International Chickpea and Pigeonpea Newsletter

Publishing objectivesThe International Chickpea and Pigeonpea Newsletter (ICPN) is published annually by ICRISAT. It is intended as a worldwide communi-cation link for all those who are interested in the research and development of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), and pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.), and their wild relatives. Though the contributions that appear in ICPN are peer-reviewed and edited, it is expected that thework reported wil l be developed further and formally published later in refereed journals. It is assumed that contributions in ICPN wi l l notbe cited unless no alternative reference is available.ICPN welcomes short contributions (not exceeding 600 words) about matters of interest to its readers.

What to contribute?Send us the kind of information you would like to see in ICPN.

• Contributions should be current, scholarly, and their inclusion well-justified on the grounds of new information.•. Results of recently concluded experiments, newly released varieties, recent additions to germplasm collections, etc.• Genome maps and information on probe-availability and sequences, and populations synthesized for specific traits being mapped.

Glossy black and white prints of maps should be included, if possible. Partial maps can also be submitted.• Short reports of workshops, conferences, symposia, field days, meetings, tours, surveys, network activities, and recently launched or

concluded projects.• Details of recent publications, with full bibliographic information and 'mini reviews' whenever possible.• Personal news (new appointments, awards, promotions, change of address, etc).

How to format contributions?• Keep the items brief- remember, ICPN is a newsletter and not a primary journal. About 600 words is the upper limit (no more than two

double-spaced pages). As the newsletter is devoted to the chickpea and pigeonpea crops, authors should refrain from providinga general introduction to these crops, except if they are being grown in a new area.

• If necessary, include one or two small tables (and no more). Supply only the essential information; round off the data-values to just onedecimal place whenever appropriate; choose suitable units to keep the values small (eg, use tons instead of kg). Every table should fitwithin the normal typewritten area of a standard upright page (not a 'landscape' page).

• Black-and-white photographs and drawings (prepared in dense black ink on a white card or a heavy-duty tracing paper) are welcome -photocopies, color photographs, and 35-mm slides are not. Please send disk-files (with all the data) whenever you submit computer-generated illustrations.

• Keep the list of references short - not more than five references, all of which should have been seen in the original by the author. Provideall the details including author/s, year, title of the article, full title of the journal, volume, issue, and page numbers (for journal articles),and place of publication and publishers (for books and conference proceedings) for every reference.

• Express all the quantities only in SI units. Spell out in full every acronym you use.• Give the correct Latin name of every crop, pest or pathogen at the first mention.• Type the entire text in double spacing. Send a file, which should match the printout, on a double-sided/high density IBM-compatible disk

using Microsoft Applications.• Contact the Editor for detailed guidelines on how to format text and diskettes.• Include the full address with telephone, fax and email numbers of all authors.

The Editors wi l l carefully consider all submitted contributions and wil l include in the Newsletter those that are of acceptable scientificstandard and conform to requirements. The language of the Newsletter is English, but where possible, articles submitted in other languageswi l l be translated. Authors should closely follow the style of the reports in this issue. Contributions that deviate markedly from this style wi l lbe returned for revision, and could miss the publication date. Communications wi l l be edited to preserve a uniform style throughout theNewsletter. This may shorten some contributions, but particular care wi l l be taken to ensure that the editing wi l l not change the meaning andscientific content of the article. Wherever substantial editing is required, a draft copy of the edited version wi l l be sent to the contributor forapproval before printing.

Contributions should be sent before 31 March to:

ICPN EditorICRlSATPatancheru 502 324Andhra Pradesh, IndiaFax +9140 30713074Email newsletter@cgiar.orgTel +9140 30713071

E d i t o r i a l

N e w s

C G I A R A w a r d to I C R I S A T Scientist

Chickpea Scientists' Meet held at ICRISAT-Patancheru

Mar i go ld : A Diagnost ic Too l for B G M Forecasting and Management in Chickpea

V is i t i ng Scientists

R e s e a r c h R e p o r t s

C h i c k p e a

Genetics/Breeding/Biotechnology

Detect ion o f Po lymorph ism Us ing CAPS and dCAPS Markers in

T w o Chickpea Genotypes

PN Rajesh, Kevin McPhee and Fred J Muehlbauer

Nutr i t iona l Constituents in Chickpea Variet ies

R Bhatnagar, JP Yadavendra and KV Patel

A N e w Kabu l i Chickpea " V i h a r " for South India

BM Jamadagni, LB Mhase and DV Deshmukh

Performance o f Kabu l i Chickpea Cul t ivar K A K 2 in Rainfed B lack Soils o f

Prakasam Dis t r ic t , Andhra Pradesh, Ind ia

T Srinivas, MC Obaiah and SP Moula

Ident i f icat ion of Chickpea Genotypes w i t h Combined Resistance to

Ascochyta B l igh t and Fusar ium W i l t

RS Waldia, BPS Malik, Hari Chand, VS Lather, IS Solanki and

Ram Kumar Yadav

Induct ion of Androgenesis as a Consequence of W ide Crossing in Chickpea

Nalini Mallikarjuna, Deepak Jadhav, Heather Clarke, Clarice Coyne

and Fred Muehlbauer

Chefe ( I C C V 92318) - A N e w Kabu l i Chickpea Var ie ty for Eth iopia

Ketema Daba, Geletu Bejiga, Yadeta Anbessa, PM Gaur, Jagdish Kumar

and BV Rao

L e a f and Pod Characters as Selection Cr i ter ia for Large-Seeded Kabu l i Chickpea

JS Sandhu, SK Gupta, Pritpal Singh, TS Bains and Ajinder Kaur

1

1

1

1

2

3

4

7

8

9

11

12

15

17

ICPN 12, 2005 i

Contents

Agronomy/Physiology

L o w Temperature Effects on Ear ly Ma tu r ing Chickpea Genotype I C C V 96029S Kumar, H Nayyar, TS Bains, G Kaur and RK Bhanwra

Response of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum) to I r r igat ion, F Y M andSulphur on a Sandy Clay Loam Soi l

RA Patel and RH Patel

Effect of Soaking Seeds on Polyphenols of ChickpeaS Paramjyothi and B Anjali

Increased Chickpea Y i e l d and Economic Benefits by ImprovedCrop Production Technology in Rainfed Areas o f Kurnoo l Dist r ic t o fAndhra Pradesh, India

A Ramakrishna, SP Want, Ch Srinivasa Rao and U Srinivas Reddy

A Method for Germinat ing Perennial Cicer SpeciesCJ Coyne, T Sharp-Vincent, MJ Cashman, CA Watt, W Chen, FJ Muehlbauer and Nalini Mallikarjuna

Pathology

Ant i funga l Metaboli tes f rom Arachniotus sp for the Contro l of W i l t Diseaseo f Chickpea

Iftikhar A Khan, S Sarwar Alam, M Sarwar, M Jahangir Iqbal andAbdul Jabbar

Management of Root Kno t Nematode and Fusarium W i l t Disease Complex byFungal Bioagents, Neem Oilseed Cake and/or V A - M y c o r r h i z a on Chickpea

Rajesh Kumar Pandey, BK Goswami and Satyendra Singh

Screening of Chickpea Lines for Resistance to Ascochyta B li gh tSM Iqbal, A Bakhash, SR Malik and AM Haqqani

Entomology

First-instar Helicoverpa punctigera Larvae: Feeding Responses and Survival on DesiChickpea and the W i l d Relative Cicer bijugum

SL Clement, J Ridsdill-Smith and S Cotter

Screening of Chickpea for Resistance to Pod Borer Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner)at Rahur i , Maharashtra, Ind ia

MM Sanap and BM Jamadagni

Prel iminary Evaluat ion of Chickpea Genotypes for Resistance to Pod Borer andW i l t Complex

Harminder Kaur, SK Gupta, Daljeet Singh and Kuldip Singh

19

22

24

25

28

30

32

34

35

37

39

ii ICPN 12, 2005

Pigeonpea

Genetics/Breeding/Biotechnology

Ident i f icat ion o f D w a r f and Extra-early Mutant o f Pigeonpea

[Cajanus cajan (L . ) M i l l sp . ]

Ram Dhari and RS Waldia

lCP 7035 - A Ster i l i ty Mosaic Resistant Vegetable and Gra in Purpose

Pigeonpea Var ie ty

KT Rangaswamy, V Muniyappa, P Lava Kumar, KB Saxena, M Byregowda,

N Raghavendra, K Pandurangaiah, R Vijay Kumar, F Waliyar and AT Jones

Agronomy/Physiology

Effect o f Improved Crop Product ion Technology on Pigeonpea Y i e l d

in Resource Poor Rainfed Areas

A Ramakrishna, SP Wani, Ch Srinivasa Rao and U Srinivas Reddy

Pathology

Occurrence of Urentius hystricellus (Richt . ) on Pigeonpea in the Net-House

SC Dhawan, RD Gautam and JN Govil

Response of Resistant Germplasm to Di f ferent Races/Populations of

Pigeonpea Cyst Nematode, Heterodera cajani

Satish Kumar Mehta and Harish K Bajaj

Entomology

Bio log ica l A c t i v i t y o f Lect ins f r om Gra in Legumes and Gar l ic against the Legume

Pod Borer, Helicoverpa armigera

Richa Arora, HC Sharma, E Van Dreissche and KK Sharma

P u b l i c a t i o n s

S A T C R I S L is t ing

41

42

45

47

47

50

53

ICPN 12, 2005 iii

ICPN 12, 2005 1

I w i sh to welcome a l l the I C P N readers. For this issue ofI C P N , 34 manuscripts were received for consideration ofwh i ch 25 have been accepted and included in this issue.Five manuscripts were found unsuitable for I C P N , andfour corresponding authors d i d not rev iew and respond tothe remarks in t ime. I suggest that the contr ibutors fo l lowthe guidelines (on the inside cover) wh i le preparing themanuscript, and respond to the rev iewing queries in t imeso as to b r ing out the newsletter issues convenient ly andprompt ly . News about the researchers and the crops, andshort research articles should be the focus of thenewsletters, and I request the contributors to consider thesame. I t w o u l d g ive me immense satisfaction i f a l l thepersonnel engaged w i t h the research and development ofchickpea and pigeonpea take interest in sharing anddist r ibut ing the informat ion using this newsletter.

I thank the contr ibutors and the authors of this issue,and particularly the reviewers of the manuscripts, namely,SL D w i v e d i , PM Gaur, L Kr ishnamurthy, K Krishnappa,J V D K Kumar Rao, N Mal l ikar juna, S Pande, RPS Pundir,LJ Reddy, OP Rupela, KL Sahrawat, D V S S R Sastry,KB Saxena, HC Sharma, P Singh, Sube Singh, V Vadez( ICRISAT) , PK Agrawal, SC Goswami, GT Gujar, J Kumar(1ARI , N e w De lh i ) , Shiv Kumar ( I IPR, Kanpur) , and SBSharma (Department of Agr icu l tu re , Austra l ia) , and theL ib rary a t I C R I S A T compi l ing S A T C R I S l is t ing.

We are updat ing the ma i l i ng l ist o f I C P N . Therefore,k i nd l y furnish the particulars in the attached fo rm andsend it back to us before 30 November 2005 or emai lyour response to newsletter@cgiar.org. I t may bed i f f i cu l t to process any request after the deadline.

I C P N team wishes its readers a very happy Christmasand a healthy, product ive and prosperous 2006.

Ch ickpea Scientists' M e e t H e l d a t

I C R I S A T - P a t a n c h e r u

A one-day Chickpea Scientists' Meet was organized atI C R I S A T on 6 January 2005 for the scientists of Nat ionalAgricul tural Research System (NARS) , India. The meetingwas attended by 45 scientists that included 28 IndianN A R S scientists from 12 states and 17 ICRISAT scientists.The objective of the meeting was to facil itate interactionbetween I C R I S A T and N A R S scientists and provideopportunity to N A R S scientists to see ICRISAT 's chickpeaexperiments and select breeding lines and germplasm oftheir interests.

The meeting was inaugurated by J D H Keatinge, theDeputy Director General (Research) of I C R I S A T , after a formal welcome by C L L Gowda, the Leader for GlobalTheme - Crop Improvement. Masood A l i , Director, IndianInstitute of Pulses Research, Kanpur, made a presentationon signif icant achievements and future opportunit ies forlCRISAT-Ind ian N A R S collaboration in chickpea research.PM Gaur, I C R I S A T ' s Chickpea Breeder, presentedhighl ights of the recent developments in chickpearesearch at I C R I S A T . I t was emphasized that I C R I S A T -Indian N A R S partnership has been very f ru i t fu l inchickpea research as 25 varieties, inc lud ing some verypopular varieties such as ICCV 2, ICCV 10, ICCC 37, JG 11,JG 16, JG 130, K A K 2, J G K 1, V isha l , and BG 1053,have been developed through this partnership. TheICRISAT- Ind ian N A R S col laborat ive varieties had 37%share in the total indent of chickpea breeder seed in thecountry for 2004/05.

E d i t o r i a l N e w s

C G I A R A w a r d t o I C R I S A T Scientist

P Lava Kumar , Special Project Scientist - V i r o l ogy , ofI C R I S A T , received the " C G I A R Young Scientist A w a r d2004", for his contr ibut ion to ident i f icat ion of the causalagent of pigeonpea ster i l i ty mosaic disease ( S M D ) , a widespread problem in the Indian subcontinent thatdrastically cuts the pigeonpea yields, causing overUS$300 m i l l i o n wor th of gra in loss. His wo rk lead to thedevelopment of disease diagnostic tools and improvedmethods of cont ro l l ing i t . He was also the recipient of"Mi l lenn ium ICRISAT Science Award 2004" as promis ingyoung scientist for contr ibut ion to the sustainablemanagement o f S M D .

HD Upadhyaya

2 ICPN 12, 2005

M a r i g o l d : A Diagnost ic T o o l for B G M

Forecast ing and M a n a g e m e n t i n

Chickpea

Botryt is gray mould ( B G M ) is a disease that main lyattacks the reproductive structures of a chickpea plant.Flower abort ion is a common symptom of the disease(F ig . 1) wh ich remains undiscovered unt i l the damage isvis ib le on the canopy. As a result, t imely application offungicides is hampered in the integrated diseasemanagement. The predict ive models (Shtienberg andElad 1997) to estimate disease severity and t im ing arebased on complex mathematical calculations, and they donot account for inoculum pressure. To identify analternative indicator for a reliable diagnosis, forecastingand management of B G M , several ornamental plantscommonly g rown dur ing the chickpea season as a collateral host of Botrytis cinerea were evaluated.

The control led environment investigations on hostpathogen interaction were carried out w i t h mar igold(Tagetus erecta L . ) . F lower ing plants of marigold whenspray-inoculated w i t h B. cinerea (3 x 105 conidia mL-1)f rom chickpea and incubated in an environment (15°Cand 100% R H ) needed for B G M development, producedsymptoms on the leaves, f lowers, f lower buds and stems.Six days after inoculat ion ( D A I ) , dark lesions wereobserved on a fu l ly b loomed f lower (F ig. 2A ) .Concurrent ly, al l the young buds appeared completelyrotted, but d id not support sporulat ion (F ig . 2B) . By 12D A I , masses o f w ind b lown grey sporulation on flowersand f lower buds were clearly v is ib le (F ig . 2C and 2D) .Between 15 and 20 D A I , profuse grey sporulation wasobserved on al l the aerial plant parts (F ig . 2E).

The early infect ion of B. cinerea causing moldyinfect ion on mar igo ld clearly ident i f ied its usefulness tofarmers as a diagnostic too l to predict B G M epidemicsand its management in chickpea. Mar igo ld as an indicatorplant to apply prophylactic fungicidal protection tochickpea crop in Nepal has been successfully validated.Infect ion of B. cinerea on the f lowers of mar igold and

The participants witnessed various experiments onphysiology, pathology, entomology, genetic resources,wide hybr id izat ion, genetics and breeding of chickpea,and had interactions w i t h the scientists. They selectedgermplasm and breeding materials of their interests andsubmitted indents to ICR1SAT for the supply of seed.

Contributed by PM Gaurl C R I S A T , Patancheru, India

Figure 1. BGM infection on chickpea flowers.

Figure 2. Progressive symptoms of Botrytis cinerea infectionon marigold: (A) Initial lesion development and sporulation onbloomed flowers and (B) rotted young buds; (C) sporulation onflowers; (D) sporulation on flower buds and lesion developmenton leaves; (E) sporulation on all the aerial plant parts.

Dahl ia, g rown at Ishurdi and Jessore in Bangladesh,indicates the possible integration of this farmer fr iendly,low-cost B G M forecasting system.

Reference

Shtienberg D and Elad Y. 1997. Incorporation of weatherforecasting in integrated, biological-chemical management ofBotrytis cinerea. Phytopathology 87:332-340.

Contributed by Suresh Pande, G Kr ishna Kishoreand J Narayana Rao

Crop Improvement ThemeI C R I S A T , Patancheru, India

Vis i t i ng Scientists

SL Dwivedi has jo ined I C R I S A T Genetic ResourcesUn i t as a V is i t i ng Scientist to work on GenerationChallenge Program supported chickpea project on"assessing the genetic diversi ty and al lel ic var iat ionassociated w i t h beneficial traits in global compositechickpea core col lect ion" in partnership w i t h I C A R D A ,wh ich is another C G I A R Center part ic ipat ing in thisproject. This composite core consists of 3000 accessions,drawn f rom vast col lect ion of chickpea germplasmmaintained at the I C R I S A T and I C A R D A gene banks -chickpea core col lect ion, elite germplam, advanced lines/cult ivars, unique germplasm w i t h specific traits, and w i ldCicer species. Us ing A B I 3 7 0 0 and SSR markers, theaccessions w i l l be molecularly profi led at M S SwaminathanApp l ied Genomics Laboratory, I C R I S A T , to define the

genetic structure of the global composite col lect ion, andto fo rm a subset of 300 accessions representing themax imum diversity for the isolat ion of al lel ic variants ofcandidate gene associated w i t h beneficial traits. It isexpected that molecular biologists and plant breedersw i l l have ample opportunit ies to use diverse lines infunctional and comparative genetics, in the mapping andcloning of gene(s) of particular interest, and in appliedbreeding to diversify the genetic base of the populationswh ich leads to the development of cultivars w i th superiorperformance.

Ranjana Bhattacharjee j o ined the Genetic ResourcesUn i t (GRU) , I C R I S A T , as a V is i t i ng Scientist for theproject "molecular characterization of pigeonpeacomposite col lect ion." The project is supported by theGeneration Challenge Program of the ConsultativeGroup on International Agr icu l tura l Research ( C G I A R ) .Dr Bhattacharjee has a PhD on establishing pearl mi l le tcore collection, wh ich she pursued at the G R U , ICR ISAT ,and at the Haryana Agr icu l ture Univers i ty . Fo l low ingthis, she worked at the International Institute of TropicalAgr icu l ture ( I I T A ) , Niger ia, as Postdoctoral Fel low oncocoa molecular genetics. In her new stint at I C R I S A T ,she w i l l be invo lved in characterizing pigeonpeaaccessions using micro-satell i te markers to determine thegenetic structure of the global pigeonpea compositecol lect ion. The results of this study w i l l further diversifythe genetic base of populations, and assist in mapping andcloning gene(s). Data generated w i l l also contribute tocomparative and functional genetics. Breeders w i l l haveopportuni ty to use genetically diverse parents in theirprogram to develop broad based cult ivars.

ICPN 12, 2005 3

Research Reports

C h i c k p e a http:// frodo. wi. mit. edu/cgi- bin/primer3/primer3 www.cgi). These primers were used to ampl i fy genomicD N A o f FL IP 84-92C and PI 599072 wh ich are parentallines that resulted in monomorphic bands of expectedsize. To develop CAPS and dCAPS markers, theampl i f ied products were run on 1% agarose gels, and thefragments eluted f rom the agarose gels using D N A gelextraction k i t (M i l l i po re , U S A ) were cloned into thep G E M - T easy p lasmid vector (Promega, U S A ) . Thecloned D N A fragments were sequenced on an A B I Pr ism377 D N A sequencer (App l ied Biosystems, U S A ) usingthe dideoxy sequencing method w i t h T7 universalprimer. In CAPS analysis, the sequences of both parentalD N A s were compared using Vector NTI Advance 9.0software (www.informaxinc.com) for SNP detection andrestr ict ion mapping. The SNPs that conferred differentialrestr ict ion enzyme sites between the parents were usedfor further analysis. A m p l i f i e d product size of aldolaseprimers is 168bp and the po lymorphism was detected byAfl l l l restr ict ion enzyme digestion (F ig . 1).

CAPS analysis d id not detect po lymorph ism in theproduct ampl i f ied w i t h the pr imer ( M F ) designed f romforward end of 4m 10 B A C clone. In this case we useddCAPS technique by designing primers w i t h a singlenucleotide mismatch adjacent to SNP posi t ion creatingrestr ict ion site in the ampl i f ied PCR product of oneparent but not the other. The primers for dCAPS analysiswere designed using a web-based software package andthe program is available on http://helix.wustl.edu/dcaps/dcaps.html. The size of the product ampl i f ied by MF is553bp and Taq 1 restr ict ion site was created by replacingan adenosine w i t h a thymidine at the th i rd posi t ion 5' tothe SNP. The ampl i f ied products were digested usingTaq 1 enzyme and separated on 2% agarose gel to detectpo lymorph ism between the parental l ines and thesegregating populat ion (F ig . 2) . Metaphor agarose gel or6% acrylamide gel is recommended for improvedresolut ion of the digested bands.

Cleaved ampl i f ied polymorphic sequence (CAPS) andderived cleaved amplif ied polymorphic sequence (dCAPS)are sequence-based and co-dominant markers. CAPSmarkers result f rom differential restrict ion digestion ofgene / allele specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR)products based on the loss or gain of restriction enzymerecognit ion sites due to the presence of single nucleotidepolymorphisms (SNPs) or insertion / deletion mutations.In dCAPS analysis, a restr ict ion enzyme recognit ion sitethat includes the SNP is introduced into the PCR productby a pr imer containing one or more mismatches totemplate D N A ( N e f f et al . 1998). These markers weredeveloped previously and have shown u t i l i t y in otherplant species but have not been used in chickpea genomeanalysis pr ior to this report. Us ing available D N Asequences from B A C ends and gene specific markers, westudied the usefulness of CAPS and dCAPS markers toidenti fy po lymorphism in a region of the chickpeagenome lacking vis ib le po lymorphism.

Primers were designed from the ends of 4m 10, 15o9B A C clones and the part ial sequences of Aldolase (v is i t

PN Rajesh, Kevin McPhee and Fred J Muehlbauer*

(USDA-ARS, Dept of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington

State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6434, USA)

*Corresponding author: muehlbau@wsu.edu

Genetics/Breeding/Biotechnology

Detect ion o f Po l ymorph i sm Us ing

C A P S a n d d C A P S M a r k e r s i n T w o

Ch ickpea Genotypes

4 ICPN 12, 2005

P1 A l d o l

168 bp

M.Sse9l (60)

Tsp 509I (59)

P 2 A l d o l

168 bp

Afl lll (37)

M . A f l I I I ( 3 7 ) M.Sse9l (60)

Pci l (37) Tsp 509 l (59)

3 5 0 b p

A B C D c R I L s XM

A - A f l l l l d i g e s t e d F L I P 8 4 - 9 2 C D - U n d i g e s t e d P I 5 9 9 0 7 2

B - A f l l l l d i g e s t e d P I 5 9 9 0 7 2 M - L a m b d a B s t - N 1 m a r k e r

C - U n d i g e s t e d F L I P 8 4 - 9 2 C c R I L s - C h i c k p e a r e c o m b i n a n t i n b r e d l i n e s

X - C o d o m i n a n t c R I L

Figure 1. CAPS analysis using Aldolase specific primers.

ICPN 12, 2005 5

Refe rences

Neff M, Neff J, Chory J and Pepper A. 1998. dCAPS, a simple technique for the genetic analysis of single nucleotidepolymorphisms: experimental applications in Arabidopsis thaliana genetics. The Plant Journal 14(3):387 392.

Griffin TJ and Smith L M . 2000. Single-nucleotidepolymorphism analysis by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry.Trends in Biotechnology 18:77-84.

SNP detection between parental al lel ic sequences was

ver i f ied by compar ing replicate sequences. A l though the

frequency of SNPs present in the chickpea genome is not

known , SNPs arc reported to be abundant in plant

genome (Gr i f f i n and Smith 2000). Development of

CAPS and dCAPS markers is simple and does not require

expensive instruments. I t involves common laboratory

methods such as polymerase chain reaction, restr ict ion

digestion and agarose electrophoresis. Appl ica t ion of

these markers in chickpea mapping where absence of

po lymorph ism is a constraint is expected to improve

generation of high density maps necessary for map-based

c lon ing and integration of physical and genetic maps.

6 ICPN 12, 2005

A - T a q 1 d i g e s t e d F L I P 8 4 - 9 2 C D - U n d i g e s t e d P I 5 9 9 0 7 2

B - T a q 1 d i g e s t e d P I 5 9 9 0 7 2 M - L a m b d a B s t - N 1 m a r k e r

C - U n d i g e s t e d F L I P 8 4 - 9 2 C c R I L s - c h i c k p e a r e c o m b i n a n t i n b r e d l i n e s

Figure 2. dCAPS analysis using BAC end primers.

M A B C Dc R I L s

T a q 1 T C G A

T a q 1 d i g e s t i o n

A A C T T G A A G A T A T T T A A T A T G G C A C T C A A A C A

A A C T T G A A G A T A T T T A A T A T G G C A C T / C G A A C A

A A C T T G A A G A T A T T T A A T A T G G C A C T C - d C A P S M F p r i m e r

A A C T T G A A G A T A T T T A A T A T G G C A C A C A A A C A - F L I P 8 4 - 9 2 C

A A C T T G A A G A T A T T T A A T A T G G C A C A C G A A C A - P I 5 9 9 0 7 2

ICPN 12, 2005 7

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum) is an important source ofdietary protein of the predominant vegetarian populat ionof the Indian sub-continent. It is also adopted as proteinsupplement food by the people of European countries(Viveros et al . 2001). The green chickpea is used forvegetable purpose whereas, dry seed is consumed in theform of whole seed, dhal, and in the form of fr ied itemsfrom the chickpea f lour. However, many people use thechickpea in f lour form. L imi ted information on proximatecomposit ion of chickpea is available (Gopalan et al.1971 ; Sotelo et al. 1987). Therefore, here an attempt wasmade to evaluate different varieties of chickpea fornutr i t ional constituents and tannin contents in the f lour ofdry seeds of ten varieties inc luding the dominant varietiesof the region viz Dohad Ye l l ow and GG 1.

Seeds of ten varieties were collected from a replicatedbreeding t r ia l conducted at the Plant Breeding Farm,Gujarat Agr icu l tura l Universi ty, Anand, dur ing winterseason of 1999-2000. The dry seeds were ground inmechanical grinder f rom each replicate and 60-meshpowder was used for chemical analysis. The analysis wasdone for o i l , ash and protein, as per A O A C standardwhereas crude fiber and methionine were estimatedaccording to the procedures described by Maynard(1978) and Mc Carthy and Paille (1959), respectively.Total carbohydrate percentage was determined bysubtracting the sum of the percentage of crude protein,crude fiber, fat, ash and moisture from 100%. Theenergy value of seeds was calculated (Osborne and Voogt1970). Total phosphorus and i ron was determinedcolorimetrical ly. The procedure of A O A C (1970, 1980)was used to determine the calc ium.

Tannin and ant i-nutr i t ional factor was determined asper the procedure described by Sadasivam and Man ikam(1992). A l l these above mentioned analytical observationsof three replicated samples for ind iv idual componentswere used for the analysis of variance by RandomizedB lock Design ( R B D ) (Steel and Torr ie 1980). The resultsobtained for various parameters are presented in Table 1.The f lour moisture content was found h igh ly variableindicat ing variable moisture ho ld ing capacity of f lour.This was also reported in cereals and pulses (Patel andParameswaran 1992).

R Bhataagar*, JP Yadavendra and KV Patel (Departmentof Biochemistry, BA College of Agriculture, AnandAgricultural University, Anand 388 110, Gujarat, India)Corresponding author: bhatnagarramesh@yahoo.com

Nutritional Constituents in ChickpeaVarieties

Kabu l i chickpea is most ly suitable for the region wherethe span of winter season is long. Its cu l t ivat ion hasattracted several progressive farmers in the south zone asit fetches premium price when compared to desi. Hencedeveloping a cul t ivar of kabuli chickpea suitable for theregion w i t h m i l d and short winter, large seed size andresistance to fusarium w i l t are the basic requirements. Onthis background, the variety Phule G-95311 released by' A l l India Co-ordinated Research Project on Chickpea'has fu l f i l led a long awaited demand. Twenty advancedbreeding lines of kabuli chickpea were obtained from theInternational Crops Research Institute for the Semi -AridTropics ( I C R I S A T ) , Patancheru, in 1996-97 at PulsesImprovement Project, Mahatma Phule Kr ish i Vidyapeeth,Rahuri . I C C V 95311 derived from a mul t ip le cross of[ ICCC-32 x ICCL-80004) x [ ( ICCC-49 x FLIP-82-8C) x I C C V - 3 ] was found promis ing for y ie ld and seed size. I twas, therefore, tested in Station Tr ia l and RegionalVar ietal T r ia l dur ing 1996-98. On the basis of itsperformance, it was promoted to State Mu l t i l oca t ionTr ia l in 1998-99. Further, i t was included in A l l Ind iaCo-ordinated trials where i t performed extremely w e l l inIn i t ia l Var ieta l T r i a l , Advance Var ieta l Tr ia l -1 andAdvance Var ietal Tr ia l -2 , especially for southern zone.Considering its h igh y ie ld performance in comparisonw i t h the standard check I C C V 2 , K A K 2 and BG 1003, i twas released for general cu l t ivat ion in the south zone in

BM Jamadagni, LB Mhase and DV Deshmukh (PulsesImprovement Project, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth,Rahuri 413 722, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra, India)

A N e w K a b u l i Ch i ckpea " V i h a r " fo r

South I n d i a

Sadasivam S and Manikam A. 1992. Biochemical methods.New Delhi, India: Wiley Eastern Ltd. 190 pp.

Sotelo A, Flores F and Hernandez M. 1987. Chemicalcomposition and nutritional value of Maxican varieties ofchickpea (Cicer arietinum L . ) . Plant Foods Human Nutrit ion37(4):299-306.

Steel Robert GD and Torrie JH. 1980. Principles andprocedures of statistics. A biometrical approach, 2nd edn. NewDelhi, India: McGraw H i l l Kogakusha Ltd. 155 pp.

Viveros A, Brenes A, Elices R, Ari ja I and Canales R. 2001.Nutritional value of raw and autoclaved kabuli and desi chickpea(Cicer arietinum L.) . British Plant Science 42(2):242-51.

The analysis of variance for chemical constituents ofthe chickpea varieties revealed signif icant differences foro i l , protein, ash, crude fiber, i ron and energy contentamong the varieties. M a x i m u m protein content wasobserved in variety Dohad Y e l l o w (19.9%). However, itsmethionine content (0.48%) was the lowest. Across thevarieties, there was no significant difference in totalcarbohydrates, calc ium, phosphorus and ant i-nutr i t ionalfactor such as tannin. H i g h fat and carbohydrate makesvariety Pusa 267 a good source of energy (Table 1)besides its h igh protein content. There was a wide rangeof crude fiber content, a non-nutritional constituent requiredfor maintenance of good health, (1.81 to 8.18%) that waslower than that of the Mex ican chickpea (9.1%) reportedearlier (Sotelo et al. 1987). It was also reported thatcooking diminished only the ash content and the Mexicanvariety Poranero was only one that had a h igh amount ofcrude fiber, as far as the varieties evaluated global ly .

A significant var iat ion in the ash content of differentchickpea varieties was also prevalent. I ron contentdiffered signif icantly among the varieties studied.M a x i m u m i ron content was observed in the variety GCP106 (0.59%). Pusa 267 had the max imum methioninepercent (0.83%). Wide range of tannin content, the anti-nutri t ional factors, had been found in most of the legumes.Tannins, wh i ch reduce the digest ibi l i ty of proteins, werefound to be the highest in GCP 9605 (1.38%).

References

AOAC. 1970. Official methods of analysis, 11th edition.Washington DC, USA: Association of Official AnalyticalChemists.

AOAC. 1980. Official methods of analysis. 13th edition.Washington DC, USA: Association of Official AnalyticalChemists.

Gopalan C, Sastri BVR and Balasubramanium SC. 1971.Nutritive value of Indian foods. Hyderabad, India: NationalInstitute of Nutrition.

Maynard AJ. 1978. Methods in food analysis. New York,USA: Academic Press. 176 pp.

Mc Carthy TE and Paille M M . 1959. A rapid determinationof methionine in crude protein. BBA Research Communication1:29.

Osborne DR and Voogt P. 1970. The analysis of nutrients infood. New York, USA: Academic Press.

Patel KV and Parameswaran M. 1992. Effects of heattreatment on l ipid degradation in bajra flour during storage.Journal of Food Science and Technology 29(l):51-52.

8 ICPN 12, 2005

ICPN 12, 2005 9

Prakasam district, the southern part of Andhra Pradeshstate has about 100,000 ha under rainfed black soils. Inthe last few decades, the major crops in this farmingsituation were tobacco and cotton. Dur ing 2000-2001,due to declaration of crop hol iday for tobacco, there hasbeen a shift f rom tobacco crop to chickpea (Cicer arietinum L . ) , and now chickpea occupies 67 percent ofthe rainfed black soils. Most farmers in the district grow a desi chickpea variety Ann iger i . To increase the netincome of the farmer, the Distr ict Agr icu l tura l Adv isoryand Transfer of Technology Centre, Ongole, AP , India,init iated testing of two kabul i chickpea varieties K A K 2 and I C C V 2 along w i t h the popular cult ivar Anniger i inthe farmers' fields (dur ing 2001-2002 and 2002-2003).Each variety was sown in an area of about 500 m2 replicatedf ive times in Randomized B lock Design ( R B D ) .

The sowings were done dur ing the first fortnight ofNovember and the crop was harvested dur ing the firstfortnight of February. The seed was sown w i t h seed d r i l land in each plot the plant populat ion was approximately33 plants m-2 A ferti l izer dose of 20 kg N and 50 kg P2O5

per hectare was applied as basal dose in the form of ureaand single super phosphate. A l l the operations dur ing thecrop growth period such as seed treatment w i th fungicides,weeding at 30 days after sowing, and plant protectionmeasures were fo l lowed for the management of podborers, v iz , Helicoverpa armigera, Spodoptera exegua.

T Srinivas', MC Obaiah and SP Moula (District Agri-cultural Advisory and Transfer of Technology Centre,Acharya NG Ranga Agricultural University, AMCCompound, Throvagunta PO, Ongole 523 262, AndhraPradesh, India)*Corresponding author: vasuthumati28@yahoo.co.in

Per fo rmance o f K a b u l i Ch i ckpea

C u l t i v a r K A K 2 i n Ra in fed B lack Soils

o f P r a k a s a m Dist r ic t , A n d h r a Pradesh,

I n d i a

fusarium w i l t sick plot at Rahuri (Tab le3 ) . In addit ion,this variety showed least pod borer damage (12.19%)than I C C V 2 (18.97%) and L 550 (17.10%), showinghigh degree of tolerance to Helicoverpa.

The Central Var ie ty Release Committee, N e w De lh i ,identi f ied this variety for cul t ivat ion in south zone inDecember 2002. This variety is expected to fu l f i l l thedemand of Indian market for extra bold seed size.

Table 1. Y ie ld and ancil lary characters of 'V iha r ' .

Character

Yield (t ha-1)Height (cm)Number of branches/plantFlower colorDuration of flowering (days)Maturity period (days)Test weight in g (100 seeds)Color of seed

1.8135-436-9Whitish38-43105-11534-36Creamy white

Table 2. Percent increase in yield of 'Vihar' over standardcontrol cultivars.

Variety Yield (kg ha-1)

Vihar (17)1 1811 ICCV 2 (10) 1490K A K 2 (5) 1357BG 1003 (11) 943

Increase over (%)

-21.5433.4692.05

1. Figures in parentheses indicate number of tr ials.

Table 3. Reaction of 'Vihar' to fusarium wilt and Helicoverpa armigera (1997-2003).

Genotypes Wilt (%)

Vihar 7.04ICCV 2 35.72L 550 77.90K A K 2 13.98BG 1003 37.98JG 62 100.00

Pod borer (%)

12.1918.9717.10--

-

2002 under the name 'V iha r ' . The important features ofthis variety are g iven in Table 1.

Typ ica l ly , in 17 trials conducted at different locations,V ihar has g iven average grain y ie ld of 1811 kg ha-1 asagainst 1490 kg ha- 1 o f I C C V 2, 1357 kg ha- 1 o f K A K 2,and 943 kg ha- 1 of BG 1003 (Table 2). Thus, the increasein yields over the three controls were 21.54, 33.46 and92.05 percent, respectively.

The grain y ie ld in Agronomy tr ia l revealed that'V i ha r ' was signif icant ly superior under irr igated (3241kg ha-1) and rainfed (1070 kg ha-1) condit ions ascompared to other genotypes.

The variety has shown high resistance to fusarium w i l t(7.04%) as against 35.72% in check I C C V 2, 77.90% inL 550 and 13.98% in K A K 2 over 5-year per iod in

simi lar seed size. The number of pod plant -1 and yields of

I C C V 2 were signi f icant ly less compared to Ann iger i and

K A K 2 dur ing both the years (Tab le1 ) .

The cost benef i t ratios were calculated based on the

market pr ice dur ing the test years ( T a b l e 2 ) . Due to

higher cost of seed, the cost of cu l t ivat ion was h igh for

K A K 2 and I C C V 2 compared to desi chickpea varieties.

The highest net returns were obtained w i t h K A K 2 (Rs

39,263 dur ing 2001 -02 and Rs 46,615 dur ing 2002-03)

fo l l owed by Ann ige r i . The cost benefi t rat io for K A K 2

was 1:2.49 dur ing 2001-02 and 1:3.02 dur ing 2002-03 .

The I C C V 2 gave least net returns due to poor y ields.

Though the y ie ld differences were not much between

Ann ige r i and K A K 2, the h igh relat ive net returns were

The data on plant height and number of pods per plant

were recorded on ten plants selected at random in each

plot . Seed y ie ld and 100-seed weight were recorded for

each p lot . The cost benefi t ratios for a l l the cult ivars were

calculated for both the years by using the f o l l ow ing

formula:

Cost benefi t rat io (C :B ) =

The cul t ivar K A K 2 gave the highest y ie ld in both the

years (2.75 t ha -1 dur ing 2001-2002 and 2.82 t ha -1 dur ing

2002-2003) wh i le I C C V 2 gave the lowest y ields. The

100-seed weight was also s igni f icant ly higher in K A K 2

as compared to that of Ann iger i and I C C V 2 wh i ch had

10 ICPN 12, 2005

Table 2. Cost benefit particulars of chickpea varieties g rown under rainfed conditions in black soils of Prakas am district of

Andhra Pradesh, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 seasons.

Parameters

Yield (t ha1)Market rate in Rs per kgGross returns (Rs)

Total cost of cultivation (Rs)Net returns (Rs)Cost benefit ratio

2001-2002

K A K 2

2.7520.00

550001573739263

1:2.49

ICCV 2

1.6518.00

297001382715873

1:1.15

Annigeri

2.4014.50

34800

1333721463

1:1.61

2002-2003

K A K 2

2.8222.00

62040

1542546615

1:3.02

ICCV 2

1.5820.00

31600

1351518085

1:1.34

Annigeri

2.34

15.0035100

1302522075

1:1.69

Table 1. Performance of chickpea varieties under rainfe d condition in black soils of Prakasam district of Andh ra Pradesh,2001-2002 and 2002-2003.

Year

2001-2002

SEd±CD at 5%CV(%)

2002-2003

SEd±CD at 5%CV(%)

Variety

K A K 2 ICCV 2 Annigeri

K A K 2 ICCV 2

Annigeri

Plant height(cm)

57.041.541.0

55.840.039.2

Number of podsplant -1

95.032.568.0

82.028.063.4

Yield(t ha-1)

2.751.652.400.0580.16

14.3

2.821.582.34

0.0610.17

16.8

100-seed weight

(g)

39.225.024.3

0.6021.67

12.4

38.224.523.3

0.5551.54

14.5

Table 1. Reaction of chickpea genotypes to Fusarium wilt ( FW) and Ascochyta blight (AB).

S. No.

1

2

34

567

89

1011121314

151617

Genotype

H92-67 (1996-97 to 1999-2000)*

H00-256(2000-01 to 2003-04)*H97-93(2000-01 to 2003-04)*H00-216 (2001-02 to 2003-04)*HO 1-07(2001-02 to 2003-04)*H01-08 (2001-02 to 2003-04)*H01-09 (2001-02 to 2003-04)*

H01-10 (2001-02 to 2003-04)*HO 1-67(2001-02 to 2003-04)*H01-74 (2001-02 to 2003-04)*H01-79 (2001-02 to 2003-04)*H01-80 (2001-02 to 2003-04)*H00-02 (2000-01 to 2002-03)*H00-126 (2000-01 to 2002-03)*H00-249 (2000-01 to 2002-03)*JG 62(1996-97 to 2003-04)*Mixture of L 550 & Pb 7 (1996-97to 2003-04)*

Pedigree

(GG 588 x H81-73) x (BG 257 x H81-73)

HC -1 x C. reticulatum HC -1 x E 100 Ym

DCP92-3 x PDG 84 -16DCP92-3 x PDG 84 -16DCP92-3 x PDG 84 -16

(HC-1 x NARC 9006) x NARC 9006(HC-1 x NARC 9006) x NARC 9006(H 91 - 40 x H 91-38) x H 91 - 38HC -3 x GIGASHC-3 x NARC 9006H 92-68 x NARC 9006HC -1 x H 91 - 37(H 94-67 x H 92-67)x NARC 9006HC -1 x C. reticulatum Check (not available)Check (not available)

Average yield(kg ha-1)

2264

2116203321422139216820702129

218021462164201421122234

1995NilNi l

Disease reaction

FW (%) A B ( 1-9 Scale)

0-4.6

0 -4.40-9.00-6.70-6.7

1.66-3.7

1.69-4.23.92-9.5

0 - 9.10 9.60-8.10-27.6

3.3-26.16.8-17.9

4.3- 11.36100

8-9

3-53-57-97-98-98-98-9

3-56-8

3-53-5

3-53-4

3-5-

8-9

* Year of testing.

ICPN 12, 2005 11

fusarium w i l t is the common root disease, wh ich cause

heavy losses. A m o n g fol iar diseases, ascochyta bl ight is

the most important disease and its occurrence can

completely destroy the crop. Ascochyta bl ight is more

prevalent in humid and sub-tropical climates. These

diseases are the major l im i t ing factors for higher

product ion and stable performance. There is a need to

develop h igh y ie ld ing genotypes w i t h combined

resistance to these diseases. Genetic var iabi l i ty exists

among chickpea genotypes for resistance to one or more

different diseases (Gaur et al . 1992; Haware et al. 1994).

However , a few genotypes exhibi t mul t ip le resistance to

two or all the major diseases (Singh and Har i Chand

1996). Such genotypes can ensure higher product iv i ty

and stable performance across the various g rowing

condit ions and environments.

Fifteen h igh y ie ld ing chickpea genotypes and two

control cult ivars, v iz , JG 62 for w i l t and a mixture of L

550 and Pb 7 for ascochyta bl ight (Table 1), were

screened for w i l t plant mortal i ty (%) in w i l t sick plots and

for ascochyta b l ight in separate f ields. Each genotype

was sown in a 2.5 m row w i t h inter-row spacing of 30 cm

and plant-to-plant spacing of 10 cm, mixture of L 550 and

Pb 7 was used as the susceptible control after every two

test genotypes throughout the f ield for ascochyta bl ight

obtained w i t h K A K 2 (Rs 17,800 dur ing 2001-2002 and

Rs 24,540 dur ing 2002-2003) due to h igh market price

for K A K 2 produce. F rom the results i t is clear that,

kabul i var iety K A K 2 can be cult ivated by the farmers in

rainfed black soils of Prakasam distr ict so as to obtain

highest net returns.

A c k n o w l e d g m e n t s : The authors are h igh ly grateful for

the support g iven by Dr A Satyanarayana, Director of

Extension, A N G R A U , Hyderabad, A P , India.

I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f C h i c k p e a G e n o t y p e s

w i t h C o m b i n e d R e s i s t a n c e t o A s c o c h y t a

B l i g h t a n d F u s a r i u m W i l t

RS Waldia*, BPS Mal ik , Har i Chand, VS Lather,

IS Solanki and Ram Kumar Yadav (Department of

Plant Breeding, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana

Agricultural University, Hisar 125 004, India)

*Corresponding author: chhabrak@hau.ernet.in

Chickpea is main ly cult ivated as rainfed crop and is

grown on residual moisture. In such environments,

Nalini Mallikarjuna 1, Deepak Jadhav1, HeatherClarke2, Clarice Coyne3 and Fred Muehlbauer3

(1 . ICRISAT, Patancheru, India; 2. Centre for Legumes inMediterranean Agriculture, University of WesternAustralia; 3. USDA-ARS, Washington State University,Pullman, Washington 99164-6434, USA)

The value of haploids in genetics and plant breeding hasbeen known for a long t ime. Natural haploid embryos andplants have been described in about 100 species ofangiosperms, and documented in detail by K imber andRi ley (1963). However, haploids occur rarely in nature.Doubled haploids are equivalent to inbred lines, w i thnormal fert i l i ty, retaining the advantage of homozygosity,which by conventional program of producing pure lineswou ld require 6-7 generations of self ing to achieve a satisfactory level o f homozygosi ty.

Three pr incipal methods of haploid product ioninclude 1. parthenogenesis, 2. w ide crosses -chromosome el iminat ion, and 3. haploid plants f romanther/ovule culture. In the first method of haploidproduct ion, haploids arise f rom both an unfert i l ized eggand from a male gamete. Gynogenetic haploids arise as a result of st imulat ion of the unfert i l ized egg, and in a fewcases the offsprings resembled the male parent and hencewere thought to have originated f rom the pol len (Clausenand Laments 1929; Kos to f f 1929; Rhoades 1948). Thedoubled haploid method used in barley, is an example ofpreferential chromosome el iminat ion in the crossbetween barley and Hordeum bulbosum, where thechromosomes of H. bulbosum were gradually el iminated.In that method, a cross is made between cult ivated barley(Hordeum vulgare) and H. bulbosum. Du r ing embryodevelopment, the chromosomes of H. bulbosum aregradual ly el iminated result ing in haplo id plants(Subrahmanyam and Kasha 1973). The chromosomeel iminat ion phenomenon is quite prevalent among widecrosses between wheat and H. bulbosum as we l l (Barclay1975). A more recent procedure to produce haploidplants is by anther culture/microspore culture (Maheshwar i1996; Guha and Maheshwari 1966; Melchers 1972). Theculture of anthers or microspores gives rise to haplo idplants whose chromosomes can be doubled by suitabletreatment to produce homozygous d ip lo id plants. LaterRangan (1994) and Kel ler and Korzun (1996) reportedparthenogenesis of the egg in culture.

Gaur RB, Maheshwari RV and Verma RS. 1992. Evaluationof chickpea cultivars for resistance to ascochyta blight underartificial conditions I I . Screening of breeding material.International Chickpea Newsletter 26:23-24.

Haware M P , Narayana Rao J, Har i Chand. Ghanekar AMand Jalali BL. 1994. Multilocational testing of chickpea forfield resistance to ascochyta blight. International Chickpea andPigeonpea Newsletter 1:18-21.

Singh Rang Pal and Har i Chand. 1996. Identification ofmultiple disease resistance in chickpea at Hisar, Haryana, India.International Chickpea and Pigeonpea Newsletter 3:32-33.

Reference

screening and JG 62 after every two test genotypesthroughout the fields for w i l t screening. Ascochyta rabiei was mul t ip l ied on chickpea f lour agar medium at 20± 1°Cfor 20 days for inoculat ion. At the f lower ing stage, whenthe average environmental temperature was 18-20oC, thecrop was inoculated w i t h a spore suspension containingapproximately 30000 spore mL-1 water. H igh humidi tywas maintained w i t h perfo- irr igat ion up to three weeksafter the inoculat ion. Disease score was recorded 30 daysafter inoculat ion on 1-9 scale (1 = no infection and 9 = completely k i l led) . Whereas for w i l t , the material wasplanted in w i l t sick plot maintained at the PulsesResearch Area, Chaudhary Charan Singh HaryanaAgr icu l tu ra l Univers i ty (CCS H A U ) , Hisar. The diseasereactions for genotypes at Sr. N o . 1 to 3 were tested for 4 years and for the rest for 3 years (Tab le1) . The genotype,H92-67, H97-93, H00-216, H00-256, H01-07, H01-08,H01-09, H01-10, H01-67, H01-74 and H01-79, wereresistant to w i l t (< 10% morta l i ty ) , whereas, H00-02,H00-126, H00-249 and H01-80 were resistant toascochyta b l ight (3 to 5 score). H97-93, H00-256, H 0 1 -67 and H01-79 were resistant to w i l t and ascochytabl ight . It is suggested that the genotypes wh ich provideresistance to more than one disease should be used asdonor parents to transfer resistance to adapted promisinggenotypes for higher productivity and stable performance.

I nduc t i on of Androgenesis as a

Consequence o f W i d e Crossing

i n Ch i ckpea

12 ICPN 12, 2005

A Fragile buds from the cross C. arietinum x C. pinnatifidum. B & C anther bundle and anthers from the cross C. areitinum x C. pinnatifidum. D A normal pollen grain undergoing the microsporogenesis.E A multicellular pollen grain from the hybrid.

lCPN 12, 2005 13

from plant to plant. Percent androgenic pol len grains varied

f rom 0 -100%. Plant no. 8, 11 and 12 (Table 1) d id not

have any androgenic pol len grains, whereas in plant no.

14 and 16, al l the pol len grains were androgenic, or in other

words had multicellular microspores. The number of cells

in mul t ice l lu lar microspores in plant no. 14 and 16 varied

f rom 8 -10 (F ig . 1E) unl ike 4 - 6 cells in mul t ice l lu lar

microspores in other hybr id plants w h i c h had androgenic

microspores.

This is the first report in literature wherein mul t ice l lu lar

microspores have been consistently produced as a result

of w ide crossing. W ide crosses are not only important in

gene transfer f rom w i l d species but also in the product ion

of haploid plants by in vitro culture of anthers w i t h

mul t ice l lu lar microspores.

Next logical step wou ld be to explore the feasibi l i ty of

androgenesis f rom wide crosses, for rapid development

of homozygous lines.

References

Barcaly IR. 1975. High frequencies of haploid production inwheat (Triticum aestivum L.) by chromosome elimination.Nature (London) 256 : 410-411.

Clausen RE and Lammerts WE. 1929. Interspecifichybridization in Nicotiana X Haploid and diploid merogony.Amer Nat 43:279-282.

14 ICPN 12, 2005

Chickpea procedures for developing haploid plants

have not been reported, and induct ion of androgenesis by

anther culture is of a very low frequency (Mal l i kar juna,

personal observation). Androgenesis was observed in a

w ide cross of Cicer arietinum x C. pinnatifidum. Hybr ids

between C. arietinum x C. pinnatifidum were obtained

after rescuing the hybr id embryos in v i t ro. The hybr ids

were in i t ia l ly devoid of any ch lorophy l l p igment and

were albinos. U p o n continuous culture in a zeatin-r ich

medium and in the presence of l ight , the hybrids turned

semi-green (Mal l ikar juna 1999). Hyb r id shoots were

grafted to chickpea root stocks to obtain hybr id plants.

None of the hybr id plants f lowered. When the nutr ient

solut ion w i th zeatin (1 m g / L ) was added, f lower buds

were observed on the hybr id plants. Flower buds were

fragi le, albino to semi-green, but w i t h normal

morphology (F ig . 1A) . Anthers (Figs. 1B and 1C) were

squashed in acetocarmine and div is ions were observed in

some of the microspores (F ig . 1E). The number of

div is ions varied f rom 4 - 6 . A d d i n g nutr ient solut ion w i t h

zeatin (1 mg /L ) to in v i vo g rown chickpea plants d id not

induce divis ions in the microspores.

A total of 16 hybr id plants were obtained. The number

of microspores/pollen grains in an anther varied f r om 1 1 -

151 compared to more than 500 pollen grains in cul t ivated

chickpea. The number of pollen grains, which had undergone

microsporogenesis and induct ion of androgenesis, varied

Table 1. Androgenic response in interspecifc incompati ble cross Cicer arietinum x C. pinnatifidum.

PlantNo.

1234567

8910

111213141516

Totalmicrospores

5712273462827

8386

15131357443166511

No. Normal

microspores

43109731823

125186

14312357436

062

0

No. Androgenicmicrospores (%)

14 (25)

13(11)0

28(61)5(18)

15(56)32 (39)

08(5)

19(61)007(16)

16(100)

3 (5)11 (100)

Maximum no. of

cells in a microspore

3-43-4

2-44-62-42-4

4-62-4

2-4

8-10

8-10

Ketema Daba1, Geletu Bejiga1, Yadeta Anbessa1,PM Gaur 2,*, Jagdish Kumar2 and BV Rao2 (1. DebreZeit Agricultural Research Centre, Debre Zeit, Ethiopia;2. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru 502 324, AP, India)*Corresponding author: p.gaur@cgiar.org

Ethiopia is the largest chickpea growing country inAfr ica, w i th a share of about 37% in area and 48% inproduct ion. Dur ing 2003/2004, Ethiopia produced195,800 t of chickpea from an area of 176,554 ha( F A O S T A T 2004). There has been an increase of about Figure 1. Seed of kabuli chickpea variety Chefe.

Chefe ( I C C V 92318) - A New K a b u l i

Chickpea V a r i e t y for E th iop ia

Guha S and Maheshwari SC. 1966. Cell division anddifferentiation of embryos in the pollen grains of Datura invitro. Nature 212:97-98.

Keller ERJ and Korzun L. 1996. Ovary and ovule culture forhaploid production. In vitro haploid production in higherplants (Jain SM, Sopory SK and Veilleux RS, eds.). Vol . 1.Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Acad. Publi.

Kimber G and Riley R. 1963. Haploid angiosperms. Bot Rev29:480-531.

Kustoff D. 1929. An androgenic Nicotiana haploid. Zeit.Zellforschg 9 :391 - 396.

Maheshwari SC. 1996. The discovery of anther culturetechniques for the production of haploid plants - A personalreflection. In vitro haploid production in higher plants, Vol. 1.(Jain SM, Sopory SK and Veilleux RS, eds.). Dordrecht, TheNetherlands: Kluwer Acad Publ.

Mallikarjuna N. 1999. Ovule and embryo culture to obtainhybrids from interspecific incompatible pollinations inchickpea. Euphytica 110:1-6.

Melchers G. 1972. Haploid higher plants for plant breeding.Z. Pflanzenzuchtg 67:19-32.

Rangan TS. 1984. Culture of ovules. In Cell culture andsomatic cell genetics of plants (Vasil IK, ed.). New York,USA: Acad Press.

Rhoades M M . 1948. Androgenesis. Maize Genet CoopNewsl. 22:10.

Subrahmanyam NC and Kasha KJ. 1973. Selectivechromosome elimination during haploid formation in barleyfollowing interspecific hybridization. Chromosoma (Berl.)42:111-125.

10% in the area and 42% in the production of chickpeadur ing the past decade (1994/95 to 2003/04). Most of thechickpea production is used for domestic consumption.However, there has been a substantial export of chickpeaby Ethiopia during the past five years, w i th the highest of48,549 t (valued at US$14.7 mi l l ion) during 2002( F A O S T A T 2004).

The Debre Zeit Agr icul tura l Research Center( D Z A R C ) is the premier institute for chickpea research inEthiopia. It has collaborated w i th the International CropsResearch Institute for the Semi-Ar id Tropics ( I C R l S A T) ,Patancheru, India, and the International Center forAgr icu l tura l Research in the Dry Areas ( I C A R D A ) ,Aleppo, Syria, in chickpea improvement and releasedeight chickpea varieties in Ethiopia. Of these, three (DZ 10-4, DZ 10-11, and Dubie) were developed from its ownbreeding materials, four (Mariye, Worku, Akaki andShasho) from the breeding materials supplied byl C R I S A T , and one (Arer t i ) from the breeding materialssupplied by I C A R D A . Three of these varieties ( D Z 10-4,Shasho and Arer t i ) are kabuli type and the remaining aredesi type.

The Ethiopian chickpea production is predominatedby desi chickpea (about 95%). However, in recent years,there has been an increase in the interest of farmers ingrowing large-seeded kabuli varieties due to their higherprice in the market. The market price for one ton kabuli chickpea currently varies from 3000 to 4000 B i r r(US$344 to 459) depending on the seed size, whi le thedesi chickpea is sold at about 2000 B i r r (US$230). Thefirst kabuli chickpea variety released in Ethiopia (year1974) was DZ 10-4 w i th a very small seed size (10-11 g 100 seed-1) and is now almost out of cult ivat ion. The

ICPN 12, 2005 15

other t w o kabu l i variet ies, A re r t i and Shasho, w i t h

medium (26 g 100-seed-1) and large seeds (30 g 100-seed1),

respectively were released in 1999.

I C C V 92318, a breeding l ine developed from a 3-way

cross ( I C C V 2 x Surutato) x ICC 7344 at I C R I S A T ,

Patancheru, was received by D Z A R C f rom I C R I S A T

along w i t h many other advanced breeding l ines. A f te r

pre l iminary y i e l d evaluat ion at the stat ion, i t was selected

for mul t i locat ion evaluat ion a long w i t h the controls DZ

10-4 ( local check) and Arerti (standard check). The tr ials

were conducted at seven locations each dur ing 1999/

2000 and 2000/2001 and at four locations dur ing 2 0 0 1 /

2002. The overal l average y ie ld o f I C C V 92318 was

2546 kg ha - 1 against 2864 kg ha - 1 fo r the standard check

Arerti and 2093 kg ha - 1 fo r the local check DZ 10-4

(Table 1). Though I C C V 92318 was not superior to

Arerti in y i e ld , i t was selected fo r release p r imar i l y

because of its attractive and larger (35 g 100-seed-1) seeds

(F ig . 1) as compared to Arerti (26 g 100-seed-1) and h igh

resistance to fusar ium w i l t . I t was released as " C h e f e " in

2004 by the Na t iona l Var ie ty Release Commi t tee . Chefe

is one o f the research stations o f D Z A R C where chickpea

produc t iv i t y is a lways very h igh .

16 ICPN 12, 2005

A h igh preference by farmers was observed for the

new var iety Chefe dur ing on- farm trials because of its

large pods. We presume that the increased pr ice in the

internat ional market for the large-seeded kabuli varieties

w i l l help in faster adopt ion of the var iety. A l so there is a

large market for chickpea immature fresh seeds, for

human consumpt ion in Eth iop ia and large-seeded

varieties are preferred for this purpose. Thus, the new

variety also has potent ial for this local market. Eth iop ian

Seed Enterprise and pr ivate commerc ia l farmers are

mu l t i p l y i ng this var iety for fur ther d is t r ibut ion as seed

and also fo r export .

Acknowledgment. We are thankfu l to Canadian

Internat ional Development Agency ( C I D A ) for fund ing

the project " I m p r o v i n g income of farmers in eastern

A f r i c a through increased chickpea y i e l d " dur ing 2000 to

2003 under the CGIAR-Canada L inkage Fund ( C C L F ) .

Reference

FAOSTAT. 2004. http://faostat.fa .org/faostat/ (lastupdated

20December2004).

Table 1. Mean seed yield (kg ha -1) of chickpea variety ( ICCV 92318) as compared to stand ard check (Arert i) and local check(DZ-10-4) across locations and over years.

Variety

1999/2000ICCV 92318ArertiDZ 10-4

2000/2001ICCV 92318ArertiDZ 10-4

2001/2002ICCV 92318ArertiDZ 10-4

Over all meanICCV 92318ArertiDZ 10-4

Minjar

12311728501

273938043173

124713971066

159423101580

DebreZeit Akaki

3274 47783844 46082057 3892

3513 38613730 40543997 2913

1493 27491791 29531069 1329

2760 37983122 38722374

ChefeDonsa

312930912614

354243213524

--

-

333637063069

Location

Enewari

187916691790

279433202580

--

-

233724952185

Adet

251538673338

154314261455

--

-

202926472397

Sirinka

311719891519

--

-

-

-

311719891519

Ambo

--

-

201029151469

--

-

201029151469

ArsiNegale

--

-

--

-

249928751754

249928751754

Mean

278429712244

285833672730

199722541305

254628642093

ICPN 12, 2005 17

L e a f a n d P o d Cha rac te rs as Select ion

C r i t e r i a fo r Large-Seeded Kabuli

Ch ickpea

JS Sandhu, SK Gupta, Pritpal Singh, TS Bains andAjinder Kaur (Department of Plant Breeding, Geneticsand Biotechnology, Punjab Agricultural University,Ludhiana 141 004, Punjab, India)

Large seed size is a premium trait of kabuli chickpeabecause of consumer's preference. Hence, large-seededkabulis are sold at higher price in the market. Largevar iat ion (8 g to 75 g 100 - seed-1) has been recorded forthis character in global germplasm (Singh and Saxena1999). Most of the released cult ivars of kabuli chickpeahave a seed weight of 20-25 g 100-seed-1, except fiverecently released cult ivars namely K A K 2 , BG 1053, BG1003, J K G 1 and Phule G 95311. Efforts are being madeto develop the cult ivars w i t h more than 30 g 100 seed-1.Selection for most of the characters in the segregatinggenerations is made v isual ly based on the morphologicaltraits. The advantage of this practice is that the selectionof ind iv idua l plant is based on a number of desirabletraits. On the other hand, selection for seed size is carriedout after the crop harvest. Thus, some morphologicaltraits need to be ident i f ied wh i ch may be used as markersfor large seed size wh i le selection is practised for othertraits in segregating generations. This w i l l help identi fythe plants superior in number of traits simultaneously inthe field itself. Keeping this in v iew, an attempt has beenmade in this study to correlate the leaf and pod charactersw i t h seed size in kabuli genotypes.

The material consisted of 12 kabuli genotypes, g rownin 6 row plots w i t h r o w length of 4 m and rows spaced at30 cm, in a randomized block design w i t h three replicationsdur ing the crop season 2003-04. Observations wererecorded on f ive plants on each genotype in a l lreplications, for plant height (cm), pr imary branchesplant-1, leaf length (cm), leaf breadth (cm) , leaflets leaf-1,leaflet length (cm), pods plant-1, pod length (cm), podcircumference (cm), days to f lower, days to matur i ty ,seed y ie ld p l an t- 1 (g) and 100-seed weight (g). Leaf lengthand breadth were measured at the center of a branch. Thecentral leaflets of these leaves were used for measuringthe length of the leaflets. Pod characteristics such as podlength and pod circumference were recorded usingvernier caliper. Correlations were estimated on replicateddata f o l l ow ing the methodology o f Dewey and Lu (1959).

The range and mean values showed that w ide var iat ion(Table1) was available for characters under study. The leaflet

18 ICPN 12, 2005

number was least variable wh i l e leaflet length showed them a x i m u m var iab i l i ty . Pod characters, pod length and podcircumference also had h igh var iab i l i ty . The phenotypiccorrelations among leaf, pod and seed componentsrevealed that leaf length, leaflet length and podcircumference had a posi t ive and signif icant correlationw i t h 100-seed weight (Table 2). A l l these three v isuallyobservable morphologica l characters were alsoposi t ive ly correlated w i t h each other, ind icat ing thatthese were the most important components of 100-seedweight . A m o n g these three traits, leaf length had strongposi t ive signif icant correlat ion (r = 0.69) w i t h 100-seedweight . In a s imi lar study of 106 desi and kabuli genotypes, Dahiya et al . (1988) found leaf length, leafletlength and leaflet w id th to be s igni f icant ly and posi t ivelycorrelated to 100-seed weight and concluded that theleaflet w id th was a predictor for seed characteristics.

It was concluded that easily observable morphologica ltraits such as leaf length, leaflet length, pod length andpod circumference, could be used as a selection cr i ter ionfor the large-seeded kabuli chickpea.

References

Dahiya BS, Waldia RS and Ram Kumar. 1988. Relationshipbetween leaf and seed characteristics in chickpea. InternationalChickpea Newsletter 18:6-7.

Dewey DR and Lu K H . 1959. A correlation and pathcoefficient analysis of components of crested wheat grass seedproduction. Agronomy Journal 51:515-18.

Singh KB and Saxena M C . 1999. The chickpeas. London,UK: MacMil lan Education Ltd.

S Kumar, H Nayyar*, TS Bains', G Kaur and

RK Bhanwra (Department of Botany, Panjab University,

Chandigarh 160 014, India; 1Department of Plant Breeding,

Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana 141 004, Punjab,

India).

*Corresponding author: nayarbot@pu.ac.in

L o w T e m p e r a t u r e Effects o n E a r l y

M a t u r i n g C h i c k p e a G e n o t y p e I C C V

9 6 0 2 9

Agronomy/Physiology environmental condit ions is shown in T a b l e 1 . L igh t

intensity (as photosynthetic photon f lux density; PPFD)

at mid-day ranged between 800 - 1100 mol m -2 s -1 and

1300-2200 m o l m - 2 s-1 in glasshouse and f ield

condi t ions, respectively. Observations on the fate of

f lowers (retent ion or abort ion) at di f ferent temperatures

of f ield as w e l l as glasshouse were recorded by tagging

the f lowers everyday in 25 plants and f o l l o w i n g them

precisely for abort ion or pod set dur ing this per iod. These

observations were correlated w i t h dai ly temperature

prof i les of December and January. Observations on

growth and y ie ld were recorded on plants (50 in each

case) g row ing in the contrasting environments. Data were

subjected to t-test using S I G M A S T A T software ( U S A ) .

The FD plants as compared to the GH plants showed

marked reduct ion in plant height as w e l l as delayed

vegetative and reproduct ive g rowth in terms of days to

f l ower ing , days to podd ing, days to pod matur i ty and

days to crop matur i ty ( T a b l e 2 ) , whereas the number of

pr imary branches (basal) increased markedly in the

former. The durat ion o f f l ower ing d id not d i f fe r

s igni f icant ly between the two condit ions whereas

durat ion o f podd ing was reduced s igni f icant ly in the FD

plants. The total number of f lowers produced plant - 1 in

FD plants dur ing the season was almost threefold o f GH

plants, but the f loral retention was s igni f icant ly more in

the latter. Though pod set was s igni f icant ly lower in the

FD plants than in the GH plants, the former showed

appreciably more pod retent ion. A l l the traits

contr ibut ing to y ie ld , ie, pods plant -1, average pod weight ,

seeds p lan t 1 , seed weight plant -1, average seed weight , 1 -

seeded pods, 2-seeded pods, were markedly h igh in FD

plants than in GH ones. There was no dif ference between

the numbers of in fer t i le pods in the two environments.

One of the peculiari t ies observed in the FD plants was

the appearance of anthocyanins in the pedicels of

f lowers, w h i c h was in contrast to the GH plants. The FD

grown plants had an average of 30 single f lowers plant - 1

w i t h purple pedicel ( 4 3 % o f total f l owe rs ) wh i le GH

plants had no such f lowers but had 14.4 single f lowers

plant - 1 w i t h green pedicel ( 6 0 % o f total f lowers) (Table

L o w temperatures (< 10°C) are detrimental for reproduct iv e

growth of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and induce

abort ion of f lowers, pods, impaired seed g rowth and

reduced y ie ld (Srinivasan et a l . 1999; Nayyar et a l .

2005). Since the reproduct ive phase of early matur ing

genotypes coincides w i t h the co ld spells of northern

region of India, they are expected to face vary ing degree

of ch i l l i ng stress depending upon the intensity and

durat ion o f low temperature. L o w temperatures may

induce anthocyanins that may a l low the plant to develop

resistance against stress possibly by improv ing sugar

translocation in stressed tissues and act ing as ant i -

oxidants (Chalker-Scott 1999). In the present study, we

assessed the performance of an early matur ing chickpea

genotype I C C V 96029 under two contrasting temperature

environments - l ow temperature condi t ions of the f ield

and warm condit ions of the glasshouse - in order to

assess the ch i l l i ng damage, i f any. I t was hypothesized

that co ld migh t l im i t the y ie ld potent ial of plants as

compared to those g row ing under wa rm condit ions.

A super early matur ing chickpea genotype I C C V

96029 (seeds procured f rom P A U , Ludhiana) was g rown

in pots (30 cm height, 25 cm diameter, 14.72 L vo lume)

dur ing the f i rs t week o f November (2003) under l ow

temperature condi t ions in the f ield ( F D ) as we l l as under

wa rm condi t ions o f the glasshouse ( G H ) . Temperature

prof i le dur ing g rowth season under both the

Table 1. Average maximum and minimum temperature (°C) in warm (glasshouse) and cold (field) conditions.

Environment

WarmCold

Nov.

Max M i n

30 1525 10

Dec.

Max M i n

25 1520 8

Jan.

Max M in

25 1517 7

Feb.

Max M i n

30 15

23 10

March

Max M in

38 2532 17

ICPN 12, 2005 19

20 lCPN 12, 2005

Table 3. Observations per plant (Mean ± SEM) on single and double flowers as well as pod set under warm and coldconditions.

Parameters

Total flowers during the seasonSingle flower with green pedicel

Single flower with purple pedicelDouble flowers*

Double flowers with both green pedicels

Double flowers with purple and green pedicelPod set in Single flower with green pedicel

Pod set in single flower with purple pedicel

Pod set in double flowers with both green pedicels

Pod set in double flowers with purple and green pedicel

Warm

23.8 ± 1.0

14.4 ± 0.750

4.7 ± 0.634.7 ± 0.63

08.6 ±0.75

(60 %)

0

4.0 ±0.57

(85 %)

0

Cold

69.2 ± 1.00

30.0 ± 0.80

19.6 ± 0.750

19.6 ±0.750

24.5 ± 0.98(82%)

0

7.8 ± 0.75(40%)

*Refers to a pair of f lowers on a peduncle

Di f ferences between warm and co ld treatments are s igni f icant at P<0.05 (t-test).

Table 2. Growth and yield traits per plant (Mean ± SEM) i n I C C V 96029 under warm and cold conditions.

Parameters

Plant height (cm; at 60 *DAS)

No. of basal primary branches (at 100 DAS)Days to flowering (DAS)Flowering duration (days)

Days to podding (DAS)Podding durationDays to pod maturity (DAS)

Days to crop maturity (DAS)Total flowers produced during the seasonTotal flowers abscised during the season

Floral retention (%)

Pod set (%)Pod retention (%)

No. of PodsAverage Pod wt. (g)No. of seedsOne-seeded pods

Two-seeded pods

Infertile podsSeed yield plant"' (g)

Average seed wt. (g)

Warm

51.9 ± 1.8

1.4±0.1737.8 ± 1.5

63.6 ± 1.548.2 ± 1.8

62.4 ± 1.992.0 ± 3.2 113 ± 2.6

23.8 ± 4.9

9.4 ± 1.360.5 ± 2.544.4 ± 0.844.0 ± 2.44.4 ± 0.7

1.0±0.14.0 ± 0.7

2.8 ± 0.61.5 ±0 .172.0 ± 0.3

0.6 ± 0.11

0.18 ±0.02

Cold

33.4 ± 1.56.0 ± 0.69

59.7 ± 1.665.3 ± 1.8 NS

93.6 ± 3.2 49.2 ± 2.3120.0 ±2 .7138 ± 2.8

69.2 ± 4.446.0 ± 2.033.6 ±2 .235.4± 1.3

58.9 ± 2.214.4 ± 1.3

3.2 ± 0.315.6 ± 1.210.0 ± 1.42.8 ± 0.34

1.4 ± 0.3 NS

2.7 ± 0.40.18 ± 0.03

* D A S - d a y s after sow ing

Dif ferences between warm and cold treatments are s igni f icant at P<0.05 (t- test); NS-non-s ign i f icant .

lCPN 12, 2005 21

Plate 1. Cold-induced abnormalities; A - Flowers with purple and green pedicel under cold conditions; B - Flower with green pedicelaborts while the other one sets pod; C - Pod abortion in green pedicel and normal pod in purple pedicel; D - normal pod set by both theflowers under warm conditions.

3). The double f lowers in FD plants (19.6 plant-1) had onegreen and another purple pedicel (57% of total f lowers)unl ike in GH plants (4.7 plant-1), wh ich had both greenpedicels (40% of total f lowers) (Plate 1 A; Table 2). Theflower w i t h purple pedicel emerges earlier than the otherw i t h green pedicel. These flowers set pods according tothe temperature o f the environment. At temperature o f 2-11°C, both types of f lowers abort wh i le at temperature

between 12-20oC, the flower w i t h purple pedicel setspods and the other w i th green pedicel aborts and getsabscised (Plate 1B ; Table 2). The green type also showsabnormal growth and cannot complete its development inFD plants. Distor t ion of f lower and its organs may alsooccur in green type as twisted anthers leading to impairedfert i l izat ion and pod abort ion. Depending upon the stageof cold exposure, the f lowers w i t h green pedicel may

22 ICPN 12, 2005

either get abscised at bud or at anthesis stage. At 15-30°Ccondit ions of the glasshouse, both the flowers set podsw i t h higher intensity (Plate 1D; Table 2), whereas undercold condit ions of the f ie ld , on ly f lowers w i t h purplepedicel are able to set pods and those w i t h green pedicelsabort leading to reduct ion in pod set (Table 2). Purplecolorat ion in pedicels is because of accumulat ion ofanthocyanins, wh i ch have been suggested to impart co ldtolerance in several plant species (Chalker-Scott 1999)that also appears to be substantiated by the presentf indings. Since, this pattern was prevalent on ly in the FDplants, cold- induced restrictions in photosynthesis and inpreferential mob i l i za t ion of photosynthates towards thef lowers hav ing purple pedicel may be some of the keycausative factors related to this var iat ion (Nayyar et al .2005). Anthocyanins are indicated to assist in sugartranslocation in stressed tissues and may thus protect thepurple f lowers f rom abort ion due to stress-inducedstarvation (Chalker-Scott 1999). Add i t i ona l l y , beingantioxidants, they may protect the oxidat ive damage tostressed tissues. The exact mechanisms by w h i c hanthocyanins protect the cold-stressed tissues remain tobe probed and are being investigated by us. Nevertheless,these f indings indicate that anthocyanins accumulat ioncan be employed as rel iable marker in screening for co ld-tolerance in chickpea.

The present f indings indicated that in spite ofreduction in vegetative g rowth and delay in onset ofsubsequent growth phases, cold condit ions d id not appearto inh ib i t the y ie ld potential o f this genotype. The FDplants as compared to the GH plants compensated theirreduced plant height by increasing the number ofbranches. Though co ld condit ions caused damage to theflowering phase, the plants produced more flowers andconsequently higher number of pods as the f ieldtemperature increased in February. On the other hand,warm condit ions throughout the g rowth season proved tobe relat ively much inh ib i to ry for y ie ld , wh ich was incontrast to our hypothesis. Add i t i ona l testing of plantresponse to intermediate temperature treatment may beneeded to conf i rm the co ld compensation of I C C V 96029.

I t is concluded that I C C V 96029 possesses h igh lyeffective yield compensation mechanisms to face the ch il l i ngcondit ions. Accumula t ion of anthocyanins in the pedicelsof f lowers may be exploi ted as a screening trai t in studieson co ld tolerance. In-depth studies are underway to probethe mechanisms related to the di f ferent ial effects of thetemperature.

References

Chalker-Scott L. 1999. Environmental significance ofanthocyanins in plant stress responses. Photochemistry andPhotobiology 70:1-9.

Nayyar H, Bains T and Kumar S. 2005. Low temperatureinduced floral abortion in chickpea: relationship to abscisicacid and cryoprotectants in reproductive organs.Environmental and Experimental Botany 53:39-47.

Srinivasan A, Saxena NP and Johansen C. 1999. Coldtolerance during early reproductive growth of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) : genetic variation in gamete development andfunction. Field Crops Research 60:209-222.

Response of C h i c k p e a (Cicer arietinum)

t o I r r i g a t i o n , F Y M a n d S u l p h u r o n a

Sandy C l a y L o a m Soi l

RA Patel* and RH Patel (Dept of Agronomy, BA Collegeof Agriculture, Anand Agricultural University, Anand381 110, Gujarat, India.)*Corresponding author: kmgediya@yahoo.co.in

Chickpea in India is usually g rown on well-conservedsoi l moisture. Though soi l moisture depletes much afterthe harvest of preceding crop, wh ich necessitates the pre-sowing i r r igat ion. Besides, improv ing physical-chemicaland b io log ica l properties o f soi l , F Y M also enhanceswater-hold ing capacity of the soi l . Sulphur is essential forthe synthesis of protein, v i tamin and S-containing aminoacids. I t promotes roots and nodule development inlegumes. Therefore, proper management of i r r igat ion,F Y M and sulphur, is essential for increasing the quali tyand product iv i ty o f chickpea.

A f ie ld experiment was conducted at the RegionalSugarcane Research Station, Anand Agr icu l tu ra lUnivers i ty , Thasra, on sandy clay loam soi l dur ing rabiseason of the year 2002-2003. The soi l was l ow inorganic matter (0.37%) and ni trogen (0.032%), med iumin available P (32.5 kg ha-1) and h igh in available K (296kg ha-1) w i t h pH 7.9. The experiment was conducted inspl i t -p lot design w i t h four repl ications, comprised o f t w olevels o f i r r igat ion and F Y M each in ma in plots and threelevels of sulphur in sub plots. The crop (var iety I CC C 4)was sown in rows 30 cm apart w i t h 60 kg seed ha-1. One

ICPN 12, 2005 23

pre-sowing i r r igat ion of 100 mm depth was g iven beforethe layout was done and later on one i r r igat ion was g ivenat flowering as per treatment (60 mm depth). The cropwas sown on 31 October 2002, and harvested on 1 March2003 and 7 March 2003 for the treatments of on ly pre-sowing i r r igat ion and i r r igat ion at pre-sowing plusf lower ing stage, respectively. N was applied in the fo rmof urea, whereas P and S were applied in the form ofd iammonium phosphate and gypsum, respectively. N content in seeds was estimated by micro-k je ldhal 'smethod (Jackson 1973). Protein content in seeds wascalculated by mu l t i p l y i ng N-content of seed (%) w i t h theconversion factor of 6.25. Sulphur content in seed wasestimated by Turbidmetr ic method (Chaudhary andCornf ie ld 1966). N, P, K and S contents in soi l sampleswere determined through procedures described byJackson (1973). Soi l moisture at 30 cm depth onf lower ing (50 D A S ) and pod development (90 D A S )stages were recorded in each treatment w i t h T D R soi lmoisture meter.

There was a signif icant effect of i r r igat ion on growth ,y ie ld attributes, y ie ld and qual i ty o f chickpea (Tab le1 ) .App l ica t ion of two irr igat ions each at pre-sowing and atf lower ing stage recorded signi f icant ly higher number ofbranches per plant, number of pods per plant, grain andstraw yields. Simi lar results were also observed bySharma (1994). Qual i ty parameters such as protein andsulphur contents in grain were also higher under twoirr igat ions. The postharvest available soi l nutrients suchas N, K2O and S, were unaffected due to irrigation schedule,wh i le postharvest available P2O5 was signi f icant ly higherunder I , (Table 1). Mois ture content in soi l at f lower ingstage (50 D A S ) and at pod development stage (90 D A S )differed signif icantly due to irr igat ion treatments and thesewere recorded considerably higher under I1 than under I0treatment.

Number of branches per plant increased due toappl icat ion o f F Y M . This resulted i n more number o fpods per plant, test weight and thereby more grain andstraw yields. The protein content also improvedsigni f icant ly, whereas sulphur content in grain wasunaffected. Further, the F Y M appl icat ion increased themoisture retention of soi l and the postharvest availablesoi l n i t rogen and phosphorus. Ava i lab le soi l potassiumand sulphur content d id not di f fer much. F Y Msignif icant ly improved the soi l moisture content recordedat f lower ing and pod development stages.

Sulphur appl icat ion in chickpea had important effecton almost a l l attributes. Number of branches and numberof pods per plant as w e l l as total gra in and straw yieldsimproved up to S1 (20 kg S ha-1), but was at par w i t h S2

Table 2. Moisture content (v/v) in soil as influenced by I x F interaction

Moisture content (v/v)

At flowering stageTreatment (50 DAS)

Irrigation (1) F0 F1

l0 62.2 74.2l1 70.3 77.2CD (P = 0.05) 3.4

At pod developmentstage (90 DAS)

Fo F1

35.6 42.051.5 54.9

1.3

(40 kg S ha-1). App l ica t ion of sulphur @ 40 kg ha-1

recorded higher protein and sulphur contents than ingrain w i t h 20 and 0 kg S ha-1 (Tab le1) . The differences inpostharvest available nutrients such as ni t rogen,phosphorus and potassium, were not observed due tosulphur appl icat ion, wh i le , the postharvest S content washigher under 40 kg S ha-1 than in 20 and 0 kg S ha-1.Further, moisture content in soi l at f lower ing stage (50D A S ) was higher in plots at 40 kg S ha-1, wh i le , at poddevelopment stage (90 D A S ) , i t was unaffected due tosulphur appl icat ion (Ram Har i and D w i v e d i 1992).

As regards to effect o f i r r igat ion x F Y M interaction(Table 2) w i t h respect to moisture content in soi l at poddevelopment stage (90 D A S ) , the combinat ion I1F1

showed higher moisture content than in the othertreatment combinat ions, wh i le , at f lower ing stage (50D A S ) , moisture content remained at par due to w i t h orw i thout appl icat ion o f i r r igat ion i n presence o f F Y M . Theappl icat ion o f F Y M improved the moisture content a tf lower ing (50 D A S ) and pod development stages (90D A S ) even in the absence or presence of i r r igat ion. Thismigh t be due to organic manure's ( F Y M ) role to improvethe physical condi t ion of the soi l and increase the water-ho ld ing capacity o f the soi l .

Conclusion

It could be inferred from the present study that appl icat ionof two irr igat ions (one at pre-sowing and second atf lower ing stage) w i t h the appl icat ion of F Y M @ 10tonnes and sulphur 20 kg ha- 1 can increase the y ie ld ofchickpea.

References

Chaudhary JA and Cornfield A H . 1966. The determinationof total sulphur in soil and plant material. Analyst 11:521-530.

24 1CPN 12, 2005

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L . ) occupies a unique posi t ionin pulse crops due to its seed protein content and wideadaptabil i ty as a food grain. India contributes to about80% o f the total w o r l d product ion o f chickpea. A l though ,a valuable source of protein, chickpea is k n o w n tosynthesize certain ant i -nutr i t ional factors such aspolyphenols, wh ich cause damage to intestinal tract andlowers feed eff iciency in animals. However , thesepolyphenols can be who l l y or part ly removed byprocessing (Singh 1988). Soaking seeds is one suchmethod of processing and this note is intended towards it .Seeds o f varieties o f chickpea, v iz . , B G D 237, S A K I93130 and ICC 11320, were procured f rom the PulseResearch Station, A land , Gulbarga, Karnataka, India.The seeds were soaked in d ist i l led water for 6, 12 and 18h, and in 2% solut ion of c i t r ic acid, sodium bicarbonateand mixed salt solut ion (MSS) of 1.5% sodiumbicarbonate, 0.5% sodium carbonate and 0.75% ci t r icacid for 18 h at room temperature. Polyphenols weredetermined in tr ipl icate of a l l treated seed samples bymethod of Fo l in and Denis (1915).

Soaking of chickpea seeds resulted in signif icant lossof polyphenols in a l l the three varieties. Greater losseswere observed when the seeds were soaked in MSS(Table 1). Deshpande and Cheryan (1985) have reportedsimi lar losses in polyphenols for dry bean (Phaseolusvulgaris) seeds when soaked in d is t i l led water, sodiumbicarbonate and MSS. Nearly 50% reduction in polyphenolsof chickpea due to overnight soaking in water is reportedby Rao and Deosthale (1982). The losses resul t ing fromsoaking may be due to leaching out of polyphenols intothe soaking media. The phenol ic compounds have beendetected in leacheates of chickpea seeds by Rajkumar et

S Paramjyothi and B Anjali (Department of Biochemistry,

Gulbarga University, Gulbarga 585 106, Karnataka, India)

Effect o f Soak ing Seeds on Polyphenols

o f C h i c k p e a

Jackson M L . 1973. Soil Chemical Analysis. New Delhi,India: Prentice Hall of India Pvt Ltd.

Ram Har i and Dwivedi K N . 1992. Effect of source and levelof sulphur on yield and grain quality of chickpea. IndianJournal of Agronomy 37(1):112-114.

Sharma RS. 1994. Response of chickpea to irrigation andfertility levels under double cropping system. Indian Journal ofAgronomy 39(2):310-311.

Table 1. Effect of soaking seeds on loss of polyphenols of chickpea.

Treatment

Raw untreated seedsSoaked SeedsDH2O6 h12 h

18 h

2% Citric acid18 h

2% Sodium bicarbonate18 h 2% MSS18 h

Polyphenols (mg/100 g)

BGD 237

29.33 ± 0.57

26.70 ±0.61(9.01)

18.32 ±0.63(37.5)

16.00 ±0.10(45.4)

14.00 ± 1.02(52.3)

13.70 ±0.61(53.3)

11.27 ± 1.09(61.6)

SAKI 93130

51.68 ± 0.54

44.53 ± 0.84(13.8)

34.88 ± 0.98(32.6)

25.50 ± 0.57(50.7)

24.33 ± 1.75(52.9)

22.16 ±0.57(57.2)

20.25 ± 0.43(60.9)

ICC 11320

46.00 ± 0.86

41.58 ±0.55(9.6)

34.38 ± 1.73(25.3)

27.35 ± 1.30(40.6)

25.25 ± 0.26(45.2)

19.00 ± 1.02(58.7)

15.92 ± 1.13(65.4)

Values are mean ± standard deviat ion of t r ip l icate determinat ion. Values in the parentheses denote percent reduct ion over contro l .

al. (1979). The greater losses observed as a result ofsoaking in MSS or sodium bicarbonate may be due to theeffect of these chemicals in creating an ionic environment.Under such condit ions, changes in seed coat permeabi l i tymay be much greater and rapid thus a l lowing higher losses.

It may be concluded from this attempt that soakingchickpea seeds is the most simple and inexpensivemethod for br ing ing signif icant reduction in polyphenols.

References

Deshpande SS and Cheryan M. 1983. Changes in phytic acid,tannin and trypsin inhibitor activity on soaking of dry beans.Nutritional Report International 27:371-375.

Folin O and Denis W. 1915. A colorimetric estimation ofphenols (Phenol derivatives) in urine. Journal of BiologicalChemistry 22:305-308.

Rajkumar N, Reddy AN and Rao K N . 1979. Levels ofphenolic substances in the leacheates of Cicer seed. IndianJournal of Experimental Biology 17:114 - 116.

Rao VP and Deosthale Y G . 1982. Tannin content of pulses:varietal differences and effect of cooking and germination.Journal of Science of Food and Agriculture 33:1013-1016.

Singh U. 1988. Antinutritional factors of chickpea andpigeonpea and their removal by processing. Plant Foods forHuman Nutrit ion 38:251-256.

ICPN 12, 2005 25

Chickpea, Cicer arietinum L . , is a drought tolerantleguminous crop used in various foods in severaldeveloping countries, part icular ly in India as a source ofdietary protein. There is a b ig gap between the y ie ldrealized in experimental station (2200 kg ha-1) and thefarm y ie ld (1274 kg ha-1) in Andhra Pradesh. The majorconstraints responsible for this untapped y ie ld potentialare inappropriate product ion practices, v i z , usage of lowy ie ld ing and non-responsive genotypes, pest and diseaseproblems, lack of stress-resistant h igh-y ie ld ing genotypes,lack of improved soi l and crop management practices andlack of appropriate inst i tut ional support.

A Ramakrishna1,* , SP Wani1, Ch Srinivasa Rao1 andU Srinivas Reddy2 (1 . Global Theme-Agroecosystems,International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-AridTropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh,India; 2. Assistant Project Director-Engineering (APD-Eng.), Nandyal, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, India)* Corresponding author: a.ramakrishna@global.net.pg

Increased C h i c k p e a Y i e l d and Economic

Benefits by I m p r o v e d C r o p Produc t ion

Technology i n R a i n f e d Areas o f K u r n o o l

D is t r i c t o f A n d h r a Pradesh, I n d i a

The International Crops Research Inst i tute for theSemi -Ar id Tropics ( I C R I S A T ) and the Government o fAndhra Pradesh have in i t iated the Andhra Pradesh RuralL i ve l i hood Project ( A P R L P ) to help reduce rural povertyby increasing agr icul tural product iv i ty and improv ingl i ve l ihood opportunit ies through technical backstoppingand convergence through a consort ium of inst i tut ions.Watersheds were used as an entry point for research anddevelopment act ivi t ies.

Nandavaram and J i l le l la v i l lages of Banaganapallemandal in Kurnool district of Andhra Pradesh were selectedfor undertaking on-farm research. Systematically collectedsoi l samples from th i r ty farmers' f ields in Nandavaramand J i l le l la watersheds on a toposequence were analyzedfor physical and b io log ica l parameters and variousnutrients. The soi l analysis indicated that the fields in thetwo watersheds were l ow in N (496 and 333 mg kg- 1 soi l ) ,l o w to med ium in available P (5.71 and 2.72 mg kg- 1 soi l )(Olsen's P), h igh in exchangeable K (223 and 178 mg kg-

1 soi l ) , and l o w in available Zn (0.39 and 0.24 mg kg- 1

soi l ) , S (7.52 and 4.09 mg kg-1 soi l ) and B (0.5 and 0.45mg kg- 1 soil). This cr i t ical informat ion aided in ident i fy ingbetter options to improve the chickpea y ie ld levels andfor sustaining natural resources.

Sixteen on-farm tr ials in 2002 and nine trials in 2003were conducted dur ing the postrainy season w i t h theobject ive to demonstrate the beneficial effects ofimproved product ion technologies over farmers practice.Improved product ion technology was compared w i t h thefarmers' method in an area of 1000 m2 in each of thefarmers' f ie lds. The improved technology packageincluded improved cul t ivar ( ICCC 37), a seed rate of 60kg ha-1, seed treatment w i t h th i ram (3 g kg-1 seed),inoculat ion w i t h rhizobium, a fert i l izer dose of 20 kg N and 50 kg P2O5 ha-1, basal appl icat ion of micro-nutr ientmix ture of 5 kg borax (0.5 kg B ha-1), 50 kg zinc sulphate(10 kg Zn ha-1) and 200 kg gypsum (30 kg S ha-1) perhectare together w i t h need-based pest and disease controlmeasures. T w o inter-cul t ivat ions at 25 and 50 days aftersowing to control weeds was taken up. One insecticidespray was g iven at pod format ion stage to contro l podborers. The fanners' method inc luded a local var iety, a seed rate of 50 kg ha-1 and a fert i l izer dose of 14 kg N and35 kg P2O5 ha-1. Ent i re dose of N and P was appl ied asbasal. The amount of ra in fa l l f rom June to December was708 mm dur ing 2002 and 504 mm dur ing 2003. The datawas analyzed separately for both years consider ingfarmers as replications using one-way A N O V A w i t hrandomized blocks on GenStat. Subsequently, pooledanalysis o f two year's data was carr ied out using two-wayA N O V A . The analysis o f variance indicated that

26 ICPN 12, 2005

ICPN 12, 2005 27

Sachdev P, Chatterjee SR and Deb DL. 1992. Seed yield,harvest index, protein content and amino acid composition ofchickpea as affected by sulphur and micronutriets. Annals ofAgricultural Research 13:7-11.

Shinde PB and Mane DA. 1996. Influence of balancedfertilizer application in improving yield of Bengal gram. Page24 in Strategies for increasing pulses production inMaharashtra (Wanjari KB , Raut BT and Potdukhe SR, eds.).Directorate of Research, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh KrishiVidyapeeth, Akola, Maharashtra, India.

Tamboli BD, Kadu PP, Patil TIN, Patil Y M , SomawanshiRB and Sonar KR. 1996. Fertilizer recommendations fordesired yields of chickpea on Vertisols. Page 24 in Strategiesfor increasing pulses production in Maharashtra (Wanjari KB ,Raut BT and Potdukhe SR, eds.). Directorate of Research, Dr.Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola, Maharashtra,India.

Thiyagarajan T M , Backiyavathy MR and Savithri P. 2003.Nutrient management for p u l s e s - a review. AgriculturalReviews 24:40-48.

References

improved the y ie ld of chickpea by 47 percent andmonetary returns by Rs 7676 (US$171) per hectare overcontrol . The results f rom the current study clearly broughtout the potential of improved product ion technology inenhancing chickpea product ion and economic gains inthe dry ecoregions of Andhra Pradesh.

Acknowledgments. We grateful ly acknowledge theAndhra Pradesh Rural L ive l ihoods Project (APRLP) /D F I D for f inancial assistance and al l the farmers for theiroverwhelming support in conduct ing the tr ials.

management practices ( improved crop product iontechnology and farmers practice) dif fered signif icant ly inboth years (P=<0.001-0.008), as we l l as in the combinedanalysis (P=<0.001). The year and year x managementwere non-signif icant (data not given).

The improved product ion technology gave highergrain yields and recorded a mean y ie ld of 2.09 t ha-1

which was 53% higher than that obtained w i t h farmers'practice yields of 1.37 t ha-1 (Table 1). The increasedgrain y ie ld w i t h improved product ion technology wasmain ly because of increased total dry matter, higher 100-grain weight and harvest index (Table 2). Y i e l d increasein response to fert i l izer recommendations was alsoreported by Tambol i et a l . (1996).

The economic v iab i l i t y o f improved technology overthe tradit ional farmers' practice was calculated dependingon prevai l ing prices of input and output costs. Theaddit ional cost of US$56 ha-1 (Table 1) incurred in theimproved technology as compared to farmers practicewas main ly due to balanced fert i l izat ion (micro-nutr ientsand addit ional N and P), addit ional seed cost, seedtreatment, I P M and one addit ional inter-cul t ivat ion.However, the improved technology resulted in increasedmean income of US$190 w i t h a cost-benefit rat io of 2.9(Table 1). Th is addi t ional income cou ld substantial lybenefit the resource poor farmers and improve theirl ivel ihoods in the dry regions o f Ku rnoo l distr ict o fAndhra Pradesh. Thiyagarajan et al . (2003) reported thatthe use o f sulphur and micronutr ients (Zn , B, Mo and Fe)improved product iv i ty of pulse crops considerably.Balanced nut r i t ion is indispensable for achieving higherproduct iv i ty . Sachdev et al . (1992) obtained increasedgrain y ie ld and harvest index of chickpea due to balancedfert i l izat ion. Shinde and Mane (1996) reported that thebalanced appl icat ion of fert i l izers based on so i l testing

Table 2. Yield components of chickpea in on-farm trials, Nandavaram and Jillella watersheds, Kurnool district, AndhraPradesh, postrainy season 2002 and 2003.

Total dry matter (t ha-1)

Cultivation method 2002

Improved Production technology 3.76Farmers' practice 2.83SE+ 0.12C V % 14.6LSD(5%) 0.36

2003

3.852.740.087.50.27

Pooled

3.802.800.08

12.60.24

100 grain weight (g)

2002

18.9317.220.347.51.02

2003

19.4117.740.345.41.10

Pooled

19.1017.410.256.80.73

Harvest Index

2002

0.570.500.018.90.04

2003

0.530.470.018.00.04

Pooled

0.550.490.018.60.03

either on agar plus Murashige & Skoog (1962) SaltM i x tu re (M5524 , Sigma, St Lou is , MO U S A ) or on agar(D i fco Bacto agar, Fisher Scientif ic, U S A ) mediumalone. The culture vessels (Magenta GA-7 -3 , Sigma, StLouis , MO U S A ) were then placed under cool -whi tefluorescent l ights unt i l radicle emergence. Plantlets wereleft on agar unt i l the shoots were between 2-5 cm long.

An experiment was conducted to test the effects ofMurashige and Skoog (1962) mineral nutrients plus agarvs. unamended agar on germinat ion. The percentagegerminat ion was simi lar; however, MS nutr ient amendedagar reduced root g rowth (data not shown).

The vessels containing the plantlets were thenpart ia l ly opened to begin a 2 or 3 day accl imat ion atlower relative humid i ty . Plantlets were then pul led fromthe agar and their roots dipped in a fungicidal slurry(Captan, Gustafson, Plano, TX U S A ) before transplantingto 18 cm flats (Rootrainers, Hummert , Earth C i ty , MOU S A ) f i l l ed w i t h soil-less plant ing m i x (Sunshine M i xAggregate Plus Blend #4, SunGro, Bel levue, WA U S A )w i t h added coarse perl i te (#2 sieve, Therm-o-rock,Chandler, AZ U S A ) . The planted flats were moved to a humid i ty -cont ro l led chamber constructed on a greenhouse bench. Plastic sheeting, 67% l ight-reducingshade fabric ( P A K Woven Shade Fabric, Hummert , EarthCi ty , MO U S A ) and a humid i f ier (Mode l 500, Hummert ,St. Lou is , MO U S A ) were used to maintain a cooleratmosphere w i t h constant relat ive humid i t y . In i t ia lhumid i t y settings were between 75 -80% w i t h a steadydecline to approximately 50% over the course of 4 to 5 days. The seedlings were able to tolerate the ambienthumid i ty after f ive days and were moved to an opengreenhouse bench covered w i t h shade fabric. Thegreenhouse condit ions were 21°C day/15.5°C nighttemperature, no humid i t y contro l , and 16 h day length.

The Cicer plants were retained there for a few weeksand the plants grew robust enough to withstand theoutdoor condit ions. Later, the plants were moved to anoutdoor lathe house to harden the seedlings for at leasttwo weeks before p lant ing in the f ield. The seedlingswere hand-planted on either side of a central i r r igat iondr ip l ine w i t h emitters next to each plant.

This procedure prov ided un i fo rm germinat ion of mostof the perennial Cicer accessions, except C. montbretii (Table 1). Asept ic germinat ion of perennial chickpea onwater agar is a fast and eff icient method to provide a un i fo rm set of transplants for f ield regenerations, andalso to offer suff icient un i fo rm seedlings for replicatedscreenings to detect resistance to biot ic and/or abioticstresses. Once established, graft ing may also be useful insupply ing plants for resistance testing experiments (Chen

28 ICPN 12, 2005

The germplasm col lect ion at the U S D A A R S Nat ionalPlant Germplasm System includes chickpea that consistsof cul t ivated Cicer arietinum accessions containinggenetic diversi ty immediately accessible for breeding,and w i l d Cicer species that may be of importance in thefuture as sources of genes for resistance to biot ic andabiotic stresses. The w i l d Cicer species in the col lect ioninclude 113 accessions of seven annual w i l d Cicer species and 59 accessions of 13 perennial Cicer species(available onl ine a t www.ars-gr in .gov/npgs) . At U S D A -A R S , located in Pul lman, WA U S A , in earlier years, seedaeration technique was used to promote germinat ion inperennial Cicer species. N Kameswara Rao has used invitro germinat ion on water agar to un i fo rmly germinateannual w i l d Cicer species (personal communicat ion2000).

In the present study, an in vitro germinat ion methodwas examined as an alternative method to provide un i formgerminat ion of the perennial species w i t h the goal ofestablishing a nursery for regeneration and evaluation ofinter- and intra-accession genetic var iab i l i ty . Twenty -eight accessions of nine perennial species were surfacedisinfested, scarified, and cultured under sterile condit ionson water agar. The average germinat ion of 25 accessionsof eight species was 82% in 2001 w i t h a range of 43 to100%. T w o accessions of C. montbretii failed to germinatein vitro. In 2002, an addit ional 13 accessions weresuccessfully germinated w i t h the same method (data notshown) and three accessions of C. montbretii fa i led togerminate on water agar.

Seeds to be germinated were surface disinfested w i t h a 30 sec d ip in 9 5 % ethanol fo l lowed by 10 m i n in 0.6%NaCIO (100% commercial bleach) w i t h drops o f thedetergent Tween 80 (Sigma, St. Lou is , MO U S A ) . Af tersurface disinfestations, the seeds were soaked in sterilewater for 1-5 days, or unt i l they soften enough to scarifyusing a sterile scalpel. Scarif ied seed were then placed

CJ Coyne1*, T Sharp-Vincent1, MJ Cash man1, CAWatt 1, W Chen2, FJ Muehlbauer2 and NaliniMallikarjuna 3 (1. USDA-ARS Western Regional Plant

Introduction Unit, Washington State University, Pullman,

WA 99164-6402, USA; 2. USDA-ARS, Grain Legume

Genetics and Physiology Unit, Washington State University,

Pullman, WA 99164-6434, USA; 3. ICRISAT, Patancheru

502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India)

* Corresponding author: coynec@wsu.edu

A me thod for g e r m i n a t i n g pe renn ia l

Cicer species

et al . 2004). As reported by Kaiser et a l . (1997) , co ld

treatment f o l l owed by aeration of C. montbretti seed in

fresh water fai led to promote germinat ion. At I C R I S A T ,

Patancheru, India, seedlings of C. montbretii were rout inely

established f o l l o w i n g normal germinat ion procedures.

(Anonymous communicat ion) , and plants of C.

montbretti were established at Pu l lman, WA U S A , in the

early 1990s us ing an unpubl ished germinat ion procedure

(Hel l ie r , personal communicat ion) . Further research is

needed to improve surface disinfestat ion of the seed to

reduce losses f r o m fungal and bacterial contaminat ion

(rotted seed), and compare this method w i th (1) aeration in

fresh water and (2) ICRISAT procedures in germinat ion

ef f ic iency and ef f icacy. A technique to achieve seed

germinat ion in C. montbretii has to be developed.

Acknowledgments. The Land Inst i tute is gratefu l ly

acknowledged for Natural Systems Agr icu l tu re Graduate

Chen W, McPhee KE and Muehlbauer FJ. 2004. Use ofgrafting to study chickpea resistance to ascochyta blight.International Chickpea and Pigeonpea Newsletter 11:39-41.

Kaiser W J , Hellier BC , Hannan RM and Muehlbauer FJ.1997. Growing techniques in conservation of wi ld perennialCicer species in US Pacific Northwest. International Chickpeaand Pigeonpea Newsletter 4:7-9.

Murashige T and Skoog F. 1962. A revised medium for rapid

growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol

Plant 15:473-497.

ICPN 12, 2005 29

References

Research Fel lowships to T Vincent-Sharp and C Watt .

This project was supported by A R I S Project 5348-

21000-020-00 and A I D - I C R I S A T - U S D A Linkage A R I S

Project 5348-21000-014-02.

Table 1. Results of aseptic germination of perennial Cicer species on water agar after seed surface disinfestat ion andscarification at USDA-ARS, Pullman, in 2001.

Accession

Number

PI 383626PI 561078PI 599087PI 557453PI 599079

PI 599080PI 599081

PI 532928PI 593718PI 593719PI 599061

PI 599082PI 599083PI 599084PI 599088PI 599089

PI 599093PI 599085W6 11516PI 561084

PI 561103PI 599053

PI 504550PI 510657PI 510664

PI 599090PI 599091

Genus

CicerCicerCicerCicerCicerCicerCicerCicer

Cicer

CicerCicerCicerCicerCicerCicer

CicerCicerCicer

CicerCicerCicerCicer

CicerCicerCicerCicerCicer

Species

anatolicumanatolicumanatolicumcanariensemacracanthummacracanthummacracanthummicrophyllum

microphyllum

microphyllummicrophyllummicrophyllummicrophyllummicrophyllummicrophyllummicrophyllum

microphyllum

multijugummultijugumoxyodonoxyodonsongaricum

yamashitaeyamashitaeyamashitaemontbretiimonthretii

Seedquantity

30303030303030

3030

3030

3030303030

3030

303030303030303030

Germinated

2414171323282527

28272729

30272429

2827

3027

251328302100

%

Germinated

80.0%

46.7%56.7%

43.3%76.7%

93.3%83.3%90.0%93.3%90.0%90.0%96.7%

100.0%90.0%80.0%96.7%

93.3%90.0%

100.0%90.0%

83.3%43.3%93.3%

100.0%70.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Number

Rotted1

4

8

30212

3011

00020

0000

10

1

01

%

Rotted

13.3%26.7%10.0%

0.0%6.7%3.3%6.7%

10.0%0.0%

3.3%3.3%

0.0%0.0%0.0%6.7%0.0%

0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%

3.3%0.0%

3.3%0.0%

3.3%

1. Seed was scored as rotted if contaminated in vitro w i t h a micro-organism, usual ly fungal or bacterial in appearance.

Figure 1. Inhibition zone produced by the ethyl acetate extract of Arachniotus sp and benlate against F. oxysporum f. sp. ciceris.

30 ICPN 12, 2005

More than 50 pathogens of chickpeas have been reportedin different part of the w o r l d (Nene 1980), but the mostimportant of them are ascochyta b l ight and fusarium w i l t .Chickpea w i l t caused by Fusarium oxysporum Schlecht.emnd Synd. & Hans. f. sp. ciceris (Padwick) Matuo andK Sato, (FOC), is reported from all areas of chickpeacul t ivat ion in the wo r l d . Bo th the diseases are reported tocause substantial y ie ld losses to the crop (Ha l i la et al.1984) and are h ighly influenced by environmentalcondit ions, being prevalent in warm and dryenvironments. In Pakistan, w i l t is a major problem inTha l area where most of the chickpea crop is cult ivated.Due to the absence of true resistance in chickpea against

Iftikhar A Khan 1, S Sarwar Alam1.* , M Sarwar1,M Jahangir Iqbal 3 and Abdul Jabbar2 (1 . NuclearInstitute for Agriculture and Biology, PO Box 128 Jhangroad Faisalabad, Pakistan; 2. Department of Chemistry,Islamia University, Bahawalpur, Pakistan; 3. Universityof the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan)*Corresponding author: drssalam@yahoo.com

An t i f unga l Metabo l i tes f r o m Arachniotus

sp for the C o n t r o l o f W i l t Disease o f

Ch i ckpea

w i l t disease and a continuous problem of the occurrence/development of new pathogenic races (Jimenez-Diaz etal. 1989), it has become very d i f f icu l t to overcome they ie ld losses. Arachniotus sp has successfully been usedas bio-contro l agent for the control of w i l t (Ansar et al.1996a,b) and other diseases of chickpea in f ie ldconditions (Saleem et al. 2000). The bioactive metabolitesfrom antagonistic micro-organisms can be successfullyused to control the microb ia l diseases (Momose et al.1998).

Fungal metabolites were produced by the procedurereported by Khan et al (2001). Arachniotus sp (whi teisolate) was g rown on l iqu id min imal medium (100 m L )taken in roux bottles for 14 days in dark at 25°C. Theculture filtrates (85 m L ) was harvested by f i l ter ing andsqueezing the contents of the bottles through musl in c loth(A lam and Khan 1996), pH of the culture filtrates wasadjusted to 3.0 using di lute hydrochlor ic acid and thenextracted in ha l f the vo lume of ethyl acetate three times.Ethy l acetate phase was dried over anhydrous sodiumsulphate and then concentrated on rotary evaporator todryness and the contents were dissolved in 1.0 ml ofethanol (A l am and Strange 1992). Ant i - fungal assayagainst a v irulent w i l t causing isolate of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris, 2012 (Khan et al. 2002) wasdone by disc di f fusion method as described by Jacobyand Archer (1991). E thy l acetate extracts (50 m l ) waspoured in the metal l ic we l l (1.0 cm outer diameter)placed in the center of pre-inoculated PDA plates(inoculated w i t h 5 0 m l o f spore suspension o f 1 x 1 04

Pathology

Table 1. Effect of ethyl acetate phase of Arachniotus sp. and benlate on the colony growth of F. oxysporum f. sp.ciceris.

S.No.

I .2.3.

Treatment * Inhibition zone (cm)

EtoAc Phase (50 l) of Arachniotus sp 2.1±0.115Benlate (1000 ppm) 3.2±0.00Control 0.0±0.00

Percent inhibition

3 0 %4 6 %0.0 %

Inner diameter of the petr i dish was 7.0 cm.

*mean of the three repl ications

spores/ml of FOC isolate) in three replicates. Ethanol (50ml ) was used as contro l , wh i le benlate (1000 ppm) wasalso tested as reference fungicide. The plates were incubatedat 25°C for 7 days and the act iv i ty was determined bymeasuring the diameter of inh ib i t ion zones produced.

The bioassay revealed that the ethyl acetate phase ofArachniotus sp produced inh ib i t ion zones against F.oxysporum f. sp. ciceris isolate ( F i g . 1 ) . Benlate solut ionproduced 3.2 cm average inh ib i tory zone (46% inh ib i t ionas compared to control) at 1000 ppm concentration,wh i le 2.1 cm average zones (30% inh ib i t ion) wereproduced by the ethyl acetate extract of Arachniotus sp at50 ml concentration, wh i ch was equivalent to 4.25 ml ofculture f i l t rates, against the FOC isolate (Tab le1) . On theother hand, the act iv i ty produced by 4.25 ml of culturefiltrates of Arachniotus sp is equivalent to 625 ppm ofbenlate. No inh ib i t ion zones were produced by thecontrol treatments. Results concluded that the metabolitesproduced by Arachniotus sp. were active against F.oxysporum f. sp. ciceris and may be used to manage w i l tdisease either by seed treatment or through soil treatments.

References

Alam SS and Khan IA . 1996. Phytotoxins from Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceri involved in wi l t of chickpea. Pak J Phytopath 8:132-135.

Alam SS and Strange RN. 1992. Phytotoxins in chickpeablight. Pages 200-208 in Proceedings of the National SymposiumStatus of Plant Pathology in Pakistan, University of Karachi,3-5 December 1991. Pakistan: Shamim Printing Press.

Ansar M, Akhtar C M , Ahmad R and Alam SS. 1996a. Effectof Arachniotus sp. along with soil amendments in the controlof chickpea wi l t caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceri. Pak J Phytopath 8:37-39.

ICPN 12, 2005 31

Ansar M, Akhtar C M , Ahmed R and Alam SS. 1996b. Effectof Arachniotus sp and organic substrate on chickpea wi l tdisease caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceri. Pak J Phytopath 8:40-42.

Halila H M , Girdley HE and Houdiald P. 1984. Sources ofresistance to fusarium wi l t in kabuli chickpea. InternationalChickpea Newsletter 10:13-14.

Jacoby GA and Archer GL . 1991. New mechanisms ofbacterial resistance to antimicrobial agents. J Medicine 324:601-602.

Jimenez Diaz R M , Trapero Casas A and Cabreva de Lacolina J. 1989. Races of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceri infecting chickpea in southern Spain. Pages 515-520 inVascular wi l t diseases of plants (Tjamos EC and Beckman CH,eds.). NATO AS1 Ser H, vol 28. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

Khan IA , Alam SS and Jabbar A. 2001. Standardization ofmedium for the production of maximum phytotoxic activity byFusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris. Pak J Biol Sci 4:1374-76.

Khan IA , Jabbar A and Alam SS. 2002. Genetic variationamong Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris isolates in Pakistanas determined by biological pathotyping and vegetativecompatibility. Pak J Botany 34:433-440.

Momose I, Chen W, Kinoshita N, Iinuma H, Hamad M andTakeuchi T. 1998. Polyketomycin a new antibiotic fromstreptomycets sp M I K 277-AF1. J Antibiotics 51:21-25.

Nene Y L . 1980. Diseases of chickpea. Pages 171-178 inProceedings of International Workshop on ChickpeaImprovement, 28 February-2 March 1979, ICRlSAT, India.Patancheru, AP 502 324, India: International Crops ResearchInstitute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.

Saleem A, Hamid K and Jamil FF. 2000. Biological controlof root and collar rot of chilies. Pak J Phytopathology 12:87-94.

32 ICPN 12, 2005

Heavy infestation o f both root-knot nematode and w i l tfungus on common host chickpea has a synergistic effectin the farmers' f ie lds around Al lahabad. The presentinvest igat ion was carried out under pot t r ia l in a glasshouse w i t h the objective to manage the diseasecomplex through ecofr iendly methods. The managementcomponents for this were fungal bioagents (Paecilomyces lilacinus and Trichoderma viride), V A - M y c o r r h i z a l andneem oilseed cake under glasshouse condi t ion. Onuproot ing the affected chickpea plants from the affectedfarmers' f ields w i t h heavy infect ion of root galls, thepresence of w i l t fungus, Fusarium oxysporum f. sp.ciceri, and galls of root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita (Race-1) was conf i rmed. A pre l iminary pott r ia l w i t h both M. incognita and F. oxysporum f. sp. ciceri on chickpea (cv H-108) conf i rmed synergistic effect onthe host. This prel iminary tr ial for establishment of diseasecomplex w i t h the above pathogens was done in 15-cmearthen pots f i l led w i t h sandy loam soi l in September2003.

On establishment of the disease complex, themanagement experiment was carried out. The simulta-neously inoculated treatment showing synergistic effectwas taken as contro l w i t h each of the treatments wheremanagement components were t r ied (Tab le1) . The w o r kwas carried out w i t h neem oilseed cake, fungal bioagentsand vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizas (Glomus

fasciculatum). Whi le the last component of the managementt r ia l , ie, V A M was isolated f rom the affected chickpeafield; the t w o fungal bioagents and the neem oilseed cakewere procured f rom fungal bioagents laboratory in theD i v i s i o n o f Nemato logy. A l l the three managementcomponents were tested ind iv idua l l y as w e l l ascol lect ive ly in 15-cm earthen pots f i l led w i t h autoclavedsandy loam so i l , to each o f w h i c h both the pathogens (Mincognita + Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceri) wereg iven pr ior treatment simultaneously as contro l (M. incognita + Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceri, Tab les1and 2). A week before sowing of seeds, inoculat ions ofM. incognita 2 larvae/g soi l was done wh i l e about 100

Rajesh Kumar Pandey, BK Goswami and SatyendraSingh (Division of Nematology, Indian AgriculturalResearch Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India)* Corresponding author: goswami_bk@yahoo.co.in

M a n a g e m e n t o f roo t k n o t nematode

a n d f u s a r i u m w i l t disease complex by

funga l bioagents, neem oilseed cake

and /o r V A - M y c o r r h i z a on ch ickpea

chlamydospores of G fasciculatum were added to eachof the Mycor rh iza l treatments. T w o weeks pr ior tosowing, the dosage of neem oilseed cake was 0.5% w / w .B o t h the fungal bioagents were appl ied to respectivetreatment in each pot a long w i t h sowing of chickpeaseeds in talc based formulat ions w i t h spore load of12x108/g. Adequate control const i tut ing al l thecomponents (Tab les1 and 2) were also maintained.

The observations w i t h respect to plant g rowthparameters, y ie ld , number of nodules and alsoch lorophy l l contents of each treatment were recordedafter 90 days of f inal inoculat ion along w i t h thepopulat ion o f root knot nematode, w i l t percentage,mycorrh iza l colonizat ion percentage in root and also thepopulat ion o f V A M chlamydospores. Thus, i n general, asis clear from Tables 1 and 2, there is a signif icantimprovement of plant g rowth parameters and also thereduction in the disease incidence inc lud ing suppressionof M. incognita populat ion in the treatments where morethan one management component was used. The bestperformance, however, among the combined treatmentswas observed in the treatment const i tut ing V A M , oilseedcake and both bioagents together fo l lowed by thetreatment w i t h V A M coupled w i t h both bioagents. Foryears, attempts have been made to reduce the diseaseincidence through combinat ion of either oil-seed cakeand nematicide. References are available where eitheroilseed cake and nematicides (Singh 1965) or oilseedcake and fungal bioagents were appl ied, and the dualappl icat ion of botanical antagonist w i t h o i l seed cakewere noted. The present invest igat ion focuses on morethan t w o management components for two plantpathogens, i.e., root knot nematode and w i l t fungus, bothinfect ing common host chickpea. The cumulat ive effectof neem oilseed cake, G. fasciculatum and both fungalbioagents in reduced dose exhibi ted most promis ingresults in reducing root knot nematode populat ion andalso the intensity of the w i l t fungus (Table 1). The sametreatment also revealed an outstanding improvement inplant v igor , wh i ch is s igni f icant ly superior to oilseedcake treatment.

The discovery o f an excellent recovery o f chickpeaplants from both M. incognita and F. oxysporum f. sp.ciceri is attr ibuted to the j o i n t reaction of neem oilseedcake, w h i c h possesses both fungicidal (S ingh and Singh1970) and nematic idal properties (Goswami and Swarup1972). Th is is supplemented w i t h the biopest ic idalproperties of both the fungal bioagents used w i t h theg rowth hormonal character of T. viride (Chang et a l .1986). V A M , w h i c h in general occur abundantly aroundthe rhizosphere of pulse crops ( A l l e n 1991), is also

Table 1. Effect of G. fasciculatum, T. viride, P. lilacinus, neem oil-seed cake individually and together on diseas e complexcaused by root-knot nematode and wilt fungus, with resp ect to plant growth characters, chlorophyll content, yield and testweight of chickpea.

Treatment

Glomus fasciculatum + C (N+F)

T. viride + C

P. lilacinus + C

Neem oilseed cake + C

G. fasciculatum + T. viride + C

G. fasciculatum + P. lilacinus + C

G. fasciculatum + Neem oilseed

cake + C

G. fasciculatum + T. viride +

P. lilacinus + C

G fasciculatum + T. viride +

P. lilacinus + Neem oilseed cake + C

Control (N + F)

CD at 5%

Shoot

length

(cm)

25.8

23.3

22.2

20.7

38.6

37.5

39.7

41.6

44.9

16.5

2.20

Shoot

weight

(g)

21.8

19.3

17.6

14.7

35.7

32.1

36.2

37.5

39.2

11.5

3.63

Root

length

(cm)

18.4

17.3

15.6

14.5

22.5

21.7

23.2

23.7

25.2

12.5

2.50

Root

weight

(g)

10.8

10.1

8.7

8.2

13.6

13.2

13.5

15.2

16.8

6.5

1.13

Chlorophyll

contents

(mg/g)

26.7

26.3

25.9

25.8

27.2

27.1

27.2

27.9

28.2

20.7

0.01

No o f

bacterial

nodules

42

37

36

36

56

52

54

64

69

16

3.92

No o f

pods/

plant

31

29

27

28

35

34

36

47

56

18

3.16

100 seed

weight

(test weight)

17.5

17.1

16.8

16.2

18.5

18.3

18.2

26.8

31.8

11.8

2.11

C = Contro l (M. incognita + Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceri)

ICPN 12, 2005 33

Table 2. Effect of G. fasciculatum, T. viride, P. lilacinus, neem oil-seed cake individually and together on dise ase complex

caused by root-knot nematode and wilt fungus, with respe ct to nematode population, wilt percentage, and colo nization and

chlamydospores formation of V A M .

Treatment

Glomus fasciculatum + C (N+F)T. viride + C

P. lilacinus + C

Neem oilseed cake + C

G. fasciculatum + T. viride + C G. fasciculatum + P. lilacinus + C

G. fasciculatum + Neem oilseed cake + C

G. fasciculatum + T. viride + P. lilacinus + G. fasciculatum + T. viride + P. lilacinus +

Neem oilseed cake + C Control (N + F)

CD at 5%

No. of

galls/plants

8

1113

164

5

4

C 3 -

38

2.35

Eggmass/plant

1.81.9

2.1

2.60.20.3

0.20.1-

4.8

0.12

Soilpopulation/

500g.

125.8(11.1)147(12.1)153(12.3)167(12.9)117(10.8)

121(11)120(10.9)

107(10.3)73 (8.5)

1575(39.6)

3.72

Wilt

percentage

23.8

27.329.636.7

21.122.623.4

8.6

-

73.5

4.82

Colonization

% o f

V A M

46.7

---

53.6

57.269.1

72.179.6

-6.73

Chlamydosporespopulation of

G. fasciculatum/

100 g soil

417.8(20.4)

--_

369.5 (19.2)

348.6(18.6)485.6 (22.0)

450.5(21.2)528.7 (22.9)

-1.23

Figures in parenthesis is the t ransformed value, C = Cont ro l (M, incognita + Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceri)

34 ICPN 12, 2005

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L . ) is an important wintergrain legume sown under rainfed condit ions in Pakistan.Average y ie ld of chickpea in Pakistan is s l ight ly above500 kg ha- 1 (GOP 2003) that is lower than its actual y ie ldpotential (Haqqani et a l . 2000). Ascochyta b l igh t causedby Ascochyta rabiei (Pass) Lab is the most devastatingdisease of chickpea. The disease is w ide l y prevalent inthe chickpea g row ing areas of the w o r l d (Nene et al .1996).

SM Iqbal*, A Bakhash, SR Mal ik and AM Haqqani(Pulses Programme, National Agricultural ResearchCentre (NARC), PO N I H , Park Road, Islamabad 45500,Pakistan)* Corresponding author: iqbalsh65@hotmail.com

Screening o f C h i c k p e a L ines fo r

Resistance to Ascochyta B l igh t

Allen M F . 1991. The ecology of Mycorrhiza. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Bhagawati B, Goswami BK and Singh CS. 2000.Management of disease complex of tomato caused byMeloidogyne incognita and Fusarium oxysporum f splycopersici through bioagents. Indian J Nematol 30 (1): 16-22.

Chang Y C , Baker R, Kleifeld P and Chet I. 1986. Increasedgrowth of plants in the presence of the biological control agent,Trichoderma harzianum. Plant Disease 70:145-148.

Goswami BK and Swarup G. 1972. Effect of oil-seed cakeamended soil on the growth of tomato and root knot nematodepopulation. Indian Phytopath 24(3):491-494.

Singh RS. 1965. Control of root knot of tomato with organicsoil amendments. FAO Plant Prot Bul l 13:35-37.

Singh RS and Singh N. 1970. Effect of oil-cake amendment ofsoil on population of some wi l t causing species of fusarium.Phytopath Z 69 :160-167.

References

considered as one of the management components(protect ing the host from other root enemies byoccupy ing cort ical regions of the root) . Bhagawat i et al .(2000) have demonstrated that the combinat ion ofmustard oil-seed cake and V A M yie lded better result.The results o f this pre l iminary invest igat ion w i l l beconf i rmed under glasshouse and field condit ions.

Resistant varieties offer an economical solut ion tocombat this disease and reduce product ion losses. In thiscontext, 495 promis ing chickpea lines received from theInternational Center for Agr icu l tu ra l Research in the D ryAreas ( I C A R D A ) , Syria; Nat ional Agr icu l tu ra l ResearchCentre ( N A R C ) , Islamabad; Nuclear Institute forAgr icu l tu re and B io logy ( N I A B ) , Faisalabad; A r i d ZoneAgr icu l tu ra l Research Institute ( A Z R I ) , Bhakkar; andRegional Agr icu l tu ra l Research Institute ( R A R I ) ,Bahawalpur, Pakistan, were screened for resistance toascochyta b l ight at N A R C dur ing the crop season of2004-05.

Each entry was planted in a single row of 4 m longw i t h 30 cm row- to - row and 10 cm plant-to-plant spacing.A h igh ly susceptible cul t ivar A U G 424 was sown as a disease spreader and indicator after every five testentries. The genotypes were ar t i f ic ia l ly inoculated w i thdiseased crop debris collected fo rm the previous year.Add i t i ona l l y crop was inoculated w i t h spore suspension(5 x 104 spores mL- 1) . Inoculat ions were done in theevening hours on c loudy days, at the pref lower ing stage.H i g h humid i ty w h i c h is a prerequisite for diseaseepidemic was natural ly created by the continuous rainsdur ing the crop season. F inal disease observations wererecorded on a 1-9 disease rat ing scale (Singh et al . 1981)in m id -March .

Test genotypes var ied for disease reaction and threegenotypes (FL IP 97-132C, F L I P 98-226C and F L I P 98-231C) were resistant (score 2-3) whi le eleven genotypes -FLIP 97-120C, FLIP 97-221C, FLIP97-229C, FLIP 98-33C,FL IP 98-54C, FL IP 98-206C, FL IP 00-20C, FL IP 02-28C,F L I P 02-45C, I L C 1929 and I C C 12004 - weremoderately resistant (score 4 -5 ) . The potential resistantmaterial ident i f ied in the study was or iginated atI C A R D A (Table 1). Several sources of resistance toascochyta b l ight have been reported at I C A R D A (Reddyand Singh 1984; Singh et al . 1984). Some of the lines, eg,I L C 72 and I L C 3279 that showed high level of resistancein several other countries were not found h igh ly resistantin Pakistan ( Iqbal et a l . 1994). Therefore, resistantgenotypes originated f rom I C A R D A need to be re-testedw i t h aggressive pathotypes of Pakistan before their use inthe breeding program. Our data indicates that A. rabiei ish igh ly variable and the pathotypes present in Pakistanand Ind ia are more aggressive than those prevalent in theMediterranean region (Singh et al. 1984).

The in format ion on the resistance to A. rabiei generated in the present study indicated that there issuff icient genetic var iat ion in chickpea for this trait thatcan be explo i ted for disease control through breedingb l igh t resistant varieties of chickpea.

Table 1. Distribution of chickpea lines obtained from var ious sources in the disease reaction groups.

Source

ICARDA, Aleppo, SyriaNARC, Islamabad, PakistanN I A B , Faisalabad, Pakistan

AZRI , Bhakkar, PakistanRARI , Bahawalpur, Pakistan

Total

* 2 - 3 score on 1-9 rating scale.** 4 - 5 score on 1-9 rating scale.

Total

164

132999010

495

Resistant

3*----

3

Moderately resistant

1 1 * *

----11

Susceptible

150

132999010

481

References

GOP. 2003. Agricultural Statistics of Pakistan. Islamabad,Pakistan: Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock,Economic Wing, Government of Pakistan. 45 pp.

Haqqani A M , Zahid MA and Mal ik MR. 2000. Legumes inPakistan. Pages 98-128 in Legumes in rice and wheat croppingsystems of the lndo-Gangetic Plains - constraints andopportunities. (Johansen C, Duxbury JM, Virmani SM, GowdaCLL, Pande S and Josh PK, eds.). Patancheru 502 324, AndhraPradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for theSemi-Arid Tropics; and Ithaca, New York, USA: CornelUniversity. 230 pp.

lqbal S M , Husaain S and Mal ik BA. 1994. Screening ofchickpea lines against ascochyta blight. International Chickpeaand Pigeonpea Newsletter 1:21.

Nene Y L , Sheila VK and Sharma SB. 1996. A world list ofchickpea and pigeonpea pathogens. ICRISAT Pulse PathologyProgress Report No. 32, 5th edition.

Reddy MV and Singh KB. 1984. Evaluation of worldcollection of chickpea germplasm accessions for resistance toascochyta blight. Plant Disease 68:900-901.

Singh KB, Hawtin GC, Nene YL and Reddy MV. 1981.Resistance in chickpea to ascochyta blight. Plant Disease65:586-587.

Singh KB, Reddy MV and Nene Y L . 1984. International

testing of chickpeas for resistance to ascochyta blight. Plant

Disease 68(9):782-784.

Lepidopterous pod borers in the genus Helicoverpa are

major constraints to chickpea (Cicer arietinum)

product ion in the Indian subcontinent [especial ly H.

armigera (Hubner ) ] , Austral ia [especially H. punctigera

(Wal lengren) ] , and in many other parts of the wo r l d

(Lateef 1985; Clement et al . 2000). Convent ional

insecticides are often used to control pod borers on

chickpea and many other crops. However , intensive

insecticide use on a w ide variety of crops has led to

widespread development of insecticide-resistant

populat ions o f f H. armigera in India (Am ies et al . 1996).

Development of insect resistance to insecticides and the

possible adverse effects of insecticides on humans and

environment have st imulated interest in other methods

such as resistant genotypes to manage pod borers (Lateef

1985). Screenings of Cicer arietinum germplasm stocks

showed that H. armigera larvae reared on 'less

susceptible' genotypes were l ighter in we ight and took

longer to develop than those reared on 'more susceptible'

genotypes (Srivastava and Srivastava 1989 ; Yoshida et al .

SL Clement 1*, J Ridsdill-Smith 2 and S Cotter 2

(1 . USDA-ARS, Plant Germplasm Introduction and Testing

Research Unit, Washington State University, Pullman,

WA 99164-6402, USA; 2. CSIRO Entomology, Private

Bag 5, Wembley WA 6913, Australia)

*Corresponding author: slclement@wsu.edu

F i r s t - i ns ta r Helicoverpa punctigera

l a r v a e : feed ing responses a n d su rv i va l on

desi ch ickpea a n d the w i l d re la t i ve Cicer

bijugum

Entomology

ICPN 12, 2005 35

1995). L i kew ise , Sharma et a l . (2002) recorded l o w

weights for larvae of H. armigera and H. punctigera

reared on some w i l d annual Cicer species, ind icat ing that

w i l d relatives o f chickpea cou ld be sources o f resistance

to Helicoverpa.

Al though detailed observations of neonate lepidopteran

larvae commenc ing their feeding on test plants have been

used for evaluat ing resistance in crop plants (Za luck i et

al . 2002). Th is approach has not been used to ident i fy

Cicer genotypes w i t h vary ing levels of resistance and

suscept ibi l i ty to H. punctigera. Previously, > 5 day

tr ials, albeit w i thou t detai led observations of the host

acceptance and feeding behavior of f i rst- instar larvae,

have been used to ident i fy Cicer genotypes w i t h vary ing

levels of suscept ibi l i ty to both H. armigera and H.

punctigera. We employed 48 h tr ials to observe and

quant i fy the onset of feeding and surv iva l of neonate H.

punctigera on Cicer genotypes to assess the usefulness of

short-term tr ials so as to ident i fy resistant germplasm and

possible mechanisms of resistance (antibiosis and ant i -

feedant effects) in this pest.

The trials were carried out at the Entomology Laboratory,

Commonwea l th Scient i f ic and Industr ia l Research

Organizat ion (CS IRO) , Centre for Medi terranean

Agricul tural Research, Western Australia. A H. punctigera

culture at the Entomology Laboratory prov ided larvae for

experiments, and the exper imental plant mater ia l was

obtained from potted plants g r o w n in a glasshouse

(natural l ight , 15 to 26°C) . Neonate larvae were expose d

to test mater ial f rom pre- f lower ing plants of t w o C.

arietinum genotypes (Anniger i -suscept ib le; and ICC

506-resistant) and two accessions of annual w i l d species

of C. bijugum ( l L W C 260, I L W C 7, both resistant),

w h i c h exhib i ted a range of susceptibi l i ty to H. armigera

and H. punctigera in > 5 day tr ials (Sharma et al . 2002,

R idsd i l l -Smi th TJ unpubl ished data). Test mater ial

consisted of a main stem (w i t h two branching stems and

leaves) embedded into water-agar (10 g Bacto agar/l

water) in a 35 ml plastic cup using forceps. There were

three tr ials, each i nvo l v ing t w o Cicer genotype or species

combinat ions ( T a b l e 1 ) . The experimental design was a

complete ly randomized design w i t h three replicates per

Table 1. Comparison of feeding and mortality rates of first -instar larvae of Helicoverpa punctigera on selected Cicer arietinum

(Annigeri and I C C 506) and C. bijugum ( I L W C 7and I L W C 260) genotypes (Perth, Australia).

Trial

1.

2.

3.

Genotypes

Annigeri

ICC 506

A N O V A

Genotype (G)

Time (T)

G x T

ILWC 7

ICC 506

A N O V A

Genotype (G)

Time (T)

G x T

ILWC 260

ICC 506

Genotype (G)

Time (T)

G x T

% larvae feeding at1

1 h

61.1

39.0

27.7

44.3

66.7

44.3

4 h

94.3

78.0

F

2.78

19.48

0.40

66.7

66.7

F

1.15

42.11

8.11

94.3

72.3

F

2.86

15.96

2.72

24 h

94.3

83.3

P

0.17

<0.01

0.76

100.0

78.0

P

0.34

<0.01

<0.01

88.7

78.0

P

0.17

<0.01

0.09

48 h

94.3

83.3

94.3

66.7

77.7

78.0

% mortality at 48 h2

5.6a

16.7a

5.6a

33.3b

22.2a

22.2a

1. Means are based on three repl icat ions of 6 larvae per repl icat ion.2. Means fo l l owed by the same letters do not d i f fer s igni f icant ly (P = 0.05). Data transformed ( log1 0 (x + 1)) to meet assumptions of A N O V A .

Untransformed means reported here.

36 ICPN 12, 2005

Cicer genotype. One potted plant provided a l l of the testmaterial for a repl icat ion, wh i ch consisted of six larvae(one per plastic cup). Af ter a 2 h starvation per iod, a neonate larva was transferred w i t h a camel-hair brush tothe basal part of test plant material and its movementswere observed w i t h the aid of a stereoscopic microscopefor 2 minutes at 1,4, 24 and 48 h intervals. At eachreading, we recorded if a larva had established a feedingsite and was feeding or i f i t had not commenced feeding.The number of dead larvae was also recorded. Cups wererandomly distr ibuted on a laboratory ( 22°C) bench neara w i n d o w for natural l ight and redistr ibuted after eachreading. F rom these observations, the percentage oflarvae feeding on the plant per repl icat ion was calculated.

The analysis of variance [completely randomizeddesign w i t h one-way treatment structure (genotypes) w i threpeated measures] showed that larval feeding rates werenot affected by genotype, but t ime signif icant ly affectedfeeding w i t h the lowest rates at 1 h and higher rates(irrespective of plant genotype) recorded f rom 4 h onwards in al l trials. There was a signif icant genotype x t ime interaction in t r ia l 2, indicat ing that the effect of t imeon feeding rates on l L W C 7 and ICC 506 was different.In a l l tr ials, the onset of feeding by neonate H. punctigera larvae was consistently delayed on ICC 506 and larvalmorta l i ty was relat ively h igh (16.7-33.3%) on this desichickpea (Tab le1 ) . The leaf chemistry of this genotypemay influence the feeding and survival of neonate andfirst-instar H. punctigera, as was suggested for H.armigera (Lateef 1985; Yoshida et al. 1995). A lso , theresults of t r ia l 1 conf i rmed the susceptibi l i ty of Ann iger ito H. punctigera. Contrary to Sharma et al. (2002), whodetected //. punctigera resistance in I L W C 7 and I L W C260 after 5 day feeding assays, our 48 h trials d id notreveal the existence of strong resistance (compared toICC 506) in the C. bijugum genotypes (Tab le1 ) .

This study detected H. punctigera resistance andsusceptibi l i ty in ICC 506 and Ann ige r i , respectively, butfai led to conf i rm resistance in C. bijugum as previouslyfound after 5-day feeding trials (Sharma et al. 2002).More investigations are required, because this studyshows that interactions between first-instar larvae of H.punctigera and species and genotypes of Cicer are variable,w i t h the possibi l i ty that different plant resistance factorsare invo lved.

Acknowledgments. The authors are grateful to the GrainsResearch and Development Corporat ion (Project no.VF 58), Austra l ia, for research funding and Louisa Be l land Kate Detchon (CSIRO, Floreat, W A ) for technicalassistance.

References

Armes NJ, Jadhav DR and DeSouza KR. 1996. A survey ofinsecticide resistance in Helicoverpa armigera in the Indiansubcontinent. Bulletin of Entomological Research 86:499-514.

Clement SL, Wightman JA, Hardie DC, Bailey P, Baker G and McDonald G. 2000. Opportunities for integrated managementof insect pests of grain legumes. Pages 467-480 in Linkingresearch and marketing opportunities for pulses in the 21st

century (Knight R, ed.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: KluwerAcademic Publishers.

SS. 1985. Gram pod borer (Heliothis armigera) (Hub.)resistance in chickpeas. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment14:95-102.

Sharma H C , Mann K, Kashyap S, Pampapathy G andRidsdill-Smith J. 2002. Identification of resistance toHelicoverpa in wi ld species o f chickpeas. Pages 277-280 in Proceedings of the 12th Australasian plant breeding conference,

W. Australia, 15-20 September 2002 (McComb JA, ed).Australia: Australasian Plant Breeding Association, Inc.

Srivastava CP and Srivastava RP. 1989. Screening forresistance to the gram pod borer, H. armigera, in chickpeagenotypes and observations on its mechanism of resistance inIndia. Insect Science Applications 10:255-258.

Yoshida M, Cowgill SE and Wightman JA. 1995.Mechanism of resistance to Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae) in chickpea: role of oxalic acid in leaf exudates asan antibiotic factor. Journal of Economic Entomology88:1783-1786.

Zalucki M, Clarke AR and Malcolm SB. 2002. Ecology andbehavior of first instar larval Lepidoptera. Annual Review ofEntomology 47:361-393.

Screening o f Ch i ckpea for Resistance to

Pod B o r e r Helicoverpa armigera

( H u b n e r ) a t R a h u r i , M a h a r a s h t r a , I n d i a

MM Sanap* and BM Jamadagni (Pulses ImprovementProject, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri413 722, Maharashtra, India)* Corresponding author: rvnakat@yahoo.com

Gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigern (Hubner) is a keypest and w i t h its regular in the state of

from early vegetative to podding stage 60-80% losses (Puri et al. 1998) in chickpea. It ls economical ly signif icant. In Nor th India, Sehgal and

ICPN 12, 2005 37

Ujag i r (1990) reported 9 0 % pod damage by Helicoverpa.

Management strategies for gram pod borer re l ied heavi ly

on chemical insecticides. However , concerning chemical

insecticides, the farmers ' reluctance to use i t , the non-

avai lab i l i ty , h igh cost, development of resistance and

environmental po l lu t ion (Armes et a l . 1996), have

opened up avenues for the ident i f icat ion and adopt ion of

chickpea genotypes resistant/tolerant to Helicoverpa.

The genotype is the best/preferred component of

integrated pest management.

Twen ty - f i ve promis ing chickpea genotypes f r o m the

Internat ional Chickpea Helicoverpa Resistant Nursery

( I C H R N ) were screened under pesticide-free f ie ld

condi t ions dur ing Rabi 2002-03 and 2003 -04 seasons in

a randomized b lock design in three repl icat ions at

Mahatma Phule K r i sh i V idyapeeth, Rahur i , Maharashtra,

India (532 m alt i tude w i t h longi tude of 19°44' to 19°57' N

and lat i tude o f 74°82 ' to 7 4 °9 1 ' E) .

The genotypes were sown in t w o r o w plots of 2 m

length w i t h the spacing of 30 x 10 cm on 28 October 2002

and 2003. A l l the recommended agronomic practices

were adopted for ra is ing the chickpea crop.

The observations on pod damage were recorded on

f ive randomly sampled plants at matur i ty by count ing the

total number o f healthy and damaged pods f r om w h i c h

percent pod damage of each entry was calculated and

compared w i t h that o f resistant check, I C C 506EB. The

percentage data was converted to pest susceptibi l i ty

rat ing on a scale of 1-9 as suggested by Lateef and Reed

(1983) .

The mean pod damage among the test entries (Tab le1 )

ranged from 20.37% in ICCL 87311 to 34.27% in ICC 12492

Table 1. Performance of chickpea genotypes against Helicoverpa armigera at Rahuri, Maharashtra, India, Rabi 2002-03 and2003-04.

Entries

ICCL 79033

ICC 13ICC 14ICCX 730041

ICCL 80129ICC 11509ICC 9854

ICC 926ICC 5800

ICC 12476ICC 12479

ICC 12480ICC 12493

ICC 12492ICC 12490

ICC 87220ICC 87311

ICC 87314

Vijay

JG 362ICCV 2 ICC 37AnnigeriICCV 10

ICC 50 EB (ch.)

MeanSD

Pod damage (%)

2002-03

32.6337.1932.1035.0336.3032.8533.64

38.64

34.4228.3324.03

26.3238.0840.8231.82

45.59

19.55

22.0130.27

26.6321.0540.49

26.3532.39

28.8231.94

6.23

2003-04

14.2715.1019.5420.40

16.7817.8720.00

21.1819.5017.8119.45

19.2319.60

27.7320.64

21.95

21.2023.07

18.7219.23

19.7319.0120.8019.4618.57

19.47

2.07

Mean

23.4526.1425.8227.71

21.5625.22

26.8629.91

26.9623.07

21.7422.77

28.8434.27

26.2333.7720.37

22.5424.49

22.9420.3929.75

23.5725.92

23.6925.51

3.61

PSR*

67676

6

787

6667

87

8

5

66

6

5866

_

Grain yield (kg ha-1)

2002-03

7331250583750

1275

1133900700900800

966791800

858916841

1041

1191

666

916833675

1066425

1125

885205

2003-04

1650616

11001392

10831058

18831500

775145012661558750

13412050

1375

1558592

16081300

392135015082124

16501329

416

Mean

1191

933841

1071

117910951391

789

8371125

11161174

7751100

148311081033

8911137

1108612

101212871247

1387

1088209

* - P S R = Pest suscept ib i l i ty ra t ing. C h . = Resistant check.

38 ICPN 12, 2005

w i t h the mean damage of 25.51 ± 3 .61%. Of the 25genotypes screened, I C C L 87311 recorded the lowestdamage (20.37%), wh i ch was signif icant ly less than 14genotypes. From the pest susceptibil i ty ratings (on a scaleof 1-9), i t was noticed that I C C L 87311 and ICC V 2 werescored at 5 and were most promis ing, whereas eight othergenotypes I C C L 79033, I C C L 80129, I C C L 12746, ICC12479, ICC 12480, I C C L 87314, IG 362 and Ann iger i ,were at 6 and suffered less damage than the resistantcheck ICC 506EB. Genotypes ICC 13, I C C X 730014,ICC 9854, ICC 5800 and I C C 12493, w i t h a rat ing of 7,and ICC 926, ICC 12492 and I C C L 87220, w i t h a rat ingof 8, were susceptible to Helicoverpa damage.

Genotypes ICC 9854 and ICC 12490 had grain y ie ldof 1391 and 1483 kg ha-1, respectively, and were superiorover resistant check, ICC 506EB. Despite, recordinghigher pod damage (26.86% and 26.23%), they recordedhigher grain y ie ld indicat ing their tolerance toHelicoverpa damage.

Thus, the genotypes I C C L 87311, I C C V 2, I C C L12490 and ICC 9854, showed fair ly good resistance/tolerance against pod borer, and they derive an attentionfor per se cul t ivat ion by the farmers.

Acknowledgments. The authors are thankful to Dr HCSharma, l C R l S A T , for the supply of the seed material ofpromis ing chickpea genotypes.

References

Armes NJ, Jadhav DR, Bond and De Souza KR. 1996. A survey of insecticide resistance in Helicoverpa armigera inIndian subcontinent. Bulletin of Entomological Research86:499-514.

Lateef SS and Reed W. 1983. A suggested system of ratingpigeonpea and chickpea entries for field resistance to Heliothis armigera. In Nationa Seminar on Breeding Crop Plants forResistance to Pests and Diseases, 25-27 May, 1983.TamilNadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, TN. India: 127-131.

Puri SN, Murthy KS and Sharma OP. 1998. Integratedmanagement of insect pests in chickpea and pigeonpea.Abstracts. National Symposium on Management of Biotic andAbiotic stresses in pulse crops. 7 pp.

Sehgal VK and Ujagir R. 1990. Effect of syntheticpyrethroids, neem extracts and other insecticides for thecontrol of pod damage by Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) onchickpea and pod damage yield relationship at Pantnagar innorthern India. Crop Protection 9:29-32.

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L . ) product ion in India (4.33m i l l i o n tonnes in 1980 and 5.12 m i l l i o n tonnes in 2000)has stagnated in the last two decades. The major l im i t i ngfactor has been the susceptibi l i ty of cult ivars to severalb iot ic and abiotic stresses that affects y ie ld adversely(Singh et al. 1994). Most of the exist ing varieties aresusceptible to fusarium w i l t , ascochyta b l ight andpodborer (Helicoverpa armigera), wh ich are the majorbottlenecks in increasing product ion potential o fchickpea (Ka l ia and Dawa 1988; Singh et al . 1994). Theparents wh ich are resistant to pod borer and fusarium w i l tare not yet available. In the present studies, one hundredand eighty four genotypes of chickpea were evaluated,dur ing 2002-2003 at P A U , Regional Station, Faridkot, tofind a donor for pod borer and w i l t resistance, together.

The genotypes were sown in mul t ip le disease sick plotw i t h susceptible variety JG 62 as a check, in tworeplications. Each genotype has row length of 4 m and 30cm apart w i t h plant-to-plant spacing of 15 cm andrecommended package of practices were fo l lowed. Onehundred and eleven genotypes hav ing less than 25%(moderately resistant reaction) combined score for w i ltcomplex (w i l t / foo t rot/root rot complex) were selectedfor further entomological study. Pod borer infestationwas recorded as percent bored pods of total pods at theend of harvesting. The data was subjected to analysis ofvariance to compare their relative performance(resistance) and the genotypes were categorized as perthe method g iven by the A l l India Research Project onSoybean (1995) and used by Ad i t ya Pratap et al. (2002)for chickpea.

The results on pod borer infestation are given in theTable 1. There was a large variat ion (30.87-70.65%) inpod damage among al l the entries screened. Pod damagewas highest in PBG 126 (70.65%) and lowest in IPC 96-3(30.87%). Out of the 111 genotypes, 64 showed very highinsect infestation and fel l under l ow l y resistant groupw i t h infestation range of 52.15-70.65%. Forty- f ivegenotypes were moderately resistant w i t h infestationrange of 34.05-51.65%. On ly two genotypes IPC 96-3and FG 1235 w i t h mean infestation of 30.85% and

ICPN 12, 2005 39

Harminder Kaur, SK Gupta, Daljeet Singh andKuldip Singh (Punjab Agricultural University-RegionalStation, Faridkot 151 203, Punjab, India)

P r e l i m i n a r y eva luat ion o f chickpea

genotypes for resistance to pod bo re r

a n d w i l t complex

Table 1. Reaction of different genotypes of chickpea according to percent pod borer infestation.

S.No.

12

3

Type of resistance

R = ResistantMR = Moderately resistant

LR = Lowly resistant

Name of varieties

FG 1235, IPC - 96 - 3 BG 1087, BG 1088, BG 1087, BG 1088, BG 1106, BGD 110, BGD 112, C53-104,CSJ 9807,FG 559, FG 711, FG 712, FG 908, FG 1044, FG 1100, FG 1121, FG 1184,FG 1186, FG 1204, FG 1206, FG 1212, FG 1221, FG 1222, FG 1228, FGK 848,FGK 1220, GL 1267, GL 20010, GL 940022, GLK 90079, GNG 469, GPF 2, H 82-2,IPC - 99 - 1 , IPC 99-4, IPC 2000-1, PBG 195, PBG 233, PG 95424, PG 97403, RSG 902,RSG 906, WCG-3, WCG 98-1

BCP 1002, BG 1053, BG 1067, BG 1080, BG 1103, BG 1108, BGD 32, C 235,CL 99033, CSJ 195, CSJ 253, CSJ 8962, FG 694, FG 702, FG 897, FG 974, FG 1056,FG 1197, FG 1205, FG 1210, FG 1217, FG 1224, FG 1225, FG 1227, FG 1231,FG 1232, FG 1238, FG 1268, FG 1292, FGK 1085, FGK 1133, FGK 1141, FGK 1170,FGK 1199, FGK 1218, GCP 9516, GG 1267, GL 769, GL 20035, GL 20081,GL 98014, GL 99103, H 87-23, H 97-23, H- 97-47, H 98-155, IPC 95-2, IPC 97-1,IPC 97-7, IPC 98-2, IPC 99-38, JG 1100, PBG 126, PBG 161, PBG 168, PBG 204,PBGK 220, PDG 3, PDG 4, PG 96005, PG 97121, PG 97128, WCG 97-16, WCG 9737

30.95% were found to be disease resistant ( w i t h 2.6 and4.2% disease incidence, respectively).

Out of 45 moderately pod borer resistant genotypes 16were hav ing less than 5% disease incidence and 29 werehaving more than 5% incidence of disease. The importantvarieties such as GPF 2 and G N G 469 also fall in moderatelyresistant group w i t h mean infestation of 43.25 and41.8%. The genotypes, ie, BG 189, BG 373, B G D 110,F G 559, F G 711 , F G 712, F G 908, FG 1184, F G 1206,G L K 90079, GPF 2 , P B G 195, P B G 233, RSG 902, RSG906 and W C G 98 -1 , reflected promis ing reaction byhav ing less than 5% disease incidence and moderateresistance to pod borer.

Ad i tya Pratap et al. (2002) whi le evaluating the chickpeaagainst pod borer, also reported w ide var iat ion (29.33 to63.44%) in pest infestation among the varieties.

The study revealed that genotypes IPC 96-3 andFG-1235 were resistant to both w i l t complex and pod

40 ICPN 12, 2005

borer infestation and thus they can serve as potential donorsfor insect pests/disease resistance, in chickpea breeding.

References

Aditya Pratap, Daisy Basandrai, Mehta PK and Ashwani K Basandrai. 2002. Evaluation of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)against pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera). Indian J. Genet62(2):131-134.

Kalia NR and Dawa T. 1988. Dwindling chickpea areas inHimachal Pradesh, International Chickpea Newsletter 19 : 8.

Singh KB, Malhotra RS, Halila M H , Knights EJ and VermaM M . 1994. Current status and future strategy in breedingchickpea for resistance to biotic and abiotic stress. Euphytica73:137-149.

ICPN 12, 2005 41

Shanower T G , Romeis J and Minja E M . 1999. Insect pests of pigeonpea and their management. Annual Review ofEntomology 44:77-96.

Dahiya SS, Chauhan YS, Johansen C, Waldia RS, SekhonHS and Nandal JK. 2002. Extra-short-duration pigeonpea fordiversifying wheat based cropping systems in the sub-tropics.Experimental Agriculure 38:1-11.

References

To solve such problems, efforts were made to identi fyd w a r f and extra-early genotypes through inducedmutations. Besides dwarfness and earlyness, suchgenotypes should possess comparable y ie ld levels tocommercial types. Pigeonpea genotypes I C P L 88039 and'Manak ' were used for gamma rays irradiations. Fivehundred, 1000 and 1500 dry, healthy and uni form seedsof each of the two genotypes were treated w i t h 10,20 and30 kR of gamma rays, respectively. The treated seedswere sown immediately in the f ield dur ing rainy season2001 to raise M1 generation. In M1 generation of ICPL88039 populat ion, one d w a r f and extra-early mutant wasobtained from 10 kR dose in I C P L 88039. Thegeneration of this mutant was advanced to M4 generations(2004) to obtain un i fo rm progenies. The d w a r f and extra-early M4 progeny o f this mutant is named as H D M 04 -1and evaluated along w i t h I C P L 88039 in f ie ld conditionsdur ing rainy season 2004. Five rows of the parent and themutant genotypes were sown in 4 meter rows 45 cm apart.The plant-to-plant distance was kept at 10 cm. A l l therecommended cultural practices for pigeonpea werefo l lowed. Data were recorded on 50 random plants ofH D M 04-1 and I C P L 88039 for morphologicalcharacters, v iz , days to 50% f lower ing, days to matur i ty ,plant height (cm), f ru i t ing branches/plant, internodelength (cm), pods per plant, seeds/pod and 100-seedweight (g). The data representing mean of 50 plants ispresented in Table 1. The mutant possess 103.20 cmheight w i t h shorter internodes compared to ICPL 88039(271 cm). It matures in 90 days as compared to 135 daysof parental genotype. Its seed weight (8.84 g/100 seeds)is also higher than I C P L 88039 (8.17 g/100 seeds). Thecommercial cult ivars normal ly possesses 6.0-7.0 g/100seeds. Its y i e ld levels are at par w i t h the I C P L 88039.However, y ie ld level are yet to be conf i rmed throughlarge-scale tr ials against checks and w i t h vary ingspacings and fer t i l i ty regimes.

P i g e o n p e a

Genetics/Breeding/Biotechnology

Iden t i f i ca t ion o f D w a r f a n d E x t r a - e a r l y

M u t a n t o f Pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan ( L . )

M i l l sp . ]

Ram Dhari and RS Waldia [Department of Plant Breeding(Pulses) Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana AgriculturalUniversity, Hisar-125 004, India]

Plant height and matur i ty contr ibute signi f icant ly forpigeonpea cul t ivat ion under different cropping systems.A m o n g the various constraints for higher pigeonpeaproduct ion and product iv i ty , Helicoverpa armigera (gram pod borer) is a major constraint (Shanower et al.1999). Farmers main ly rely on insecticides to manage thisborer. Tradi t ional pigeonpea genotypes are ta l l ( 3 -4meters) and farmers have serious practical problems touse insecticides to manage pod borer through sprayoperations. D w a r f (1 meter) and h igh-y ie ld ing pigeonpeatypes are then an obvious choice to control the menace ofthe pod borer. Moreover, the adoption of pigeonpeacultivation by farmers on a large scale should accommodatecrop rotations. Extra-short-duration pigeonpea genotypescould contribute to higher product iv i ty of pigeonpea-wheat rotat ion system (Dahiya et al. 2002). Even theexist ing pigeonpea short durat ion (140-150 days) typeshave been observed to delay the normal sowings of wheatcrop.

Table 1. Distinguishing characters of the dwarf mutant( H D M 04-1) and the parental line ( ICPL 88039).

Characters

Days to 50% floweringDays to maturityPlant height (cm)Fruiting branches/plantInternode length (cm)Pods/plantPod length (cm)Seeds/pod100 Seed weight (g)

H D M 04-1

49±4.5090+5.50

103.20 + 10.209.10 + 3.213.40 + 0.70

102.80 + 37.113.97 + 0.26 3.70 + 0.458.84 + 0.80

ICPL 88039

90 + 5.90135 + 6.20

271 + 11.3212 + 2.96

5.00 + 0.35132 + 25.485.00 + 0.354.1 + 0.708.17 + 0.75

KT Rangaswamy 1, V Muniyappa 1, P Lava Kumar 2*,

KB Saxena 2, M Byregowda 1, N Raghavendra 1,

K Pandurangaiah 1, R Vijay Kumar 2, F Waliyar 2 and

AT Jones 3 (1. University of Agriculture Sciences, Banga-

lore 560 065, India; 2. International Crops Research In-

stitute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru

502 324, India; 3. Scottish Crop Research Institute,

Invergowrie DD2 5DA, Scotland, UK)

*Corresponding author: p.lavakumar@cgiar.org

Pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) is an important pulse crop in

Karnataka, India. Ster i l i ty mosaic disease ( S M D ) , caused

by the pigeonpea ster i l i ty mosaic v i rus ( P P S M V ) and

transmitted by an er iophy id mi te , Aceria cajani, is a

major problem of pigeonpea (Jones et al . 2004).

Pigeonpea yields have been dec l in ing due to heavy and

recurr ing occurrence of the S M D in southern Karnataka.

Most of the pigeonpea genotypes available for farmers

are h igh ly susceptible to the S M D . This was more so

because of the PPSMV isolate prevalent in southern

Karnataka- the Bangalore (B ) isolate- is h igh ly v i ru lent

and host-plant resistance to it are scarce. ICP 7035, a

landrace col lected in 1973 from Bedaghat (near

Jabalpur) Madhya Pradesh state, India (Sharma and

Reddy, unpubl ished), was found to be consistently

resistant to P P S M V - B isolate. ICP 7035 was evaluated

against ten P P S M V isolates at several locations in India,

and the genotype was found resistant to al l these isolates

(Reddy et a l . 1993; Kumar et a l . , unpubl ished).

ICP 7035 was evaluated, along w i t h the t w o local

varieties, T T B 7 and H y 3 C , in S M D and w i l t nursery at

Figure 1. ICP 7035: Pod bearing plant (A), vegetable pods (B),dried whole seed (C) and dried decorticated split seeds - dhal (D).

Table 1. Green pod and grain yield of three pigeonpea genotypes at Bangalore.

Year

19992000200120022003Mean

% SMD

ICP7035

000

000

Hy3C

15.511.018.223.0<2.016.93

TTB7

60.582.075.590.3

-

77.08

Green pod yield (kg ha-1)1

ICP7035

5085

35514268610771535232.8

Hy3C

452129583658518971014685.4

TTB7

1785101

1210

521-

904.25

Grain yield (kg ha-1)1

ICP7035

-

1905134918241692.6

Hy 3C

-

-

1825131217361624.3

TTB7

-

-

23571706

2031.5

1. Green pod and grain y ields are f rom separate tr ials2. ' - ' not tested

42 ICPN 12, 2005

I C P 7035 - A S ter i l i t y M o s a i c Res is tant

Vege tab le a n d G r a i n Purpose P igeonpea

V a r i e t y

ICPN 12, 2005 43

Table 2. Morphological, cooking and nutritional characte rs of three pigeonpea genotypes.

Character

Plant characters

Plant height (cm)1

Stem colour

Flower arrangement

Flower colour

Pod colour

Seed coat colour (fresh)

Seed colour (fresh)

Seed coat colour (dry)

Seed (dhal) colour (dry)

Days to 50% flowering

Days to maturity

Pods per plant3

Seeds per pod

Pod length (cm)

100 fresh seed weight (g)

100 dry seed weight (g)

100 fresh pod weight (g)

Post harvest qualities of dried seed 5

Good quality split seed (dhal) (%)

Broken split seeds (%)

Recovery of husk (%)

Nutritional factors in dhal 6

Cooking time of vegetable seed (min)

Cooking time of dhal (min)

Water absorption (%)

Solids in the aqueous extract (%)

Moisture (%)

Protein in dried seeds (%)

Soluble sugars (%)

Fat (%)

Methionine (mg g-1 of seed)

Methionine (mg g -1 of protein)

Cystine (mg g-1 of seed)

Cystine (mg g -1 of protein)

ICP7035

160-180

Green

Intermediate

Yellow purple

Purple with dark green streaks

Light purple and mottled

Plain green

Brown and mottled

Yellow

75-802

160-1702

90-110

5

7.5

39.6

19.2

254.2

85.8

1.72

14.52

35.62

47.7

102.06

10.63

11

19.6

5.3

2.4

1.99

8.82

1.80

7.98

Hy3C

160-170

Purple

Clusters

Red

Green with black streaks

Light green and plain

Plain green

Dull white

Dull white

80-902

170-1802

70-80

4-5-4

20.5

16.1

-

86.47

0.78

14.74

35.25

42.3

104.12

12.21

10.8

22.14

3.7

2.3

2.07

9.35

1.87

8.45

TTB7

160-180

Green

Clusters

Yellow

Green with black streaks

Light green and plain

Plain green

Brown

Yellow

90-1002

180-2002

90-110

4-5

17.21

10.5

79.63

85.53

2.62

13.54

35.33

36.8

102.54

11.46

8.1

23.6

-

-

-

_

-

1. At the t ime of pod matur i ty (around 170 days; plant can grow up to 2 m).

2. In Bangalore region.3. First pod p i ck i ng at matur i ty (around 170 days).4 . ' - ' N o t tested.5 . Determined w i t h mechanical ' dha l ' m i l l .6. Estimated at Pristine Laboratories, Bangalore.

the Gandhi K r i sh i V ignana Kendra ( G K V K ) , Bangalore;

and also under natural condit ions in the State Agr icu l tu re

Research Stations and farmers' f ields in Bangalore Rura l ,

Tumku r and Ko la r districts o f Karnataka, dur ing 1 9 9 9 -

2004 ra iny seasons. ICP 7035 produced a mean vegetable

pod y ie ld of 5232.8 kg ha - 1 and dry seed y ie ld of 1692.6

kg ha -1 as compared to 4685.4 kg ha -1 mean vegetable pod

y ie ld and 1624.3 kg ha - 1 of d ry seed y ie ld for H y 3 C

(Table 1). Average S M D incidence in susceptible

cult ivars ranged from less than 2.0 to 90 .3% dur ing

various years, but ICP 7035 remained free f rom S M D

(Table 1). Stabi l i ty of S M D resistance in ICP 7035 was

ver i f ied by exposing test plants to h igh dose of P P S M V -

B inocu lum using v i ru l i ferous A. cajani by f o l l o w i n g the

44 ICPN 12, 2005

leaf-stapling technique. Plants were moni tored forP P S M V by E L l S A method as described in Kumar et a l .(2002). A l l inoculated plants remained symptom f ree andtested negative to PPSMV, and no vector mul t ip l i ca t ionobserved on these plants. To determine whether theobserved resistance was against v i rus and/or due tovector non-preference, the genotype was tested by petiolegraft inoculat ion as described in Kumar et a l . (2002). A l lgraft- inoculated ICP 7035 remained uninfected,indicat ing that plants were resistant to the v i rus. ICP7035 was also evaluated for fusarium w i l t and alternariab l ight resistance at G K V K , Bangalore. The genotypeshowed moderate resistance to both these fungal diseases( < 1 0 % incidence), whereas T T B - 7 is h igh ly susceptibleto w i l t and bl ight , and H y 3 C is moderately resistant tow i l t ( < 1 0 % incidence), but i t was not tested againstb l ight . Up to 35.7% H. armigera incidence was observedon ICP 7035, whereas on T T B 7 and H y 3 C , i t was 55.3%and 28.75%, respectively.

ICP 7035 is a med ium durat ion, non-determinatevariety. Plants mature in 170-200 days ( i n south-centralregions of India) and at this stage it reaches to an averageheight of 120-140 cm (F ig 1). Each plant producedaround 100 pods and each pod contained 5 seeds, wh i chare nut r i t iona l ly r ich and contain highest percent ofdigestible carbohydrates, v i tamins and micronutr ients(Table 2). Fresh seeds are large ( 9 -11 mm diameter) w i t hpurple seed coat and green cotyledons, and suitable forconsumpt ion as vegetable (Table 2). Fresh seed contains8.6% protein, 12% fibre and 45.7% carbohydrate andstarch. The pinkish-purple colour of pod and seed coatswas due to h igh anthocyanin content, w h i c h adds tohealth benefits as dietary antioxidants. In addi t ion,sweetness of the pigeonpea seed is a preferred trait forvegetable purpose. W h i l e normal sugar levels in mostpigeonpea varieties is about 5%, sugar content in ICP7035 seeds is 8.8% (Paris et a l . 1987). Decort icated dr iedspl i t seeds measures 5-6 mm in diameter and 100 dr iedseeds we igh 19.2 g (Table 2). It contains 19.6% protein,27 .4% dietary f ibre, 33% starch, and 67% carbohydrate.

I t is also r i ch in copper, ca lc ium, magnesium,phosphorous, and has good dhal mak ing qual i ty .

S M D resistance in ICP 7035 has posit ive impact ony ie ld as a result of negl ig ib le crop loss in endemic areascontr ibut ing to the revenue gains to the farmers at noaddit ional cost. Under no disease situation, the cropyields are on par w i t h the local varieties. ICP 7035 doesnot alter input requirements from exist ing practice.Cul t iva t ion o f ICP 7035 prevents bu i ldup o f S M Dinocu lum dur ing the cropping and off-season andcontrols the disease spread in the fields. Recently,provis ional approval was g iven for the release of thisvariety in S M D endemic areas of southern Karnataka.

Acknowledgment. This document is an output from a project funded by the Crop Protection Program,Department for International Development ( D F I D ) ,Un i ted K i n g d o m (Project N o . R8205). The v iewsexpressed are not necessarily those of D F I D .

References

Faris DG, Saxena KB , Mazumdar S and Singh U. 1987.Vegetable pigeonpea: a promising crop for India. Patancheru,Andhra Pradesh, 502 324, India: International Crops ResearchInstitute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. 13 pp.

Jones A T , Kumar PL, Saxena KB, Kulkarni NK ,Muniyappa V and Waliyar F. 2004. Sterility mosaic disease -the "green plague" of pigeonpea: advances in understandingthe etiology, transmission and control of a major virus disease.Plant Disease 88:436-445.

Kumar PL, Jones AT and Reddy DVR. 2002. Pigeonpeasterility mosaic virus: detection and screening for resistance.Methods manual. ICRISAT, Patancheru 502 324, India, 65 pp.

Reddy M V , Raju T N , Nene Y L , Ghanekar A M , Amin KS,Arjunan G, Astaputre JV, Sinha BK, Reddy SV, Gupta RPand Gangadharan K. 1993. Variability in sterility mosaicpathogen in pigeonpea in India. Indian Phytopathology.46:206-212.

Pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L . ) Mi l l spaugh) is a deep-

rooted and drought-tolerant (Troedson et a l . 1990)

leguminous food crop used in several countries

part icular ly in India as a source of dietary prote in. Ind ia

accounts for about 8 0 % of the total w o r l d pigeonpea

product ion. I t is one of the pr inc ipa l dry land crops in

Andhra Pradesh w i th a very low product iv i ty (450 kg ha-1).

The product ion is constrained by the use of less

product ive land, water logg ing or dry spells dur ing

cr i t ical stages of crop g rowth , pest and disease problems,

and lack of drought-resistant, h igh-y ie ld ing genotypes,

and appropriate agronomic management.

The Internat ional Crops Research Insti tute for the

Semi -Ar id Tropics ( I C R I S A T ) and the Government o f

Andhra Pradesh have ini t iated the Andhra Pradesh Rural

L ive l ihoods Project ( A P R L P ) in the drought prone

districts o f Andhra Pradesh state o f Ind ia, v iz , K u r n o o l ,

Mahabubnagar, Nalgonda, Anantpur and Prakasam, to

help reduce poverty by increased agr icul tural

product iv i ty and improved l i ve l ihood opportunit ies

A Ramakrishna 1,*, SP Wani 1, Ch Srinivasa Rao 1 and

U Srinivas Reddy 2 ( l . Global Theme-Agroecosystems,

International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid

Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru 502 324, Andhra

Pradesh, India; 2. Assistant Project Director-Engineering

(APD-Eng.), Nandyal, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, India)

*Corresponding author: a.ramakrishna@global.net.pg

Ef fec t o f I m p r o v e d C r o p P r o d u c t i o n

Techno logy o n P igeonpea Y i e l d i n

Resource P o o r R a i n f e d A r e a s

Agronomy/Physiology through technical backstopping and convergence through

a consort ium of inst i tut ions. Watersheds are used as an

entry point for these activi t ies.

Nandavaram vi l lage o f Banaganapalle mandal in

Ku rnoo l distr ict was selected as a representative

watershed site based on the extent of ra in fed area in the

distr ict , current crop product iv i ty , and wi l l ingness of the

communi ty to participate in the on- farm research

activi t ies. Systematical ly col lected soi l samples from

thi r ty farmers' f ields in the Nandavaram watershed on a

toposequence were analyzed for physical and b io log ica l

parameters and various nutrients. The soi l analysis

indicated that al l the f ields are low in N (496 mg kg -1

soi l ) , l ow to medium in available P (5.71 mg kg - 1

soi l ) (Olsen's P), h igh in exchangeable K (223 mg kg -1

soi l ) , and l ow in available Zn (0.39 mg kg - 1 soi l ) , S (7.52

mg kg - 1 soi l) and B (0.5 mg kg - 1 soi l ) . The in format ion

from soi l analysis along w i t h histor ical ra in fa l l , and

m i n i m u m and max imum temperature data enabled to

calculate the length of g row ing per iod (LGP) . This

cr i t ica l in format ion assisted in ident i fy ing better options

for pigeonpea cul t ivat ion to improve the product iv i ty

levels and for sustaining the natural resources.

Twe lve on- farm trials were conducted dur ing the

2002/03 rainy season w i t h the object ive to demonstrate

the effect o f improved product ion technologies over

farmers' practice. Improved product ion technology was

compared w i t h the farmers ' method in an area of 1000 m2

in each of the farmers ' f ie lds. The improved technology

package included med ium durat ion h igh-y ie ld ing variety

( I C P L 87119) resistant to fusar ium w i l t and steri l i ty

mosaic diseases; a seed rate of 12 kg ha -1; seed treatment

w i t h th i ram (3 g kg-1 seed); inoculat ion w i t h rhizobium; a

fert i l izer dose of 20 kg N and 50 kg P2O5 ha -1; basal

appl icat ion of micro-nutr ient mix ture of 5 kg borax (0.5

kg B ha -1), 50 kg zinc sulphate (10 kg Zn ha-1) and 200 kg

gypsum (30 kg S ha-1) per hectare together w i th

Table 1. Yield and economics of pigeonpea in on-farm tri als (average of 12 trials), Nandavaram nucleus waters hed, Kurnooldistrict, Andhra Pradesh, rainy season 2002.

Cultivation method

Improved production technology

Farmers' practice

S E ±CV%

LSD (5%)

Grain yield(t ha -1)

1.61

0.53

0.096

31.20.30

Stalk yield(t ha-1 )

2.93

1.10

0.202

34.70.63

Cost of cultivation

(Rs ha-1)

6838(US$152)

4260

(US$95)14.20.9

44.3

Net return(Rs ha-1)

16476(US$366)

3437(US$76)

1393.848.5

4338.3

Benefit

cost ratio

2.4

0.8

ICPN 12, 2005 45

Table 2. Yield components of pigeonpea in on-farm trials (average of 12 trials), Nandavaram nucleus watershed, Kurnooldistrict, Andhra Pradesh, rainy season 2002.

Cultivation method

Improved production technologyFarmers' practiceSE±C V %LSD (5%)

Total dry matter(t ha-1)

5.261.920.321

31.01.00

Pod weight(tha-1)

2.330.820.132

29.00.41

Shelling( % )

69.165.60.934.82.89

100 grain weight

(g)

10.39.00.31

11.10.96

Harvestindex

0.310.280.009

10.30.027

appropriate need-based pest and disease controlmeasures. T w o inter-cult ivat ions at 25 and 50 days aftersowing to control weeds were taken up. One insecticidespray was given at pod format ion stage to control podborers. The farmers' method included a seed rate of 10 kgha-1 and a fert i l izer dose of 12 kg N and 30 kg P2O5 ha-1.Ent ire dose of N and P was appl ied as basal. The seasonalrainfal l was 695 m m . The data was analyzed consideringfarmers as replications using analysis of variance( A N O V A ) w i t h randomized blocks on G E N S T A T .A N O V A indicated that management practices ( improvedcrop product ion technology and farmers practice)di f fered signi f icant ly for a l l the parameters presented inTables 1 and 2.

The improved product ion technologies gave higheryields and recorded a mean grain y ie ld of 1.61 t ha-1

wh ich was 204% higher than that obtained w i t h thefarmers' practice yields of 0.53 t ha-1 (Table 1). Inaddi t ion to increased grain yields, improved technologyalso resulted in higher stalk y ie ld of 2.93 t ha-1 comparedto 1.10 t ha-1 of farmers' practice. The increased grain andstalk yields w i t h improved product ion practice weremain ly because of increased total dry matter, increasedpod weight , higher shel l ing percentage, higher 100-grainweight and harvest index (Table 2). Y i e l d increase inresponse to recommended fert i l izers and rh izob iuminoculat ion were also reported by Jain et al . (1988).

The economic v iab i l i t y o f improved technology overthe farmers' practice was calculated depending onprevai l ing prices of inputs and outputs. The addit ionalcost of US$57 ha- 1 (Tab le1) incurred due to the improvedtechnology as compared to farmers' practice was main lydue to balanced fert i l izat ion (micro-nutr ients andaddit ional N and P), addit ional seed cost, seed treatment,1PM and one addit ional inter-cul t ivat ion. However , theimproved technology resulted in an increased meanincome of US$290 w i t h a cost-benefit ratio of 2.4 (Table1).

46 ICPN 12, 2005

Jain NK, Jain HC and Khandkar UR. 1988. Response ofkharif legumes to fertilizers and rhizobium inoculation. IndianJournal of Agronomy 33:347-350.

Puste AM and Jana PK. 1995. Effect of phosphorus and zincon the yield attributes and yield of pigeonpea varieties grownduring winter season. Madras Agricultural Journal 82:348 - 351.

Troedson RJ, Wallis ES and Laxman Singh. 1990.Pigeonpea: Adaptation. Pages 159-177 in The pigeonpea(Nene YL , Susan D Hall and Sheila V K , eds.). Wallingford,UK: CAB International.

Yadav RP, Sharma RK and Shrivastava UK. 1997. Fertilitymanagement in pigeonpea based intercropping system underrainfed conditions. Indian Journal of Agronomy 42:46-49.

References

This addit ional income could substantially benefit theresource poor farmers and improve their l ivel ihoods inthe dry regions of the distr ict. Puste and Jana (1995)reported that the y ie ld attributes and seed y ie ld ofpigeonpea varieties were signi f icant ly inf luenced byphosphorus and zinc appl icat ion w i t h a max imumbenefit-cost ratio of 4.12. Yadav et al. (1997) reportedthat w i t h the appl icat ion of 100% recommendedfert i l izer, sole pigeonpea gave a grain y ie ld of 2.12 tha-1

w i t h net returns of Rs 12,491 per hectare and a benefit-cost rat io of 2.94. The results f rom the current studyindicate the potential benefits of improved product iontechnology in enhancing pigeonpea yields and net returnsin the dry regions of Andhra Pradesh.

Acknowledgments. We gratefully acknowledge the AndhraPradesh Rural L ive l ihoods Project ( A P R L P ) / D F I D forf inancial assistance and al l the farmers for theiroverwhe lming support in conduct ing the tr ials.

Chaudhury N, Deb DC and Senapati SK. 2001. Assessmentof loss in yield caused by pest complex of tomato under tarairegion of West Bengal. Research on Crops 2:71-79.

Fletcher TB. 1914. Some south Indian insects and otheranimals of importance. Madras, India: Superintendent GovernmentPress. 565 pp.

Frempong E and Buahin GKA. 1977. Studies on the insectpests of eggplant Solanum melongena L. in Ghana. Bulletinde-1 Institut Fondamental d'Afrique Norie-Serie A. 39:627-641.

Jepson M. 1924. Pests of brinjal. Pages 132-147 in Report ofDirector, Agriculture, Ceylon.

Patel KC and Kulkarni H L . 1955. Bionomics of Urentius echinus. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society 53:86-96.

Pillai RN. 1921. Short notes on insect pests of Travancore.Travancore Department of Agriculture, Trivendrum. 53 pp.

Tigvattn Anont S. 1990. Studies on the bionics and localdistribution of some lace bugs in Thailand. I I I . Urentius echinus Distant (Hemiptera: Tingidae). Keen Kaset Khon KaenAgriculture Journal 18:251-260.

ReferencesPathology

Occur rence of Urentius hystricellus

(R i ch t . ) on Pigeonpea in the Ne t -House

SC Dhawan*, RD Gautam and JN Govil (IndianAgricultural Research Institute ( IARI), New Delhi110 012, India)Corresponding author: Sdhawan2003@yahoo.co.in

The lace bug Urentius hystricellus (Richt . ) (U. echinus Distant) (Tingidae: Hemiptera) was f irst reportedoccurr ing on the eggplant, Solanum melongena Linnaeus, in different parts of India by Fletcher (1914).Since then, it has been reported from t ime to t ime as a specific pest of eggplant (P i l la i 1921; Jepson 1924; Pateland Ku lkarn i 1955), w i t h a degree of varietal preferencein India. Recently, Chaudhury et al. (2001) recorded itspresence on tomato crop in the tarai region of WestBengal. Besides India, it has also been reported f romGhana (Frempong and Buahin 1977) and Thai land(Tigvat tn 1990). Nymphs and the adults of the lace bugsuck sap f rom lower surface of leaves causing itsye l l ow ing and can be seen congregating. Af fected leavesare covered w i t h exuviae and excreta.

A total of 15 genotypes of pigeonpea, Cajanus cajan (L . ) Mi l lsp . , viz., Pusa-33,991,992,2001,2001-1,2002-1,2002-2, 2003-2, 2004-1, 2004-2, AK 2000-3 N 3 , AK2000-60 N 85, H 89-9x 85024 1 DT SP 2, MS Pusa 33xH 88-45, and RG 02-47 N were potted in the net-house,D iv i s ion o f Nematology, Indian Agr icu l tu ra l ResearchInstitute, New Delh i 12, on 22 June 2004. Af ter onemonth of sowing, 50-60 percent leaves of a l l the plantswere infested w i t h U. hystricellus, irrespective ofgenotypes. Observations revealed that pigeonpea is a new host record.

The lace bug infestation was also observed on anotherunrecorded host (Abutilon theophrastii), wh i ch is a weedof the wet season. It can be inferred that, al though thisinsect spp is k n o w n to in f l i c t injuries main ly to theeggplant, its spread on the other plant species in thev i c in i t y cannot be ignored. Hence, the cu l t ivat ion ofeggplant away f rom the pigeonpea crop is suggested.W i t h regards to curative measures against the infestedplants, further studies indicated that spray appl icat ion ofkarate 2.5 EC ( lambda c y h a l o t h r i n I )@ 1 m L / 2 L waterprov ided satisfactory protect ion w i t h in a week 's t ime.

The existence of races (race A pigeonpea race and race B clusterbean race) in Heterodera cajani Koshy 1967, animportant plant parasitic nematode of leguminous crops,has been reported by Wal ia and Bajaj (1986, 1988).Source of resistance against an unspecified populat ion ofH. cajani in Cajanus platycarpus accessions l C P W 543,ICPW 544 and I C P W 545 (Elyas and Sharma 1997) andagainst Coimbatore populat ion of H. cajani have beenreported in Phaseolus radiatus L. cv TM 96-1 (Anon .1998). Reaction of several populations of this speciescollected f rom different parts of India and belonging totwo races against these resistant sources and also againstGlycine max is discussed here under.

ICPN 12, 2005 47

Satish Kumar Mehta and Harish K Bajaj *

(Department of Nematology, CCS Haryana AgriculturalUniversity, Hisarl25 004, Haryana, India)* Corresponding author: harish_bajaj@hau.ernet.in

Response of Resistant G e r m p l a s m to

D i f f e ren t Races/Populat ions o f

Pigeonpea Cys t Nema tode ,

Heterodera cajani

Table 1. Reaction of Cajan us platycarpus accessions to different races of pigeonpea cyst nem atode, Heterodera cajani.

Accessions White (Female)

ICPW 543 0 ICPW 544 0 ICPW 545 0 Pigeonpea cv Manak (Control) 72.0CD (P=0.05)

(Data are means of three repl icat ions)

Race A

J2

000

14.0

Number

Male

000

18.0

White (Female)

6.033.08.0

103.30.58

Race B

J2

5.014.03.7

26.70.68

Male

1.37.02.317.30.60

Populations of H. cajani race A and race B col lected/

procured f rom various parts of Ind ia ( T a b l e 1 ) and their

pure cultures were maintained in isolat ion on their

respective hosts under screenhouse condit ions at the

Department o f Nematology, CCS Haryana Agr i cu l tu ra l

Univers i ty , Hisar. The egg sacs of different races/

populations were incubated at room temperature (30

±2 ° C ) separately for col lect ing second stage juveni les of

this species, when needed.

Seeds of C. platycarpus accessions I C P W 543, I C P W

544 and I C P W 545, and mung bean cv TM 96 -1 , and

germplasm lines of soybean were procured from the

Internat ional Crops Research Insti tute for the Semi -Ar id

Tropics ( l C R I S A T ) , Hyderabad; the Ind ian Institute o f

Pulses Research (Kanpur) , and CCS Haryana

Agr i cu l tu ra l Univers i ty (Hisar) , respectively. They were

sown singly in 15 cm earthen pots of autoclaved sandy

loam soi l . Seeds of C. platycarpus accessions were,

however, mechanical ly scarif ied before sowing. Af ter 3

days o f germinat ion o f seedlings, pots containing

different plant species were inoculated @ 200 freshly

hatched second stage juveni les/pot in the f o l l ow ing

manner:

1. Cajanus platycarpus accessions: Second stage

juveni les of race A and race B

2 . M u n g bean cv TM 96-1 and soybean cv PK. 564:

Second stage juveni les of var ious populat ions (Table

2).

3. Glycine max germplasm lines: Second stage juveni lesof race A and race B.

The plants were depotted after 50 days of inoculat ion

and the soi l was processed for wh i te females, juveni les

and males. Each treatment was repl icated thr ice.

48 ICPN 12, 2005

Heterodera cajani race A fai led to mu l t i p l y on al l the

three accessions as reported by Elyas and Sharma (1997).

However, race B reproduced on al l the three accession

lines though w i t h different rate of mul t ip l i ca t ion (Table

2). A m o n g these accessions mul t ip l ica t ion of this race

was signi f icant ly higher in I C P W 544 than I C P W 545

and I C P W 543. From the above studies it becomes clear

that same cult ivars show different reaction to different

populations/races of H. cajani and therefore, one should

be cautious wh i le incorporat ing the resistance in the

cult ivars. Wa l ia and Bajaj (1986, 1988) differentiated

races of H. cajani on the basis of their reproduct ion on

clusterbean and sun hemp. I C P W 544 can also be

included as a di f ferent ial host for d iscr iminat ing races of

H. cajani. Since race A fai led to mu l t i p l y on C.

platycarpus accessions and race B mul t ip l i ca t ion was

higher in I C P W 544.

A l l the populations belonging to race A as we l l as race

B reproduced on Phaseolus radiatus L. cv TM 96-1 but

w i t h different rates o f mul t ip l ica t ion . Dharwar,

Coimbatore, Ludhiana and Yamunanagar populations

belonging to race A reproduced very less (1 -10 cysts/

pot) and were statistically at par among each other and

hence this cul t ivar can be designated as resistant to these

populat ions. These results are in agreement w i t h earlier

f indings (Anon . 1998). Mu l t i p l i ca t i on o f rest o f the

populat ions was moderate to h igh . Mu l t i p l i ca t i on of

Anand (Gujarat), Jaipur (Rajasthan) and Pusa (B ihar )

was moderate in reproduct ion on TM 96-1 (11.60 cysts/

pot) and statist ically at par. Mu l t i p l i ca t i on of clusterbean,

Hisar (Haryana), belonging to race B was moderate (60

cysts/pot) but di f fered signi f icant ly from the rest of the

populat ions. Reproduct ion o f N e w D e l h i (De lh i ) ,

Pigeonpea, Hisar (Haryana) and Kanpur (U.P.)

populat ions was m a x i m u m (>100 cysts/pot) and hence

mung bean cv TM 96-1 can be categorized as susceptible

to these populat ions. M u n g bean ( T M 96-1) responds

di f ferent ly to di f ferent populat ions of H. cajani and

therefore, it is essential to test the virulence of a

part icular populat ion before us ing it as a source of

resistance for incorporat ion.

No mul t ip l ica t ion of any populat ion of H, cajani was

found in soybean cv PK 564 (Table 2). A l so

representative populat ions of both races of H. cajani

fa i led to mu l t i p l y on a l l the tested germplasm ( A V T 1 PK

416, A V T 1 Pusa 16, M L T P K 416, M L T P K 4 7 1 , M L T

PK 472, SST 1 PB 1, SST 1 PK 472, SST 1 PS 1024).

Koshy and Swarup (1973) found a very less reproduct ion

of H. cajani on soybean cv Glyc ine 24, but no

mul t ip l ica t ion on cvs. Lee, Roanoke and IC 9620. F rom

the above studies it can be speculated that soybean is

either a no host or a very poor host for H. cajani un l ike H.

glycines lch inohe, 1952.

ICPN 12, 2005 49

References

Anonymous. 1998. Consolidated report mung bean andurdbean (1997), A l l India Co-ordinated Research ProjectImprovement of MULLaRP, Annual Group Meet held atOrissa University of Agriculture and Technology,Bhubaneshwar (Orissa) on 15-17 May, 1998.

Elyas Z and Sharma SB. 1997. Mechanism of resistance toHeterodera cajani in Cajanus platycarpus accessions.International Journal of Nematology 7(2): 119-121.

Koshy PK and Swarup G. 1973. Susceptibility of plants to

pigeonpea cyst nematode, Heterodera cajani. Indian Journal

of Nematology 2:1-6.

Walia RK and Bajaj HK. 1986. Existence of host races ofpigeonpea cyst nematode, Heterodera cajani, Koshy.Nematologica 32:117-119.

Walia RK and Bajaj HK. 1988. Further studies on the races in

pigeonpea cyst nematode, H. cajani. Indian Journal of

Nematology 18:269-272.

Table 2. Reaction of Glycine max cv PK 564 and Phaseolus radiatus cv TM 96-1 to different populations of H. cajani

Number

White (Female)

Populations

Race A Anand (Gujarat)Coimbatore (Tamil Nadu)Dharwar (Karnatka)

Hisar, Pigeonpea (Haryana)Jaipur (Rajasthan)

Kanpur (U.P.)Ludhiana (Punjab)New Delhi (Delhi)Pusa (Bihar)Yamunanagar (Haryana)Race B Hisar, Clusterbean (Haryana)

C.D. (P = 0.05)

(Data are means of three repl icat ions)

000

0000000

0

-

J2

cv PK 564

00000000

00

0

-

Male

00000000

00

0

White (Female)

30.08.310.0

102.030.0117.79.0

118.7

32.37.0

60.0

12.6

J2

cv TM 96-1

9.32.03.0

27.711.7

27.34.7

24.0

8.35.0

17.36.3

Male

2.01.03.014.04.08.02.010.03.02.0

7.0

0.3

Biological Ac t i v i t y o f Lect ins f r o m G r a i n

Legumes a n d G a r l i c against the L e g u m e

Pod B o r e r , Helicoverpa armigera

Richa Arora, HC Sharma*, E Van Dreissche1 andKK Sharma (ICRISAT, Patancheru 502 324, AndhraPradesh, India; 1. Vrije Universiteit, Paardanstraat 65,B-1640 Sint-Genesius-Rode, Belgium)* Corresponding author: h.sharma@cgiar.org

Cot ton bol lworm/ legurae pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) , is one of the most devastating croppests wor ldw ide (Sharma 2001). It has a wide host range,and feeds on more than 300 plant species. Due toindiscr iminate use of insecticides, i t has developed highlevels of resistance to conventional insecticides (Kranth iet a l . 2002). Therefore, it is important to developalternative methods of cont ro l l ing this pest, inc lud inghost plant resistance. However, the levels of resistance toH. armigera in the cult ivated germplasm of several cropsare l ow to moderate. Therefore, improv ing plantresistance to pests through genetic transformation, hasraised hopes of using plant resistance as an effectiveweapon for pest management (Sharma et al . 2004). Thisincludes incorporat ion of novel genes such as crystalprotein f rom Bacillus thuringiensis (B t -Cry genes),enzyme inhibi tors (such as protease and alpha amylaseinhibi tors) , vegetative insecticidal proteins (VIPs) , smallR N A viruses (SRVs) , and secondary plant metabolites(SPMs). W h i l e the act iv i ty of B t -Cry proteins has beeninvestigated extensively, there is very l i t t le in format ionon the b io logica l act iv i ty of other insecticidal genes thatcan be used to confer resistance to insects in transgenicplants (H i lder and Boul ter 1999). Therefore, weevaluated the b io log ica l act iv i ty of plant lectins ascandidate genes for conferr ing resistance to H. armigera.

Lect ins are carbohydrate-binding proteins (orglycoproteins) o f non- immune nature, and b indreversibly to specific mono- or oligo-saccharides(Goldstein et a l . 1980, Van Damme et al . 1998). Theyplay an important role in the plant 's defense againstinsect pests, and have been found to be tox ic to viruses,bacteria, fungi , insects and higher animals. This paperreports the b io log ica l effects of plant lectins from f ie ldbean (Phaseolus vulgaris), pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan), chickpea (Cicer arietinum), and garl ic (A l l i u m sativum)

50 ICPN 12, 2005

along w i t h snowdrop (Galanthus nivalis) lect in on thegrowth and development of H, armigera so as to ident i fythe candidate genes for deployment through transgenicplants to control this pest.

Lectins extracted f rom chickpea, pigeonpea, garl ic(garl ic lect in I = from garl ic leaves; garl ic lect in II = fromtransgenic tobacco) and field bean were bio-assayedalong w i t h snowdrop lect in against the neonate larvae ofH. armigera. The lectins were bio-assayed against theneonate larvae of H, armigera by treating the surface ofthe art i f ic ia l diet (Armes et al. 1992) in a glass v ia l (2 cmdiameter and 3.5 cm height) w i t h 100 ml of differentlectins. Each glass v ia l contained 5 ml diet. The lect insolutions were prepared in phosphate buffer ( p H 6.8,molar i ty 0.2 M ) . The buffer was prepared by m i x i n g 51.0ml of A [0.2 M solut ion of mono-basic sodium phosphate(27.8 g in 1000 m l ) ] and 49.0 ml of B [0.2 M solut ion ofdibasic sodium phosphate (53.65 g of Na2HPO4 .7H2O or71.7 g of Na2HPO4.12H2O in 1000 m l ) ] di luted to a totalo f 200 ml w i t h dist i l led water. Lectins dissolved inphosphate buffer were spread un i fo rmly over the dietsurface w i t h a micropipette, and a l lowed to dry under thetable fan in the laboratory for 4 h. One neonate larva wasreleased in each v ia l and observations were recorded onweight of the larvae f ive days after in i t ia t ing theexperiment, and larval , pupal, and total developmentper iod. Each treatment was replicated three times in a completely randomized design. There were 10 larvae ineach treatment. Observations on larval weights wererecorded 5 days later, wh i le pupal weights were recordedone day after pupation. Data were also recorded on adultemergence. The data were subjected to analysis ofvariance.

The weights of the larvae at 5 days after in i t ia t ing theexperiment ranged from 16.54 mg on the art i f ic ia l dietw i t h buffer to 26.90 mg in diet treated w i t h f ie ld beanlect in as compared to 22.68 mg in the untreated controldiet (Tab le1) . However , the differences in larval weightsin diets w i t h different lectins were not signif icant. Thelarval weights were also quite l o w in the diet treated w it hphosphate buffer on ly . This may be because of someeffects of the buffer on the pH of art i f ic ia l diet. However,no adverse effects of the buffer were observed on larvaland pupal periods and the pupal weights. The weight ofthe pupae reared on diet containing garl ic lect in I I ( f romtransgenic tobacco) was signi f icant ly lower (283.81 mgper larva) as compared to those fed on untreated controldiet (325.00 mg per larva). None of the lectins testedshowed any adverse effect on larval per iod. Pupal per iodof the insects reared on diet containing lectins from f ieldbean, pigeonpea, chickpea and garl ic, was signi f icant ly

Entomology

ICPN 12, 2005 51

shorter than those reared on the untreated control diet.The differences in percentage pupation and adult

emergence were not signif icant. However, less than 60%pupation was recorded in diets treated w i t h lectins f rompigeonpea, chickpea in 60% ammonium sulphatesolut ion, garl ic, and garl ic lect in extracted fromtransgenic plants as compared to 76.67% in untreatedart i f ic ia l diet. Adu l t emergence ranged f rom 33.33% indiets treated w i t h pigeonpea and garl ic lect in to 46.67%in untreated control diet. The sex ratio (males:females)was affected adversely in diets treated w i t h lectins f romfield bean and pigeonpea.

Ant i - insect properties of the plant lectins have earlierbeen reported against European corn borer, Ostrinia nubilalis (Czapla and Lang 1990). The snowdrop lect in( G N A ) has previously been shown to be toxic toHomoptera (Rahbe et al . 1995; Powel l et a l . 1995,1998),Lepidoptera (Fitches et al . 1997), and Coleoptera(Gatehouse et al. 1995; Elden 2000). Snowdrop lect in(2%) inhib i ted feeding and reduced the weight of spottedpod borer, Maruca vitrata larvae (Machuka et al . 1999)and tomato moth (Lacanobia oleracea) (Fitches et al.1997). Such effects of G N A were not observed in thepresent studies, possibly because of l ow concentrationsused in the present studies.

Lectins have been reported to affect the survival anddevelopment of insect pests (Janzen et al. 1976; Shukleand Murdock 1983; Czapla and Lang 1990; Habib i et al .1993; Gatehouse et al. 1993, 1995; Powel l et al. 1995;Law and K f i r 1997). They b ind to the glycan receptorspresent on the surface l i n ing of the insect gut (Pusztai andBardocz 1996), and interfere w i t h the format ion andintegri ty o f the peri t rophic membrane of the midgut(Harper et a l . 1998), but how that affects the digestivephys io logy is unknown. Larva l weights were s l ight lygreater in diets treated w i t h G N A , chickpea lect in, andfield bean lect in. Simi lar effects of soybean lect in haveearlier been reported in case of O. nubilalis (Czapla andLang 1990). Percentage pupation was l o w (<60%) indiets treated w i t h pigeonpea lect in, chickpea lect in in60% ammonium sulphate solut ion, and garl ic lect in,wh i le adult emergence was low in diets treated w i t hpigeonpea and garl ic lect in. The garl ic lect in had anadverse effect of the larval and pupal weights of H.armigera, but not on the duration of larval and pupaldevelopment. The lectins from garl ic and pigeonpea canpossibly be deployed in transgenic plants in combinat ionw i t h Bt genes to increase the levels of plant resistance toH. armigera.

Armes NJ, Bond GS and Cooter RJ. 1992. The laboratoryculture and development of Helicoverpa armigera. NaturalResources Institute, Bulletin No. 57. Chatham, UK: NaturalResources Institute.

Czapla TH and Lang BA. 1990. Effect of plant lectins on thelarval development of European corn borer (Lepidoptera:Pyralidae) and southern corn rootworm (Coleoptera:Chrysomelidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 83:2480-2485.

Elden T C . 2000. Effects of proteinase inhibitors and plantlectins on the adult alfalfa beetle (Coleoptera:Curculionidae).Journal of Entomological Science 35(1):62—69.

Fitches E, Gatehouse A M R and Gatehouse JA. 1997. Effectsof snowdrop lectins (GNA) delivered via artificial diet and intransgenic plants on the development of tomato moth(Lacanobia oleracea) larvae in laboratory and glasshousetrials. Journal of Insect Physiology 43:727-739.

Gatehouse A M R , Hilder VA and Gatehouse JA. 1993.Antimetabolic effects of plant lectins and plant and fungalenzymes on the nymphal stages of two important rice pests,Nilaparvata lugens and Nephotettix cinciteps. EntomologiaExperimentalis et Applicata 66:119-126.

Gatehouse A M R , Powell KS, Van Damme EJM andGatehouse JA. 1995. Insecticidal properties of plant lectins.In Lectins - Biomedical Perspectives (Pusztai A and BardoczS, eds.). London, UK: Taylor and Francis.

Goldstein IJ, Hughes RC, Monsigny M, Osawa T andSharon N. 1980. What should be called a lectin? Nature285:66.

Habibi J, Backus EA and Czapla T H . 1993. Plant lectinsaffect survival of the potato leafhopper (Homoptera:Cicadellidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 86:945-951.

Harper M S , Hopkins TL and Czapla T H . 1998. Effect ofwheat germ agglutinin on formation and structure of theperitrophic membrane in European corn borer (Ostenianubilalis) larvae. Tissue and Cell 30:166-176.

Hilder VA and Boulter D. 1999. Genetic engineering of cropplants for insect resistance: a critical review. Crop Protection18:177-191.

References

Acknowledgments. We thank S Narayanchandra andVV Rao for their help in carry ing out these experiments,and Directorate General International Cooperation ( D G IC ) ,Be lg ium, for funding this research.

Janzen D H , Juster HB and Leiner I E . 1976. Insecticidalaction of the phytohemagglutinin in black beans on bruchidbeetle. Science 192:795-796.

Kranthi KR, Jadhav DR, Kranthi S, Wanjar i RR, Al i SSand Russel DA. 2002. Insecticide resistance in five majorinsect pests of cotton in India. Crop Protection 21: 449-460.

Law lJ and Kf i r R. 1997. Effects of mannose-binding lectinfrom peanut and pea on the stem borer Chilo partellus. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 82:261-265.

Machuka J, Van Damme E J M , Peumans WJ and JackalL E N . 1999. Effects of plant lectins on the development of thelegume pod borer, Maruca vitrata. EntomologiaExperimentalis et Applicata 93:179-186.

Powell KS, Gatehouse A M R , Hilder VA, Van Damme E J M ,Peumans WJ , Boonjawat J, Horsham K and Gatehouse JA.1995. Different antimetabolic effects of related lectins towardsnymphal stages of Nilaparvata lugens. EntomologiaExperimentalis et Applicata 75:61-65.

Powell KS, Spence J, Bharathi M, Gatehouse JA andGatehouse A M R . 1998. Immunohistochemical anddevelopmental studies to elucidate the mechanism of action ofthe snowdrop lectin on the rice brown planthopper,Nilaparvata lugens. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata44:529-539.

Pusztai A and Bardocz S. 1996. Biological effects of plantlectins on the gastrointestinal tract: metabolic consequencesand applications. Trends in Glycoscience and Glycotechnology8:149-165.

Rahbe Y, Sauvion N, Febvay G, Peumans WJ andGatehouse A M R . 1995. Toxicity of lectins and processing ofingested proteins in the pea aphid, Acrythosiphon pisum. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 76:143-155.

Sharma H C . 2001. Cotton bollworm/legume pod borer,Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Noctuidae: Lepidoptera).Biology and Management. Walingford, UK: CommonwealthAgricultural Bureau International.

Sharma H C , Sharma KK and Crouch JH . 2004. Genetictransformation of crop plants for insect resistance: Potentialand limitations. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 23:47-72.

Shukle RH and Murdock L L . 1983. Lipoxygenase, trypsininhibitor, and lectin from soybeans: Effects on larval growth ofManduca sexta (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae). EnvironmentalEntomology 12:787-791.

Van Damme E J M , Peumans W J , Pusztai A and Bardocz S.1998. A handbook of plant lectins: Properties and biomedicalapplications. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.

52 ICPN 12, 2005

Aamil M, Zaidi A and Khan MS. 2004. Fungicidal impact onchickpea-mesorhizobium symbiosis. Journal of EnvironmentalScience and Health Part B Pesticides Food Contaminants andAgricultural Wastes 39(5/6): 779-790.

Ahmad F and Slinkard AE. 2004. The extent of embryo andendosperm growth following interspecific hybridization betweenCicer arietinum L. and related annual wi ld species. GeneticResources and Crop Evolution 51(7):765-772.

Ahmad N and Chaudhary M F . 2004. Studies on the effect offoliar application of 2.4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2, 4-D)on different growth parameters of chickpea. Sarhad Journal ofAgriculture 20(4):613-618.

Ahmad R and Chandel SF. 2004. Farmers field evaluation of1PM module against H. armigera infesting chickpea. Archivesof Phytopathology and Plant Protection 37(2): 133-137.

Akhter J, Mahmood K, Mal ik KA, Mardan A and AhmadM. 2004. Effects of hydrogel amendment on water storage ofsandy loam and loam soils and seedling growth of barley, wheatand chickpea. Plant Soil and Environment 50(10):463-469.

Alam G. 2004. State of the Indian farmer: a millennium study.Volume 5. Technology generation and IPR issues. New Delhi,India: Academic Foundation; Department of Agriculture andCooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India.172 pp.

All M, Singh BB, Kumar S and Dhar S. (eds). 2004. Pulsesin new perspective: proceedings of the National Symposium onCrop Diversification and Natural Resource Management,llPR, Kanpur, India, 20-22 Dec 2003. Kanpur, India. IndianSociety of Pulses Research and Development; Indian Instituteof Pulses Research. 546 pp.

Chickpea Publications

The following 2004 listings and publications have beengenerated from ICRISAT's electronic bibliographic databaseSATCRIS - the Semi-Arid Tropical Crops Information Service.Copies of the fol lowing entries can be obtained bywri t ing to:

S A T C R I S L is t i ng

Publ ica t ions

Altinbas M. 2004. Stability of seed yield by ranks in winterchickpea. Ziraat Fakultesi Dergisi 41(2):77-88.

Anderson A, Baldock JA, Rogers SL and Bellotti W. 2004.Influence of chlorsulfuron on rhizobial growth, noduleformation, and nitrogen fixation with chickpea. AustralianJournal of Agricultural Research 55(10):1059-1070.

Ansari M A , Patel BA, Mhase NL , Patel DJ, Douaik A andSharma SB. 2004. Tolerance of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)lines to root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne javanica (Treub)Chitwood., Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 51(4):449-553.

Armstrong-Cho C, Gossen BD and Chongo G. 2004. Impactof continuous or interrupted leaf wetness on infection ofchickpea by Ascochyta rabiei. Canadian Journal of PlantPathology 26(2): 134-141.

Arshad M, Bakhsh A and Ghafoor A. 2004. Path coefficientanalysis in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under rainfed conditions.Pakistan Journal of Botany 36(l):75-82.

Arya RL. 2004. Integrated weed management in chickpea(Cicer arietinum) + mustard (Brassica juncea) intercroppingsystem under rainfed conditions. Indian Journal of Agronomy49(2):98-100.

Ashraf MS and Khan TA. 2004. Response of chickpeavarieties/lines against reniform nematode Rotylenchulusrenifomis. Indian Journal of Nematology 34(l):75-79.

Bahti Paziiat and Strange R N . 2004. Chemical andbiochemical reactions of solanapyrone A, a toxin from the chickpeapathogen, Ascochyta rabiei (Pass.) Labr. Physiological & Molecular Plant Pathology 64(1):9-15.

Barhate BC, Bendre NJ, Mhase LB and Aher RP. 2004.Effect of rhizobium strains on nodulation and grain yield ofchickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Legume Research 27(2): 151 -152.

Berger JD, Turner NC, Siddique K H M , Knights EJ,Brinsmead RB, Mock I, Edmondson C and Khan T N . 2004.Genotype by environment studies across Australia reveal theimportance of phenology for chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)improvement. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research55(10):1071-1084.

Bhargava S and Bhargava AK. 2004. Effects of neem oi l ongrowth characteristics of Cicer arietinum and control of PodBorer. Advances in Plant Sciences 17(2):713-716.

Boominathan P, Shukla R, Kumar A, Manna D, Negi D andVerma PK. 2004. Long term transcript accumulation duringthe development of dehydration adaptation in Cicer arietinum. Plant Physiology 135(3): 1608-1620.

ICPN 12, 2005 53

Senior ManagerLibraryICRISATPatancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India

Email: s.srinivas@cgiar.org

Borja R, B, Raposo F, JR, F and

Mart in A. 2004. Mesophilic anaerobic digestion in a fluidised-bed reactor of wastewater from the production ofprotein isolates from chickpea flour. Process Biochemistry39(12):1913-1921.

Burli AY, More SM, Gare BN and Dodake SS. 2004. Studieson genetic variability and heritability in chickpea underresidual soil moisture condition. Journal of MaharashtraAgricultural Universities 29(3): 353.

Celik S, Basman A, Yalcin E and Koksel H. 2004. Effects ofIrradiation on protein electrophoretic properties, waterabsorption and cooking quality of dry bean and chickpea. FoodScience and Technology Research 10(4): 410-423.

Chand S, Tripathi HN and Tripathi AK. 2004. Phosphorusrequirement of gram (Cicer arietinum) + Indian mustard(Brassica juncea) intercropping system under irrigated conditions.Indian Journal of Agricultural Science 74(4): 207-209.

Chand S, Tripathi HN and Tripathi AK. 2004. Phosphorusrequirement of gram (Cicer arietinum) + Indian mustard(Brassica junced) intercropping system under irrigated conditions.Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 74(4): 207-209.

Chang K F , Hwang SF, Gossen BO, Turnbull GD, HowardRJ and Blade SF. 2004. Effects of soil temperature, seedingdepth, and seeding date on rhizoctonia seedling blight and rootrot of chickpea. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 84(3): 901-907.

Chen W, Coyne CJ, Peever TL and Muehlbauer FJ. 2004.Characterization of chickpea differentials for pathogenicityassay of ascochyta blight and identification of chickpeaaccessions resistant to Didymella rabiei. Plant Pathology53(6):759-769.

Chiaiese P, Ohkama-Ohtsu N, Molvig L, Godfree R, DoveH, Hocart C and Fujiwara T. 2004. Sulphur and nitrogennutrition influence the response of chickpea seeds to an added,transgenic sink for organic sulphur. Journal of ExperimentalBotany 55(404): 1889-1901.

Cho S; Chen W and Muehlbauer FJ. 2004. Pathotype-specific genetic factors in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) forquantitative resistance to ascochyta blight. Theoretical & Applied Genetics 109(4):733-739.

Clarke H, Khan T and Siddique K. 2004. Pollen selection forchil l ing tolerance at hybridisation leads to improved chickpeacultivars. Euphytica 139(1): 65-74.

Clarke HJ and Siddique K H M . 2004. Response of chickpeagenotypes to low temperature stress during reproductivedevelopment. Field Crops Research 90(2/3): 323-334.

Clarke HJ , Khan TN and Siddique K H . 2004. Pollenselection for chil l ing tolerance at hybridisation leads toimproved chickpea cultivars. Euphytica 139(1): 65-74.

54 I C P N 12, 2005

Coskuner Y and Karababa E. 2004. Leblebi: a roastedchickpea product as a traditional Turkish snack food. FoodReviews International 20(3):257-274.

Dahiwalkar SD, Sarguru SA, Andhale RP and Berad SM.2004. Response of chickpea to surge f low irrigation. Journal ofMaharashtra Agricultural Universities 29(1):100-101.

Dar W D . 2004. ICRlSAT - Using biotechnology to improvecrop productivity in the semi-arid tropics of Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Advanced Biotech 3(6): 16-19.

Deshmukh RB, Mhase LB, Patil JV, Deshmukh DV andJamadagni B M . 2004. 'Virat ' a kabuli chickpea forMaharashtra. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities29(3):247-249.

Deshmukh RB, Patil JV and Chaudhari GB. 2004.Comparison of selection methods in chickpea. LegumeResearch 27(3): 193-196.

Devaranavadgi SB, Hunashal CS, Wali SY, Patil MB andBellakki MA. 2004 . Allelopathic effects of some tree crops onchickpea in dryland ecosystem. Journal of MaharashtraAgricultural Universities 29(2): 154-156.

Dubey SC. 2004 . Reaction of chickpea genotypes againstFusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceri causing vascular wil t . IndianPhytopathology 57(2): 233-233.

Ferreira M B , Pedro E, Santos J M , dos Santos M C P andCarlos M L P . 2004. Latex and chickpea (Cicer arietinum) allergy: first description of a new association. Allergie etImmunologie 36(10): 366-371.

France, European Association for Grain Legume Researc h.2004. Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on GrainLegumes and 2nd International Conference on LegumeGenomis and Genetics: Legumes for the Benefit of Agriculture,Nutrition and the Environment: their Genomics, their Products,and their Improvement, Di jon, France, 7-11 June 2004. Paris,France; Dijon, France: European Association for Grain LegumeResearch; INRA Genetics and Ecophysiology of Legumes Unit.198 pp.

Garg N and Jasleen. 2004 . Variability in response of chickpea(Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars to salt stress in germination andearly growth of the seedlings. Indian Journal of PlantPhysiology (New Series) 9(1):21-28.

Giron-Calle J, Vioque J, del M a r Yust M, Pedroche J, Alai zM and Mil lan F. 2004. Effect of chickpea aqueous extracts,organic extracts, and protein concentrates on cell proliferation.Journal of Medicinal Food 7(2): 122-129.

Gossen BD and Mil ler PR. 2004. Survival of Ascochyta rabiei in chickpea residue on the Canadian prairies. Canadian Journalof Plant Pathology 26(2): 142-147.

Goutam U, Anand RC and Sharma HR. 2004. Evaluation ofbiomix vis-a-vis multiple inoculant in chickpea. Annals ofAgr i Bio Research 9(2): 151-154.

Gontam U, Anand RC, Banga RS and Sharma HR. 2004.Compatibility of diazotrophs with herbicides in chickpea underfield conditions. Annals of Agr i Bio Research 9(2):155-157.

Grundy PR and Sequeira RV. 2004. Evaluating legumespecies as alternative trap crops to chickpea for management ofHelicoverpa spp. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in central Queenslandcotton cropping systems. Bulletin of Entomological Research94(6): 481-486.

Gull M, Hafeez FY, Saleem M and Mal ik KA. 2004.Phosphorus uptake and growth promotion of chickpea by co-inoculation of mineral phosphate solubilising bacteria and a mixed rhizobial culture. Australian Journal of ExperimentalAgriculture 44(6):623 -628.

Gupta DK, Rai UN, Sinha S, Tripathi RD and Nautiyal BD.2004. Role of Rhizobium (CA-1) inoculation in increasinggrowth and metal accumulation in Cicer arietinum L. growingunder fly-ash stress condition. Bulletin of EnvironmentalContamination and Toxicology 73(2): 424-431.

Gupta DK, Tohoyama H, Joho M and lnouhe M. 2004.Changes in the levels of phytochelatins and related metal-binding peptides in chickpea seedlings exposed to arsenic anddifferent heavy metal ions. Journal of Plant Research117(3): 253-156.

Gupta SC. 2004. Response of gram (Cicer arietinum) to typesand methods of microbial inoculation. Indian Journal ofAgricultural Science 74(2): 73-75.

Hemmat A and Eskandari I. 2004. Tillage system effectsupon productivity of a dryland winter wheat—chickpearotation in the northwest region of Iran. Soil and TillageResearch 78(1): 69-81.

Ibarz A, C and Barbosa- GV. 2004.Kinetic models for water adsorption and cooking time inchickpea soaked and treated by high pressure. Journal of FoodEngineering 63(4): 467-472.

ICRISAT. 2004. Production and productivity trends ofICRISAT mandate crops. Patancheru 502 324, AndhraPradesh, India:. International Crops Research Institute for theSemi-Arid Tropics. 14 pp.

ICRISAT. 2004. Sowing seeds of success: ICRISAT researchimpacts 1997 -2003. Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh,India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-AridTropics. 32 pp.

Jat RS and Ahlawat IPS. 2004. Effect of vermicompost,biofertilizer and phosphorus on growth, yield and nutrientuptake by gram (Cicer arietinum) and their residual effect onfodder maize (Zea mays). Indian Journal of AgriculturalScience 74(7): 359-261.

Jimenez-Gasco M M , Navas-Cortes JA and Jimenez-DiazR M . 2004. Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris/Cicer arietinum

pathosystem: a case study of the evolution of plant-pathogenicfungi into races and pathotypes. International Microbiology7(2):95-104.

Kahlon TS and Shao Q. 2004. In vitro binding of bile acids bysoy bean (Glycine max), black eye bean (Vigna unguiculata), garbanzo (Cicer arietinum) and lima bean (Phaseoluslunatus). Food Chemistry 86(3):435-440.

Kaur S, Brar KS and Shehnmar M. 2004. Effect of differentchickpea cultivars on parasitization of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) by Campoletis chlorideae Uchida. Journal ofBiological Control 18(1):69-72.

Kesnamma E and Jayalakshmi SK. 2004. Effect of salicylicacid, spermine and cinnamic acid on some defense enzymes ofchickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) CV JG 62. Journal of PlantBiology 30(4): 13-20.

Khan 1A and Alam SS. 2004. Biochemical changes inchickpea roots after inoculation with virulent andhypovirulent. Isolates of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris.Pakistan Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research47(1): 25-28.

Khan IA and Alam SS. 2004. Purification of phytotoxin fromculture filtrates of Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. ciceris and itsbiological effects on chickpea. Pakistan Journal of Botany36(4):871-880.

Khan M R , Khan SM and Mohiddin FA. 2004. Biologicalcontrol of Fusarium wi l t of chickpea through seed treatmentwith the commercial formulation of Trichoderma harzianumand/or Pseudomonas fluorescens. Phytopathologia Mediterranea43(l):20-25.

Khan MS, Zaidi A and Aamil M. 2004. Influence ofherbicides on Chickpea-Mesorhizobium symbiosis.Agronomie 24(3): 123-128.

Khatik SK, Deshmukh K K , Sharma GD and Dwivedi BS.2004. Effect of FYM, rock phosphate and bio-fertilizer onutilization of phosphorus by gram (Cicer arietinum) and itstransformation in soil. Journal of Nuclear Agriculture andBiology 33(l):39-48.

Khawar K M . 2004. Hairy root transformation in Turkishchickpea (Cicer arietinum L) cultivars. Biotechnology andBiotechnological Equipment 18(3): 51-54.

Krishna S, Sharma AP and Bhushan C. 2004. Nitrogen andsulphur nutrition of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) grown undersemi-arid conditions of central Uttar Pradesh. LegumeResearch 27(2): 146-148.

Krishnamurthy L, Serraj R, Kashiwagi J, Panwar JDS andRao Y K . 2004. Multilocation analysis of yield and yieldcomponents of a chickpea mapping population grown underterminal drought. Indian Journal of Pulses Research 17(1): 17-24.

ICPN 12, 2005 55

56 ICPN 12, 2005

Kulkarni SS, Patil JV and Gawande V L . 2004. Heterosisstudies in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Journal of MaharashtraAgricultural Universities 29(3):272-275.

Kumar J, Yadav SS and Kumar S. 2004. Influence ofmoisture stress on quantitative characters in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) . Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding64(2): 149-150.

Kumar R, Jalali BL and Chand H. 2004. Interaction betweenVa-mycorrhizal fungi and soil-borne plant pathogens ofchickpea. Legume Research 27(1): 19-26.

Kumari SG, Makkouk K M , Attar N and Ghulam W. 2004.First report of chickpea chlorotic dwarf virus infecting springchickpea in Syria. Plant Disease 88(4):424.

Landa BB, Navas- JA and R M . 2004.Influence of temperature on plant-rhizobacteria interactionsrelated to biocontrol potential for suppression of fusarium wi l tof chickpea. Plant Pathology 53(3):341-352.

Landa BB, Navas-Cortes JA and Jimenez-Diaz R M . 2004.Integrated management of fusarium wi l t of chickpea withsowing date, host resistance, and biological control.Phytopathology 94(9): 946-960.

Laranjo M, Machado J, Young J, Peter W and Oliveira S.2004. High diversity of chickpea Mesorhizobium speciesisolated in a Portuguese agricultural region. FemsMicrobiology Ecology 48(1): 101-107.

Li L, Tang C, Rengel Z and Zhang FS. 2004. Calcium,magnesium and microelement uptake as affected byphosphorus sources and interspecific root interactions betweenwheat and chickpea. Plant and Soil 261(l/2):29-37.

Li S M , Li L and Zhang FS. 2004. Acid phosphatase role inchickpea/maize intercropping. Annals of Botany 94(2):297-303.

- Bellido L, Bellido RJ, Castillo JE andBellido FJ. 2004. Chickpea response to tillage and soilresidual nitrogen in a continuous rotation with wheat: 1.Biomass and seed yield. Field Crops Research 88(2/3):191-200.

-Bellido RJ, Bellido L, Castillo JE andBellido FJ. 2004. Chickpea response to tillage and soilresidual nitrogen in a continuous rotation with wheat: I I . Soilnitrate, N uptake and influence on wheat yield. Field CropsResearch 88(2/3):201-210.

Mal i M and Singh PP. 2004. Physico-chemicalcharacterization of paper mi l l leachate and its impact onseedling growth of Cicer arietinum. Journal of IndustrialPollution Control 20(1): 59-66.

Meares CA, Bogracbeva T Y , H i l l SE and Hediey CL . 2004.Development and testing of methods to screen chickpea flourfor starch characteristics. Starch -Stuttgart 56(6):215-224.

Meena HS, Kumar J and Yadav SS. 2004. Inheritance of seedcolour in chickpea (cicer arietinum L . ) . Indian Journal ofGenetics and Plant Breeding 64(2):151-152.

Mhadhbi H, Jebara M, Limam F and Aouani M E . 2004.Rhizobial strain involvement in plant growth, nodule proteincomposition and antioxidant enzyme activities of chickpea-rhizobia symbioses: modulation by salt stress. PlantPhysiology and Biochemistry 42(9):717-722.

Mhase DVDLB. 2004. Evaluation of chickpea genotypes fordrought tolerance. Indian Journal of Pulses Research17(l):47-49.

Mishra DN. 2004. Economics and efficacy of some bio-pesticides to manage Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) onchickpea under mid western plain zone of UP. Environmentand Ecology 22(3):404-406.

Mishra JS and Singh VP. 2004. Interference of small canarygrass (Phalaris minor) in latesown gram (Cicer arietinum). Indian Journal of Agricultural Science 74(5):268-270.

Moinuddin and Khanna-Chopra R. 2004. Osmoticadjustment in chickpea in relation to seed yield and yieldparameters. Crop Science 44 (2):449-455.

Muzquiz M, Welham T, Altares P, Goyoaga C, CuadradoC, Romero C and Guillamon E. 2004. Effect of germinationon seed trypsin inhibitors in Vicia faba and Cicer arietinum. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 84(6):556-560.

Nayyar H and Chander S. 2004. Protective effects ofpolyamines against oxidative stress induced by water and coldstress in chickpea. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science190(5):355-365.

Nazirkar RB, Rasal PH, Pawar KB, Jadhav SK and JadhavBR. 2004. Response of phosphocomposts on the yield and soilproperties of kharif sorghum followed by chickpea. Journal ofMaharashtra Agricultural Universities 29(2):237-239.

Nestel P, Cehun M and Chronopoulos A. 2004. Consumptionof chickpeas and plasma glucose. Nutrit ion ResearchNewsletter 23(3): 13-14.

Nestel P, Cehun M and Chronopoulos A. 2004. Effects oflong-term consumption and single meals of chickpeas onplasma glucose, insulin, and triacylglycerol concentrations.American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 79(3):390-395.

Oweis T, Hachum A and Pala M. 2004. Water use efficiencyof winter-sown chickpea under supplemental irrigation in a Mediterranean environment. Agricultural Water Management.66(2): 163-179.

Padmaja CK . 2004. Effects of coir waste along with NPK onthe growth and yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum). Journal ofEcotoxicology and Environmental Monitoring 14(4):315-318.

Pant H, Pandey G and Shukla D N . 2004. Effect of differentconcentrations of biocontrol agents on root-knot disease of

chickpea and its rhizosphere microflora. Pakistan Journal ofNematology 22(1): 103-110.

C, Lacoponi E and Raccuia S. 2004. Physico-chemical characteristics, water absorption, soaking andcooking properties of some Sicilian populations of chickpea(Cicer arietinum L.). International Journal of Food Sciences & Nutrit ion 55(7):547-554.

Patel M M . 2004. Adoption behaviour of chickpea growerstowards integrated pest management. Indian Journal of PulsesResearch 17(1): 67-69.

Perlik A. 2004. Spicy potatoes and kale with chickpeas.Restaurants and Institutions 114(14): 29-29.

Pinto G and Esin A. 2004. Kinetics of the osmotic hydrationof chickpeas. Journal of Chemical Education 81(4): 532-536.

Poddar RK, Singh DV and Dubey SC. 2004. Integratedapplication of Trichoderma harzianum mutants andcarbendazim to manage chickpea wi l t (Fusarium oxysporum f sp ciceri). Indian Journal of Agricultural Science 74(6):346-248.

Poddar RK , Singh DV and Dubey SC. 2004. Management ofchickpea wi l t through combination of fungicides andbioagents. Indian Phytopathology 57(1): 39—43.

Polowick PL, Bal iski DS and Mahon JD. 2004.Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation ofchickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) : gene integration, expressionand inheritance. Plant Cell Reports 23(7):485-490.

Qureshi AS, Shaukat A, Bakhsh A, Arshad M and ChafoorA. 2004. Assessment of variability for economically importanttraits in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L . ) . Pakistan Journal ofBotany 36(4): 779-786.

Rai B and Singh TS. 2004. Influence of plant growthpromoting fungi on growth and yield of chickpea, pea andmustard. Journal of Mycopathological Research 42(1): 9-14.

Rajesh PN, Coyne C, Meksem K, Sharma K D , Gupta V andMuehlbauer FJ. 2004. Construction of a H ind l l l BacterialArtif icial Chromosome library and its use in identification ofclones associated wi th disease resistance in chickpea.Theoretical and Applied Genetics 108(4): 663-669.

Rajput BS, Mathur CM and Sonakiya V K . 2004.Physiological studies on advanced generation short durationdeshi chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes. Advances inPlant Sciences 17(2): 513-518.

Rajput BS, Mathur CM and Sonakiya V K . 2004. Studies onphenological attributes and their association with structuralattributes in chickpea (Cicer arientinum L . ) . Advances in PlantSciences 17(2):479-484.

Rao SC, Ryan J, Al-Amoodi LK, Barbarick KA andRoberts CA. (eds). 2004. Challenges and strategies fordryland agriculture. CSSA Special Publication 32. Wisconsin,

USA. Crop Science Society of America; American Society ofAgronomy. 455 pp.

Raut V K , Patil JV and Gawande V L . 2004. Correlation andpath analysis for quantitative traits in chickpea. Indian Journalof Pulses Research 17(1): 82-83.

Ravi R and Bhattacharya S. 2004. Flow behaviour ofchickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) flour dispersions: effect ofadditives. Journal of Food Engineering 65(4): 619-624.

Ravi R and Susheelamma NS. 2004. Effect of theconcentration of batter made from chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) flour on the quality of a deep-fried snack. InternationalJournal of Food Science and Technology 39(7): 755-762.

Ravikumar R L . 2004. Effect of gamete selection onsegregation of wi l t susceptibility-linked DNA marker inchickpea. Current Science 86(5): 642-643.

Reddy SV and Kumar PL. 2004. Transmission and propertiesof a new luteovirus associated with chickpea stunt disease inIndia. Current Science 86(8): 1157-1160.

Redondo-Nevado J, Aguilar M, Caballero JL and PinedaM. 2004. Structural and genomic organization, cDNAcharacterization and expression analysis of the urate oxidasegene from chickpea (Cicer arietinum). Physiologia Plantarum121(3): 358-368.

Reyes-Moreno C, Cuevas-Rodriguez EO, Milan-Carril lo J and Cardenas-Valenzuela OG. 2004. Solid state fermentationprocess for producing chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) tempehflour. Physiochemical and nutritional characteristics of theproduct. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture84(3): 271-278.

Romeis J, Sharma H C , Sharma K K , Das S and Sarmah BK.2004. Potential of transgenic chickpeas for pest control andpossible effects on non-target arthropods. Crop Protection23(10): 923-938.

Rubeena S, Sharma RC and Pandey GP. 2004. Effect ofnatural dyes on the chlorophyll and starch content of gramCicer arietinum. Ecology Environment and Conservation10(1): 21-26.

Rubio J, Flores F, Moreno M T , Cubero Jl and Gil J. 2004.Effects of the erect/bushy habit, single/double pod and late/early flowering genes on yield and seed size and their stabilityin chickpea. Field Crops Research 90(2/3): 255-262.

Saikia R, Singh K and Arora DK. 2004. Suppression offusarium-wilt and charcoal rot of chickpea by Pseudomonasaeruginosa RsB29. Indian Journal of Microbiology 44(3):181-184.

Saini V K , Bhandari SC and Tarafdar JC. 2004. Comparisonof crop yield, soil microbial C, N and P, N-fixation, nodulationand mycorrhizal infection in inoculated and non-inoculatedsorghum and chickpea crops. Field Crops Research 89(l):39-48.

ICPN 12, 2005 57

58 ICPN 12, 2005

Sanap M M , Mungse HB and Deshmukh DV. 2004. Growthand yield variation in chickpea for drought tolerance. Journalof Maharashtra Agricultural Universities 29(2): 143-145.

A, Mateos I, Labrador E and Dopico B. 2004.Brassinolides and 1AA induce the transcription of four a-expansin genes related to development in Cicer arietinum. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 42(9): 709-716.

Sangwan PS and Raj M. 2004. Effect of zinc nutrition onyield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under drylandconditions. Indian Journal of Dryland Agricultural Researchand Development 19(1): 1 - 3 .

Sarmah BK, Moore A, Tate W, Molvig L, Morton RL , ReesDP, Chiaiese P, Chrispeels M J , Tabe LM and Higgins TJV.2004. Transgenic chickpea seeds expressing high levels of a bean a-amylase inhibitor. Molecular Breeding 14(l):73-82.

Sarna S, Sharma P and Khurana AS. 2004. Synergistic effectof combined inoculation of Azotobacter chroococcum andRhizobium sp. in chickpea. Indian Journal of Pulses Research17(1): 35-37.

Senthil G, Williamson B, Dinkins RD and Ramsay G. 2004.Efficient transformation system for chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Plant Cell Reports 23(5): 297-303.

Sequeira RV. 2004. Recruitment and loss of juvenile stages ofHelicoverpa spp. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on contaminantplants in chickpea crops. Australian Journal of Entomology43(2):164-168.

Serraj R, Krishnamurthy L, Kashiwagi J, Kumar J,Chandra S and Crouch JH. 2004. Variation in root traits ofchickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) grown under terminal drought.Field Crops Research 88(2/3): 115-127.

Serraj R (ed.). 2004. Symbiotic nitrogen fixation: prospectsfor enhanced application in tropical agriculture. New Delhi,India. Oxford and IBH Publishing. 480 pp.

Seungho C and Muehlbauer FJ. 2004. Genetic effect ofdifferentially regulated fungal response genes on resistance tonecrotrophic fungal pathogens in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology 64(2): 57 -66.

Shah Z, Muhammad W, Shah SM and Iqbal M M . 2004.Yield and N~2 fixation of lentil and chickpea as influenced bytillage and P levels under rainfed conditions. Sarhad Journal ofAgriculture 20(2): 243-250.

Sharma K D , Winter P, Kahl G and Muehlbauer FJ. 2004.Molecular mapping of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris race3 resistance gene in chickpea. Theoretical and AppliedGenetics 108(7): 1243-1248.

Sharma SK, Singh D and Dua RP. 2004. Genetic divergencein chickpea under saline conditions. Indian Journal of PulsesResearch 17(1): 80-81.

Sharma V and Kumar G. 2004. Meiotic studies in twocultivars of Cicer arietinum L. after EMS treatment. Cytologia69(3): 243-248.

Sharma V, Kumar G and Kumar R. 2004. Comparativemutagenicity of gamma rays and EMS in Cicer arietinum L.Journal of Cytology and Genetics. 5(1):21—26.

Siag RK and Yadav BS. 2004. Effect of vermicompost andfertilizers on productivity of gram (Cicer arietinum) and soilferti l ity. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 74(11): 613—615.

Siddiqui ZA. 2004. Effects of soil inoculants on the growth,transpiration and wil t disease of chickpea. Journal of PlantDiseases and Protection 111(2): 151-157.

Singh G. 2004. My experiences of ascochyta blight ofchickpea: Lead the way towards eradication. Plant DiseaseResearch 19(1): 1-9.

Singh H, Mahajan G and Singh l. 2004. Efficacy of differentinsecticides against the gram pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera) on chickpea (Cicer arientinum). Legume Research 27(3): 233-234.

Singh N, Singh SK and Kaur M. 2004. Characterization ofstarches separated from Indian chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)cultivars. Journal of Food Engineering 63(4): 441-449

Singh R N , Kumar B and Singh S. 2004. Effect of lime andboron application on gram (Cicer arietinum) in acid soils ofJharkhand. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science52(3):283-285.

Singh S and Chand H. 2004. Effect of extracts of somemedicinal plants on spore germination of chickpea wi l tpathogen (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceri (Pad.) Synd. andHans.). Indian Journal of Plant Protection 32(1): 162-163.

Singh S, Saini SS and Singh BP. 2004. Effect of irrigation,sulphur and seed inoculation on growth, yield and sulphuruptake of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) under late-sownconditions. Indian Journal of Agronomy 49(1):57-59.

Singh SP, Kiran and Tanwar RS. 2004. Dissipation oflindane and fenvalerate on chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.).Pesticide Research Journal 16(2):57-59.

Singh T. Deshmukh PS and Kushwaha SR. 2004.Physiological studies on temperature tolerance in chickpea(Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes. Indian Journal of PlantPhysiology 9(3):294-301.

Singhai B and Shrivastava SK. 2004. Solubility behaviour offive varieties of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) seed proteins atdifferent pH. Legume Research 27(1):46-49.

Sriveni M, Rupela OP, Gopalakrishnan S and Krajewski

M. 2004. Spore-forming bacteria, a major group among

potential antagonists isolated from natural sources such as

ICPN 12, 2005 59

Hereditas 140(3):226-228.

Toker C, Karhan M and Ulger S. 2004. Endogenous organicacid variations in different chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)genotypes. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica: Section B, Soil & Plant Science 54 ( l ) :41-44.

Toker C. 2004. Evaluation of yield criteria with phenotypiccorrelations and factor analysis in chickpea. Acta AgriculturaeScandinavica: Section B, Soil & Plant Science 54 (1):45—48.

Udupa SM, Malhotra RS and Baum M. 2004. Tightly linkeddi - and tri-nucleotide microsatellites do not evolve in completeindependence: evidence from linked (TA)n and (TAA)nmicrosatellites of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) . Theoretical & Applied Genetics 108(3):550-558.

Vandenberg A and Warkentin T. 2004. CDC Desiray dcsichickpea. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 84(3):795-796.

Varshney JG and Arya RL . 2004. Effect of integratednutrients use and weed-control methods on sole gram (Cicer arietinum) and gram + Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) intercropping system. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences.74(3):121-125.

Wani AA. 2004. Effect of physical and chemical mutagens onvarious quantitative traits in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.).Journal of Nuclear Agriculture and Biology 33(2):114-118.

Wouterlood M, Cawthray GR, Scanlon T T , Lambers H andVeneklaas EJ. 2004. Carboxyiate concentrations in therhizosphere of lateral roots of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) increase during plant development, but are not correlated withphosphorus status of soil or plants. New Phytologist162(3):745-753.

Wouterlood M, Cawthray GR, Turner S and Lambers H.2004. Rhizosphere carboxylate concentrations of chickpea areaffected by genotype and soil type. Plant and Soil 261(1/2):1-10.

Yadav AS. 2004. Symbiotic effectiveness of nodulationmutants of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under pothouse andfield conditions. Geobios - Jodhpur 31(4):269-274.

Yadav SS, Kumar J, Turner NC, Berger J, Redden R,McNeil D, Materne M, Knights EJ and Bahl PN. 2004.Breeding for improved productivity, multiple resistance andwide adaptation in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) . PlantGenetic Resources 2(3): 181-188.

Zulet M A , Macarulla M T , Portillo MP and Martinez JA.2004. Beneficial outcome in hypercholesterolemia after intakeof heat-treated chickpea in rats. Publication-EuropeanAssociation for Animal Production 110:153-158.

termitaria soil and composts used by organic farmers. IndianJournal of Microbiology 44(2):95-100.

Tae Z, Bo J and Zhang W. 2004. Relationship betweenstructure and emulsifying properties of chickpea proteinisolates. Food and Fermentation Industries 30(12):204-213.

Tekeoglu M, Isik M and Muehlbauer FJ. 2004. QTL analysisof ascochyta blight resistance in chickpea. Turkish Journal ofAgriculture and Forestry 28(3): 183-188.

Tewari AN and Tiwar i SN. 2004. Chemical control ofAsphodelus tenuifolius infesting gram (Cicer arietinum) underrainfed condition. Indian Journal of Agricultural Science74(12):436-437.

Tewari-Siugh N, Sen J, Kiesecker H, Reddy VS, JacobsenHJ and Guha-Mukherjee S. 2004. Use of a herbicide or lysineplus threonine for non-antibiotic selection of transgenicchickpea. Plant Cell Reports 22(8):576-583.

Thakur HS. 2004. Effect of levels and frequencies ofapplication of fertilizer phosphorus on yield, NPKS contentand uptake and phosphorus balance studies of chickpea (Cicer arietinum). Indian Journal of Dryland Agricultural Researchand Development 19(2): 164-167.

Thakur KS, Keshry PK and Tamrakar DK. 2004. Studies onmanagement of collar rot disease (Sclerotium rolfsii) ofchickpea by use of fungicides. Advances in Plant Sciences17(2):553-556.

Thomas JE, Schwinghamer M W , Parry JN, Sharman M,Schilg MA and Dann EK. 2004. First report of tomato spottedwi l t virus in chickpea (Cicer arietinum) in Australia.Australasian Plant Pathology 33(4):597-599.

Tippannavar C M , Emmimath VS and Jahagirdar S. 2004.Field evaluation of efficient rhizobium strains in combinationwith reduced levels of N for Bengal gram in northernKarnataka. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research 38(1):77-78.

Tiyagi SA and Ajaz S. 2004. Biological control of plantparasitic nematodes associated with chickpea using o i l cakesand Paecilomyces lilacinus. Indian Journal of Nematology34(1): 44-48.

Tiyagi SA, Ajaz S and Azam M F . 2004. Effect of somepesticides on plant growth, root nodulation and chlorophyllcontent of chickpea. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science50(6):529-533.

Toker C and Cargirgan M I . 2004. Use of phenotypiccorrelations and factor analysis in determining characters forgrain yield selection in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L . ) .

60 ICPN 12, 2005

Alam G. 2004. State of the Indian farmer: a millennium study.Volume 5. Technology generation and IPR issues. New Delhi,India: Academic Foundation; New Delhi, India: Department ofAgriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture,Government of India. 172 pp.

Al i M, Singh BB, Kumar S and Dhar S. (eds.). 2004. Pulsesin new perspective: proceedings of the National Symposium onCrop Diversification and Natural Resource Management,IIPR, Kanpur, India, 20-22 Dec 2003. Kanpur, India: IndianSociety of Pulses Research and Development; Kanpur, India:Indian Institute of Pulses Research. 546 pp.

Alves SMC, de S abboud AC and de LD Ribeiro R. 2004.Nitrogen and phosphorus balance in soil wi th organiccultivation of legumes after incorporation of pigeonpea biomass.Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira 39(11): 1111-1118.

Balasubramanian P and Vadivelu S. 2004. Screening insesame L. genotypes for resistance to pigeonpea cyst nematode,Heterodera cajani, Koshy and Swarup, 1967. Indian Journal ofAgricultural Research 38(1): 1-7.

Biliore SD and Joshi OP. 2004. Screening of pigeonpea,Cajanus cajan varieties for their suitability as intercrop insoybean, Glycine max L. Journal of Oilseeds Research21(1):58-61.

Bramel PJ. (ed.). 2004. Assessing the risk of losses inbiodiversity in traditional cropping syterns: a case study ofpigeonpea in Andhra Pradesh. Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh,India. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-AridTropics. 163 pp.

Chaudhary RG, Dhar V and Naimuddin. 2004. Managementof phytophthora blight in pigeonpea through cultural methodsand fungicides. Indian Journal of Pulses Research 17(1): 50-52.

Chauhan R M , Parmar L D , Patel PT and Tikka SBS. 2004.Fertility restoration in cytoplasmic genie male sterile line ofPigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Mil lsp.) derived from Cajanus scarabaeoides. Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding64(2):112-114.

Chauhan YS, Apphun A, Singh VK and Dwivedi BS. 2004.Foliar sprays of concentrated urea at maturity of pigeonpea toinduce defoliation and increase its residual benefit to wheat.Field Crops Research 89(1): 17-25.

Chirwa TS, Mafongoya PL, Mbewe D N M and ChishalaBH. 2004. Changes in soil properties and their effects on maizeproductivity following Sesbania sesban and Cajanus cajan improved fallow systems in eastern Zambia. Biology andFertility of Soils 40(I):20-27.

Chougule NP, G i r i AP, Hivrale V K , Chhabda PJ andKachole MS. 2004. Identification of amylase inhibitor

Pigeonpea Publications deficient mutants in pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L. ) Mil l isp.).Biochemical Genetics 42(5/6): 165-180.

Corzo O and Fuentes A. 2004. Moisture sorption isothermsand modeling for pre-cooked flours of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajans L. millsp) and lima bean (Canavalia ensiformis). Journal of Food Engineering 65(3):443-448.

Dar W D . 2004. ICRISAT - Using biotechnology to improvecrop productivity in the semi-arid tropics of Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Advanced Biotech 3(6): 16-19.

Deshmukh M R , Shah SM, Katade SR, Belhekar AA andKashalkar RV. 2004. Removal of methylene blue andmalachite green by agricultural waste material stalks ofCajanus cajan. Asian Journal of Chemistry 16(3/4): 1863-1867.

Dharmaraj PS and Lohithaswa H C . 2004. ICPL 87119(Asha): Fusarium wi l t and sterility mosaic disease resistantpigeonpea variety for northern Karnataka. Karnataka Journalof Agricultural Sciences 17(2):330-331.

Duhan A, Khetarpaul N and Bishnoi S. 2004. HCl-extractability of zinc and copper as affected by soaking,dehulling, cooking and germination of high yielding pigeonpeacultivars. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 17(5):597-604.

Duker-Eshun G, Jareszewski JW, Asomaning WA andOppong-Boachie F. 2004. Antiplasmodial constituents ofCajanus cajan. Phytotherapy Research 18(2): 128-130.

Durairaj C. 2004. Effect of abiotic factors on the incidence ofpigeonpea pod fly and its pupal parasitoids. Indian Journal ofPulses Research 17(1):61 -63.

Ferreira EC, Nogueira ARA, Souza GB and Batista LAR.2004. Effect of drying method and length of storage on tanninand total phenol concentrations in pigeonpea seeds. FoodChemistry. 86(1): 17-23.

Fujita K, Kai Y, Takayanagi M, El-Shemy H, Adu-GyamfiJJ and Mohapatra PK. 2004. Genotypic variability ofpigeonpea in distribution of photosynthetic carbon at lowphosphorus level. Plant Science 166(3):641-649.

Gare BN, More SM and Jadhav M G . 2004. Effect ofpigeonpea and sorghum intercrop on yield of soybean underrainfed condition in sub-Montane zone of Maharashtra. Journal- Maharashtra Agricultural Universities 29(2): 170-171.

Gautam VS, Kushwaha BB and Patel R N . 2004.Performance of intercropping of sorghum wi th low profilecanopy legumes crops under different planting geometries.Indian Journal of Dryland Agricultural Research andDevelopment 19(2): 126-129.

Haseeb A and Shukla PK. 2004. Management of Heterodera cajani, Meloidogyne incognita and fusarium wi l t on pigeonpea

with some chemicals, bio-pesticides and bio-agents. NematologiaMediterranea 32(2):217-222.

Hasreddy SM and Khemaling R (eds.). 2004. Developmentof dryland agriculture: problems and prospects. Sedam,Gulbarga, Karnataka, India: Shri Kottal Basaveshwara BharatiyaShikshana Samiti. 301 pp.

ICRISAT. 2004. Production and productivity trends ofICR1SAT mandate crops. Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, IndiaInternational Crops Research Institute for the Semi-AridTropics. 14 pp.

ICRISAT. 2004. Sowing seeds of success: ICRISAT researchimpacts 1997-2003. Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh,India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-AridTropics. 32 pp.

Jat HS and Ahlawat IPS. 2004. Production potential andeconomic viability of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) + groundnut(Arachis hypogaea) intercropping in lndo-Gangetic plains.Indian Journal of Agricultural Science 74(3): 126-129.

Jones AT , Kumar PL, Saxena KB, Kulkarni NK,Muniyappa V and Waliyar F. 2004. Sterility mosaic disease -the "green plague" of pigeonpea: advances in understandingthe etiology, transmission and control of a major virus disease.Plant Disease 88(5):436-445.

Katiyar PK, Dua RP, Singh IP, Singh BB and Singh F.2004. Multivariate analysis for genetic diversity in earlypigeonpea accessions. Legume Research. 27(3): 164-170.

Kshirsagar RB, Sawate AR and Bendale T G . 2004. Effect ofpretreatments on quality characteristics of selected varieties offrozen green Arhar/tur (Cajanus cajan). Indian Food Packer58(6): 159-164.

Kumar A. 2004. Flower and pod pests of pigeonpea. InsectEnvironment 10(1): 12.

Kumar S, Singh B and Akharu RK. 2004. Efficacy of somebiorational insecticides on larval population of gram pod boreron pigeonpea. Legume Research. 27(l):62-65.

Kumar SM, Kumar BK, Sharma KK and Devi P. 2004.Genetic transformation of pigeonpea with rice chitinase gene.Plant Breeding 123(5):485-489.

Lakshmidevamma T N , Gowda MB and Mahadevu P. 2004.Character association and path analysis in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L . ) . Mysore Journal of Agricultural Sciences38(2):221-226.

Lal RR, Verma P and Reddy BS. 2004. Development andevaluation of a low capacity dal chakki for pre-treatedpigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.) . Indian Journal of DrylandAgricultural Research and Developement. 19(2): 138-142.

Li Z-h, Pan X-z and Zhou C-h. 2004. Variation ofquantitative characters on pigeonpea populations of local

cultivars in Yunnan Province. Forest Research - ChineseAcademy of Forestry 17(5):554-562.

Mahalinga D M , Jayalaksmi SK and Gangadhara GC. 2004.Management of pigeonpea wi l t through integration ofbioagents and resistant source. Plant Disease Research19(2):181-182.

Mallikarjuna N and Kalpana N. 2004. Mechanisms ofcytoplasmic-nuclear male sterility in pigeonpea wide crossCajanus cajan x C. acutifolius. Indian Journal of Genetics andPlant Breeding 64(2): 115-117.

Matsunaga R, I to O and Johansen C. 2004. Varietaldifferences in carbohydrate accumulation in pigeonpea stemsin relation to reproductive development. Japanese Journal ofTropical Agriculture 48(2):63-69.

Mekbungwan A and Thongwittaya N. 2004. Digestibility ofsoybean and pigeonpea seed meals and morphologicalintestinal alterations in pigs. Journal of Veterinary MedicalScience 66(6):627-733.

Mekbungwan A. 2004. Growth performance and histologicalintestinal alterations in piglets fed dietary raw and heatedpigeonpea seed meal. Histology and Histopathology19(2):381-389.

Mishra A, Dhar B and Singh R M . 2004. Nodulationcompetitiveness between contrasting phage phenotypes ofpigeonpea rhizobial strains. Indian Journal of ExperimentalBiology 42(6):611-615.

Modgil R. 2004. Biological protein quality of insect(Callosobruchus chinensis L.) infested pigeonpea. Journal ofFood Science and Technology 41(l):60-62.

Morais H, Medr i M E , Marur CJ, Caramori PH and deArruda Ribeiro A M . 2004. Modifications on leaf anatomy ofCoffea arabica caused by shade of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan). Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology 47(6):863-872.

Mukherjee D. 2004. Effect of kinetin on the regulation ofabscission and senescence in pigeonpea. Physiology andMolecular Biology of Plants 10(2):223-231.

Nagaraj K M , Chikkadevaiah and Kulkarni RS. 2004.Inheritance of resistance to sterility mosaic virus in pigeonpea(Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.). Indian Journal of Genetics andPlant Breeding. 64(2): 118-120.

Nahar P, Yadav P, Kulye M, Hadapad A, Hassani M, TuorU, Keller S, Chandele AG and Thomas B. 2004. Evaluationof indigenous fungal isolates Metarhizium anisopliae M34412,Beauveria bassiana B3301 and Nomuraea rileyi N812 for thecontrol of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) in pigeonpea field.Journal of Biological Control 18(1): 1-8.

Nisha Rekha P, Singhal S and Pandit AB. 2004. A study ondegradation kinetics of thiamine in red gram splits (Cajanus cajan L.). Food Chemistry 85(4):591-598.

ICPN 12, 2005 61

62 ICPN 12, 2005

Oloyo RA. 2004. Chemical and nutritional quality changes ingerminating seeds of Cajanus cajan L. Food Chemistry85(4):497-502.

Onimawo IA . 2004. Effects of germination on the nutrientcontent and functional properties of pigeonpea flour. Journalof Food Science and Technology 41(2): 170-174.

Pandey N. 2004. Ascendancy of genotype and stresstemperature on flowering behaviour in long duration pigeonpea.Legume Research 27(3): 177-182.

Pandey N. 2004. Ascendancy of temperature on pod setting inpigeonpea. Legume Research 27(3): 171-176.

Pandey N. 2004. Line x tester analysis in long duration hybridpigeonpea. Legume Research 27(2):79-87.

Pendke MS, Lomte MH and Gitte AU. 2004. Effects of soiland water conservation practices on runoff, soil loss and yieldof pigeonpea. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities29(3):319-320.

Prajapati BH, Tikka SBS, Purohit LP and Chaudhary GK.2004. Plot size study from uniformity trial data on pigeonpeaunder north Gujarat condition. Indian Journal of PulsesResearch 17(1):25-27.

Prasad V, Satyavathi V V , Sanjaya V alli K M , Khandelwal,Abha, Shaila MS and Lakshmi Sita G. 2004. Expression ofbiologically active Hemagglutinin-neuraminidase protein ofPeste des petits ruminants virus in transgenic pigeonpea[Cajanus cajan (L) Mi l lsp.] . Plant Science 166(1): 199-205.

Ramamoorthy K, Lourduraj AC, Alagudurai S andKandasamy OS. 2004. Intercropping pigeonpea (Cajanuscajan) in finger millet (Eleusine coracana) on productivity andsoil fertility under rainfed condition. Indian Journal ofAgronomy 49(1):28-30.

Rao MS, Reddy K D , Srivatsava NN, Singh T V K and ReddyGS. 2004. Effect of change in microclimate on insect pests andtheir predators in pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan). Indian Journal ofAgricultural Science 74(7):399-402.

Rathod PS, Halikatti SI , Hiremath SM and Kajjidoni ST.2004. Comparative performance of pigeonpea basedintercropping systems in northern transitional zone ofKarnataka. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences17(2):203-206.

Reddy GS, Maruthi V and Vanaja M. 2004. Effect of soildepth on productivity of mung bean and pigeonpea underrainfed environment. Legume Research 27(1): 1-10.

Reddy K R C , Srivastava PK, Dey PM and Kayastha A M .2004. Immobilization of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) urease onDEAE-cellulose strips for urea estimation. Biotechnology andApplied Biochemistry 39(3): 323-327.

Rekha PN, Singhal S and Pandit AB. 2004. Study ondegradation kinetics of thiamine in red gram splits (Cajanus cajan L.). Food Chemistry 85(4):591-598.

Sarkar RK and Pal PK. 2004. Effect of intercropping rice(Oryza sativa) with groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) andpigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) under different row orientations onrainfed uplands. Indian Journal of Agronomy 49(3): 147-150.

Saxena SK, Bajpai GC, Roy D and Gangwar L K . 2004.Intergenotypic competition in pigeonpea. Legume Research27(2):94-98.

Shafeek M R , El-Zeiny O A H and Ahmed M E . 2004.Pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) growth and yield as affected by theinteraction between bio and organic fertilizers. Annals ofAgricultural Science 49(2):619-630.

Shrivastava GK, Lakpale R, Choubey NK and Singh AP.2004. Productivity and economics of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) + urdbean (Phaseolus mungo) intercropping systemunder various planting geometry and fertilizer management inrainfed condition of Chhattisgarh. Indian Journal of Agronomy49(2): 101-103.

Singh DK and Agrawal RL . 2004. Nitrogen and phosphorusnutrition of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) grown in soleand intercropping systems under rainfed conditions. IndianJournal of Agronomy 49(3): 151—153.

Singh J and Bajpai GC. 2004. Pollen germination and pollentube growth studies in interspecific crosses of pigeonpea(Cajanus cajan (L.) Mil lsp). Indian Journal of Genetics andPlant Breeding 64(2): 153-154.

Singh ND, Sahoo L, Saini R, Sarin NB and Jaiwal PK. 2004.In vitro regeneration and recovery of primary transformantsfrom shoot apices of pigeonpea using Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants10(1):65-74.

Singh RP, Singh T, Singh Y and Singh SR. 2004. Productionpotential of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) plus rice and okraintercopping on rainfed uplands of eastern Uttar Pradesh.Indian Journal of Dryland Agricultural Research andDevelopment 19(2): 168-171.

Sreekant M, Sreeramulu M, Rao RDVJP, Babu BS andBabu TR. 2004. Effect of intercropping on Thrips palmi(Karny) population and peanut bud necrosis virus (PBNV)incidence in mung bean (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek). IndianJournal of Plant Protection 32(l):45-48.

Sreekanth B, Khetarpal S and Srivastava GC. 2004. Natureand mode of regeneration in cotyledonary nodal explants ofpigeonpea. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology (New Series)9(2):132-135.

63 ICPN 12, 2005

Srinivasan T, Verma VK and Kir t i PB. 2004. Efficient shootregeneration in pigeonpea Cajanus cajan (L) Mil lsp usingseedling petioles. Current Science 86(1):30—32.

Suhas Y, Patil BV and Lingappa S. 2004. Effect of differentadjuvants in enhancing the efficacy of HaNPV againstHelicoverpa armigera (Hubner) infesting pigeonpea. IndianJournal of Pulses Research 17(1): 103 -104.

Sunidhi Singh P and Parmar U. 2004. 14C-Glutaminetranslocation in the developing pods of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan M. Millsp.) in relation to plant growth regulators. IndianJournal of Ecology 31(1 ):52-53.

Tomar J, Singh HB, Vivek and Tripathi SS. 2004. Integratedweed management in intercropping of mung bean (Vigna radiata) and cowpea fodder (Vigna unguiculata) withpigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) under Western UP condition.Indian Journal of Weed Science 36(1-2): 133-134.

Vaithiyalingan M. 2004. Effect of 2,4-d and casein -hydrolysate on callus induction and differentiation inpigeonpea (Cajanus cajan). Journal of Ecobiology 16(2): 119-122.

Venkateswarlu B. 2004. Response of green gram andpigeonpea to Bradyrltizobium-inoculation and soil moistureconservation practice. Indian Journal of Microbiology44(3):215-218.

Wendt JW and Atemkeng IMF. 2004. Soybean, cowpea,groundnut, and pigeonpea response to soils, rainfall, andcropping season in the forest margins of Cameroon. Plant andSoil 263(1/2): 121-132.

Yadav GS. 2004. Evaluation of new insecticides/chemicalsagainst pod borer and pod fly on pigeonpea. Annals of Biology20(1):55-56.

RA-00420Notes

The opinions in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of ICRISAT. The designations employed andthe presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of ICRISATconcerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of itsfrontiers or boundaries. Where trade names are used this does not constitute endorsement of or discrimination against any productby ICRISAT.

About ICRISAT

The International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) is a nonprofit, non-

political organization that does innovative agricultural research and capacity building for sustainable

development with a wide array of partners across the globe. ICRISAT's mission is to help empower 600

million poor people to overcome hunger, poverty and a degraded environment in the dry tropics through

better agriculture. ICRISAT belongs to the Alliance of Future Harvest Centers of the Consultative Group

on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).

Contact information:

ICRISAT-Patancheru(Headquarters)Patancheru 502 324Andhra Pradesh, IndiaTel +91 40 30713071Fax +91 40 30713074icrisat@cgiar.org

ICRISAT-BamakoBP 320 Bamako, MaliTel +223 2223375Fax +223 2228683icrisat-w-mali@cgiar.org

Liaison OfficeCG Centers BlockNASC ComplexDev Prakash Shastri MargNew Delhi 110 012, IndiaTel +91 11 25849552/25842553Fax +91 11 25841294

ICRISAT-BulawayoMatopos Research StationPO Box 776Bulawayo, ZimbabweTel +263 83 8311 to 15Fax +263 83 8253/8307 icrisatzw@cgiar org

ICRISAT-Nairobi(Regional hub ESA)PO Box 39063. Nairobi, KenyaTel +254 20 7224550Fax +254 20 7224001icrisat-nairobi@cgiar.org

ICRISAT-LilongweChitedze Agricultural Research StationPO Box 1096Lilongwe, MalawiTel +265 1 707297/071/067/057Fax +265 1 707298icrisat-malawi@cgiar.org

ICRISAT-Niamey(Regional hub WCA)BP 12404Niamey. Niger (Via Paris)Tel +227 722529, 722725Fax +227 734329icnsatsc@cgiar.org

ICRISAT-Maputoc/o INIA Av. das FPLM No 2698Caixa Postal 1906Maputo, MozambiqueTel +258 1 461657Fax +258 1 461581icrisatmoz@panintra.com

visit us at www.icrisat.org

ISSN 1023-4861 63-2005