Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp1 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

The influence of developmental characteristics of the pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis (L.), on assessing resistance among chickpea genotypes

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.11510
Submitted
28 August 2025
Published
24-03-2026

Abstract

The pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis (L.), is one of the most destructive insect pests of stored chickpea grains. The present study
evaluated the effect of developmental characteristics of C. chinensis on 15 chickpea genotypes under controlled laboratory conditions to identify resistance or susceptibility levels. Significant variation was observed among genotypes with respect to oviposition, development, adult emergence and grain weight loss. The highest number of eggs was recorded on Phule vishwaraj (142.00 eggs/20 g) and the lowest on NBeG-49 (20.33 eggs/20 g). Grain weight loss ranged from 70.92 % on Vijay to 20.33 % on JG-11. Adult emergence percentage was maximum on NBeG-119 (83.33 %) and minimum on NBeG-49 (53.33 %). The developmental period varied from 25.67 days on Krupa to 35.33 days on Vijay. The growth index ranged between 1.51 on NBeG-49 and 3.17 on NBeG-119. Based on growth index and adult emergence, Digvijay, Vishal, Vijay, NBeG-49, NBeG-3 and PDKV Kanchan were classified as less susceptible or moderately resistant, while Phule vishwaraj and NBeG -119 were categorised as highly susceptible. These findings highlight the importance of genotype-based resistance in chickpea, which can be exploited in breeding programmes to reduce post-harvest losses and strengthen integrated pest management (IPM) strategies against C. chinensis.

References

  1. 1. Dixit PG. All India coordinated research project on chickpea. New Delhi: Indian council of agricultural research; 2015.
  2. 2. Ali SI, Prasad R. Rabi pulses: Chickpea, lentil, lathyrus and French bean. In: Prasad R, editor. Textbook of field crops production. New Delhi: Directorate of information and publications of agriculture, ICAR; 2002. p. 317–71.
  3. 3. Directorate of economics and statistics, ministry of agriculture & farmers welfare. Annual report 2021–22. New Delhi: Directorate of pulses development, Government of India; 2022.
  4. 4. Indian institute of pulse research. IIPR database 2020–21. Kanpur: Department of agriculture & farmers welfare, Government of India; 2021.
  5. 5. Chaubey MK. Fumigant toxicity of essential oils from some common spices against pulse beetle Callosobruchus chinensis (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J Oleo Sci. 2008;57(3):171–79. https://doi.org/10.5650/jos.57.171
  6. 6. Fahd A. Crymazine concentration and host type effect on the biology of the southern cowpea weevil, Callosobruchus maculatus. Afr J Microbiol Res. 2011;5(20):3321–326. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJMR11.655
  7. 7. Dobie P. The laboratory assessment of inherent susceptibility of maize genotypes to postharvest infestation by Sitophilus zeamais. J Stored Prod Res. 1974;10:183–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-474X(74)90030-2
  8. 8. Singal SK. Relative resistance of some genotypes of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) to pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis (L.). Res Dev Rep. 1987;4(2):204–207.
  9. 9. Chandel BS, Bhadauria DS. Impact of biochemical parameters on pigeonpea varieties against egg laying, fecundity and viability of pulse beetle Callosobruchus chinensis (Linn.). J Entomol Zool Stud. 2015;3(2):109–17.
  10. 10. Dash A. Varietal screening and management of Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) in pigeonpea during storage [master’s thesis]. Bhubaneswar: Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology; 2019.
  11. 11. Kamble SM, Bagde AS, Patil RR. Oviposition preference of pulse beetle on different cultivars of chickpea. J Glob Biosci. 2016;5(6):4197–201.
  12. 12. Priyadarshini S. Bio-ecology and management of Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) in pigeonpea during storage [master’s thesis]. Bhubaneswar: Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology; 2018.
  13. 13. Prasad K, Verma RA, Dwivedi RK, Umarao RS. Screening of chickpea varieties against Callosobruchus chinensisin relation to moisture content. Ann Plant Prot Sci. 2011;19(2):451–58.
  14. 14. Ahmad MA, Khan MS, Agnihotri M. Effect of different chickpea varieties on development of the pulse beetle Callosobruchus chinensis (L.). Int J Plant Prot. 2016;9(1):233–36.
  15. 15. Kumari L. Studies on resistance in chickpea varieties against pulse beetle Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) [master’s thesis]. Pusa: Rajendra Agricultural University; 2018.
  16. 16. Goutham BH, Jagginavar SB, Karabantanal S. Biology of pulse beetle Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) on different pulses. J Entomol Zool Stud. 2018;6(4):1898–900.
  17. 17. Deepika KL, Singh PS, Singh SK. Screening of chickpea genotypes against pulse beetle Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) under laboratory conditions. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2019;8(4):1190–196. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2019.804.138
  18. 18. Sharma S, Thakur DR. Varietal preference of Callosobruchus maculatus on soybean genotypes. Asian J Biol Sci. 2014;7(5):233–37. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajbs.2014.233.237
  19. 19. Tripathi MK, Sahoo P, Das BC, Mohanty S. Efficacy of botanical oils, plant powders and extracts against Callosobruchus chinensis L. attacking black gram (cv. T9). Legume Res. 2012;24(2):82–86.
  20. 20. Divya P, Kanaka Durga K, Udayababu P. Effect of biochemical and physicochemical characters on bruchid (Callosobruchus chinensis L.) resistance in horse gram. J Food Legumes. 2013;26(1–2):70–74.
  21. 21. Lovely K, Mohammad AA, Pankaj K. Developmental parameters of pulse beetle Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) in resistance screening of chickpea genotypes. J Entomol Zool Stud. 2020;8(4):31–34.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.