New Horizons in Insect Science Towards Sustainable Pest Management

290 M. Saravanaraman et al.

be conducted till stabilization of phenotypic vari-
ability in the offsprings. Further, the actual mech-
anisms of resistance in such offsprings needs to
be explored.

Acknowledgement The authors are thankful to Proj-
ect Coordinator; All India Coordinated Research Proj-
ect on Oilseeds (Sesame and Niger), Jabalpur, India and
Regional Research station, Tamil Nadu Agricultural Uni-
versity, Vridhachalam, India for sparing sesame acces-
sions. Thanks are due to Dr. Shomasekarappa, Centre for
Application of Radioisotopes & Radiation Technology
(CARRT), Mangalore University, Mangalore for his help
in irradiation. Financial support by Department of Sci-
ence and Technology, Government of India is gratefully
acknowledged. The authors thank Annamalai University
for according permission to conduct the research and for
providing all the facilities.

References

Ahuja DB, Kalyan RK (2001) Field screening of geno-

types of sesame against leaf webber capsule borer,

Antigastra catalaunalis Dup., gall fly Aspondylia

sesami Felt. and mite Polyphagotarsonemus latus

(Banks). Pest Manag Econ Zool 29(1):5–9

AICORPO (1987) Annual Progress Report. All India

Coordinated Research Project on Oilseeds Research,

Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad

AICORPO (1989) Annual Progress Report. All India

Coordinated Research Project on Oilseeds Research,

Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad

Anitha Vaseline Y, Saravanan K, Ganesan J (2000) Stud-

ies on variability, heritability and genetic advance in

mutant population for certain characters in sesame

( Sesamum indicum L.). Sesamum Safflower Newsl

15:39–43

Balaji K (2006) Host plant resistance in sesame against

shoot webber and capsule borer, Antigastra catalau-

Table 8 Resistance rating of M 2 generation of sesame accessions against A. catalaunalis (Physical mutation)
Name of the
accession

Leaf damage

(%)

Resistance

rating

Flower damage

(%)

Resistance

rating

Capsule damage

(%)

Resis-
tance
rating
NIC 7875 3.4 (10.62) R 2.2 (8.53) R 3.7 (11.09) MR
NIC 7908 1.9 (7.92) R 3.6 (10.93) MR 2.0 (8.13) MR
IVTS 2001–7 1.4 (6.79) HR 1.8 (7.71) R 0.9 (5.44) HR
NIC 16278 3.6 (10.93) R 2.9 (9.80) MR 1.8 (7.71) R
NIC 17345 1.9 (7.92) R 3.2 (10.30) S 2.9 (9.80) MR
KMR-56 4.9 (12.79) MR 2.7 (9.46) R 3.1 (10.14) MR
KMR-63 2.1 (8.33) R 4.1 (11.68) R 2.5 (9.10) MR
KMR-102 6.4 (14.65) S 2.9 (9.80) MR 1.8 (7.71) R
TMV-3 2.1 (8.33) R 0.8 (5.13) HR 1.3 (6.55) R
SVPRI-1 (‘S’ check) 13.1 (21.22) HS 9.6 (18.05) HS 7.3 (15.68) HS
C.D. 0.98 0.67 0.38

Table 9 Resistance rating of M 2 generation of sesame accessions against A. catalaunalis (Chemical mutation)
Name of the accession Leaf damage
(%)

Resistance

rating

Flower damage

(%)

Resistance

rating

Capsule damage

(%)

Resistance
rating
NIC 7875 2.6 (9.28) R 1.1 (6.02) R 2.2 (8.53) MR
NIC 7908 2.0 (8.13) HR 2.8 (9.63) MR 1.9 (7.92) R
IVTS 2001-7 1.9 (7.92) HR 2.0 (8.13) R 1.0 (5.74) HR
NIC 16278 2.5 (9.10) R 1.9 (7.92) HR 2.1 (8.33) R
NIC 17345 2.9 (9.80) R 4.1 (11.68) S 2.9 (9.80) MR
KMR-56 3.1 (10.14) R 2.9 (9.80) MR 3.5 (10.78) MR
KMR-63 4.0 (11.54) MR 3.8 (11.24) S 0.7 (4.80) HR
KMR-102 5.3 (13.31) MR 2.7 (9.46) R 2.4 (8.91) MR
TMV-3 3.3 (10.47) R 1.5 (7.03) R 0.7 (4.80) HR
SVPRI-1 (‘S’ check) 18.7 (25.62) HS 7.33 (15.68) HS 8.01 (16.44) HS
C.D. 1.07 0.73 0.54