© 2021 JETIR January 2021, Volume 8, Issue 1 www.jetir.

org (ISSN-2349-5162)

Insect pest of chickpea and their Management-A

Review
Sonawane Vishal Kailas1; Dr. Sandeep Chaudhary2
School of Agriculture
Lovely Professional University, Jalandhar, Punjab

Abstract: Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is known in India by different names: Bengal gram, gram and chana.
India is the largest producer of chickpea accounting for 64% of the global production. But in recent years
chickpea production is constrained by diseases and insect-pests. Among the insect-pests, pod borer is the most
severe yield reducer throughout India, while the bruchids cause severe damage in storage. Other major insect
pests of chickpea are termite and cutworm and their managements through new generation insecticides and
botanicals extracts.

Introduction

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is one of the world's most valuable food grain legumes, with 14.78 million tons
of production from an area of 14.56 million hectares and 1014.60 kg / ha of productivity in 2017.
(FAOSTAT,2019) It is also referred to as "Chana" or "Bengal gram" as a leguminous pulse crop. It is a very
important component of dry, rain fed cropping systems since it can repair nitrogen fixation of eighty to one
hundred and twenty kilogram (Golding & Dong,2010) It is an essential energy, protein and soluble and
insoluble fiber are supply. There are60-65 percent carbohydrate, 6 percent fat and about 12 to 31 percent in
old seed, which is better than any other pulses. Chickpea are also a good source of vitamins (vitamin B in
particular) and minerals such as K, P2o5, Su, Fe, Mg, Zn by increasing atmospheric nitrogen, chickpea plays
an important function in improving soil fertility and the crop satisfies up to eighty percent of soil nitrogen.

There are many reasons responsible for the poor production of this crop. In field condition and storage
condition insect pest and diseases are plays a very important role against crop production (Bentley &
Clements,1989) About sixty insect species are known to feed on chickpea (Parsai,2005) Among the many
arthropods sap sucking pests, particularly Aphids, Jassids,

Thrips, Whitefly are the most destructive chickpea pests in Asia, Africa and Australia (Balikai et al.,2001;
Devendra &Binay 2002).

On chickpea the number of sucking pests are observed by scientist such as Aphids – Aphis craccivora
Koch,1854, its belongs to order Hemiptera, Aphididae which cause the suck the juice from flower, newly
emergence leaves; another pest is jassids – Empoasca kerri Pruthi,1940;Pea aphids- Acrythosiphum pisum
Harris ,1776;Thrips – Megalurothrips usitatus Bugnall,1913;Whitefly , Bemisia tabaci Gennadius,1889
(Mosier et al.,2004; Anandhi et al.,2011;Sachan&Katti,1994).The region's main biotic stresses are Gram pod

JETIR2101123 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 944
 © 2021 JETIR January 2021, Volume 8, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

borer (Hubner), gram semiloper (Autographa nigrisigna), termites (Odontotermes obesus Ramb. and
Microtermes obesi Heomgr), cutworm (Agrotis ipsilon Rott), aphid (Aphis craccivora Koch). Gram pod borer
is a major insect, accounting for twenty one percent of crop yield losses and 50-60 per cent of crop pod
losses.(Kambrekar,2012). The different pest control practices are used and their effectiveness compared by
population assessment of each pest (Pradhan,1964). Chemical, biological, botanical pesticides and IPM are
the techniques of pest management used compared with farmers' practice and untreated control (Satpute,1999;
Weigand etal.,1992; Nene & Readdy,1997; Reed et al.,1987).

Due to rapid and efficient pest control, the application of chemical insecticides is widespread among the
farming population. Conventional insecticides do not have satisfactory monitoring, resulting in successive
rounds of application of insecticides, control failures, resistance etc. growth which cause the environmental
pollution. The quest for appropriate and healthy chemicals for the atmosphere is thus a need of the day. Various
novel insecticides have also been developed recently. available in the market, hence the efficiency and
suitability of these items in the management of this significant pest should be assessed.

Insect pest of chickpea

 Assessment of economic threshold level of Helicoverpa armigera: -

Odak and Thakur (1975) recorded that at flowering and early podding stages and economic injury level of
larvae is greater than four larvae per meter square, which cause the reducing the grain yield.

Sharma (1985) recorded that the ETL and EIL level of larva of Helicoverpa armigera is one per meter square
in chickpea.

 Different insect pests of chickpea: -

Attiqueet al.,2000; Sarwar,2012 Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Lepidopetera: Noctuidae) is an extremely

polyphagous nuisance that infests several host plants, but chickpea is invaded by 57 insect species.

Talekaretal., 2006.The H. armigera is a major polyphagous noctuid insect in Asia, widely known as cotton
bollworm or American bollworm, causing significant damage to agricultural, horticultural and ornamental
crops.

Patankeretal., (2001)It has been stated that H. armigera is the world's most significant nuisance of chickpea
and other crops. In extreme cases, it causes seed yield losses of around seventy-five to ninety percent, and it
was noted that gram pod borer affected leaves, tender shoots, apical tips, floral buds and pods.

J. Kumar, J.B. Smithson.,1980; Khan S, S Faizullah, 1999.In all the chickpea growing areas, it is the most
severe chickpea pest. Extreme declines in productivity have been recorded by numerous workers, such as 21
per cent and 37.50 per cent, owing to more insect infestation.

Infestation of chickpeas, H. armigera continues with 2-3 peaks from the vegetative stage to the maturity. Even
so, maximum infestation is in month of the 3rd week of December to the 3rd week of January at the flowering
and podding stage (Nema and Verma, 2000).
JETIR2101123 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 945
© 2021 JETIR January 2021, Volume 8, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

Hussain (2003) It was noted that the infestation of pod borer in chickpeas was very extreme due to high rainfall
during 1999-2000, but average during the normal rainfall year in 2000-2001 In both years, both the intercrops
and insecticide spraying showed a substantial decline in pod borer infestation in chickpeas.

In USA also some pest problems related to the Chickpea (Miller et al., 2002; Margheim et al., 2004; Glogoza,
2005). Infrequent nuisance in the Pacific Northwest are the western yellow striped armyworm, S. praefica
(Grote) (Clement, 1999), pea leaf weevil, Sitonalineatus (L.) (Williams et al., 1991), pea aphid, A. pisum and
cowpea aphid, A. craccivora (Clement et al., 2000).

Knights and Siddique, 2002. In Australia, the major pests of chickpea are the two species of pod borers such
as, H. armigera and H. punctigera.

Miller et al., 2002; Margheim et al., 2004. The possible nuisance attack on chickpea which is in the early
season i.e. cutworm, wireworm, grasshopper, leafminer, aphids, corn earworm and out of that leaf miner larvae
has mine the chickpea leaves but not huge lose are observed.

Dabhi and Patel (2004) Population peaks occurred between the first and fourth weeks of February and the
second week of May, respectively (2.1, 2.8 and 1.2 larvae /m). In morning period high temperature and relative
humidity which effect on positive and negative impact on increase population of Helicoverpa armigera on
chickpea.

Fifty samples of chickpea fields were observed at different locations (each 1.0 m crop plant) to record H.
armigera larval population at four per site. Separately, records of early and late instar larvae were kept. The
pest appeared until the seed maturity in 20 days old crop. Three overlapping generations of the pest on the
crop were suggested by studies. In the first-generation peak activity Helicoverpa armigera of the second and
third instar larvae are observed in the month of last week of December on chickpea was observed i.e.16 larvae
per meter square. In the first week of February, a second generation was detected other peak activity of the
pest are recorded i.e. (12.5 larvae/m2). In the first week of March, the third generation of the pest population
was detected in the third instar larvae i.e. (10.5 larvae/m2). The most damaged by this pest is on podding stage
i.e.90%. The second and third peaks in the larval population coincided with the flowering and podding periods
of the crop and were considered to be the most damaging. Maximum larvae population was noted to be 20.4
larvae per meter square in the month of the December.

Ali and Shazad (2005) The seasonal changes in the Helicoverpa armigera pod borer chickpea pest population
have been observed during the 49th to 6th standard weeks, the nuisance population gradually low but it is
high from the 7th standard week onwards and again decreased during the 14th standard week. There was a
strong association between larvae, larval instars, and total density of H armigera and the mean and low and
normal temperatures. There was however a negative association between eggs, larval instars, and total density.
H armigera and the mean level of relative humidity in the morning. The eggs, the larval instar and the total
density of this pest were not related to relative humidity at night.

JETIR2101123 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 946
© 2021 JETIR January 2021, Volume 8, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

Singh et al. (2005) The larval population of H. armigera was observed to occur after 15 days of sowing (0.2
to 0.8 caterpillar /m2) and steadily increased up to the 1st week of December (3.00 to 3.40 caterpillars/m2) and
subsequently decreased at the end of January in the caterpillar population. Once again from mid-February, the
population began to increase (1.0 to 1.8 caterpillar/m2) and hit its peak in the second week of April (8.0 to
10.8 larvae/m2), then decreased abruptly. The first period of the caterpillar population (3.26 larvae/m 2) was
reported in the 1st week of December and the 2nd peak (9.40 larvae/m) was reported in the second week of
April. The highest temperature reported in the 1st week of December (3.26 larvae/m2 and the 2nd high of 9.40
larvae/m2) was recorded in the second week of April there was a strong positive association between the mean
and minimum temperature to the caterpillar population. Only during 1998-99 did rainfall have a positive
association with the caterpillar population. The overall relative humidity was adversely associated with the
population of larvae.

Singh and Ali (2006) Stated that the behaviour of the larva H. armigera persisted with two peaks in both years
during the crop season, i.e. the first from 45 to 49 regular weeks and the second from 5 to 13 regular weeks.
At 45 and 12 standard weeks, the highest mean larval populations of 6.3 and 6.4 larvae/m2 were observed
respectively. Low and maximum temperatures were correlated favourably with the larval and adult H.
armigera populations. While relative humidity showed a negative association.

Population fluctuation data obtained from 1983-84 to 2006-07 revealed that the larval population of H.
armigera was above ETL with 2 larval row lengths from 46 standard week to 7 standard weeks, with a
rd
maximum load between the 2nd week of December and the 3 week of January coinciding with the
reproductive stage of the crop (Anonymous, 2007).

Singh et al. (2008 a) The survey to determine the status of Helicoverpa armigera on chickpea and larvae
observed in Jhansi district was conducted from the last week of December to the first week of January with an
average damage to the pod of 37.07 percent. In both years, the maximum moth population was recorded in
February. Under high temperatures and relative humidity conditions, an improved larval population was
detected. Losses on yield attributable to H. armigera in multiple areas ranged from 36.88 to 50 %.

Reddy et al. (2009) observed that the occurrence of the pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera in chickpea resumed
from second week of February, i.e., in the early part of 1st fortnight of February, with 0.05 mean larval
population/ plant. During the fourth week of March (12th regular week the larval population began to increase
and reached its limit of 12.97 average larval population/plant.

Yadav and Jat (2009) On the chickpea infestation of H armigera began in the second quarter of November
and peaked at the end of February. Throughout the growth cycle of the plant, the larval population of the pest
occurred and was maximal at the stage of pod forming and grain production. Highest and lowest temperatures
showed a significant positive correlation with the larval population and minimum temperatures showed a
significant positive correlation with the larval population, while relative humidity and precipitation were
significant which were no effect on fluctuation of population of larvae.

JETIR2101123 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 947
© 2021 JETIR January 2021, Volume 8, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

Bajya et al. (2010) documented that the larval population of H. armigera larvae began during the third week
of November. During the second week of March, the highest population (9.2 larvae/10 plants) was reported
and decreased steadily. The pest was prevalent in this crop from November until March. Normal temperature,
precipitation, vapor pressure and humidity were positively associated with the increase the population of H.
armigera in the morning and evening period in chickpeas. In cotton, population variations were inversely
related with the morning and evening higher and lower temperature & vapor pressure. The reduction in these
variables resulted in higher in the community.

The population dynamics of chickpea pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on chickpea were
investigated and reported that the pest emerged from the second week of December to the second week of
January reached a maximum of 3.12 larvae /plant. During the last week of December to the third week of
January, the nuisance was active. Later, towards the maturity of the harvest, the population of pests decreased
steadily. The association between H armigera and various environmental parameters revealed that the
maximal temperature showed a very relevant negative correlation (r= 0.751) with the larval population of
H.armigera Whereas the low temperature (r= 0.577) and average temperature (r= 0.683) showed a substantial
negative association, the pest population showed a significantly substantial and favourable correlation between
morning relative humidity (r= 0.709), night relative humidity (r= 0.729) and mean relative humidity (r= 0.729)
Chatar et al.,(2010)

Among biotic causes, chickpea is infested by almost 60 species of insects of which the most important pests
are cutworm, Agrotis ipsilon (Ratt.), gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.), semilooper, Autographa
nigrisigna (Walk.), and aphid, Aphis craccivora (Koch.) (Acharjee and Sharma, 2013). Among others, the
gram pod borer, which is polyphagous in nature, causes considerable damage. Helicoverpa armigera is one of
most extreme chickpea pests, feeding more than one hundreads and fifty crops worldwide. (Vinutha et al.,
2013).

Mari et al., 2013 stated that the three arthropods (Helicoverpa armigera, Spodoptera litura and Agrotis ipsilon)
were documented from the research site and reports indicate that larval instars of these pests are attack on the
newly emergence leaves forming buds and pods. The larval population of pests was reported during January
to March. The data showed that was present among three pests in the entire average population. The population
of H. armigera was slightly higher (74.25) relative to S. Litura (55.25) as well as A. ipsilon (42.12)

Pandey et al. (2014) confirmed seasonal occurrence of Helicoverpa armigera on chickpeas at Azamgarh region
in UP and reported that during the 11th standard week, the larval population varied with ecological factors i.e.
High and low temperature, humidity and sunshine hours) and reached a maximum of 14.55 larvae/10 plants.
The positive association between minimum and maximum temperatures was important.

Ramteke et al. (2014) recorded that Helicoverpa armigera larval activities on chickpeas were observed at
Allahabad (U.P.) with a maximum during tenth standard week from fourth standard week to fourteen standard
weeks. With summer temperatures ranging between 28.6 °C and 32.4 °C, the larval population abruptly
increased.

JETIR2101123 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 948
 © 2021 JETIR January 2021, Volume 8, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

Farhat et al. (2014) documented the occurrence of various insects on chickpeas, i.e. Observed is cutworm,
whitefly, aphid, grasshopper & butterfly. The occurrence of insect pests in the vegetative and reproductive
periods alone.

Patel et al (2015) The population dynamics of the chickpea pod borer Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) were
reported in relation to environmental variables and found that the nuisance began from the second week of
November which is until in the month of the February and maximum activity of nuisance is in the first and
second week of December. The correlation study shows that significant and negative association between
larval population of Helicoverpa armigera and evaporation (-0.551). In the larval population of H. armigera
is a non-significant impact was found, high temperature, relative humidity at night, vapor pressure and speed
of wind.

Kumar et al. (2015) found that on 15 April (15th standard weeks) the larval population of H. armigera on
chickpea peaked in all control plots when the maximum and minimum temperatures of 34 ° C and 17.67 ° C
respectively, 57.57 percent humidity and 0.00 mm rainfall were noted. However, in the first standard week the
lowest larval population of 1.21 was recorded, with a maximum and minimum temperature of 13.35 and 4 °C,
humidity of 77.78 percent and rainfall of 0.00 mm respectively. During rabies season 2010-11, the larval
population of H.armigera was found to be positive with a maximum (r=0.858) and minimum (r=0.886)
temperature. The correlation was found to be negative between the larval population and humidity (r=0.569).
During the crop season, rainfall had a positive association (r=0.158) with the larval population.

Sunitha N et al. (2018) recorded that Spodoptera exigua (Cut Worm) is a developing chickpea nuisance.

Singh et al.,2018 confirmed that 4 arthropods i.e. Pod borer, leaf miner, cutworm and termite, and the results
show that chickpea pests, gram pod borer, have been identified as the major pest in the region. During mid-
December, it first emerged in the fifty-one Standard Week with its initial strength of 0.25 larvae /m row, which
rise up to eighth standard week over subsequent months and impacted the maximum population of 13.00 larvae
/m row during 9th standard week.

 Different management practices of the insect pest of chickpea: -

 To know efficacy of safer insecticides against major insect of chickpea: -

Sharma et al. (1997) have recorded a 70.9 percent decline in the larvae population resulting in 11.2 percent
pod damage and 1.86 t/ ha grain yield, triggering chemical insecticide Endosulfan 35 EC @ 1,200 ml /ha.

In a field study, Shah et al. (2003) conducted cypermethrin’s 10 EC, 35 EC, lambda cyhalothrin 2.5 EC and
chlorpyrifos 40 EC, against Helicoverpa armigera larvae on chickpea in 2001-2002 for the management of
larval population of gram pod borers in winter season. Increasing biomass and grain output in comparison with

JETIR2101123 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 949
© 2021 JETIR January 2021, Volume 8, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

control through all insecticides significantly reduced the larval population density of the plant. The effective
insecticide led by endosulfan, lambda cyhalothrin and cypermethrin has shown to be chlorpyrifos.

Helicoverpa armigera on chickpea was studied in the field and laboratory by Ahmed et al. (2004). Results
suggest that the Spinosad treatment with Indoxacarb and Methomyl and spinosad was the most effective way
to reduce nuisance infestation. Cypermethrin was not able to do acting as spinosad. In the laboratory
bioassays, Spinosad 1 ppm was found to be toxic to the second instar larva and cypermethrin 216 ppm was
minimum effect to the larva.

Ingale et al., (2008) doing experiment on effect of entomogenous fungus Nomurea Rileyi (Farlow) in the form
of oil on Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) in Chickpea. The results showed that after spraying in the field,
larval reduction increased. In reducing population of larvae, pod damage and increasing grain yield of
chickpea, two sprays of DC-Tron, soybeans and sunflower oil were found very effective. However, the
maximum damage by the larvae in the endosulfan 35 EC 0.06% treated plot and maximum grain yield than
process. According to ICBR, endosulfan was first in was first in number i.e. 1:21,14 ICBR, and soybean
(1:18.40), DC Tron Oil (1:16.57) and Sunflower Oil formulation (1:16.38).

The field trial of bio effectiveness of various insecticides on Helicoverpa armigera infesting chickpea
(CVJ315) was carried out. The most reduction in pod and seed damage was detected by Indoxacarb &
cypermethrin, whereas the smallest was seen in quinalphos sprayed plants. Singh et al.,(2008 b)

Proclaim, Radiant and Jatara against H armigera have been tested by Sahito et al. (2012). At the 15- and 20-
day time of second and third application on H. armigera applied three times respectively hence the prove that
the three insecticides have found to be effective in reducing the population of the pests. Proclaim, however,
produced best results for gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera total average population is 0.36,0.40.0.49 was
reported on each plant in the per plot where the spray was doing with the above insecticides respectively where
the untreated plot was 1.23 larva per plant. The entire mean population of pod borer during the second sprayed.
The plots handled with Proclaim, Radiant and Jatara were 0.33, 0.51 and 0.56 per plant, respectively compared
to the untreated plot (2.21 larvae/plant). In the third application, the entire average population of pod borer is
0.29,0.44,0.48. In the Proclaim, Radiant, and Jatara plots, respectively compared to the untreated plot (2.68
larvae / plant).

The insecticide emamectin benzoates (proclaim 5 WG) 0.025%, novaluron (Remon 10 EC) 0.01%, lufenuron
(Match 5 EC), 0.005%, flubendiamide(Fame 480 SC) 0.01%, rynaxypyr(Coragen 20 SC) 0.006% and
endosulfan (Thiodan 35 EC) 0.07,spinosad (Spintor 45 SC) 0.0135%, Thiodicarb (Larvin 75 WP)
0.075,Indoxycarb (Fego 15.5 SC ) 0.007 % etc were evaluated by Babar et al (2012), study was carried both
in invitro and in vivo condition during rabi season in 2009-10 The findings of the laboratory experiment
showed upwards of 70% egg mortality by flubendiamide and thiodicarb , shows as ovicidal in nature In the
laboratory experiment, flubendiamide, emamectin, rynaxypyr, and spinosad reported more than 90% larval
death and found it most effective as larvicide.

JETIR2101123 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 950
© 2021 JETIR January 2021, Volume 8, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

Kumar et al. (2012) observed seasonal behaviour pod borer during Rabi 2007-08 in farmers' fields. Its activity
starts from vegetative stage till harvesting stage of crop. In the 10th standard weeks at a minimum temperature
of 13.8° C and at a maximum temperature of 30.1°C with relative humidity 68 percent without reported
precipitation during entire crop season. The average population of the pest at the sidhauna village was 3
larvae/10 plants and at pandepurwa, pithia & jorium village were 2 larvae/10 plant. Sidhauna village had a
significant link between the larval population with low temperature, high temperature and relative humidity.
In the Padepurwa and Pithla larval population with the temperature, relative humidity and the minimum
temperature were positively associated. In the Nerium, larval population & relative humidity had positive
association & Maximum and minimum temperature had Negative association. In the pod borer management
analysis, likewise. Spinosad 45 SC @ 90 g a.i./ha was followed by Indoxacarb 14.5 EC @ 50 g a.i./ha,
Novaluron 10 EC @ 100 g a. i/ha and Spinosad 45 SC @ 90 ga.i./ha became more successful treatment. Based
on larval reduction and seed yield, Endosulfan 35 EC @ 700 g a.i/ha was less effective. From Indoxycarb 14.5
EC @ 50 g /ha treatment maximum cost benefit ratio is obtained maximum C:B ratio from 14.5 EC @ 50 g
per hectare Indoxacarb.

The Karate 2.5 EC @750ml/ha recommended by Ahmed and Awan in 2013 mixed with 200 liter of water
when the crop is infested with more than two instar larvae per m row length.

Choudhary (2013) claimed that the on-chickpea pod borer recommended as a rynaxypyr 20 SC or lufenuron
5.4 EC flubendiamide 48 SC.

The effect of different chemicals is tested by Yogeeswarudu & Venkata (2014) such as indoxacarb 14.5 SC
@ 0.5 ml/l, profenophos 50 EC @ 2.0 ml/I, imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 1 m/l, novaluron 10 EC @ 1.5 ml/l,
fipronil 5 SC @ 2.0 ml/l and lambda cyhalothrin 5 EC @ 1 ml/l against pod borer larvae. It was observed that
indoxacarb 14.5 SC @ 0.5 ml/l was the better than the all treatments with a minimum larval population
i.e.1.53.0.46.0.73 larvae / five plants at a first spray. With a reduction of 89.45.97.01.95.83% over untreated
at 3 DAS, 5 DAS & 7 DAS the second spray with minimum larval population of 0.00, 0.26 and 0.00 larvae/five
plants were decreased by 100,98.74 and 100% compared to untreated at 3 DAS, 5 DAYS, and 7 DAYS
respectively. Five insecticides (i.e., Emamectin 1,9 EC®) have been tested for their efficacy by Iqbal et al.
(2014). On chickpea variety "BRC390" ,Lannate 40 SP (Methomyl) , Coragen 20 SP (rynaxypyr)., Match of
50 EC® (Lufenuron), Profenofos 50 EC® (Profenofos) against gram pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera).In
Profenofos treated plots (85%, 90% and 94%) and Coragen treated (85%, 90% and 90%) at 3, 5 and 7 DAT.,
respectively the highest mortality rate of gram pod borer was reported. In control plots of 3 rd to 7th day no
plant mortality has been reported. These insecticides have therefore proven extremely efficient in controlling
chickpea gram pod borer under invitro conditions

Sharma et al. (2014) announced that the most successful application for the reduction of larval instar, pod
damage and the higher yield was Rynaxypyr 20 SC @ 75 ml/hectare. While rynaxypyr had the highest gross
profit, but higher than rynaxpyr is ICBR of flubendiamide 48 SC @ 50 ml/ha. The successful economic control
of Helicoverpa armigera in Chickpea could be an efficient Rynaxypyr 20 SC @ 75 ml/ha or the flubendiamide
48 SC @ 50 ml/ha.
JETIR2101123 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 951
 © 2021 JETIR January 2021, Volume 8, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

Vikrant et al., 2018. The research was conducted in the Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and
Technology, Kanpur, for a study to determine the bio- efficacy of certain insecticides against Helicoverpa
armigera (Hubner) in chickpea during the 2014to15 and 2015to16 rabi. The Treatment 5 (Spinosad 45 EC @
166 ml/ha) has a minimum survivor and maximum reduced larval population percentage while on 3rd, 7th and
10th days after spray a maximum survival and minimal decrease in larval populations has been reported in T1
(haNPV@250 LE/ha).

 To know efficacy of Bacillus thuringenesis against major insect pest of chickpea:

Khalique and Ahmed, 2001a, b). Ahmed et al., 1990 1990, 1994, 1998. Extensive assessments of the
Bioefficacy of some indigenous and exotic strains of B Thuringensis and commercial preparation have been
carried out in Pakistan. The development of a package of Bacillus thuringenesis application technologies to
handle the pod borer population on chickpea resulted.

The preparations for Btbased insecticides, Biobit, Dulfin and DiPel with NPV showed a minimum of (4.2 to
16.7 percent) pod damage, compared with untreated (12.2 to 38.6 %) in Pantnagar, Durgapur, Sehore, Rahuri,
Bangalore and Dulbarga, India (Anonymous,1997).

Application of Bt formulations at evening contribute to greater control than application of other times of day.
Mahapatro and Gupta et al.,1999.

Naranjo, 2005 The use of Bt plants and the resulting decline in the use of insecticides enhance the importance
and role of natural enemies to minimizing the secondary pest population.

Mahmudunnabi et al.,2013 Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) application @ 0.4 g/litre of water; IPM practices 2 (P2)
consists of the trapping of pheromone in addition to the release of sequential biocontrol agents and spraying
(HNPV). These results show that the best performance of the IPM practice (P2) was reducing the 68.20% pod
damage and which is important to increase grain yield i.e. (1832.20 kg/ha).

Ahmed et al. announced in 2012 that the use of microbial insecticide preparations i.e. Bacillus thuringiensis
(Bt) offers an environmentally safe solution to the broad specturm insecticides

Worldwide focus was on the entomopathogens (EPFs) and Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) as biological insect
control agents (Jarrahi & Safavi, 2016; Kalvnadi et al., 2018; Legwaila et al., 2015). Several trials have tested
EPF and Bt biopesticides as options to conventional pesticides in IPM techniques (Bayissa et coll., 2017; Erler
& Ates, 2015; Lacey et al., 2015; Opisa et al., 2018).

(Da Silva et al.2018,) The Soil Bacterium Bt Berliner subsp. Kurstaki (Btk) is the beneficial biocontrol agent
for number of pests including pod borer and Lepidopteran pests.

 To know efficacy of HaNPV against major insect pest of chickpea:

The NPV was reduced significantly larval population of pod bore and recorded by Jayaraj & et.al., (1987);
Pawar et al., (1987); Narayana, (1980) and Chandra, (1987). thus, less risk to the chickpea than chemical
insecticides and untreated. High larval mortality of pod borer reported by Sharma et al. (1997). Mortality of
JETIR2101123 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 952
 © 2021 JETIR January 2021, Volume 8, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

larval mortality in bioagents and chemical insecticide application. The NPV @ 300 LE /ha decreased the larval
density by 78.7 percent, consisting in 10.0 percent pod losses and a high yield of grain (1.86 t/ha) Several
natural populations of pod borer as well as other lepidopteran species, have at least some extent of infection
with species specific NPV.If the extent of NPV contamination can be raised, then the pod borer population
can be demolished without harmful impacts on beneficial species. HaNPV has been identified as a better option
to minimizing the pod borer on chickpea (Rabindra & Jayaraj,1998; Butani et al.,1997; Ahmed etal.,1999;
Cherry et al.,2000).

Thakur (1998) used a nuclear polyhydrosis virus treatment at 1.5 ml /l and produced a higher yield of grain,
not substantially different from that of a chemical insecticide (Deltamethrin 2.8 EC applied at 1.0 ml l/ha), but
significantly more than a untreated.

In addition, a NPV that is selective to pod borer (HaNPV) has been isolated. (HaNPV) is a natural and selective
replacement to insecticides (Cherry et al., 2000). Prior study has shown HaNPV can be efficiently used to
monitor H. armigera on various varieties, including citrus (Moore et al., 2004) and chickpea (Moshtaghi,
Maleki et al., 2014; Ojha et al., 2017).

Arora and Padmanaban,2002, recorded that Helicoverpa Armigera, in repeated field trials at two doses,
including a 250 LE / ha and a 370 LE / ha, was assessed at the efficacy of 2 weekly sprays of HaNPV Native
Isolate (PAUI) against sunflower head borer. In minimizing the larval population and percent harm to the pest,
the lower doses were unsuccessful. In comparison to the normal insecticides (carbaryl 10 kg/ha) treatments of
1.16 larva/10 plants, the highest dose of HaNPV with a larval population of 10 larva/10 plants was equivalent.

 To know efficacy of Neem Seed Kernel Extract against major insect pest of chickpea:

Roy and Dureja, (1998) Azadirachtin has antifood and developmental retardant functions, and is likely to result
to mortality in one phase or the other of the lifespan by impinging on neuroendocrine metamorphosis
regulation in an insect

Tesfahun et al. 2000 Azadirachtin have anti-sustaining and development delaying properties and may result
in mortality by impairing neuroendocrinal metamorphosis in insects at any stage of life.

The integration of different IPM components was seen to minimize the pod harm (10.4%) with the maximum
yield of grain (1264.4kg/ha, or 58.5% yield over untreated (797.9kg/ha), when the numerous IPM component
such as neem, HaNPV were efficiently to the minimize the larval population of pod borer and out of that neem
act as on the decreased effectively the oviposition of H.armigera in cropping season .

The capability of the neem extracts produced from the seed from Melka Woreda in Ethiopia, Tebkew et al.,
2002 reported that the percentage of pod damage was reduced significantly, as were the loss of pod damage
on treated chickpea lower than untreated plots (Gossa, 2007).

JETIR2101123 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 953
 © 2021 JETIR January 2021, Volume 8, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

The most efficient IPM module consisting of pheromone trap + sequential release of the biocontrol agent +
spraying of the NSKE, out of that NSKE was the best results against larval population of pod borer,
accompanied by pheromone trap + sequential releases of biocontrol agent, (T. chilonis + B. hebetor)
(Anonymous 2008).). The best utility is to control the sequence and the efficiency of the IPM module.

The NSKE 5% application helps decreased the pod borer population in chickpea (Gupta 2007; Pachundkar et
al. 2013; Hussain et al. 2016).

The percentage of pod damage after spraying with the neem oil and custard apple leaf extract, recorded
substantial declines the larval population by Mishra et al (2013). The vermiwash combined with aqueous garlic
extract, which combined animal dung and urban solid waste, caused a significant decrease in the infestation
frequency of pod borers.

Bhushan et al.,2011to check the efficacy of biopesticides against pod borer in chickpea, in decreasing larval
population & pod damage, results show that NSKE 5 percent was found to be most effective.

 To know efficacy of plant- based products against major pest of chickpea:

Mallapur and Ladji 2011. Ladji et al. 2011. Comprehensive use of vegetable and animal products such as
pongamia (10.0%) + NSKE (10%) + aloe (0.5%) + cow urine (30%), GCA (2%) + GCK (0.5%), and leaf
extract of vitex (20%) + clerodendrone (4%) + cow urine (17%) reduced the larval population with higher
chickpea pod yield.

 To know the efficacy of mixture of bio-based and safer insecticides:

Cherry et al, (2000) Field assessment of formulations such as NPV, chemical insecticide, endosulfan or B.
thuringiensis against chickpea pod borer.

Reddy et al. (2010) tested in the combination of gram pod borers on chickpeas, the effectiveness of traditional
insecticides viz., NSKE, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) Nuclear Polyhedrosis Virus (HaNPV) and
Endosulfan .It has been found that the population of larval population decreased by NSKE 1.66% + HaNPV
250LE/ha + Endosulphan 0.023%, followed by NSKE 1.66% + Endosulfan 0.023%, NSKE 2.5% + HaNPV
250LE applied twice in fifteen days periods.

Lambda Cyhalothrin and NSKE can protect chickpea from pod borer H.armigera (Hubner), reported by
Hossain et al. (2010).

Anandhi et al. (2011) assesses a various of chemical and bio-based insecticides against pod borer on chickpea
i.e. emamectin benzoate, spinosad, indoxacarb, quinalphos, pongamia, NSKE and garlic extracts)

At the time of pod borer incidence, 2 sprays were given for every insecticide in fifteen days intervals Five
randomly chosen plants in each plot were counted with pod borer larvae.

One day before the first and second sprays, the pre-treatment count was completed, while after each spray, the
count was done on the third and fifth days. Result revealed that the decrease in population was equivalent to

JETIR2101123 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 954
 © 2021 JETIR January 2021, Volume 8, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

untreated treatment. Indoxacarb was the most important in the 1st and 2 nd
application, pursue spinosad
application.

Amongst the biobased insecticides i.e. (NSKE) followed by garlic extract was the bet treatement wih the
largest decrease in the pod borer population in the 1st and 2nd spray. Indoxacarb has reported a cost benefit
ratio and has proven its efficacy across treatment and the second highest cost-benefit ratio of quinalphos was
due to the reduced insecticide costs, followed by Proclaim, Tracer, Nimbicidine , garlic extract and leaf extract.

The combined NSKE + HaNPV + Panchagavya application caused lower pod damage and higher yields of
chickpea reported by Muddukumar 2007.

Kumari et al.,2015 During the field experiment performed at Bihar Agricultural College, Sabour Farm of Bihar
Agricultural University, Sabour in the years 201011 to 2012to13, it has been discovered that the Helicoverpa
armigera on chickpea could be effectively controlled using pheromone trapping + Bt+ HaNPV and also
increase the yield of crop comparison to the other treatment.

 Conclusion: -

From the this review it is concluded that the pod borer, H. armigera remained active throughout the crop
season with one peak coincided with the reproductive phase of the crop.
Application of Rynaxypyr 20SC @ 75ml/ha and the new molecule BAS 45001I300SC @ 60 ml/ha were
found effective in chickpea to avoid the menace of the pod borer and also minimizes the effect on natural
enemies.

 Knowledge Gap: To develop a comprehensive and holistic understanding of the population dynamics
of H. armigera on chickpea in relation to abiotic factors is the basic need so that effective prediction of its
infestation can be made. As the botanicals and bio- insecticides have shown potential in managing this pest in
combination with chemical insecticides, reduced dosages of chemical insecticides in combination with
botanicals and bio - pesticides should be given priority in further research.

Reference

Acharjee, S. and Sharma, B.K. (2013). Transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) chickpea: India’s most wanted

genetically modified (GM) pulse crop. African Journal of Biotechnology, 12 (39): 5709-5713.

Agricultural Statistics at a Glance. Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of India, Ministry of

Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, New Delhi, 2018.

Ahmed et al., (2012) Field evaluation of bio-pesticide for control of chickpea pod borer Helicoverpa

armigera, a major pest of chickpea crop. Pakistan J Zool 44(6): 1555–1560.

JETIR2101123 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 955
© 2021 JETIR January 2021, Volume 8, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

Ahmed S, Zia K, Shah NUR (2004). Validation of chemical control of gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera

(Hub.) with new insecticides. Int. J. Agri. Biol., 6: 6.

Ahmed, k., khalique, f. And malik, b.a., 1998. Evaluation of synergistic interaction between bacillus

thuringiensis and malic acid against chickpea pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (huebner) lepidoptera:

noctuidae. Pakistan j. Biol. Sci. 1: 105-1081.

Ahmed, k., khalique, f., malik, b. A. And riley, d., 1994. Use of microbial insecticides in pakistan: special

reference to control of chickpea pod borer Helicoverpa armigera (hubner). Subtrop. Pl. Sci., 46:38-

44.

Ahmed, k., lal, s.s., morris, h., khalique, f. And malik, b.a., 1990. Insect pest problems and recent approaches

to solving them on chickpea in south asia. Chickpea in the nineties. Proc. Of second international

workshop on chickpea improvement, 4-8 dec. 1989, icrisat center, india. Patancheru a.p. 502 324, india

pp. 165-168.

Ahmed, Khalique and Awan, Muhammad Saeed (2013). Integrated management of insect pests of chickpea

Cicer arietinum (L. W alp.) in south Asian countries: Present status and future strategies- A Review

Pakistan Journal of Zoology45 (4): 1125-1145.

Ali,Z.A. and Shahazad, Muhammad Kashif (2005) Population fluctuation with reference to different

development stages of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptere:Noctuidae) on chickpea and their

relationship with the environment. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology 7(1):90-93

Anandhi, D. M. P.; Elamathi, S.; and Sobita, Simon (2011). Evaluation of bio-rational insecticides for

management of Helicoverpa armigera in chickpea. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences19 (1):207-

209.

Andow, D.A., Lövei, G.L. and Arpaia, S. (2006) Ecological risk assessment for Bt crops. Nat.

Biotechnol. 24, 749– 751

Anonymous (2007). Status Report 2007. AICRP on chickpea, main Centre, J.N.K.V.V., R.A.K. College of

Agriculture, Sehore, Madhya PradeshBabar, K.S. , Bharpoda, T.M. , Shah, K.D., Jhala, R.C. (2012).

JETIR2101123 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 956
© 2021 JETIR January 2021, Volume 8, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

Bio-efficacy of newer molecules of insecticides against chickpea pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera

(Hubner) Hardwick. AGRES-An International e-Journal 1 (2) : 134-147.

Anonymous (2008) Annual report 2007–2008, Entomology Division, BARI, Gazipur, Bangladesh.

Anonymous, 1997. Entomology annual report, all india coordinated research project on improvement of

chickpea. Kanpur, india, 204-216.

Attique MR, Arif MI, Ahmed Z, Mohyuddin MI (2000). Host plants and Population Dynamics of

Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) in the belt of Punjab. The Pak. Cottons, 44(3 & 4): 31-40.

Bajya, D. R.; Monga, D.; Tyagi, M. P.; and Meena, B. L. (2010). Population dynamics of Helicoverpa

armigera on chickpea in correlation with weather parameters. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences18:

(1) 227-229.

Balasubramaniam, s., arora, r.s. And pawar, a.d., 1989). Biological control of heliothis armigera (hubn.) Using

trichogramma pretiosum riley and nuclear polyhedrosis virus in sriganganagar district of rajisthan. Pl.

Protect. Bull. (faridabad), 41:1-3.

Balikai R A, Biradar A P, Yelshethy S and Tegelli R G, 2001. Relative efficacy of some selected insecticides

against Chickpea Pod borer, Karnataka, J.Agri.. Sci. 14(2):346-348.

Bayissa, W., Ekesi, S., Mohammed, S. A., Kaaya, G. P., Wagacha, J. M., Hanna R., & Maniania, N. K. (2017).

Selection of fungal isolates for virulence against three aphid pest species of crucifers and okra. Journal

of Pest Science, 90(1), 355–368.

Bentley, B.R. and Clements, R.O. 1989. Impact of time of sowing on pest damage to direct-drilled grass and

the mode of attack by dipterous stem borers. Crop Protection 8, 55–62.

Bhushan et al.,2011 Bioefficacy of neem and Bt against pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera in chickpea.

Journal of Biopesticides, 4 (1): 87 - 89 (2011).

Bianchi, F.J.J.A., Booij, C.J.H. and Tscharntke, T. (2006) Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural

landscapes: a review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proc. R. Soc.

Lond. B Biol. Sci. 273, 1715– 1727

JETIR2101123 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 957
© 2021 JETIR January 2021, Volume 8, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

Chandra, s., 1987. Production technology from all india pulse improvement project in nepal. Coordination of

grain legume research in asia.

Chatar, V.P.; Raghvani, K.L.; Joshi, M.D.; Ghadge, S.M.; Deshmukh, S.G. and Daleve, S.K. (2010).

Population dynamics of pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera(Hubner) infesting chickpea. international

Journal of Plant Protection3 (1): 65-67.

Cherry et al.,2000 Field evaluation of Helicoverpa armigera, nucleopolyhedrovirus formulations for control

of the chickpea pod borer, H. armigera (Hubn.), on chickpea (Cicer arietinum var. Shoba) in southern

India, Crop Protection, 19: (2000) 51-60.

Choudhary, B.D. (2013). Seasonal incidence and management of gram pod borer, H. armigera (Hub) with

newer insecticides on chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) M.Sc. (Ag) Thesis, R.A.K. College of Agriculture,

Sehore, Madhya Pradesh.

Clement, S.L. (1999) Ex situ gene bank practices: protecting germplasm nurseries from insect pests. Plant

Gen. Resources News. 119: 46–50.

Clement, S.L., Wightman, J.A., Hardie, D.C., Bailey, P., Baker, G. and McDonald, G. (2000) Opportunities

for integrated management of insect pests of grain legumes. In: Knight, R. (ed.) Linking Research and

Marketing Opportunities for Pulses in the 21st Century. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The

Netherlands, pp. 467–480.

D. Tebkew, T. Adane and D. Asmare, Potentials for botanicals in controlling the African boll worm, In:

proceedings of the national workshop on African bollworm management in Ethiopia: status and need,

2002, pp. 106-14.

Da Silva IHS, Gomez I, Sanchez J, de Castro DLM, Valicente FH et al. (2018) Identification of midgut

membrane proteins from different instars of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) that

bind to Cry1Ac toxin. PLoS ONE 12: e0207789.

Dabhi, M. V. and Patel, C. C. (2004). Population dynamics of gram pod borer H.armigerain chickpea at

Anand,Gujrat,India. Insect Environment10 (4) :161-162

DAC (2014). http.www.dacnet.nic.in.

JETIR2101123 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 958
© 2021 JETIR January 2021, Volume 8, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

Devendra P., and K. Binay, 2002. “Impact of intercropping and endosulfan on the incidence of gram pod borer

infesting chickpea”. Indian J. Entom. 64(4): 405-410.

Devi et al., 2002.Natural enemies of Helicoverpa armigera Hübner on chickpea. Annals of Plant Protection

Sciences 2002 Vol.10 No.2 pp.179-183 ref.15

Durairaj, C.; Subbaratam, G.V.; Singh T.V.K.; and Shanawar, T.G. (2005). Helicoverpa armigera in India:

Spatial and temporal dynamics and management options. In

Erler, F., & Ates, A. O. (2015). Potential of two entomopathogenic fungi, Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium

anisopliae (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae), as biological control agents against the June beetle. Journal of

Insect Science, 15(1), 44–44.

FAO (2012). http.//faostat.fao.org.

FAOSTAT. www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC, 2019.

G. K. Mahapatro and G. P. Gupta, Evenings suitable for spraying Bt formulations, Insect Environment, 5:

(1999) 126-27.

G. Tesfahun, W. Bayu and A. Tesfaye, Indigenous techniques of crop pest control in wollo, Pest. Manag. J.

Ethiopia., 6 (2000) 64-68.

Glogoza, P. (2005) Field Crop Insect Management Recommendations. North Dakota State University

Extension Bulletin E-1143, Fargo, North Dakota.

Golding, A. and Z. Dong. 2010. Hydrogen production by nitrogenase as a potential crop rotation benefit.

Environ. Chem. Lett. 8: 101-121.

Gupta MP (2007) Management of gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) in chickpea with

biorationals. Nat Prod Radiance 16(5): 391–397.

Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) using neem seed extract and Lambda - cyhalothrin In High Barind Tract. J.

Bio - Sci., 18 (1) : 44- 48.

Heliothis management (Sharma, H.C. ed.) Oxford & IBH publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi: 91-117.

JETIR2101123 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 959
© 2021 JETIR January 2021, Volume 8, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

Hossain M.S, Islam M.S, Salam M.A, Hossain M.A, and Salma M.U (2010). Management of chickpea pod

borer,

Hussain M, Ahmad KS, Majeed M, Mehmood A, Hamid A, Yousaf MM, Chaudhry MS, Shah MJ, Hussain

K, Ahmad B, Khan AQ (2016) Integrated management of Helicoverpa armigera on different

genotypes of Kabuli chickpea in Punjab, Pakistan. Int J Biosci 9(2):110– 119.

Hussain, Altaf Md. (2003). Management of chickpea pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) through

intercropping and insecticide spraying. Thai Journal of Agricultural Sciences 36 (1): 51-56.

Ingle Y.V., Raut B.T.,Pardey V.P.,ShindeV.B. (2008).Efficacy of oil formulation of Nomurea rileyi against

Helicoverpa armigera on chickpea. International Journal of Plant Protection1 (2) : 88-91.

Iqbal J., Farooq S.U.,Jamil M., Khan H.A.A., Younis M. (2014). Relative efficacy of selective insecticides

against gram pod borer ( Helicoverpa armigera H.) of chickpea. Mycopath 12 (2) : 119 -122.

J. Kumar and J. B. Smithson, A brief report of the 5th International chickpea trials on nurseries, conducted in

India, 1979-1980, AICPIP Rabi Pulses Workshop, 16-19 Sept, Rajasthan College of Agric, Udaipur,

India, 1980.

Jarrahi, A., & Safavi, S. A. (2016). Fitness costs to Helicoverpa armigera after exposure to sub-lethal

concentrations of Metarhizium anisopliae sensu lato: Study on F1 generation. Journal of Invertebrate

Pathology, 138, 50–56.

Jayaraj, s., rabindra, r.j. And santharam, g., 1987. Control of heliothis armigera (hubn.) On chickpea and lablab

bean by nuclear polyhedrosis virus. Indian j. Agric. Sci., 57: 738-41.

Kalvnadi, E., Mirmoayedi, A., Alizadeh, M., & Pourian, H. (2018). Sub-lethal concentrations of the

entomopathogenic fungus, Beauveria bassiana increase fitness costs of Helicoverpa armigera

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) offspring. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 158, 32–42

Kambrekar DN. Management of pod borer in chickpea. The Hindu,

http://www.thehindu.com/scitech/agriculture/management-of-pod-borer in

chickpea/article4143687.ece., 2012.

JETIR2101123 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 960
© 2021 JETIR January 2021, Volume 8, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

Khalique. F. And ahmed, k., 2001a. Toxicity of bacillus thuringiensis berliner and sub-lethal effect on

development of helicoverpa (heliothis) armigera hubner. Pakistan j. Biol. Sci., 4(supl. Issue no.5) 4:

529-534.

Khalique. F. And ahmed, k., 2001b. Synergistic interaction between bacillus thuringiensis (berliner) and

lambda-cyhalothrin (pyrethroid) against chickpea pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (huebner).

Pakistan j. Biol. Sci., 4:1120-1123.

Knights, E.J. and Siddique, K.H.M. (2002). Chickpea status and production constraints in Australia. In: Bakr,

M.A., Siddique, K.H.M. and Johansen, C. (eds) Integrated Management of Botrytis Grey Mould of

Chickpea in Bangladesh and Australia. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research,

ACT, Canberra, Australia, pp. 33–41.

Kumar J., Singh D.C., and Singh A.P. (2012). Incidence of pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera Hub. and their

management through newer insecticides in chickpea. Trends in Biosciences 5 (3): 240 - 243.

Kumar Sudhir.,Singh Gaje.,Singh D.V.,Rahul.S.N., and Kumar Sushil.(2015). The study of seasonal incidence

of larval population of gram pod borer ( Helicoverpa armigera H.) on chickpea in meerut. Trends in

Indian Journal Progressive Agricultural.15 (2):259-262.

Kumari et al.,2015 Biointensive management of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) in chickpea. Journal of

Eco-friendly Agriculture 10(1): 50-52 : 2015.

Lacey, L. A., Grzywacz, D., Shapiro, D. I., Frutos, R., Brownbridge, M., & Goettel, M. S. (2015). Insect

pathogens as biological control agents: Back to the future. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 132, 1–

41.

Ladji R, Mallapur CP, Ambika DS, Amitha K, Rudraswamy SM, Thimmegowda PR (2011) Management of

chickpea pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) using indigenous materials. Int J Sci Nat

2(2):263–265.

Legwaila, M. M., Munthali, D. C., Kwerepe, B., & Obopile, M. (2015). Efficacy of Bacillus thuringiensis (var.

kurstaki) against diamond-back moth (Plutella xylostella L.) eggs and larvae on cabbage under semi-

controlled greenhouse conditions. International Journal of Insect Science, 7, 39–45.

JETIR2101123 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 961
© 2021 JETIR January 2021, Volume 8, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

M. W. Gossa, Effects of neem extracts on the feeding, survival, longevity and fecundity of African bollworm,

Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on cotton, 2007.

Mahmudunnabi et al.,2013 Development of biorational-based integrated pest management package against

pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera Hubner infesting chickpea. J Biopest 6(2) (2013): 108-111.

Mallapur CP, Ladji RN (2010) Management of chickpea pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) using

indigenous materials. Int J Pl Protec 3(2):194–198.

Margheim, J., Baltensperger, D.D., Wilson, R.G., Lyon, D.J., Hein, G.L., Harveson, R.M., Burgener, P., Krall,

J.M., Cecil, J.T., Rickertsen, J.R., Merrigan, A.P., Watson, M.H. and Hansen, B.J. (2004) Chickpea

Production in the High Plains. University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension EC04-183, Lincoln,

Nebraska.

Margheim, J., Baltensperger, D.D., Wilson, R.G., Lyon, D.J., Hein, G.L., Harveson, R.M., Burgener, P., Krall,

J.M., Cecil, J.T., Rickertsen, J.R., Merrigan, A.P., Watson, M.H. and Hansen, B.J. (2004) Chickpea

Production in the High Plains. University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension EC04-183, Lincoln,

Nebraska.

Meissle, M., Vojtech, E. and Poppy, G. (2005) Effects of Bt maize‐fed prey on the generalist

predator Poecilus cupreus L. (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Transgenic Res. 14, 123– 132

Miller, P., McKay, K., Jenks, B., Riesselman, J., Neill, K., Buschena, D. and Bussan, A.J. (2002) Growing

chickpea in the Northern Great Plains. Montana State University Extension Service Bulletin 2002,

Bozeman, Montana.

Miller, P., McKay, K., Jenks, B., Riesselman, J., Neill, K., Buschena, D. and Bussan, A.J. (2002) Growing

chickpea in the Northern Great Plains. Montana State University Extension Service Bulletin 2002,

Bozeman, Montana.

Mishra K, Singh K, Tripathi CPM (2013) Management of pod borer ( Helicoverpa armigera) infestation and

productivity enhancement of gram crop (Cicer aritenium) through vermiwash with biopesticides.

World J Agric Sci 9(5):401–408.

JETIR2101123 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 962
© 2021 JETIR January 2021, Volume 8, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

Moore SD, Timothy P, Bouwer G & Fourie JG (2004) Evaluation of Helicoverpa armigera

nucleopolyhedrovirus (HearNPV) for control of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on

citrus in South Africa. Biocontrol Science and Technology 14: 239– 250.

Moshtaghi‐Maleki F, Jalali‐Sendi J & Rezapanah MR (2014) A laboratory investigation on the effect of

environmental temperature on virulence of Helicoverpa armigera multiple

nucleopolyhedrovirus. Journal of Animal Researches 26: 372– 383 (in Persian)

Mosier, A.R., Syers, J.K. & Freney, J.R. 2004. Nitrogen fertilizer: an essential component of increased food,

feed, and fibre production. In A.R. Mosier, K. Syers & J.R. Freney, eds. Agriculture and the nitrogen

cycle. Washington, DC, Island Press. 291 pp

Muddukumar (2007) Organic nutrient management and plant protection in green chickpea production system.

M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, India.

Naranjo, S.E. (2005) Long‐term assessment of the effects of transgenic Bt cotton on the abundance of

nontarget arthropod natural enemies. Environ. Entomol. 34, 1193– 1210.

Narayana, k., 1980. Field evaluation of npv of heliothis armigera on chickpea. Proc. Of the workshop on

biological control of heliothis spp., 23-25 sept. 1980. Department of primary industries, toowoomba,

queensland, australia.

Nema, K.K. and Verma, S.N. (2000). Integrated management of gram pod borer, ( Helicoverpa armigera,

Hub.) in chickpea. Souvenir Published in Annual Workshop of AICRP on chickpea and MULLaRP

organized by JNKVV campus, R.A.K., College of Agriculture, Sehore (M.P.), 10-13 November 2000

at CIAE, Bhopal, pp: 65-67.

Nene YL and Reddy MV. 1987. Chickpea diseases and their control. Pages 233- 270 in The chickpea (Saxena

MC and Singh KB, eds).. Wallingford, Oxon, UK: CAB International.

Obrist, L.B., Dutton, A., Albajes, R. and Bigler, F. (2006) Exposure of arthropod predators to Cry1Ab toxin

in Bt maize fields. Ecol. Entomol. 31, 143– 154.

JETIR2101123 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 963
© 2021 JETIR January 2021, Volume 8, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

Odak. S.c. And thakur, b.s., 1975. Preliminary studies on the economic threshold of gram pod borer, heliothis

armigera (hubner) on gram. Paper presented in all india workshop on rabi pulses, a.p. A. U. Hyderabad.

Sept 29 to oct 01.

Ojha PK, Kumari R & Chaudhary RS (2017) Impact of certain bio‐pesticides on larval mortality

of Helicoverpa armigera Hübner (Noctuidae: Lepidoptera) in chickpea. Journal of Entomological

Research 5: 1083– 1091.

Opisa, S., du Plessis, H., Akutse, K. S., Fiaboe, K. K. M., & Ekesi, S. (2018). Effects of Entomopathogenic

fungi and Bacillus thuringiensis-based biopesticides on Spoladea recurvalis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae).

Journal of Applied Entomology, 142(6), 617–626.

P. G. Butani, M. N. Kapadia and G. J. Parsana, Comparative efficacy and economics of nuclear polyhedrosis

virus (NPV) for the control of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on groundnut, Journal of Oilseeds

Research, 14: (1997) 85-87.

Pachundkar N, Kamble P, Patil P, Gagare P (2013) Management of gram pod borer H. armigera in chickpea

with neem seed kernel extract as a natural pest management practice in Bhojdari village. Int J Curr Res

5(10):2934–2935

Pandey, B. M.;Tripathi, M. K.; and Vijay, Lakshmi (2014). Seasonal incidence of Helicoverpa armigera on

chickpea. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences 22 (1) : 198 -199.

Parsai, S.K. 2005. Damage by pod borer, H. armigera (Hub.) to different varieties of chickpea. Food legumes

21 (2): 135-136.

Patanker AG, Giri AP, Harsulkar AM, Sainari MN, Deshpade VV, Ranjekar PK, Gupta VS (2001).

Complexity in specificities and expression of Helicoverpa armigera gut proteinases explains

polyphagous nature of insect pest. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol., 31: 453-464.

Patel, S. R.; Patel, K. G. and Ghetiya, l. V. (2015). Population dynamics of pod borer Helicoverpa armigera

(Hubner) infesting chickpea in relation to abiotic factors. An International e-Journal 4 (2) : 163-170.

Pawar, v.m., alecmuddin, m. And bhosle, b.b., 1987. Bio-efficacy of hnpv in comparison with endosulfan

against pod borer on chickpea. Int. Chickpea newsl., 16 : 4-6.

JETIR2101123 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 964
© 2021 JETIR January 2021, Volume 8, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

Pradhan, S. 1964. Assessment of losses caused by insect pests of crops and estimation of insect population. In

Entomology in India (Ed.), N.C. Pant, Silver Jubilee number of Indian J. Ent. pp. 17-58.

R. Ahmad, C. P. Yadava and S. S. Lal, Efficacy of nuclear polyhedrosis virus for the management of

Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) infesting chickpea, Indian Journal of Pulses Research, 12: (1999) 92-

96.

R. Ahmad, C. P. Yadava and S. S. Lal, Efficacy of nuclear polyhedrosis virus for the management of

Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) infesting chickpea, Indian Journal of Pulses Research, 12: (1999) 92-

96.

R. J. Rabindera and S. Jayaraja, Evaluation of certain adjuvants for nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV) of

Heliothis armigera on chickpea, Indian J. exp. Biol., 26 (1988) 60-62.

Ramteke, P.W .; Sobita Simon; and David, Deepmala (2014). Population dynamics of Helicoverpa armigera

infesting chickpea, Annals of Plant Protection Sciences 22(1):203-204. 4

Rao et al., 2008.Relative toxicity of neem to natural enemies associated with the chickpea ecosystem: a case

study. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science Vol. 27, No. 3/4, pp. 229–235, 2008.

Reddy, V.; Anandhi, P.; Elamathi, S. and Simon, S. (2010). Efficacy of some common insecticides for the

management of pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on chickpea at field condition. An

International e-Journal 33(1) : 74.

Reddy, V.; Anandhi, P.; Elamathi, S.; and Verma, Savita (2009). Observation on seasonal occurrence of pulse

pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (L.) on chickpea at Eastern U.P. Region, India. Agriculture Sciences

Digest 29 (2): 60 -62

Reed, W., C. Cardona, S. Sithanantham and S.S. Lateef. 1987. Chickpea insect pests and their control. In: The

Chickpea. (Eds.): M.C. Saxena & K.B. Singh. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, U.K., pp. 283-

318.

ROMEIS and SHANOWER., 1996 Arthropod Natural Enemies of Helicoverpa armigera (Hiibner)

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in India. Biocontroi Science and Technology (1996) 6, 481-508

JETIR2101123 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 965
© 2021 JETIR January 2021, Volume 8, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

Romeis, J., Meissle, M. and Bigler, F. (2006) Transgenic crops expressing Bacillus thuringiensis toxins and

biological control. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 63– 71+

Roy, n. K. And dureja, p., 1998. New eco-friendly pesticides for integrated pest management. Pesticides world

(new delhi, india), april-may 1998, 16-22.

S. M. Khan and S. Faizullah, Varietal performance of gram and comparative effectiveness of three insecticides

against gram pod borer ( Helicoverpa armigera Hb.), Pak. J. Biol. Sci., 2 (1999) 1435-437.

Sachan, JN and Katti, G 1994. Integrated Pest Management. Proceedings of International Symposium on

Pulses Research, April 2-6, 1994, IARI, New Delhi, India.pp.23-30.

Sahito H.A., Sidhu M.N., Dhiloo K.H. and Sahito G.M. (2012). Efficacy of different insecticides against gram

pod borer on chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). International Journal of Farming and Allied Sciences1 (3)

: 62-66.

Satpute, N.S. 1999. Effect of seed treatment of some insecticides in the management of sucking pests of cotton.

M.Sc(Agri.) Thesis. Dr. PDKV, Akola.

Sehgal, V.K. and Ujagir, R. (1990). Effect of Synthetic pyrethroids, neem extracts and other insecticides for

the control of pod damage by Helicoverpa armigera(Hübner) on chickpea and pod damage yield

relationship at pantnagar in northern India. Crop Protection9: 29-32

Shah Z.A., Shahzad M.K. and Sharaz M.A. (2003). Efficacy of different insecticides against larval population

density of gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera(Hub.) with reference to chickpea in Faisalabad –

Pakistan. Int. J. Agri. Biol.,5 (3) : 326–328.

Sharma S., Khandwe N., and Nema K.K. (2014). Chemical control of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) in

Chickpea. Ann. Pl.Protec. Sci., 22 (1) : 85-87.

Sharma, s., 1985. Studies on economic threshold and estimation of damage of heliothis armigera on chickpea.

Unpublished ph.d. Thesis, j. N. K. V. V., jabalpur.

Shukla, Abhishek and A.K. Khatri (2005). Population dynamics of H.armigera (Hub.) in chickpea in Kymore

plateau and Satpura hills zone of Madhya Pradesh in: JNKVV,Jabalpur (M.P.) India, Resource

management and conservation, 42 -43.

JETIR2101123 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 966
© 2021 JETIR January 2021, Volume 8, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

Singh et al.,2018 Studies on insect diversity in chickpea (Cicer arietinum Linnaeus) ecosystem. Journal of

Entomology and Zoology Studies 2018; 6(5): 693-697.

Singh, C. B.; Srivastav, A. K.; and Rai, M. K. (2008 a). Survey and assessment of status of Helicoverpa

armigera in district Jhansi on chickpea. Indian Journal of Entomology 70 (2):113 -117.

Singh, Raghvendra and Ali, Shamshad (2006). Studies on seasonal activity of Helicoverpa armigera

(Hübner) on chickpea in Uttar Pradesh, India. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences 14 (1): 234 -235.

Singh, Vichiter, Siag, R.K.; and Vijay Prakash (2005). Seasonal occurrence of larval population of H. armigera

(Hub.) on chickpea in north-west Rajasthan. Indian Journal Pulses Research18 (1): 92-93.

Stephens, E.J., Losey, J.E., Allee, L.L., DiTommaso, A., Bodner, C. and Breyre, A. (2012) The impact of

Cry3Bb Bt‐maize on two guilds of beneficial beetles. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 156, 72– 81.

Summary proceedings of the review and planning meeting for asian regional research on grain legumes

(groundnut, chickpea and pigeonpea), 16-18 dec. 1985, icrisat center, india. Patancheru a.p. 502 324,

india. Pp.45-49.

Talekar NS, Opena RT, Hanson P (2006). Helicoverpa armigera management: a review of AVRDC's

research on host plant resistance in tomato. Crop Protection, 5: 461-467.

Vikrant et al.,2018 Bio-efficacy of Insecticides against Helicoverpa armigera in Chickpea. Legume

Research, Print ISSN:0250-5371 / Online ISSN:0976-0571.

Vinutha et al.,2013. Nanotechnology in the management of polyphagous pest Helicoverpa armigera. J. Acad.

Indus. Res., 1 (10): 606-608.

Visalakshmi et al.,2005 Integrated pest management strategy against Helicoverpa armigera Hubner in

chickpea.Indian journal of plant protection vol.33.No.1,(17-22).

Weigand, S., S.S. Lateef, N.E.S. El-Din, S.F. Mahmoud, K. Ahmed and K. Ali. 1992. Integrated control of

insect pests of cool season food legumes. Proc. Second Inter. Food Legume Res.Confer.on pea, lentil,

faba bean, chickpea, and grass pea, Cairo, Egypt, 12-16 April, 679-694

Wilby, A. and Thomas, M.B. (2002) Natural enemy diversity and pest control: patterns of pest emergence with

agricultural intensification. Ecol. Lett. 5, 353– 360.

JETIR2101123 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 967
© 2021 JETIR January 2021, Volume 8, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

Williams, L., O’Keeffe, L.E. and Schotzko, D.J. (1991) Chickpea, Cicer arietinum: a new host for the pea leaf

weevil, Sitona lineatus. Field Crops Research 27:377–380.

Yadav, S.R. and Jat, B.L. (2009). Seasonal incidence of Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) on chickpea. Journal

of Insect Science 22 (3):325-328.

Yogeeswarudu, B and Venkata Krishna, K (2014). Field studies on efficacy of novel insecticides against

Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) infesting on Chickpea. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies 2

(4) : 286-289.

Zahid et al.,2008 DETERMINATION OF ECONOMIC INJURY LEVELS OF Helicoverpa armigera

(Hubner) IN CHICKPEA. ISSN 0258-7122 Bangladesh J. Agril. Res. 33(3) : 555-563.

JETIR2101123 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 968