Submit or Track your Manuscript LOG-IN

Evaluation of Advanced Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Genotypes for Yield and Resistance to Pod Borer (Helicoverpa armigera L.)

SJA_40_3_726-739

Research Article

Evaluation of Advanced Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Genotypes for Yield and Resistance to Pod Borer (Helicoverpa armigera L.)

Hamid Ullah Khan1*, Muhammad Anas1*, Rozina Gul1, Waseem Ullah Shah1, Abdul Haleem2, Muneeb Ahamd Khan1, Muhammad Taimur1, Tahreem Shah1, Sajjad Ur Rahman1, Noman Anjum1 and Muhammad Saqib3

1Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, University of Agriculture, Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan; 2Research Officer, Directorate of Agriculture Research, District Kila Safullah, Balochistan, Pakistan; 3Department of Agriculture, University of Swabi (KP), Pakistan.

Abstract | Evaluation of genotypes for morphological and yield-promoting traits over different years is a key component in cultivar development. The main goals of the current research studies were to identify pod worm-resistant/tolerant and high-yielding genotypes over two years along with other desirable traits that could be manipulated in future chickpea breeding programs. The experimental material consisted of 45 chickpea genotypes tested over two years in the Randomize Complete Block Design (RCBD) with three replications at the University of Agriculture, Peshawar. Data was documented in terms of days of emergence, days to flower, plant height, pods per plant, seed per pod, 100 seed weight, grain yield, larval infestation, pod damage percentage and biological yield. The pooled analysis of variance showed highly significant differences (P<0.01) between years and between genotypes and genotype-year interaction (GYI) for all traits examined, except plant height. On average over two years, a minimum of (126) days to flowering were recorded over two years for genotypes D-15015 and D-13011, while a maximum of (136) days to flowering were recorded for genotype K-01209. For plant height over two years, the lowest and highest data were recorded for genotypes NKC-10-99 (72 cm) and FLIP82-150 (104 cm), respectively. The highest (25g) 100-seed weight across two years was shown by genotypes K-88168 followed by KARAK-2. The lowest (5662 kg ha-1) biological yield was recorded for genotype K-08003, whereas the highest (13022kg ha-1) biological yield was observed in D-13011. A lower percentage of damaged pods (17.0%) was observed for NIFA-2005, followed by both genotypes K-01153 (18%) and K-70009 (21%). The lowest grain yield was recorded for genotype D-15012 (328 kg h-1), while the highest grain yield (988 kg ha-1) was from genotypes D-14005, K-60058 (914 kg h-1) and D- 15036 was achieved (910 kg ha-1). GYI genotypes K88170, D-14014, D-14005, K-60058, D-15036, KARAK-2, K-CH47/04, and NIFA-2005 showed the highest grain yield and a lower percentage of pod damage. The genotypes K88170, D-14014, K-60069, K-01153, K-70009, KARAK-2, K-CH47/04, D-15036 and NIFA-2005 performed very well and were registered with less larval infestation and pod damage Percentage and maximum yield over two years, therefore recommended for developing pod worm resistant/tolerant and high yielding chickpea varieties.


Received | October 10, 2022; Accepted | February 19, 2024; Published | July 10, 2024

*Correspondence | Hamid Ullah Khan and Muhammad Anas, Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, The University of Agriculture, Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan; Email: [email protected]

Citation | Khan, H.U., M. Anas, R. Gul, W.U. Shah, A. Haleem, M.A. Khan, M. Taimur, T. Shah, S. Rahman, N. Anjum, M. Saqib. 2024. Evaluation of advanced chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes for yield and resistance to pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera L). Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, 40(3): 726-739.

DOI | https://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.sja/2024/40.3.726.739

Keywords | Chickpea, Pod borer attack, Morphological traits, Pooled analysis, Larval count and LSD count

Copyright: 2024 by the authors. Licensee ResearchersLinks Ltd, England, UK.

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).



Introduction

Globally, it is cultivated on about 13.2 million hectares in more than fifty developing countries with a 95% contribution to the total world production. In Pakistan during 2018-19, the total area under chickpea cultivation was 1050 thousand hectares with a total production of 350 thousand tons and an average yield of 345.9 kg ha-1, while in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa the total cultivated area and production of chickpeas were reported as 33387 hectares and 16940 tons, respectively. Among the major chickpea-producing countries, Pakistan ranks fourth after India and Australia, which share 5.73% of the total global production (FAO, 2017).

Chickpeas are mainly divided into two groups based on phenotypic characteristics, like seed size, seed colour, seed shape and flower colour as Desi and Kabuli. Desi chickpea gives an output of 15-25 mounds per acre. Kabuli chickpea has a relatively large seed size and whitish creamy coloured seed with a thinner seed coat. Kabuli-type plant height is larger as compared to Desi type. The deep tap-rooted chickpea system boosts its ability to adapt to stress conditions. Chickpea performs well in low agriculture inputs and is drought tolerant because of their deep tap root system.

Grams are generally grown in moderate-heavy soils, light soils, mostly sandy loams are preferred. The best type of soil for chickpeas is one that is well-drained and not too heavy. The plants remain short in dry and light soils, while heavy soils have high water retention capacity. There is no side effect of chickpea proteins on human health as compared to animal protein, the digestibility rate of chickpea protein is high as compared to animal protein. Apart from providing these nutritional requirements to humans, chickpea is also useful in soil fertility management due to their nitrogen fixation.

Correlation analysis provides information on the associated response of plant characters and therefore, leads to a directional model for yield production in chickpeas (Khan and Qureshi, 2001). Being rich in protein, the chickpea plant is susceptible to several biotic and abiotic stresses which attack roots, foliage and pods. Gram Pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera L) is one of the major biotic stresses which causes a reduction in yield and quality in chickpeas (Kumar et al., 2019). This pest is the major constraint in chickpea production causing severe losses of up to 100% despite several rounds of insecticidal applications. Due to its polyphagous nature, pod borer infests many hosts including chickpeas and causes severe damage to the crop during pod development (Sarwar, 2013). The pod borer, (Helicoverpa armigera L.), is the most serious pest in causing economic loss to the chickpea crop (Yadav et al., 2006). Damage caused by pod borer in the form of losses in seed yield may reach up to 75% to 90% in severe cases (Sarwar, 2013). Therefore, adopting an environmentally friendly and cost-effective approach, as the development of host-resistant cultivars to pod borer is necessary (Jadhav and Gawande, 2016).

Objectives of the study

  • Identify pod worm-resistant/tolerant and high-yielding genotypes for future chickpea breeding programs.
  • Evaluate genotypes for morphological and yield-promoting traits over two years.
  • Assess traits such as days to emergence, days to flower, plant height, pods per plant, seed per pod, 100 seed weight, grain yield, larval infestation, pod damage percentage, and biological yield.
  • Determine significant differences between years, genotypes, and genotype-year interaction for the examined traits.
  • Recommend genotypes with high grain yield, a lower percentage of pod damage, and less larval infestation for developing pod worm-resistant/tolerant and high-yielding chickpea varieties.
  • Use pooled analysis as a powerful tool for identifying resistance levels of genotypes to the chickpea pod borer.
  • Access line identification and check vs. test line performance through pooled analysis.
  • Evaluate the performance of chickpea genotypes for yield and pod borer resistance/tolerance across two years.
  • Identify genotypes with high resistance potential, tolerance to the chickpea pod borer, and high yield for future breeding programs.

Materials and Methods

The experiment was conducted to Evaluate the performance of chickpea genotypes for yield and pod borer resistance/tolerance across two years. This study was carried out during the chickpea growing seasons 2018-19 and 2019-20 at The University of Agriculture, Peshawar. The experimental materials consisted of 45 chickpea genotypes out of which 41 lines were collected from Ayub Agriculture Research Institute, Faisalabad (AARI), Pakistan and four were checked cultivars (Karak-1, Karak-2, Karak-3 and NIFA-2005).

The check cultivars were collected from Agriculture Research Station Ahmadwala Karak and Nuclear Institute for Food and Agriculture Peshawar (NIFA) (Table 1). The experiments were planted during the last week of October 2018 and mid-October 2019 in 1st and 2nd years, respectively in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. Each genotype was grown in three rows with a four-meter row length by keeping row-to-row plant-to-plant and plot-to-plot distances as 30, 10 and 60 cm, respectively. All the cultural practices essential for crop management were uniformly carried out in all the treatments including hoeing and weeding applicable for chickpea crops from sowing to harvesting.

The advanced chickpea genotypes for evaluation in the study were selected based on the following criteria

  • Yield and resistance to pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera L.)
  • Morphological and yield-promoting traits
  • Potential for manipulation in future chickpea breeding programs
  • The evaluation focused on genotypes that exhibited desirable traits for future chickpea breeding programs.

These criteria were used to identify genotypes with desirable traits for the improvement of chickpea cultivars.

Results and Discussion

Days to emergence

The pooled analysis of variance over two years revealed highly significant differences (P < 0.01) between the years. Genotypes and genotype-year interaction (GY) also showed highly significant differences (P<0.01) for days up to 50% emergence (Table 2). The higher contribution of genotypes to the total sum of squares indicated that the observed variation was due to genetic differences in the material tested. Similar results were observed by Singh and Singh (2013) in chickpea genotypes for days to 50% emergence over years and genotype-to-year interaction. Early emergence was recorded in year 1, while late emergence was recorded in year 2 for the same genotypes due to different weather conditions (Figures 1, 2).

 

Table 1: List of 45 chickpea genotypes evaluated across two years during 2018-19 and 2019-20.

Source

Genotypes

Source

Genotypes

Source

Genotypes

AARI

D-15012

AARI

D-14005

AARI

K-08021

AARI

D-15019

AARI

D-15005

AARI

K-01153

AARI

D-10008

AARI

D-10039

AARI

K-01155

AARI

D-97086

AARI

D-93127

AARI

K-01210

AARI

D-14014

AARI

D-15036

AARI

K-70009

AARI

D-11030

AARI

K-08003

AARI

K-60058

AARI

D-13036

AARI

K-01158

AARI

K-88168

AARI

D-08025

AARI

K-60075

AARI

K-CH 47/04

AARI

D-15020

AARI

K-01208

AARI

FLIP82-150

AARI

D-13031

AARI

K-01151

AARI

NKC-10-99

AARI

D-13012

AARI

K-60066

AARI

NKC-5-5-20

AARI

D-12011

AARI

K-01213

ARSAK

KARAK-1Check-1

AARI

D-09027

AARI

K-01209

ARSAK

KARAK-2Check-2

AARI

D-13011

AARI

K-60069

ARSAK

KARAK-3Check-3

AARI

D-15015

AARI

K-88170

NIFA

NIFA-2005Check-4

 

Table 2: Mean squares of days to 50% emergence, days to 50% flowering, plant height, pod damage% and larval count of 45 chickpea genotypes were evaluated across two years 2018-19 and 2019-20.

SOV

Df

DTE50%

DTF50%

pH

LC

PD%

Year

1

4035.25**

4629.35**

58138.7NS

4826.01**

113414**

Year*REP

4

1.02

0.10

3657.5

0.40

24

Genotypes

44

6.25**

25.86**

4670.6NS

34.65**

1194**

G × Y

44

6.21**

16.31**

3651.8NS

42.24**

1188**

Error

176

0.85

2.34

3722.6

0.86

7

CV (%)

7.50%

1.18%

11.08%

10.26%

6.12%

**= significant at 1%; *= significant at 5%; NS= non-significant. DTE50%= Days to 50% emergence, DTF50%= Days to 50% flowering, PH= plant height, PBA = Pod borer attack, PD = pod damage %.

 

Table 3: Mean squares of pods per plant, seeds per pod, 100 grain, weight biological yield and grain yield kg hac-1 of 45 chickpea genotypes were evaluated across two years during 2018-19. and 2019-20.

Sov

Df

PPP

SPPOD

100GW

BY

GY

Year

1

22041.3**

14.7000**

360.533**

5698081.2**

425717**

Year*Rep

4

18.5

0.2556

3.363

148470

38436

Genotypes

44

177.0**

0.3364**

30.545**

290007**

252069 **

G × Y

44

185.5**

0.3667**

58.329**

176885**

171370**

Error

176

15.8

0.1154

1.545

102130

47044

CV (%)

16.27%

20.25

6.00%

32.54%

14.94%

PPP= Pods per plant; SPPOD= Seeds per pod; 100GW= 100 Grain weight; BY= Biological yield; kg ha-1 = grain yield kg ha-1.

 

 

The average days to emergence ranged from 10 to 14 days over two years. The K-01213 and K-08003 genotypes emerged early, followed by the D-15012 genotypes, while the K-01151 and Karak-3 genotypes emerged late. In GYI, the minimum (7) days to hatch D-15012 was noted, while the maximum (20) was recorded for genotype K-CH 47/04 (Table 4).

In year 1, days to emergence ranged from 7 to 10 days, while in year 2 they ranged from 11 to 20 days. In year 1, a minimum of (10) days to hatch was observed for D-15012, while a maximum of (14) days to hatch was observed for genotype D-13012. At year 2, genotype K-01213 emerged early, followed by genotype D-15012, while genotype K-CH47/04 emerged late (Table 4).

 

Days to 50% flowering

Combined analyses of variance for days up to 50% flowering showed highly significant differences

 

Table 4: Means and percentage difference for days to 50% emergence of 45 chickpea genotypes evaluated across two years during 2018-19 and 2019-20.

Genotypes

Days to 50% emergence

Days to 50% flowering

1st Year

2nd Year

Mean

% Difference

1st Year

2nd Year

Mean

% Difference

1st Year

2nd Year

% Difference

D-15012

7

16

11

56

123

132

128

6

64

96

33

D-15019

8

17

13

52

125

132

128

5

74

81

8

D-10008

8

16

12

50

126

135

131

6

73

98

25

D-97086

8

14

11

42

126

132

129

4

80

105

23

D-14014

8

14

11

42

127

131

129

3

78

93

16

D-11030

8

15

12

46

125

132

128

5

69

109

36

D-13036

8

14

11

42

125

133

129

6

63

103

38

D-08025

9

15

12

40

122

131

127

6

75

81

7

D-15020

9

17

13

47

126

135

130

6

74

104

28

D-13031

9

18

13

50

127

131

129

3

76

84

9

D-13012

10

15

13

33

127

137

132

7

68

111

38

D-12011

10

17

14

41

125

131

128

4

67

79

15

D-09027

9

18

14

50

125

132

128

5

73

102

28

D-13011

8

17

13

52

122

130

126

6

74

89

16

D-15015

9

13

11

30

124

128

126

3

67

108

37

D-14005

9

14

12

35

127

133

130

4

73

106

31

D-15005

7

16

12

56

127

131

129

3

67

101

33

D-10039

9

17

13

47

126

136

131

7

67

84

20

D-93127

8

17

13

52

124

132

128

6

74

88

15

D-15036

8

18

13

55

125

132

128

5

72

86

16

K-08003

6

14

10

57

128

133

131

3

68

89

23

K-01158

8

14

11

42

126

137

132

8

78

94

17

K-60075

8

16

12

50

127

140

133

9

74

92

19

K-01208

10

16

13

37

124

133

128

6

69

97

28

K-01151

9

19

14

52

124

132

128

6

75

84

10

K-60066

10

16

13

37

122

133

127

8

91

84

-8

K-01213

9

11

10

18

125

130

128

3

73

82

10

K-01209

9

14

12

35

127

144

136

11

55

94

41

K-60069

7

13

10

46

127

134

131

5

61

85

28

K-88170

8

15

12

46

125

134

130

6

71

87

18

K-08021

8

17

12

52

126

138

132

8

65

86

24

K-01153

8

17

13

52

124

133

128

6

63

86

26

K-01155

9

16

12

43

125

133

129

6

64

100

36

K-01210

8

15

12

46

125

129

127

3

72

103

30

K-70009

7

19

13

63

126

133

130

5

93

103

9

K-60058

7

18

13

61

124

131

128

5

65

103

36

K-88168

8

16

12

50

124

133

129

6

53

96

44

K-CH 47/04

9

20

14

55

127

134

130

5

70

83

15

FLIP82-150

8

19

13

57

127

134

131

5

92

116

20

NKC-10-99

9

17

13

47

126

131

129

3

54

91

40

NKC-5-5-20

10

16

13

37

124

142

133

12

79

98

19

KARAK-1

7

18

12

61

127

143

135

11

73

82

10

KARAK-2

9

18

13

50

125

131

128

4

93

107

13

KARAK-3

10

18

14

44

126

133

129

5

80

95

15

NIFA-2005

9

16

13

43

124

132

128

6

85

86

1

Year mean

8

16

12

125

133

129

72

94

LSD (5%)

Genotypes 2.9053

Year

1.5039

Genotypes

4.655

Years

2.4388

Genotypes 17.578

 

(P 0.01) between years. Genotypes and genotype-year interaction (GY) also showed highly significant differences (P<0.01) for days up to 50% flowering (Table 2). Jul et al. (2013) and Akhtar et al. (2011) also reported highly significant differences between chickpea genotypes for days up to 50% flowering. In some cases, earlier flowering leads to lower grain yield due to the effects of frost and pod borer attacks on chickpea genotypes (Jenkins and Brill, 2011). However due to climate change in recent years, the month of February (flowering start month in chickpeas) has unexpectedly increased, favoring early flowering and leading to early ripening. Due to frost in the area, late blooms were observed in the 2nd year compared to the 1st year.

Over two years, the average days to flowering varied between 126 and 136 days. The minimum (126) days to flower over two years was shown by genotypes D-15015 and D-13011, while genotype K-01209 had a maximum (136) days to flower of 50%. In GYI, a minimum (123) was observed for genotype D-15012, while K-01209 showed a maximum (144) (Table 4).

During the first year, days to flowering they were ranged from 123 to 128 days. In year 1, genotypes D-15012 had a minimum (of 123) days to flower while genotypes K-08003 and K-01209 had a maximum (of 128) days to flower. In GYI, a minimum of (128) days to flower was observed for genotype D-15015, while genotype K-01209 required a maximum of (144) days to flower (Table 4).

Plant height (cm)

Pooled analysis of variance revealed non-significant differences between years, genotypes and genotype-year interaction (GY) also revealed non-significant differences (Table 2). Usually, growers prefer a short plant height to prevent storage. However, there should be a threshold for plant height. Reducing plant height beyond this level will prevent plants from becoming established but will negatively impact yield as they will bear fewer branches and pods (Desai et al., 2016). For plant height, the combined analysis of variance showed highly non-significant differences Tilahu et al. (2015), also reported non-significant differences between genotypes and years and the interaction between genotypes and years (GY) for plant height.

The two-year mean plant heights of 45 chickpea genotypes ranged from 72 to 104 cm. Over two years,

 

Table 5: Means and percentage difference for days to 50% flowering of 45 chickpea genotypes evaluated across two years during 2018-19 and 2019-20.

Genotype

1st Year

2nd Year

Mean

Percentage difference

D-15012

123

132

128

6

D-15019

125

132

128

5

D-10008

126

135

131

6

D-97086

126

132

129

4

D-14014

127

131

129

3

D-11030

125

132

128

5

D-13036

125

133

129

6

D-08025

122

131

127

6

D-15020

126

135

130

6

D-13031

127

131

129

3

D-13012

127

137

132

7

D-12011

125

131

128

4

D-09027

125

132

128

5

D-13011

122

130

126

6

D-15015

124

128

126

3

D-14005

127

133

130

4

D-15005

127

131

129

3

D-10039

126

136

131

7

D-93127

124

132

128

6

D-15036

125

132

128

5

K-08003

128

133

131

3

K-01158

126

137

132

8

K-60075

127

140

133

9

K-01208

124

133

128

6

K-01151

124

132

128

6

K-60066

122

133

127

8

K-01213

125

130

128

3

K-01209

127

144

136

11

K-60069

127

134

131

5

K-88170

125

134

130

6

K-08021

126

138

132

8

K-01153

124

133

128

6

K-01155

125

133

129

6

K-01210

125

129

127

3

K-70009

126

133

130

5

K-60058

124

131

128

5

K-88168

124

133

129

6

K-CH 47/04

127

134

130

5

FLIP82-150

127

134

131

5

NKC-10-99

126

131

129

3

NKC-5-5-20

124

142

133

12

KARAK-1

127

143

135

11

KARAK-2

125

131

128

4

KARAK-3

126

133

129

5

NIFA-2005

124

132

128

6

Year mean

125

133

129

LSD (5%) for Genotypes 4.655; LSD for Years 2.4388

 

genotype NKC-10-99 was the shortest (72), while the largest (104) genotype was FLIP82-150. In GYI, the lowest (72) was recorded for genotype NKC-10-99, while the highest plant height was observed in FLIP82-150 (116) (Table 4).

In the 1st year, the plant height ranged from 53 to 93 cm, while in the 2nd year it ranged from 79 to 107 cm. The lowest (53) plant height was observed for genotype K-88168, K-01209 (55 cm), while the highest (93) plant height was taken from genotype K-70009, FLIP82-150 (92 cm) in 1st year. While in the 2nd year ranged from 79 to 107 cm. The lowest (79) plant height was observed for genotype D-12011, while the highest (107) plant height was taken from genotype Karak-2 (Table 4).

Pods plant-1

Pods plant-1 is an important yield trait of the chickpea crop that has a direct positive impact on the final grain yield. Pooled analysis of variance for pod plant-1 showed highly significant differences (P< 0.01) over years. The interaction between genotypes and genotype years also showed significant differences (Table 3). The main component for the variable performance of the genotypes for Plant-1 pods was environmental factors, which made a high contribution to the overall variation. The pod of the chickpea crop is a major photosynthetic region that fixes carbon at the pericarp in the form of hydrocarbons that are eventually transferred to the seed (Frette et al., 2004). Our results for pod Plant-1 agree with Balkhsh et al. (2006) who reported highly significant differences between genotype years and their interaction (GY) for pod plant-1.

The average of Plant-1 pods over two years ranged from 14 to 34. A minimum (14) of Plant-1 pods was observed for genotypes K-60069, NKC-10-99 and K-01209. While a maximum (of 34) pods of Plant-1 were noted in genotypes K-60058, D-15012, and D-15036. In GYI, a minimum (9) pods were counted from Plant-1 by genotype D-15019, while a maximum (54) was found in K-60058 (Table 7).

During the 1st year, the number of Plant-1 pods ranged from 9 to 25, while in the 2nd year it ranged from 17 to 54 Plant-1 pods. In year 1, a maximum (of 25) pods of plant-1 were observed for genotypes K-01153, K-08021, NKC-5-5-20, and K-01155, while minimal (9) pods of plant-1 were recorded in genotypes D-15019, K-60069, KARAK-2 and K-88168.

 

Table 6: Means and percentage differences for a larval count of 45 chickpea genotypes were evaluated across two years during 2018-19. and 2019-20.

Genotype

1st Year

2nd Year

Mean

Percentage difference

D-15012

6

13

10

53

D-15019

3

7

5

57

D-10008

3

12

8

75

D-97086

5

11

8

54

D-14014

6

10

8

58

D-11030

4

14

9

71

D-13036

6

13

9

53

D-08025

2

9

6

77

D-15020

4

12

8

66

D-13031

4

16

10

75

D-13012

6

10

8

72

D-12011

4

8

6

88

D-09027

4

14

9

71

D-13011

4

17

11

76

D-15015

5

19

12

73

D-14005

2

18

10

88

D-15005

4

12

8

66

D-10039

3

13

8

76

D-93127

3

11

7

72

D-15036

3

9

6

66

K-08003

6

7

6

8

K-01158

4

15

9

73

K-60075

3

21

12

85

K-01208

3

9

6

66

K-01151

4

9

7

55

K-60066

7

12

9

67

K-01213

3

15

9

80

K-01209

7

15

11

53

K-60069

9

7

8

-26

K-88170

7

10

8

36

K-08021

4

17

10

76

K-01153

3

28

15

81

K-01155

5

29

17

82

K-01210

6

12

9

94

K-70009

5

18

12

72

K-60058

4

11

8

63

K-88168

9

11

10

17

K-CH 47/04

6

11

8

81

FLIP82-150

6

10

8

72

NKC-10-99

7

15

11

53

NKC-5-5-20

6

19

13

68

KARAK-1

7

11

9

52

KARAK-2

4

10

7

60

KARAK-3

6

13

9

53

Nifa-2005

5

14

10

64

Year mean

5

13

9

LSD (5%) for Genotypes 7.5582; LSD for Years 1.0556

 

Table 7: Means and percentage differences for Pods per plant of 45 chickpea genotypes were evaluated across two years during 2018-19 and 2019-20.

Genotype

1st Year

2nd Year

Mean

Percentage difference

D-15012

18

48

33

62

D-15019

9

25

17

64

D-10008

13

28

21

53

D-97086

18

33

25

45

D-14014

20

34

27

41

D-11030

17

51

34

66

D-13036

14

32

23

56

D-08025

16

51

34

68

D-15020

16

35

25

54

D-13031

17

30

23

43

D-13012

13

32

23

59

D-12011

10

34

22

70

D-09027

16

47

32

65

D-13011

17

44

30

61

D-15015

20

23

21

13

D-14005

19

40

30

52

D-15005

14

35

24

60

D-10039

17

24

20

29

D-93127

14

48

31

70

D-15036

12

53

32

77

K-08003

17

28

23

39

K-01158

14

46

30

69

K-60075

16

40

28

60

K-01208

12

46

29

73

K-01151

12

29

21

58

K-60066

20

36

28

44

K-01213

14

27

20

48

K-01209

14

20

17

30

K-60069

10

18

14

44

K-88170

13

18

16

27

K-08021

22

20

21

-10

K-01153

25

17

21

-47

K-01155

19

21

20

9

K-01210

17

41

29

58

K-70009

14

28

21

50

K-60058

14

54

34

74

K-88168

12

21

16

42

K-CH 47/04

13

31

22

58

FLIP82-150

15

41

28

63

NKC-10-99

13

18

16

27

NKC-5-5-20

20

39

29

48

Karak-1

10

32

21

68

Karak-2

11

31

21

64

Karak-3

18

26

22

30

NIFA-2005

13

33

23

60

Year mean

15

33

24

LSD (5%) for genotypes 15.824; LSD for Years 2.324

 

While for genotypes K-60058, D-15036, D-11030, D-15012, and D-09027, a maximum (54) pods of plant-1 were observed in year 2, while a minimum (17) pods of plant-1 were observed for K- 01153, NKC-10-99, K-01209 and K-01155 (Table 7).

Seeds pod-1

A larger number of seeds pod-1 means a larger number of kernels plant-1, making it an important yield-promoting trait. Combined analyzes of variance for Seeds pod-1 showed highly significant differences (P<0.01) across years. Genotypes and genotype-year interaction (GY) showed significant differences for Seeds pod-1 (Table 3). Desaï et al. (2016) obtained similar results of highly significant differences between years, genotypes and GY from the combined analysis of variance. Averaged over two years, boll-1 of 45 chickpea genotypes ranged from 1.0 to 2.0. Genotypes D-15012, D-11030, D-13036, K-01209, and K-60058 produced a minimum (1.0) boll-1 while a maximum (2.0) boll-1 for genotypes D-15019, D-10039, K-60066 and NIFA-2005. A minimum (1.0) of Pod-1 of D-93127 and Karak-3 was observed in GYI seeds, while a maximum (2.0) was observed in genotypes NIFA-2005, Karak-2 and D-15019 (Table 8).

During Year 1, Seeds pod-1 ranged from 1.0 to 2.0. While in year 2 seed Pod-1 ranged from 1.0 to 2.0. At year 1, a maximum (2.0) seed pod-1 was observed for genotypes D-09027, Karak-2, NIFA-2005, and D-15019, while a minimum (1,0) Seed Pod-1 were recorded at -97086, Karak-3 and K01209. During year 2, for genotypes NIFA-2005, D-14014, D15005 and Karak-1, the maximum (2.0) of seed pod-1 was observed while the minimum (1.0) of seed pod- 1 for D-08025 and genotype K-01158 (Table 8).

100- seed weight (g)

Higher seed yield is directly related to large seed size, heavy seed weight and a larger number of seed plants-1. In combination with other yield-attributing traits, seed weight plays an important role in increasing final grain yield. The combined analysis of variance for the 100 seed weight revealed highly significant differences (P <0.01) over years. The interaction of genotypes and genotype years (GY) also showed significant differences (Table 3). A higher contribution of the genotype year to the total variation suggested that the mean performance and ranking of the genotypes were inconsistent across years. Similar to our results Desai et al. (2016) and Tilahun et al. (2015) also reported highly significant differences between years, genotypes, and genotype-year interaction for 100 seed weights in chickpea genotypes.

 

Table 8: Means and percentage difference for Seeds per Pod of 45 chickpea genotypes evaluated across two years during 2018-19 and 2019-20.

Genotype

1st Year

2nd Year

Mean

Percentage difference (%)

D-15012

1

2

2

50

D-15019

2

2

2

0

D-10008

2

2

2

0

D-97086

1

2

2

50

D-14014

1

2

1

50

D-11030

1

2

2

50

D-13036

1

2

1

50

D-08025

2

1

2

-100

D-15020

2

2

2

0

D-13031

2

2

2

0

D-13012

1

2

1

50

D-12011

2

2

2

0

D-09027

2

1

2

-100

D-13011

1

2

1

50

D-15015

1

2

1

50

D-14005

1

2

1

50

D-15005

1

2

1

50

D-10039

2

2

2

0

D-93127

1

2

1

50

D-15036

1

2

1

50

K-08003

1

2

1

50

K-01158

2

1

2

-100

K-60075

1

2

1

50

K-01208

2

2

2

0

K-01151

1

2

1

50

K-60066

2

2

2

0

K-01213

1

2

1

50

K-01209

1

2

1

50

K-60069

1

2

1

50

K-88170

1

2

1

50

K-08021

1

2

1

50

K-01153

1

2

1

50

K-01155

1

2

1

50

K-01210

2

2

2

0

K-70009

2

2

2

0

K-60058

1

2

1

50

K-88168

1

2

1

50

K-CH 47/04

2

2

2

0

FLIP82-150

2

2

2

0

NKC-10-99

1

2

1

50

NKC-5-5-20

1

2

1

50

KARAK-1

1

2

1

50

KARAK-2

2

2

2

0

KARAK-3

1

2

1

50

NIFA-2005

2

2

2

0

Year mean

1

2

2

LSD (5%) for Genotypes 0.7046; LSD for Years 0.1708

 

Table 9: Means and percentage differences for Plant height of 45 chickpea genotypes were evaluated across two years 2018-19 and 2019-20.

Genotype

1st Year

2nd Year

Mean

% Difference

D-15012

64

96

80

33

D-15019

74

81

77

8

D-10008

73

98

85

25

D-97086

80

105

92

23

D-14014

78

93

86

16

D-11030

69

109

89

36

D-13036

63

103

83

38

D-08025

75

81

78

7

D-15020

74

104

89

28

D-13031

76

84

80

9

D-13012

68

111

89

38

D-12011

67

79

73

15

D-09027

73

102

87

28

D-13011

74

89

81

16

D-15015

67

108

88

37

D-14005

73

106

89

31

D-15005

67

101

84

33

D-10039

67

84

76

20

D-93127

74

88

81

15

D-15036

72

86

79

16

K-08003

68

89

78

23

K-01158

78

94

86

17

K-60075

74

92

83

19

K-01208

69

97

83

28

K-01151

75

84

79

10

K-60066

91

84

87

-8

K-01213

73

82

77

10

K-01209

55

94

75

41

K-60069

61

85

73

28

K-88170

71

87

79

18

K-08021

65

86

75

24

K-01153

63

86

74

26

K-01155

64

100

82

36

K-01210

72

103

87

30

K-70009

93

103

98

9

K-60058

65

103

84

36

K-88168

53

96

75

44

K-CH 47/04

70

83

76

15

FLIP82-150

92

116

104

20

NKC-10-99

54

91

72

40

NKC-5-5-20

79

98

88

19

KARAK-1

73

82

78

10

KARAK-2

93

107

100

13

KARAK-3

80

95

87

15

NIFA-2005

85

86

86

1

Year mean

72

94

83

LSD (5%) for Genotypes 17.578; LSD for Years 7.3610

 

Table 10: Means and percentage difference for 100 Grain weight of 45 chickpea genotypes evaluated across two years during 2018-19 and 2019-20.

Genotype

1st Year

2nd Year

Mean

Percentage difference

D-15012

19

22

21

13

D-15019

13

23

18

43

D-10008

19

27

23

29

D-97086

17

22

20

22

D-14014

13

21

17

38

D-11030

23

19

21

-21

D-13036

15

23

19

34

D-08025

20

20

20

0

D-15020

19

24

21

20

D-13031

17

18

17

5

D-13012

14

24

19

41

D-12011

19

21

20

9

D-09027

22

25

24

12

D-13011

16

25

20

36

D-15015

22

24

23

8

D-14005

17

21

19

19

D-15005

21

25

23

16

D-10039

19

24

22

20

D-93127

18

20

19

10

D-15036

20

23

22

13

K-08003

17

18

17

5

K-01158

22

24

23

8

K-60075

20

22

21

9

K-01208

23

22

23

-4

K-01151

18

21

20

14

K-60066

20

25

22

20

K-01213

18

25

22

28

K-01209

25

16

20

-36

K-60069

19

16

18

-18

K-88170

21

17

19

-23

K-08021

24

20

22

-20

K-01153

29

16

23

-81

K-01155

23

15

19

-53

K-01210

20

26

23

23

K-70009

17

27

22

37

K-60058

13

21

17

38

K-88168

35

16

25

-11

K-CH 47/04

12

23

17

47

FLIP82-150

20

24

22

16

NKC-10-99

18

16

17

-12

NKC-5-5-20

19

26

22

26

KARAK-1

22

25

23

12

KARAK-2

20

28

24

28

KARAK-3

18

16

17

-12

NIFA-2005

20

25

23

20

Year mean

19

22

21

LSD (5%) for Genotypes 8.858; LSD for Years 0.7877

 

The mean values of 45 chickpea genotypes for the weight of 100 seeds ranged from 17 to 25 g over two years. The lowest (17) 100-seed weight over two years was exhibited by genotypes D-13031, K-08003, K-60058, NKC-10-99, and Karak-3, while the highest (25) 100-seed Weight over two years was exhibited by genotypes K-88168, Karak-2, Karak-1 (Table 11). In GYI, the lowest (13) 100-seed weight of genotype D-14014 was observed, whereas the highest (35) was observed in K-88168 (Table 10).

The lowest 100-seed weight was between 12 and 35 g in the first year, while it was between 16 and 27 g in the second year. The lowest (12) 100-seed weight was observed at year 1 in genotypes K-CH 47/04, D-15019, D-13036, D-13011, K-700009, and D-14005, while the highest (35) 100-seed weight observed was observed in genotypes K-88168, K-01209 and K-08021 at year 1. The lowest (16) 100 grain weight was observed in the 2nd year in genotypes Karak-3, NKC-10-99 and K-88168, while the highest (27) 100 seed weight was observed in the 2nd year in genotypes K-70009, NIFA-2005, D-13011, K-60066 and K-01210 (26g) (Table 10).

Biological yield (kg ha-1)

Pooled analysis of variance for biological yield showed highly significant differences (P 0.01) over years. Genotypes and genotype-year interaction (GY) also showed significant differences in biological yield (Table 3). Our results are similar to those of Jeena and Arora (2000), and Padmavathi et al. (2013) who also reported highly significant differences (P <0.01) between genotypes, years and genotype-year interaction (GxY) for biological yield.

The mean production of the two-year average biological yield ranged from 4511 to 8788 kg ha-1. The minimum (4511) biological yield over two years was shown by genotype K-01213. while the maximum (8788 kg) biological yield over two years was shown by genotype D-15015. In GYI, the minimum (3335) kg biological yield was observed in genotype K-1213, while the maximum (9400) was observed in D-15019 (Table 11).

In the 2nd year, it ranged from 5267 to 9400 kg ha-1. The minimum (3335 kg) biological yield was observed in the 1st year in the genotypes K-1213, while the maximum (8803 kg) biological yield was observed in the D-13011, while the minimum (5267 kg) biological yield in the 2nd year in the genotypes KARAK-3 was observed while the maximum (9400 kg) biological yield in year 2 was counted from D-15019 (Table 11).

 

Table 11: Means and percentage difference for biological yield of 45 chickpea genotypes evaluated across two years during 2018-19 and 2019-20.

Genotype

1st Year

2nd Year

Mean

Percentage difference

D-15012

5258

6347

5802

17

D-15019

6720

9400

8060

28

D-10008

8474

7440

7957

-13

D-97086

8498

9040

8769

-49

D-14014

6398

5320

5859

-34

D-11030

7556

6760

7158

-10

D-13036

7812

8706

8259

27

D-08025

7760

8395

8077

-51

D-15020

7153

6205

6679

-93

D-13031

8132

7480

7806

-62

D-13012

5198

9227

7212

43

D-12011

8026

8000

8013

-28

D-09027

8275

7427

7851

-10

D-13011

8803

7240

8022

-15

D-15015

8643

8933

8788

2

D-14005

7677

7267

7472

-14

D-15005

7267

8333

7800

-72

D-10039

6159

8109

7134

24

D-93127

6043

5800

5922

-17

D-15036

7404

7077

7241

-14

K-08003

5455

5869

5662

4

K-01158

6039

6867

6453

-13

K-60075

3612

5200

4406

-16

K-01208

5467

4733

5100

-15

K-01151

8507

4733

6620

-79

K-60066

5538

6333

5936

12

K-01213

3355

5667

4511

-13

K-01209

6109

7733

6921

21

K-60069

6372

6333

6353

1

K-88170

6076

7200

6638

15

K-08021

5464

6733

6099

19

K-01153

6072

8000

7036

24

K-01155

5721

6867

6294

16

K-01210

7071

5867

6469

-20

K-70009

7123

6200

6662

-93

K-60058

7752

6800

7276

-10

K-88168

7172

5600

6386

-20

K-CH 47/04

6422

8200

7311

-63

FLIP82-150

7064

6267

6665

-57

NKC-10-99

5545

7243

6394

23

NKC-5-5-20

7007

8267

7637

15

KARAK-1

4920

7333

6126

32

KARAK-2

6417

8800

7609

-86

KARAK-3

8732

5267

6999

-65

NIFA-2005

8713

7132

7922

-22

Year mean

6777

7061

LSD (5%) for genotypes102.99; LSD for years 124.

 

Grain yield kg ha-1

Yield improvement is one of the main goals of any plant breeding program and is a complex quantitative trait driven by genetic potential and also heavily influenced by environmental factors. The pooled analysis of variance for grain yield in kg ha-1 showed highly significant differences (P<0.01) over years. Genotypes and genotype-year interaction (G×Y) also showed significant differences in seed yield in kg ha-1 (Table 3). Previously, Yucele et al. (2005), Jeena et al. (2000) and Saxena (2003) also found highly significant differences between years, genotypes, and genotype-year interaction from a pooled analysis of variance for grain yield in chickpea genotypes.

The mean production of the two-year average grain yield ranged from 328 to 914 kg ha-1. The lowest grain yield (328 kg) over two years was in genotype D-15012, while the highest grain yield (914 kg) over two years was in genotype K-60058. In GYI, the lowest (301 kg) grain yield was observed in genotype K-60069, while the highest (988 kg) grain yield was observed in D-14005 (Table 12).

The lowest (301) 1st year grain yield kg ha-1 was observed in genotype K-60069, while the highest (942) 1st-year grain yield kg ha-1 was observed in genotype K-60058. Whereas the lowest (339) grain yield kg ha-1 in year 2 was observed in genotype D-15012, while the highest (988) grain yield kg ha-1 in year 2 was observed in genotype D-14005 (Table 12).

Larval count

Among the insects, the pest Gram pod worm (Helicoverpa armigera L.) is a major constraint that severely reduces the yield of the chickpea crop (Sarwar, 2013). Data for larval counts were collected to screen for tolerant lugworm genotypes. For the number of larvae, the analysis of variance over two years showed a highly significant difference (P <0.01) between the years, genotypes and genotypes after year interaction (GY) also showed a highly significant difference (Table 2). The significance of the interaction (GY) indicates that the genotype response to the larval attack was variable over the years studied. The high contribution of environmental factors to the overall variation suggested a greater variety of years for the existence of pod borers to attack chickpea genotypes. Sarwar (2013) also reported the same results and reviewed the resistance susceptibility of chickpea genotypes to Helicoverpa species at NIAB Faisalabad.

 

Table 12: Means and percentage differences for grain yield kg/h of 45 chickpea genotypes were evaluated across two years during 2018-19 and 2019-20.

Genotypes

1st Year

2nd Year

Mean

Percentage difference

D-15012

317

339

328

9.88

D-15019

337

358

348

0.13

D-10008

791

576

683

2.48

D-97086

701

624

662

-0.22

D-14014

600

745

672

0.48

D-11030

873

654

764

6.58

D-13036

384

446

415

98.91

D-08025

715

869

792

13.74

D-15020

853

635

744

1.01

D-13031

897

777

837

-0.14

D-13012

327

395

361

4.24

D-12011

936

658

797

1.30

D-09027

865

933

899

2.56

D-13011

768

675

722

0.59

D-15015

505

530

518

7.47

D-14005

884

988

936

-0.05

D-15005

778

644

711

1.11

D-10039

412

433

423

3.67

D-93127

912

710

811

-0.29

D-15036

892

928

910

-0.24

K-08003

365

414

389

4.00

K-01158

876

651

764

6.25

K-60075

619

522

570

5.99

K-01208

416

444

430

4.03

K-01151

409

630

520

3.21

K-60066

320

373

347

19.41

K-01213

704

824

764

4.36

K-01209

308

386

347

5.61

K-60069

301

345

323

28.90

K-88170

314

342

328

154.06

K-08021

312

448

380

36.41

K-01153

303

355

329

38.02

K-01155

315

403

359

13.30

K-01210

551

489

520

4.39

K-70009

584

523

554

5.11

K-60058

942

887

914

5.47

K-88168

311

382

346

14.17

K-CH 47/04

663

549

606

17.83

FLIP82-150

539

468

504

3.45

NKC-10-99

323

365

344

14.49

NKC-5-5-20

359

383

371

27.11

Check-1

335

371

353

65.97

Check-2

828

627

727

13.36

Check-3

448

441

445

28.08

Check-4

515

480

497

11.98

Year mean

571

556

LSD (5%) for genotypes 2.77; LSD for year 2.0153

 

Over two years, the number of Plant-1 larvae ranged from 5 to 17. Minimal Plant-1 larvae were observed for genotypes D-15019 and D-08025. Whereas for genotypes K-01155 and K-01153, maximum numbers of plant-1 larvae were observed. In GYI, the minimum (2) larval number was recorded from genotype D-14005, whereas the maximum (29) was shown from K-01155 (Table 6).

A low larval population density was observed in the 1st year. In the first year, the number of Plant-1 larvae ranged from 2 to 9. The minimum (2) of Plant-1 larvae was observed in genotypes D-08025, D-15019, D-10008, and D-14005, while the maximum (9) larvae plant-1 was recorded for the genotypes K-60069, K-88168, and NKC-10-99 and K-88170. In year 2, Plant-1 larvae ranged from 7 to 29. At least (7) Plant-1 larvae were observed in genotypes D-15019, D-12011, K-08003, and K-60069. A maximum (29) number of larvae Plant-1 was observed for genotypes K-01155, K-01153 and K-60075 (Table 6).

Pod damage percentage

The percentage of pod damage was caused by feeding larvae the developing seeds after making a hole and poking their heads in the pod. Combined analyzes of variance for the percentage of damaged pods revealed highly significant differences (P 0.01) over the years. The interaction between genotypes and genotype years also showed highly significant differences (Table 2). The importance of GxY implies that the response of the genotypes to the borer larvae for causing pod damage was different at the sites studied. Sarwar (2013) also reported that variations in pod damage could be due to different regional climatic conditions.

The average percentage of pod damage ranged from 17 to 57% on average over two years. The lowest (17) percentage of pod damage over two years was shown by genotype NIFA-2005. while the highest (57) percentage of pod damage over two years occurred in genotype D-13031. In GYI, the lowest (12) percentage of pod damage was observed in genotype D-15036, while the highest (95) percentage was observed in NKC-5-520 (Table 13).

The lowest (12) percentage of pod damage at year 1 was observed in genotype D-15036. In contrast, the highest (46) cent pod damage per year was observed in the Karak-1 genotype. While in year 2 the lowest (14) percentage of pod damage was observed in K-60069, the highest (95) percentage of pod damage in year 2 was observed in genotype NKC-5-520 (Table 13).

 

Table 13: Means and percentage differences for pod damage% of 45 chickpea genotypes were evaluated across two years during 2018-19 and 2019-20.

Genotypes

1st year

2nd year

Mean

Percentage difference

D-15012

37

74

56

74

D-15019

23

82

52

82

D-10008

15

93

54

93

D-97086

25

63

44

63

D-14014

27

47

37

47

D-11030

21

85

53

85

D-13036

39

91

65

90

D-08025

14

59

37

59

D-15020

19

73

46

73

D-13031

20

93

57

93

D-13012

42

79

61

78

D-12011

16

78

47

78

D-09027

16

86

51

86

D-13011

18

30

48

40

D-15015

31

93

62

92

D-14005

15

94

54

94

D-15005

26

87

57

87

D-10039

20

74

47

74

D-93127

19

76

48

76

D-15036

12

76

44

76

K-08003

28

37

32

36

K-01158

27

33

60

18

K-60075

15

42

29

42

K-01208

13

77

45

77

K-01151

17

74

46

73

K-60066

37

62

49

61

K-01213

14

26

20

25

K-01209

30

36

33

35

K-60069

36

14

25

11

K-88170

17

70

44

70

K-08021

15

74

45

74

K-01153

17

20

18

19

K-01155

22

26

24

25

K-01210

27

15

21

13

K-70009

20

22

21

21

K-60058

14

77

46

77

K-88168

39

91

65

91

K-CH 47/04

17

84

51

84

K-FLIP82-150

29

67

48

67

NKC-10-99

33

15

24

13

NKC-5-5-20

40

95

68

95

Karak-1

46

15

31

12

Karak-2

15

91

53

91

Karak-3

26

72

49

71

NIFA-2005

19

14

17

13

Year mean

24

65

LSD (5%) for genotypes = 4.3666%; LSD for years = 3.0876%

 

Conclusions and Recommendations

It is concluded that the traits such as days to 50% emergence, days to 50% flowering, pods per plant, seeds per pod, 100 seed weight, biological yield and pod borer infestation showed significant differences and are directly related to the identification of Genotypes of resistance/tolerance to the chickpea pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera L.). The pooled analysis also proved to be a powerful tool for identifying the resistance level of genotypes to the chickpea pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera L.). Line identification and check vs. test line performance can also be easily accessed via pooled analysis.

The present study recommends that the genotypes K88170, D-14014, K-60069, K-01153, K-70009, KARAK-2, K-CH47/04, D-15036 and NIFA-2005 have a high resistance potential. tolerant of the chickpea pod borer and high yielding. These genotypes can be used in future breeding programs to develop pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera L.) resistant cultivars. Some of the genotypes like D-15012, D-13011, K-01210 and D-08025 showed early maturity and some genotypes like K-01213, D-15005, K-60069 and 15012 were early in formation and these genotypes can be recorded be used in future breeding programs.

Novelty Statement

This research recommends specific genotypes that performed well in terms of grain yield, pod damage percentage, and larval infestation, suggesting their potential for developing pod worm-resistant/tolerant and high-yielding chickpea varieties. The study also highlights the importance of plant height, as reducing it beyond a certain threshold negatively impacts yield

Author’s Contribution

Hamid Ullah Khan: Conceptualization, methodology.

Muhammad Anas: Conceptualization, methodology, writing, data analysis.

Rozina Gul: Conceptualization, supervision.

Waseem Ullah Shah: Data analysis.

Abdul Haleem: Methodology.

Muneeb Ahamd Khan, Muhammad Taimur, Tahreem Shah, Sajjad Ur Rahman, Noman Anjum and Muhammad Saqib: Funding acquisition.

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

References

After, S.Q., A. Shaukat, A. Bakhsh, M. Arshad and A. Ghafoor. 2004. An assessment of variability for economically important traits in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Pak. J. Bot., 36(4): 779-785.

Akhtar, L.H., M.A. Pervez and M. Nasim. 2011. Genetic divergence and inter-relationships in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Pak. J. Agric. Sci., 48(1): 35-39.

Azar, M.R., A. Javanmard, F. Shekari, A. Pourmohammad and E. Esfandyari. 2013. Evaluation of chickpea yield components (Cicer arietinum L.) in incorporating spring barley (Cicer arietinum L.). Indian J. Genet. Plant Breed., 51(2): 240-245.

Bakhsh, A., M. Arshad and A.M. Haqqani. 2006. Effect of genotypes x environment interaction on the relationship between grain yield and its component in chickpea (Cicer argentina L.). Pak. J. Bot., 38: 638-690.

Desai, K., C.J. Tank, R.A. Gami and A.M. Patel. 2016. G × E interaction and stability analysis chickpea (Cicer argentina L.). Int. J. Agric. Environ. Biotechnol., 9(4): 479-484. https://doi.org/10.5958/2230-732X.2016.00063.2

FAO, 2017. Production yearbook. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.

Frette, R.T., R. White, J.A. Palta and N.C. Turner. 2004. Internal recycling of respiratory CO2 in pods ofchickpea (Cicer argentina L.) the role pod wall, seed coat and embryo. J. Exp. Bot., 55: 1687-1696. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erh190

Jadhav, S.D. and V.L. Gawande. 2016. Genetics of traits associated with pod borer resistance and seed yield in chickpea (Cicer arientinum L.). Iran. J. Genet. Plant Breed., 4(1): 09-16.

Jeena, A.S. and P.P. Arora. 2000. Genetic variation in chickpea evaluated at Pantnagar India. Agric. Sci. Digest, 20(1).

Jenkins, D.W., and F.M. Brill. 2011. Genetic variability and resistance mechanisms in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes against pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera L.). Plant Breed. Genet. J., 8(2): 87-94.

Jul, R., H. Khan, M. Bibi, Q.U. Ain and B. Imran. 2013. Genetic analysis and inter-relationship of yield attributing traits in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). J. Anim. Plant Sci., 23(2): 521-526.

Khan, M.R. and A.S. Qureshi. 2001. Quantitative variations induced by gamma irradiation and gibberellic acid in M1 generation of chickpea. Sarhad J. Agric., 17(3): 367-371.

Kumar, P., M.A. Ahmad, R. Kumar and S. Moses. 2019. Varietalchickpea (Cicer arientinum L.) screening against pod borer (Helicoverpaarmigera). J. Ent. Zool. Stud., 7(1): 33-35.

Padmavathi, P.V., S.S. Murthy, V.S. Rao and M.A. Lal. 2013. Correlation and path coefficient analysis in Kabuli chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Int. J. Appl. Biol. Pharma. Technol., (4): 107-110.

Sarwar, 2013. Exploration of resources of resistance in chickpea (Cicer arientinum L.) genotypes to gram pod borer (Helicoverpaarmigera). Afr. J. Agric. Res., 8(26): 3431-3435. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR11.2452

Saxena, N.P., 2003. Management of drought in a chickpea-a holistic approach. Manage. Agric. Drought: Agron. Genet. Options, pp. 103-122.

Singh, A.K. and A.P. Singh. 2013. Study of genetic variability and interaction of some quantitative traits in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). J. Multidiscip. Adv. Res., 2(1): 87-94.

Singh, R.P., A.K. Singh, S.P. Upadhyay and R.K. Singh. 2020. An approach for site-specific assessment of pod borer management in chickpea, J. Entom. Zool. Stud., 8(2): 726-728.

Yadav, S.S., J. Kumar, S.K. Yadav, S. Singh, V.S. Yadav, N.C. Turner and R. Redden. 2006. Evaluation of Helicoverpa and drought resistance in desi and Kabuli chickpea. Plant Genet. Resour., 4(3): 198-203. https://doi.org/10.1079/PGR2006123

Yadav, B.S., S. Singh, S. Srivastava, N.K. Singh and A. Mani. 2019. Whole transcriptome expression profiling and biological network analysis of chickpea during heavy metal stress. J. Plant Biochem. Biotechnol., 28(3): 345-352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13562-019-00486-3

To share on other social networks, click on any share button. What are these?

Sarhad Journal of Agriculture

December

Pakistan J. Zool., Vol. 56, Iss. 6, pp. 2501-3000

Featuring

Click here for more

Subscribe Today

Receive free updates on new articles, opportunities and benefits


Subscribe Unsubscribe