Advertisement

Euphytica

, 215:82 | Cite as

Screening and selection of accessions in the genus Pisum L. for resistance to pulse beetle (Callosobruchus chinensis L.)

  • Azime Esen
  • Hatice Sari
  • Fedai Erler
  • Alper Adak
  • Duygu Sari
  • Tuba Eker
  • Huseyin Canci
  • Cengiz İktenEmail author
  • Abdullah Kahraman
  • Cengiz TokerEmail author
Article
  • 52 Downloads

Abstract

The use of resistant plant varieties is an important control option in the management of seed beetles (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) under storage conditions. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to screen and select pea (Pisum L.) accessions for resistance to pulse beetle (Callosobruchus chinensis L.) under storage conditions. Seeds of four Pisum taxa including two accessions each of P. sativum L. (ACP 11, ACP 15), P. elatius M. Bieb. (AWP 442, AWP 449), P. fulvum Sibth. & Sm. (AWP 600, AWP 601) and one accession of P. abyssinicum A. Braun. (ACP 100) were evaluated using both free-choice and no-choice test methods for the pest under laboratory conditions. Resistance was evaluated by measuring number of eggs per seed by the bruchid (oviposition), number of holes per seed (adult emergence), percent of seed damage and seed weight loss (%). Both accessions of P. fulvum (AWP 600, AWP 601) and one accession each of P. elatius (AWP 442) and P. sativum (ACP 11) had no emergence holes and seed weight loss in both tests. Overall the results suggest that the P. sativum accession, ACP 11, may be used to sustain the damage caused by the pulse beetle without using pesticides during the storage. Additionally, the accessions of wild species (P. elatius—AWP 442 and P. fulvum—AWP 600, AWP 601) that were identified as completely resistant could be used in breeding programs for the improvement of resistant cultivars.

Keywords

Pisum sativum Pisum elatius Pisum fulvum Pulse beetle Callosobruchus chinensis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The current study was the Master Science thesis of the first author (AE). CT as adviser and CI as miner adviser thank Scientific Research Project Coordination Unit of Akdeniz University for financial support (FYL-2017-2123). Accessions belong to the project (119O060) financed by TUBITAK. Thanks are given to Professor Shahal Abbo from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel for supplying the P. abyssinicum in the study. Also, special thanks are given to anonymous reviewer for additional valuable comments.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

We have declared that no conflict of interests.

References

  1. Bhagwat VR, Bodhade SN, Aherkar AK, Narsinghan VG (1995) Laboratory studies on the relative susceptibility of some pea (Pisum sativum) genotypes to pulse beetles, (Callosobruchus chinensis Linn). Pestology 19:24–27Google Scholar
  2. Brewer IN, Horber E (1984) Evaluating resistance to Callosobruchus chinensis Linn. in different seed legumes. In: Proceeding of the third international working conference on stored product. Entomology. October 23–28, Kansas State University Manhattan, Kansas, USA, pp 435–443Google Scholar
  3. Clement SL, Hardie DC, Elberson LR (2002) Variation among accessions of Pisum fulvum for resistance to pea weevil. Crop Sci 42:2167–2173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dahms RG (1972) Techniques in the evaluation and development of host plant resistance. J Environ Qual 1:254–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davies DR (1993) The pea crop. In: Casey R, Davies RD (eds) Peas genetics, molecular biology and biotechnology. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  6. Duan CX, Zhu ZD, Ren GX, Wang XM, Li DD (2014) Resistance of faba bean and pea germplasm to Callosobruchus chinensis (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) and its relationship with quality components. J Econ Entomol 107:1992–1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eker T, Erler F, Adak A, Imrek B, Guven H, Tosun HS, Sari D, Sari H, Upadhyaya HD, Toker C, Ikten C (2018) Screening of chickpea accessions for resistance against the pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis L. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J Stored Prod Res 76:51–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Erler F, Ceylan F, Erdemir T, Toker C (2009) Preliminary results on evaluation of chickpea, Cicer arietinum, genotypes for resistance to the pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus. J Insect Sci 9:58. http://www.insectscience.org/9.58 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. FAOSTAT (2019) FAOSTAT crop statistics http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx. Accessed 06th Feb 2019
  10. Gebreslassie B, Abraha B (2016) Distribution and productivity of Dekoko (Pisum sativum var. abyssinicum A. Braun) in Ethiopia. Glob J Sci Front Res Biol Sci 16:45–57Google Scholar
  11. Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Ambus P, Jensen ES (2001) Interspecific competition, N use and interference with weeds in pea–barley intercropping. Field Crops Res 70:101–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jensen ES (1996) Grain yield, symbiotic N2 fixation and interspecific competition for inorganic N in pea–barley intercrops. Plant Soil 182:25–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Khattak SU, Jan KY, Hussain N, Khalil K (1995) Resistance of chickpea cultivars to pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus. Sci Khyber 8:1–8Google Scholar
  14. Kraft JM, Kaiser WJ (1993) Screening for disease resistance in pea. In: Singh KB, Saxena MC (eds) Breeding for stress tolerance in cool-season food legumes. Wiley, Chichester, pp 123–144Google Scholar
  15. Ladizinsky G, Abbo S (2015) The search for wild relatives of cool season legumes. Springer, BaselCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee YH, Moon JK, Park KY, Ku JH, Yun HT, Chung WK, Kim SD, Kim HS, Kim DH, Chung MN (2000) A new mungbean cultivar with bruchid resistance, Jangannogdu. Korean J Breed 32:296–297Google Scholar
  17. Liu XM, Jin DS, Cheng XZ, Wu XF, Wang SH (1998) Preliminary evaluation of mungbean germplasm for resistance to Callosobruchus chinensis L. Crop Germplasm Res 2:35–37Google Scholar
  18. Maharjan R, Yi H, Kim H, Yoon Y, Jang Y, Bae S (2018) Mung bean (Vigna radiata) cultivars mediated oviposition preference and development of Callosobruchus chinensis (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Bruchinae). Appl Entomol Zool 53:55–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Muehlbauer FJ, Kaiser WJ, Simon CJ (1993) Potential for wild species in cool season food legume breeding. Euphytica 73:109–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Neog P (2012) Studies on adult longevity of Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) developing in different pulses. Int J Bio Resour Stress Manag 3:383–386Google Scholar
  21. Podoler H, Applebaltm SW (1968) Physiological aspects of host specificity in the Bruchidae V. Varietal differences in the resistance of Vicia faba L. to Callosobruchus chinensis L. J Stored Prod Res 4:9–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Raghuwanshi PK, Sharma S, Bele M, Kumar D (2016) Screening of certain gram genotypes against Callosobruchus chinensis L. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Legume Res 39:651–653Google Scholar
  23. Raina AK (1971) Comparative resistance to three species of Callosobruchus in a strain of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). J Stored Prod Res 7:213–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rajasri M, Rao PS (2012) Neem formulation and sugar seed protectant against pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis for long term storage of Bengalgram. Int J Appl Biol Pharm Technol 3:323–328Google Scholar
  25. Sarwar M (2012) Assessment of resistance to the attack of bean beetle Callosobruchus maculatus (Fabricius) in chickpea genotypes on the basis of various parameters during storage. Songklanakarin J Sci Technol 34:241–345Google Scholar
  26. Shaheen FA, Khaliq A (2005) Management of Pulse Beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis L. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) in stored Chickpea using ashes, red soil powder and turpentine oil. Pak Entomol 27:19–24Google Scholar
  27. Shaheen FA, Khaliq A, Aslam M (2006) Resistance of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars against pulse beetle. Pak J Bot 38:12–37Google Scholar
  28. Sharma R, Devi R, Sharma RK, Mehla JC (2013) Efficacy of some botanicals against pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) in chickpea. Legume Res 36:125–130Google Scholar
  29. Sharma R, Devi R, Soni A, Sharma U, Yadav S, Sharma R, Kumar A (2016) Growth and developmental responses of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) on various pulses. Legume Res 39:840–843Google Scholar
  30. Singh R, Singh B, Verma RA (2001) Screening of pea genotypes against pulse beetle. Indian J Entomol 63:55–59Google Scholar
  31. Smith AM (1990) Pea weevil (Bruchus pisorum L.) and crop loss-implications for management. In: Fujii K, Gatehouse AMR, Johnson CD, Mitchel R, Yoshida T (eds) Bruchids and legumes: economics, ecology and coevolution. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 105–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smykal P, Coyne CJ, Ambrose MJ, Maxted N, Schaefer H, Blair MW, Berger J, Greene SL, Nelson MN, Besharat N, Vymyslicky T, Toker C, Saxena RK, Roorkiwal M, Pandey MK, Hu J, Li YH, Wang LX, Guo Y, Qiu LJ, Redden RJ, Varshney RK (2015) Legume crops phylogeny and genetic diversity for science and breeding. Crit Rev Plant Sci 34:43–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Talip M et al (2018) Agro-morphological traits of Cicer reticulatum Ladizinsky in comparison to C. echinospermum PH Davis in terms of potential to improve cultivated chickpea (C. arietinum L.). Genet Resour Crop Evol 65:951–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Teotia TPS, Singh VS (1966) The effect of host species on the oviposition, fecundity and development of C. chinensis Linn. (Bruchidae: Coleoptera). Bull Grain Technol 4:3–10Google Scholar
  35. Toker C, Mutlu N (2011) Breeding for abiotic stress. In: Pratap A, Kumar J (eds) Biology and breeding of food legumes. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 241–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tuda M, Wasano N, Kondo N, Horng SB, Chou LY, Tateishi Y (2004) Habitat-related mtDNA polymorphism in the stored-bean pest Callosobruchus chinensis (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Bull Entomol Res 94:75–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Umrao RS, Verma RA (2002) Studies on correlation of physical factors and grain losses with infestation of the Callosobruchus chinensis on pea varieties. Indian J Entomol 64:283–287Google Scholar
  38. Varma S, Anadi P (2010) Biology of pulse beetle (Callosobruchus chinensis Linn. Coleoptera: Bruchidae) and their management through botanicals on stored mung grains in Allahabad Region. Legume Res 33:38–41Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Field Crops, Faculty of AgricultureAkdeniz UniversityAntalyaTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of AgricultureAkdeniz UniversityAntalyaTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Field Crops, Faculty of AgricultureHarran UniversitySanliurfaTurkey

Personalised recommendations