Management of Legume Podborer, <i>Helicoverpa armigera</i> with Host Plant Resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Helicoverpa armigera is the most important insect pest on wide variety of food, fibre, oilseed, fodder and horticultural crops commonly called as legume pod borer. Enormous amount of loss has been reported in deferent crops worldwide. Apart from being highly polyphagus, H. armigera is widely adapted to feeding on various plant parts. However, damage to the reproductive parts particularly to flowers and developing seeds results in direct loss. Hence, the level of Helicoverpa infestation during the flowering and fruiting phase is widely used as the basis for assessment of loss, and to quantify the genotypic resistance to this insect. Varieties of chickpea showing varying degrees of resistance to H. armigera have been developed at ICRISAT in India and some of these varieties have been used successfully by the farmers. Screening of more than 14800 germplasm accessions under natural infestations at ICRISAT has resulted in the identification of 21 donor showing antixenosis, antibiosis and tolerance mechanism of resistance, and these sources can be used in breeding programs. A high per cent of crude fibre and non reducing sugars and low per cent of starch have been found to be related with low incidence. Recent reports on significant variation in Helicoverpa gut proteinase inhibitors among chickpea genotypes escape insect attack or suffer less damage as compared to other genotypes because of phonological asynchrony. Deployment of Helicoverpa-resistant cultivars should be aimed at conservation of the natural enemies and minimizing the number of pesticide applications. Host plant resistance is compatible with other methods of insect control, exercises a constant and cumulative effect on insect populations over time and space, as no adverse effects on the environment, reduces the need to use pesticides, and involves no extra cost to the farmers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".