthomia horrida
Pod bug
Tanzania,Kenya
H.torfientosicollis
8, II
",Nigeria, II
Microtermes sp.
Termi tes
Kenya
‘ Allondotermes sp.
II
I,
Gerocc~ccus catenorius
Scale insects
Nigeria
Source :Dr.s.s,.Lateef
1-PIGEONPEA TRIAL IlOR INSECT RESISTANCE
OBJECTIVES:Evaluation of
pigeonpea
insect pest
and
%he
susceptibility of çome genotypes.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
GENOTYPEÇ:BDN-1 , ICP 1691 , PPE 45 2 , ICP 1903-El
ICP 10466 , ICPL 84060 , ICP 7203 , ICP 909
REPLICATIONS: 3
DESIGN :RBD
PLOTS SIZE:BMX5M INTO 2 BEDS OF 4 ROWS EACH(0.75M BETWEEN ROWS
AND 2004 BETWEEN PLANTS.GROSS AREA=lSM"Z,NET PLOT=4.5M"Z.
THINING:DONE ON 9/7/1985.
Characters
like days to 50% flowering,plant height at
flowering and weekly insects counts(Heliothis armigera :eggs and
larvae,webs,bugs,beetles) were reccorded.
This tria1
is net yet finished and at harvesk
characters
like damaged pods by Heliothis armigera ,hemynopterian group,pod
fly and bugs Will be reccorded.
RESULtTS AND DISCUSSIONS
TABLE 3
---------I---------------~--------------------------~-----------
--------------------------.--------------------------.------------
TREATMENTS
150 %
I PLANT I
WEBS
1
HELIOTHIS ARMIGERAI
IFLObiER I HEIGHT I 1 COUNT l(3 COUNTS/5PLTS EAGH) l
_--_________!_!bay5!-!--!~~!--!!!~~~~~~~!--~~~~----!~~~~~~~----!
-------------------------~--------------------------~-----------
BDN-2
l
117
l
14.1
I
19
I
23
I
2
l
ICP 1691
1
122# 1
169
1
13-
l
o-
I
2
I
PPE-45-2
I
102
1
162
I 17
I
13
I
1
l
ICP 1903 El I
121
1
172# I
24#
I
o-
I
o-
ICP 10466 I
121
I
16’8 I 17
I
1
I
o-
ICPL S4060 I
120
I
167
1
13-
I
o-
I
#-
I
ICP 7203
I
94- 1
14.0 i 22
l
12
l
6#
l
ICP 909
I
103
1
138- I 13
I
5
I
o-
I
SEM (i-1
I 3.62 I
3.42 E
8.03
1
6.87
I
1.73
I
c.,v. (%)
I
6
I 4
I 47
l
10”
I
122
I
F REPS
i
2.60 I
0.69
F VARIETIES I
9.12**I 18.43**1
4.64-k* 1
3.96-k i
l.C)O(NS}I
--------------------------.--------------------------.------------
--------------------------.--------------------------.-------------
III
this
experiment,the
early
varieties
were
more
damaged
by Heliothis armigera.It is because the level of this insect
was
very
high
at the flowering stage
uf these
varieties {BDN 1,
ICP 7203,ICP 909 and PPE-45-Z).In this case,PPE-45-2 known as a
resistant ,show high
level of egg s and larvae if
':?P
cunsidere
others.The
later varietiebs like ICP 10466,
ICP 1903 El,
ICPL
84060 show less attactency.
I' r
4
2
z 42
wa
\\
ON PIGEONPEA
BLZA
L 0 .
G t
SELECTIONS
EGGS LEVEL AT
zz II
ICRISAT 1985
ARMIGERA
cn a
HELICITHIS
x
. i.
!
13W3
.
CATCHES AT
.
Saurce:Dr.Pawar
.
PHEROMDNE
.
i
ICRISAT 1985
ARMIGERA
HEI,ICYl-HIÇ
-
-
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
I.
The post harvest data Will give much informations about the
behevour
of the genotypes under these conditions.liowever we
cari
sec
the influence of the sowing date
according the cycle of the
plant.According to the graphe, 11,111 and IV,it would be recomman-
ble to suggest to the farmer to coincide the flowering
stage at
the end of
September and begining of October where the level of
t-le1 1 CI t t-i 1 5
ir-niiqera
is low.No dought,the plant
height,days 50%
flowering
and the level. of damage are related in thic,
case.Even
i f
the level
of webs is very high,this
insect(Cydia
cretica)
didnt taken our attention because the damage are influcing much
the yield.This experiment should be done again to confirm the
results
and it Will interesbing next year to add :3 or 4 date of
sowing to sec how will be the behevour of these genotypes.
II-EARLY MATWRING PIGEONPEA VARIETAL TRIAL
0BJECTIVES:compare
Pigeonpea selections under minimum treatments
of pesticide-, at Patan&erÜ(India,Kharif 1985)
MATERIAL AND METHODS
GENOTYPES: ICPL4 ,ICPL317 ,ICPLlSl ,ICPL87 ,ICPL31!5 ,ICPLBJll
REPLICATIONS :4
DESIGN : RBD
PLOTS SIZE:3MXSM INTO 2 BEDS OF 8 ROWS EACH(0.375 (CM BETWEEN ROWS
AND 10 CM BETWEEN PLANTS.GROSS AREA=l5 M”2, PLOT N:ET=4.5MA2.
FERTILIZER
:20-17-00
INSECTICIDE:2 Treatments(23/8,13/9)with Endosulfan were applyed.
WEEDING
:3 MANUAL (Z/i' , 17/7 , 22/8,'1985) WERE SUFFISANTS.
IRRIGATION: NIL
DATE OF SOWING:l9/6/1985
THINING:DONE ON 9/7/1985
Characters
like
days to 50% flowering,plant
height at
flowering,plant
stand at
harvest,yield,lO#
seeds
weight
and
percentage of grain were reccorded.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
TABLE 4
TREATMENTSI 50 %
/PLANT IPLANT
i GRAIN
1100 SEEDS ITHRESHINGI
IFLOWER IHEIGHTISTAND I YIELD I
WEIGH'T I
I
I (days)l (cm1 l~OOO/hal(Kglha~ I
(g)
I
(%)
I
----e--s--
----------l=======j======)==========l========~==========~====~====l
XCPL 4
I
72-
l
82
I
293#
1 781
I
6-
I
67
I
ICPL 317
I
79
I
82
l
237-
I
676
I
7
I
70#
I
ICPL 151
I
77
l
8SA 1 239
I
898#
I
9#
I
69
I
ICPL 8?
I
85#
I
75
I
263
l
509-
I
9#
I
61-
I
ICPL 315
I
72-
I
84
I
247
I
687
I
7
1
66
1
ICPL 8311 I
77
I
8541 I
262
I
764
l
8
I
68
I
SEM(t-1
l 1.85 I 2 . 8 5 I 19.81
i 145
1
0.23
I
2.55
1
C.V.
I%)
l
5
l
7
l
15
I
40
I
6
l
13
I
F REPS l 2.77
j
2 . ii 0 1 0.23 1 3.013(
1 2.22
I
2.77
I
F VARIETIES 6.51**l
1.861
1.11 l 0.83
l
28.14** 1 il..:15
l
--------____________---~----------------------------------------
---------____I_____-_---~----------------------------------.------
We
cari notice through the previous table than the difference
is not significative in plant height,in plant stand ,grain yield,
and threshing percentage,,The field was very"homogenious".
The following graphs sow how the difference is significative.
50% flowering:
Genotypes
: v4
VZ
v6
v3
vl
v 5
Days
: 85
79
77
7?
72
72
100 seeds weight:
Genotypes: V3
V4
V6
v5
vz
Vl
grams
: 8.5
8.5
8.3
7
6.5 5.5
I
lrl
-1
In grain yield the difference is significative at
S%.Indeed
during
this
season,the
field show some
heterogenious places
specialy
in the 3rd replication.This influenced hiqhly the of 3
genotypes.The ICPL 87 i s much lower than others.The results
must
be confimed next year.
III-PIGEONPEA INTERNATIONAL YIELII TRIAL
OBJECTIVES:as
for
the
early
maturing
pigeonjpea
varietal
trial,this
international
yield
tria1
has as purpose
the
comportment
of 5ome pigeonpea .More in this tria1
16 pigeonpea
are involved and it is compaund of 2 types of maturing varieties:
extra early maturing and medium.
GENOTYPES
EXTRA EARLY MATURING TYPES
ICPL 4 , ICPL 151 , ICPL 87 , ICPL 289 , ICPIL 312 ,
ICPL 316 , ICPL 146 , ICPL 155 , ICPL 8311 , ICPL 8324.
MEDIUM TYPES
ICPL 1 ,ICPL 6 ,ICPL, 81 ,ICPL 161 , ICPL 288 , ICPL 269
REPLICATIONS:3
DESIGN :RBD
PLOTS
SIZE :
3mx5m into 2 beds of 8 rows each(o.3'75 cm
between
rows and 10 cm between plants.Gr-oss area =15mA2,net plot=4.5m"Z.
DATE OF SOWING:25 /6 1985Iresowing ICPL 8324 On 16 ,/7/1985)
FERTILIZER:ZO-17-00
INSECTICIDE TREATMENTS:L on 23/8 AND
13/9
1'385
with
endosulfan(Thiodan) were applyed.
WEEDING:done on 11/7,7/8/1985.
THINING:DONE GN 18/7/1985.
In
this
tria1
thie
data
reccorded
are
: ,days tu
50%
flowering,plant
height,lOO
seeds
weight,grain
yield
(2
harvestsf,and percentage of grain.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
TABLE 5
-======================================================:========~===i
TREATMENTS
1 50%
1 PLANTIGRAIN YIELD
1100 SEEDSITHRESHI I
IFLOWERI HEIGHTIlST IZND i TOTAL1 WEIGHT I
I
I(days)l
(cm) E
( Kg/ha)
I
(g)
I
f %) I
-------_-_--
--e------w_- ------
------ ----~-- ---- ---- ------
---- ---- ------ ------~--
------.--- ------_-
----~---
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
ICPL 4
l 60
1 81
1513 1125 ; 738 I
- I 56
ICPL 151
l 64
1 82
1751 I 46 I 797 I
10
I 66
!
ICPL 87
I 68
I 75
1219 1478 I 696 I 11
I 64
I
ICPL 289
l 62
1 65-
1743 1 44 l 786 1
10
l 64
ICPL 312
1 61
I 67
1657 1 15 1 672 1
11
I 62
I
ICPL 3 1 6
l 50 - l 71
1565 1228 I 793 l
8
I 61
I
ICPL 146
1 66
I 79
1 4 1 4 1 9 9 1 5 1 3 l
9
I 59
I
ICPL 155
t 71
l 88
1221 1536 1 757 1
9
I 72#
ICPL 8311
I 64
I 84
17?9#I 41 l 840 1
10
I 67
1
ICPL 8324
l 69
I 81
l20,6-I 71 I 277 I
14:#
I
54-
I
ICPL 1
1 65
I 83
1524 I 34 I 558 I
8
I 67
i
ICPL 6
I 73
I 92 4:
1347 1323 l 669 l
9
I 60
I
ICPL 81
I 63
I 81
1601 I 10 I 611 I
7
I 63
I
ICPL 161
I 61
1 76
1602 I 26 l 628 l
9
I 58
1
ICPL 288
I 74# I 89
1207 1 98 I 305 l
I 57
ICPL 269
I 66
l 86
1593 I 22 l 616 I
1:
I 66
/
SEM (t-)
10.82
I 2.98
1116 155.21122.161
0.33
1
3.25
1
C.V. (%f
12.18 l 6
141
I 70 I 33 I
6
19
I
F REPS
Il
I 2.67
10.5310.881
0.891
1.5:2 i
3.29
1
F VARIETIES i50.53r*l 6.75**13.1**9.17**1.81 l
9,27** 1
2.18* I
As said
in the begining,this year
the
rainfall
very
deficient and the fatal drought of August wich coincided with the
flowering stage
affected
much this tria1 specialy
the medium
early
varieties.The
data were very irregular and it
i s
not
possible to withdraw one conclusion in this
conditions.We
cari
only
notice
the performance of ICPL 8311,ICPL 151,ICPL 289
and
the yield of
the medium early
varieties
specialy
the check
ICPL 87.
"RAPH IV
HELIOTHIS ARMIGEWI PHEROMONE CATCHES AT RCWlBB ON
PIGEONPEA INTERNATIONAL YIELD TRIAL
ICRISAT 1985
14
TRAINING PROGRAM IN PULSES ENTOMOLOGY
From August 26th ta 19 November 1985,the time wa-; mainly
used for training in ICRISAT Puises entomolegy laboratory,
The program learnt were:
Introduction:pest of pigeonpea
Pigeonpea field observation,pheromone trap installation.
Numbering of plants/pheromone trap catches.
Observations of peçts/peçts counts in the trial.
Parasites/predators of the pests of pigeonpea and GhiGkpea.
Pheromone trap studies.
Light trap stidies.
Pesticide applications and problemç in farmers field.
NPV in Heliothis an,d its,use as a biological agent.
Biology of pe5ts of pigeonpea.
Integrated pest control in pigeonpea.
Host plant resistance to pests.
Pratical aspects and problems of pests control.
Methodology of pests resistance screening.
Rearing of parasites.
Field experimentation and statitical designs.
Pod damage açsessments in pigeonpea.
Statistical analysis of data.
ANTIBIOSIS STUDIES OFHELIMHIS MlIGERA ON PIGIEONPEA
TO know the effect of resistant varieties on the
growth
and life of Heliothis armigera and 5ee how the antibiosis
could
be
used in
Integreted Pest
Mananement(IPM),this tria1 is
conduzted with
the
holp of r)rs Reed and Lateef of
the Pules
entomology program.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Larvae hatched on
14 September are reared in
laboratory
condition5 in "Percivia,l"incubator:
-Temperature
:zxt-1C
-Relative Humidi,ty :7Q%
-Light
:12 hour.5
Replications :lO
Treatments
:7 mixed with general articial diet.
l)A=dhal of ICP 1903 El(reistant to Heliothis armigerai
L)B=wole seed of ICP 1903 El
3)C=dhal of PPE 5il)(medium resistant to Hellothis arnï1Seua)
4)D=whole seedof PPE 50
?)E=dhal of ICP 169lisusceptible to Heliothis arrn:igc?r.~)
G)F=whoie seed of ICP 1691
?)G=dhal of Khabuli seed(chickpea susceptible) as a check.
15
COMPOSITION OF THE BASIC ARTICIAL PIEs
1)Flour of tested materialftwater)
75g
2)Ascorbic acid
1,170
3)Methyl-4-hydroxybenzoate
0.75g
4)Sorbic acid
0.379
5fAureomycin
1.87g
These compenents
6)Lin seed oil
1.87g
wi.11 be mixed
7)Vitamins solution
2.5ml
f irst.
8)Yeast tablets
12 9
9)Water
127.5ml
10)Agar agar
4.31g
These alto mixed
1l)tJater
202.5ml
and add ta t,he first
mixure.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Until November lZth,some larvae and pupae were still in
the
incubator and it take much time to a11 the results in this trial.
However some of the results of the results we got this experiment
as
sown in the next table cari help to give one impression
about
this subject.
DATA FROM THE AVERAGE OF 10 REPLICATIONS
TABLE 6
-------------------------------------------------~---------------
--------I----------------------------------------~---------------
IT ILARVALtSTILLiLARVALlPUPAElPUPALlSTILLlPUPALlFtUPALiADULTlSEXi
;; ;DE”‘” ~LARVAIPERIODIFORMElDEATHlPUPAElPERIOl~lEIGHlEMER~iRATl
i
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
i
IA
I (%)
I (“a) I(DAYS)I (“a) l (SS) I (“a) I(DAYS) Img)l (%) I M/FI
IT i
i
i
i
i
I
I
i
1
I
I
- - -
I ___ --- ------ ------ I ----- ----- I ------ ------ I ----- ----- ----- ----- I
i
I A 1
I
OI 27
i
801 OI
3/4i
,Bd
l OI
-
I OI OI
- I
l c I
20
I
0 I
30
I
801
O I
O I
16 1 256 I
80
i 7/1l
IDI
80
1
20 I
65
i
0 l
0 1
0 1
- i
-
i
-
i ?
I
I E l
30
I
0 i
33
i
70 i
30 l
10 l
>15@1
257
I
30 il/21
I F I
50
i
20 1 >63@ i
3 0 1
O I
30 , > 5@1 160 I
0 I ? I
IC!I
10
I
O I
22
i
90 i
20 1
30 I >17 l 265 l
40 /2/21
-------------------------------------------------~---------------
---------------^---------------------------------~---------------
The previous ta:ble sow clearly,the influence of the shell
on
the biology of Heliothis armigera.Hence the 3
treatments of
whole
seed show a high level of larval death and/or a long larval
period.The
highest
le,vel
of larval death is
recorded in
ICP
1903 El wich iç the moE;t resistant to Heliothis armlgera.Indeed,
the
testa
of this varietiec; contein a high level of polyphenols
and tanins wich are harmeful for the growth of irzects.
Againstly
what wse was expecting,the dhal of the
resistant
varieties
have the best percentage of adults and almost
the in
pupae formed comparatively to the susceptible and check.
We
cari
notice
tlnat a150 ,the weight of the
late
pupated
larvae is lesser than tlhe earlieyer formated ones.
No dought,the genotypes contents have influenced the biology
of
Helicit;tiis
armigera,but it is
difficult to withdraw a
definitive conclusion about it.
We Will be very glad to conduct this experiment in Senegal
with cowpea or other legume available.
IMPRESSIONS AND PROPOSALS
During this training,we have noticed that insect pests recorded in
pigeonpea(Cajahus
cajan) are almost the same as recorded in
cowpea (Uigna unguiculata) in Senegal.Therefore,most of the
methodologies
used
here
in ICRISAT cari be impiemented in
Senegal
conditions
for screening
the genotypes for
pest
susceptibility.
It would have been intersting to continue some of the
tria15
conducted like :Pigeonpea tria1 for
insecte
resiktance;
and the antibiosis studies
of Heliothiç
armigeria on pigeonpea.
This last experiment cari be used on Arnsacta moloneyi wich causè
much damage to cowpea in Senegal.
Also the techniques of screening(for about 3000 genotypes)used
in pigeonpea cari be tred on cowpea and that Will be interesting in
cowpea wich is a self polinated trop.
We should have spent more time with the pule entomologists
from the begining of courses to have a better understanding 4f
the field/laboratory experimentation.
1 7