International Research Journal of Biological Sciences ___________________________________ ISSN 2278-3202Vol. 4(1), 47-54, January (2015) Int. Res. J. Biological Sci. International Science Congress Association 47 Estimation of Avoidable Losses in Mungbean Genotypes Evaluated under field conditions during summer against Maruca Vitrata Sandhya Rani Choragudi*, Ramachandra Rao G, Chalam M S V, Anil Kumar P and V Srinivasa Rao Department of Entomology, Agricultural College, Bapatla-522 101, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, INDIA Available online at: www.isca.in, www.isca.me Received 18th September 2014, revised 29th November 2014, accepted 14th December 2014Abstract Hundred and ten greengram genotypes screened against M. vitrata during summer, 2009-10 and 2010-11. Among the hundred and ten screened greengram genotypes, avoidable loss was ranged from 1.4 to 83.5 percent and the lowest avoidable losses were recorded in 18 genotypes, which grouped under resistant category and highest avoidable losses in 20 highly susceptible genotypes, where as the remaining 72 genotypes were grouped under moderate category. The genotypes KM-8-666 (83.5%), KM-8-656 (76.9%), KM-9-121 (76%), LGG-497 (75.5%) and LGG-514 (75%) recorded the highest percent avoidable losses, while genotypes MGG-336 (1.4%), KM-8-655 (2.4%), MGG-335 (3.2%), Madhira Mung (7.9%), KARS-165 (8.3%), KM-9-122 (9.0%), Pusa Vishal (9.1%), MGG-295 (10.6%), GG-9 (10.8%) and MGG-353 (11.9%) recorded the lowest avoidable losses. The low yielding greengram genotypes, KARS-22 (25.5), KARS-166 (26.5), Asha (29.0), KM-2241 (41.5), MGG-330 (45.5), MGG-359 (48.0), Line -76 (49.0), BAR-02/22 (49.5), KM-9-136 (51.0), MGG-367 (51.5) under unprotected conditions, became moderate yielders (KARS-22 (56.5), KARS-166 (82.5), Asha (95.5), KM-2241 (110.5), MGG-330 (110), MGG-359 (137.5), Line -76 (185), BAR-02/22 (60.0), KM-9-136 (139), MGG-367 (73.0)) under protected conditions. Similarly, the moderate yielding genotypes, viz., KM-8-666 (70.5) and KM-8-656 (109.5) under unprotected conditions, became high yielders (KM-8-666 (427) and KM-8-656 (473.5)) under protected conditions, this significant yield improvement, might be due to Maruca management. It is concluding that we can avoid 83.5 percent yield losses by choosing resistant varieties and adopting management practices against Maruca. Keywords: Greengram, field screening maruca vitrata, avoidable losses, summer.Introduction Pulses are grown in the semi arid regions under a wide range of agro climatic conditions of India. Among the pulses, mung bean or greengram (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek) is the important pulse crop of India and it occupies an area of about 3 m ha with a production of 0.25 m t and 425 kg ha-1 productivity. Andhra Pradesh is the 4th major state of India contributing 15.5% of the national production of greengram with 351 kg ha-1 average productivity. Greengram is cultivated throughout the year in all cropping seasons due to its short duration and suitability to crop rotation and crop mixtures. As kharif season is becoming uncertain to get the greengram crop due to climatic changes, it is grown as sole crop in water retentive heavy soils during rabi(September to December) and cultivated as relay crop in Kharifrice fallows during late rabi (December -February). During summer, it is cultivating with the availability of irrigation facilities. Most of the farmers are preferring greengram after completion of cotton crop (February - April) due to its short duration with drought tolerance nature. The low productivity in greengram may be attributed to factors like limited varietal improvement, low resilience to soil moisture stress, pest infestation etc., among them, ravage of insect pests is important. Among the borers, legume pod borer, Maruca vitrata Geyer is the devastating pest of greengram, which cause damage mainly at reproductive phase of the crop, as it is available throughout the year. It is known to cause economic loss of 20 - 25 % and yield loss of 2 - 84% in greengram accounting to US $ 30 million. It is reported that 20–30% pod damage in mungbean. As all the existing greengram cultivars are susceptible to Maruca, it has become imperative to identify the resistance sources for breeding programmes. Hence, present study conducted to estimate the avoidable losses due to M. vitrata in greengram. Material and Methods Investigation was carried out to screen the possible resistance source against Maruca with Hundred and ten greengram genotypes procured from different institutions were used as source material for the screening study (table-1). The experiment was laid out in the farm of Agricultural Research Station, Madhira in RBD with 2 replications and hundred and ten genotypes including ten check varieties as treatments. The experiment was sowed on 10.02.2010 and 04.02.2011 in summer. Each plot size is 2.4 m with 30 X 10 cm. Observations recorded from 5 randomly selected plants from each plot at weekly intervals from bud initiation stage to pod maturity stage on no. ofinfested buds, flowers, webs per plant and damaged pods were collected from randomly selected 100 pods at the time of harvest to calculate pod damage (%). International Research Journal of Biological Sciences _____________________________________________ISSN 2278-3202Vol. 4(1), 47-54, January (2015) Int. Res. J. Biological Sci. International Science Congress Association 48 Table-1 Evaluation of greengram genotypes against M. vitrata (Pooled data 2009-10 and 2010-11) S. No. Genotype Mean Yield (g / plot) No. of Larvae/ plant Pod damage (%) UP P Avoidable Losses (%) UP P UP P 1 Asha 29 95.5 69.6 1.9 0.9 17.86 7.0 2 BAR-02/22 49.5 60 17.5 0 0 28.90 0.0 3 BDYR 84 177.5 52.7 1.1 0.5 34.35 6.5 4 COGG912 84 105.5 20.4 1.3 0.7 25.73 4.5 5 EC-19515 153.5 188.5 18.6 1.9 0.55 24.24 4.5 6 GG-9 182 204 10.8 1.7 0.3 32.37 5.9 7 GG-10 111.5 174.5 36.1 1.9 0.5 24.85 5.5 8 GG-16 118.5 167.5 29.3 1.6 0.65 22.69 8.6 9 GG-17 123 175 29.7 1.6 0.7 35.77 4.3 10 IPM-02-03 81 113.5 28.6 1.75 0.5 20.00 4.9 11 IPM-02-14 106 168 36.9 1.7 0.5 51.49 8.6 12 KARS- 22 25.5 56.5 54.9 0.9 0.3 63.38 5.5 13 KARS- 27 20 34 41.2 1 0.7 0.00 0.0 14 KARS-165 27.5 30 8.3 0.65 0.3 0.00 0.0 15 KARS-166 26.5 82.5 67.9 0.5 0.15 6.21 0.0 16 KM-173 115 159 27.7 2.05 0.7 68.39 8.3 17 KM-195 81.5 135.5 39.9 2.3 0.9 19.90 9.5 18 KM-200 107 152 29.6 1.9 0.9 30.89 5.9 19 KM-203 75 122 38.5 1.9 0.7 28.13 4.9 20 KM-2241 41.5 110.5 62.4 2.1 0.5 40.0 5.5 21 KM-8-651 115.5 148.5 22.2 1.3 0.7 35.43 10.9 22 KM-8-652 134 173 22.5 2.1 0.5 25.77 6.9 23 KM-8-653 99.5 182 45.3 2.3 0.7 34.43 6.6 24 KM-8-654 103 148.5 30.6 1.7 0.5 48.87 12.6 25 KM-8-655 123.5 126.5 2.4 1.9 0.7 22.60 14.3 26 KM-8-656 109.5 473.5 76.9 1.9 0.7 16.80 10.9 27 KM-8-657 167.5 228.5 26.7 1.7 0.9 38.45 6.3 28 KM-8-658 172 239.5 28.2 1.45 0.9 43.94 12.3 29 KM-8-659 108.5 241 55.0 1.3 0.5 22.26 13.9 30 KM-8-660 111.5 210 46.9 1.5 0.6 58.04 10.3 31 KM-8-661 130 189 31.2 1.65 0.7 45.61 8.6 32 KM-8-662 114.5 169 32.2 1.7 0.5 43.25 4.3 33 KM-8-664 120 219 45.2 1.9 0.7 15.44 8.9 34 KM-8-666 70.5 427 83.5 1.9 0.9 27.04 8.5 35 KM-8-667 118 197.5 40.3 2.5 0.9 30.51 9.1 36 KM-8-668 337 1000 66.3 2.75 0.9 34.14 6.5 37 KM-9-121 64.5 268.5 76.0 2.7 0.7 43.87 9.9 38 KM-9-122 116.5 128 9.0 2.6 0.5 22.99 8.5 39 KM-9-123 213.5 327 34.7 2.35 0.8 32.37 9.4 40 KM-9-126 146 183.5 20.4 2.75 0.9 29.94 5.5 41 KM-9-128 57 222 74.3 2.7 0.9 3.5 8.5 42 KM-9-134 88.5 143.5 38.3 0.8 0.5 36.87 6.3 43 KM-9-136 51 139 63.3 1.2 0.3 5.8 10.3 44 KSAS-06/44 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.00 0.0 45 KSAS-06/245 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.00 0.0 46 KSAS-06/378 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.00 0.0 47 KSAS-06/407 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.00 0.0 48 LGG-477 173 214 19.2 2.25 0.5 18.25 7.5 49 LGG-491 73.5 273.5 73.1 1.9 0.6 23.80 8.5 50 LGG-497 71 289.5 75.5 1.1 0.6 17.90 8.9 International Research Journal of Biological Sciences _____________________________________________ISSN 2278-3202Vol. 4(1), 47-54, January (2015) Int. Res. J. Biological Sci. International Science Congress Association 49 S. No. Genotype Mean Yield (g / plot) No. of Larvae/ plant Pod damage (%) UP P Avoidable Losses (%) UP P UP P 51 LGG-502 167 225.5 25.9 1.75 0.7 21.35 7.5 52 LGG-521 222.5 272 18.2 2.3 0.7 18.59 5.9 53 LGG-522 170 260.5 34.7 2.1 0.5 20.00 8.3 54 LGG-527 182 235 22.6 2.1 0.5 9.50 7.9 55 LGG-528 209 301.5 30.7 2.3 0.7 62.29 10.3 56 LGG-538 305.5 527.5 42.1 1.9 0.5 10.00 8.3 57 LGG-540 257 1028 75.0 3.1 0.7 37.20 8.9 58 LGG-541 180 258 30.2 2.9 0.9 22.54 6.5 59 LGG-542 198.5 288 31.1 3.15 0.7 35.80 10.3 60 LGG-543 205.5 234.5 12.4 3.55 0.9 24.65 8.5 61 LGG-544 204.5 368 44.4 3.1 0.5 47.43 8.8 62 LGG-545 200 242.5 17.5 2.2 0.6 26.00 6.3 63 LGG-547 92 232 60.3 2.5 0.7 26.00 5.5 64 LGG-549 116.5 184.5 36.9 2.1 0.5 31.00 10.3 65 LGG-551 224.5 578.5 61.2 2.05 0.5 34.54 8.5 66 Line - 76 49 185 73.5 1.8 0.8 53.04 1.9 67 M.MUNG 75.5 82 7.9 2 0.9 26.05 8.5 68 MGG- 295 210 235 10.6 2.1 0.7 62.72 15.9 69 MGG-330 45.5 110 58.6 1.1 0.7 24.72 4.3 70 MGG-332 105 163 35.6 2.3 0.5 12.59 6.9 71 MGG-335 106.5 110 3.2 2.25 0.6 30.51 7.5 72 MGG-336 143 145 1.4 1.2 0.7 34.09 5.5 73 MGG-341 124 211 41.2 2.1 0.7 24.80 8.5 74 MGG-347 215 265 18.9 2.2 0.65 23.63 18.5 75 MGG-348 237.5 370 35.8 2.4 0.75 28.77 19.9 76 MGG-349 125.5 148 15.2 2.1 0.7 14.10 6.3 77 MGG-350 75.5 146 48.3 0.9 0.5 30.36 5.9 78 MGG-351 140.5 274 48.7 2.1 0.5 38.43 7.5 79 MGG-353 155 176 11.9 2.2 0.7 26.65 4.9 80 MGG-356 106 168.5 37.1 2.3 0.9 22.10 6.3 81 MGG-359 48 137.5 65.1 2.5 0.65 23.10 9.5 82 MGG-360 142.5 196 27.3 1.2 0.5 24.30 8.1 83 MGG-361 139 197.5 29.6 2.9 0.7 35.25 6.8 84 MGG-367 51.5 73 29.5 2.3 0.5 23.00 6.4 85 ML-1299 80 110 27.3 1.5 0.5 18.43 8.3 86 NDS-391 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.0 87 NM-1 69.5 158 56.0 1.7 0.9 39.93 9.8 88 NS-04-112 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.0 89 NSKMS 72 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.0 90 NSKMS 174 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.0 91 PANT-M-5 93.5 172 45.6 2.6 0.7 17.75 10.6 92 PDM-54 103 172 40.1 2.75 0.5 22.00 9.3 93 PUSA-9531 115.5 178.5 35.3 2.45 0.7 31.09 10.8 94 P.VISHAL 114.5 126 9.1 1.8 0.5 15.00 4.3 95 RMG-492 30.5 51.5 40.8 2.1 0.5 8.34 6.3 96 SM-131 150.5 209.5 28.2 1.9 0.5 22.03 7.5 97 SML-668 103 168.5 38.9 1.8 0.3 34.52 6.3 98 TRRM-1 64 107.5 40.5 1.9 0.5 28.07 8.3 99 UPM-84-178 146.5 290.5 49.6 2.2 0.3 26.77 9.9 100 UPM-99-3 98 167.5 41.5 2.2 0.5 20.21 6.5 101 V-90 144 321.5 55.2 2.5 0.3 24.19 8.0 International Research Journal of Biological Sciences _____________________________________________ISSN 2278-3202Vol. 4(1), 47-54, January (2015) Int. Res. J. Biological Sci. International Science Congress Association 50 S. No. Genotype Mean Yield (g / plot) No. of Larvae/ plant Pod damage (%) UP P Avoidable Losses (%) UP P UP P 102 WGG-2 142 327 56.6 2.5 0.65 19.31 8.1 103 WGG-42 130.5 171.5 23.9 1.8 0.5 24.94 9.9 104 WGG-43 112 164 31.7 1.9 0.5 21.47 7.5 105 WGG-44 155.5 277.5 44.0 1.9 0.65 19.04 8.5 106 WGG-45 124 220.5 43.8 1.9 0.65 17.60 9.5 107 WGG-46 192.5 296.5 35.1 1.5 0.4 16.68 9.5 108 WGG-47 121 313.5 61.4 2.1 0.5 16.24 10.3 109 WGG-48 68 196.5 65.4 1.9 0.4 18.63 8.9 110 WGG-49 113 235.5 52.0 1.8 0.5 21.96 8.9 G. Mean 116.5 200.2 36.61 1.84 26.09 SEM+ 7.24 8.01 4.92 0.12 3.48 C.D 0.05% * 20.28 22.44 13.77 0.34 9.76 C.V % 8.78 5.66 18.98 9.43 18.88 UP= Unprotected P= Protected * = Significant The same set of experimentation was repeated and maintained under protected (Sprayed) conditions for comparison of infestation, yield and calculating available losses. Classification of genotypes was done by considering the Mean (X) and Standard Deviation (SD) of mean larval population and per cent pod damage. Resistant genotypes with larval population / pod damage less than X – SD, Susceptible genotypes with larval population/ pod damage between X – SD, Highly susceptible genotypes with larva population / pod damage � X + SD, Plot yields were collected from both unprotected and protected conditions and calculated Avoidable Losses by using the given formula. Yield in protected – Yield in unprotected Plot Plot Avoidable ´´100 Losses (%) = Yield in protected plots Results and Discussion The two years cumulative data is presented in table-1and resultsrevealed that, there was a highly significant difference between the genotypes and mean larval population ranged from 0-3.55 larvae per plant. The highest population was recorded in the genotypes LGG-543 (3.55), LGG-542 (3.15), LGG-544 and LGG-540 (3.1), MGG-361 and LGG-541(2.9), PDM-54, KM-9-126, KM-8-668 (2.75), where as the lowest population was recorded in the genotypes, KARS-166(0.5),KARS-165(0.65), KM-9-134(0.8), KARS-22 and MGG-350(0.9). The mean per cent pod damage ranged from 0.00 to 52.38 per cent. The highest pod damage was observed in the genotypes, GG-9 (52.38%) followed by KM-9-121 (47.07%), KM-8-658 and LGG 528 (47.0 %), KM-8-660 (46.60%) and KARS-22 (44.99%), whereas the lowest pod damage was recorded in LGG 551 (4.33%), MGG 351 (5.67 %) and LGG 541 (5.78 %) which was on par with MGG-330 (5.92%), LGG-497 (6.31%), LGG-545 (6.01%), WGG-45 (6.12%), LGG 497 (6.31%) and MGG-335 (6.54%). The mean and standard deviation values were calculated for mean larval population per plant, Per cent pod damage, yields from unprotected and protected conditions and avoidable losses (table-2). The greengram genotypes, NS-04-112 (1.5), KARS-166 (6.21), KARS-27 (6.5), RMG-492 (8.34), and LGG-538 (10.0) were found resistant among the screened genotypes whereas, the genotypes, KM-8-62 (43.25), KM-9-21 (43.86), KM-8-58 (43.93), KM-8-61(45.60), LGG-44 (47.43), KM-8-54 (48.86), IPM-02-14 (51.49), Line-76 (53.04), KM-8-60 (58.04), LGG-28 (62.29), MGG-295 (62.72), KARS-22 (63.38) and KM-173 (68.38) were grouped as highly susceptible among the screened genotypes (table-3)Table-2 Mean + S D values of greengram genotypes based on their reaction against M. vitrata and Yield both under protected and unprotected conditions Mean value SD Mean – SD Mean + SD Mean larval Population / Pl 1.84 0.72 1.12 2.56 Mean per cent Pod damage 26.09 14.36 11.73 40.45 Yield (g/Plot) under Protected condition 205.5 149.7 55.8 355.2 Yield (g/Plot) under Unprotected condition 116.5 64.5 52.0 180.9 Avoidable Losses (%) 36.21 21.75 14.46 57.96 International Research Journal of Biological Sciences _____________________________________________ISSN 2278-3202Vol. 4(1), 47-54, January (2015) Int. Res. J. Biological Sci. International Science Congress Association 51 Table-3 Grouping of greengram genotypes based on the pod damage caused by M. vitrataResistant genotypes (14) ( Mean– S.D) (11.73) Susceptible genotypes (83) (Values between Mean –SD to �.25;å”– Mean + SD (11.73 to 40.45) Highly susceptible genotypes (13) (� Mean + S.D) (� 40.45) KARS-165(0), KM-9-128(0), KM-9-136(0), KSAS-06/44(0), KSAS-06/245 (0), KSAS-06/378(0), KSAS-06/407(0), LGG-527(0), NDS-391(0), NS-04-112(1.5), KARS-166(6.21), KARS- 27(6.5), RMG-492(8.34), and LGG-538(10.0). MGG-332(12.59), MGG-349(14.1), PUSA VISHAL (15), KM-8-664(15.44), WGG-47 (16.235),WGG-46 (16.68), KM-8-656(16.8), WGG-45 (17.59), PANT-M-5 (17.75), Asha(17.86), LGG497(17.9), LGG-477(18.25), ML-1299(18.43), LGG-521(18.585),WGG-48 (18.63), WGG-44(19.035),WGG-2 (19.305), KM-195 (19.9), LGG-522 (20.1), UPM-99-3 (20.21), IPM-02-03 (20.985), LGG502(21.35), WGG43(21.46), WGG-49 (21.96), PDM-54 (21.99), SM-131(22.03),MGG-356(22.1), KM-8-659(22.26), LGG-541(22.54), KM-8-655(22.59), GG-16 (22.69), KM-9-22(22.99), MGG-367(23),MGG-359(23.1), MGG-347 (23.62), LGG-491(23.8), V-90 (24.18), EC-19515 (24.23), MGG360(24.3), LGG543(24.65), MGG-330 (24.72), MGG-341(24.8),GG-10 (24.85), WGG-42 (24.94), COGG912(25.73), KM-8-652 (25.76), LGG-545(26), LGG-547(26), M.MUNG (26.05), MGG-353 (26.65), UPM-84-178 (26.7), KM-8-666 (27.04), TARM-1(28.06), KM-203 (28.12), MGG-348(28.77), BAR-02/22 (28.9), KM-9-126 (29.94), MGG-350(30.36), KM-8-667 (30.5), MGG-335 (30.51), KM-200 (30.89), LGG-549 (31.0), PUSA-9531(31.08), GG-9 (32.36), KM-9-123 (32.36), MGG-336 (34.09), KM-8-668(34.14), BDYR (34.35), KM-8-653 (34.43), SML-668 (34.52), LGG-551 (34.54), MGG-361(35.25), KM-8-651 (35.43), GG-17 (35.76), LGG-542(35.79), KM-9-134 (36.87), LGG-540 (37.2), MGG-351(38.43), KM-8-657(38.45) NM-1(39.93) and KM-241(40.44). KM-8-662 (43.25), KM-9-121 (43.86), KM-8- 658 (43.93), KM-8- 661(45.60), LGG- 544(47.43), KM-8- 654(48.87), IPM-02- 14 (51.49), Line – 76(53.04), KM-8- 660(58.04), LGG- 528(62.29), MGG- 295(62.72), KARS-22(63.38) and KM-173(68.38) Grouping of genotypes based on their Plot Yield and Avoidable Losses: The plot yields were recorded both under protected and unprotected conditions and the data revealed that there is a significance difference between the plot yields between unprotected and protected conditions. The plot yields were ranged from 0 to 337g and 0 to 1028 g per plot under unprotected and protected conditions respectively. Under unprotected conditions, green gram genotypes were grouped as low yielders, moderate yielders and high yielders based on their Mean and Standard Deviation values. The results showed that there were twenty one greengram genotypes as low yielders, seventeen were as high yielders and the remaining seventy two were grouped as moderate yielders (table-4). The highest plot yields were recorded in the genotypes, KM-8-668 (337g), LGG-538(305.5g), LGG-540(257g), MGG-3487 (237.5g), LGG-551(224.5g), LGG-521(222.5g), and MGG347(215g), where as the lowest plot yields were recorded in the genotypes, KARS-27(20g), KARS-22(25.5g), KARS-166 (26.5g), KARS-165 (27.5g), Asha (29.0g), RMG-492 (30.5g), KM-2241 (41.5g), MGG-330 (45.5g), MGG-359(48g), Line-76 (49g) and BAR-02/229 (60g). Under protected conditions, 8 greengram genotypes were found to be high yielders, 11 low yielders, and the remaining 91 were moderate yielders (table-5). The highest plot yields were recorded in the genotypes, LGG-540 (1028 g), KM-8-668 (100 g), LGG-551 (578.5 g), LGG-538 (523 g), KM-8-656 (474 g), KM-8-666 (427 g), MGG-348 (370 g), LGG-544 (368 g), WGG-24, KM-9-123 (327 g), V-90 (322 g), WGG-47 (314 g) and LGG-528 (302 g). The genotypes, KARS-165 (30g), KARS-27 (34g), NS-04-112 ( 45.5 g), RMG-492 (51.5g), KARS-22 (56.5g), BAR-02/229 (60g), MGG-367 (73 g), Madhira Mung (82 g), KARS-166 (82.5 g) and Asha (95.5 g) recorded the lowest yields. Avoidable Losses (%): Among the hundred and ten screened greengram genotypes, avoidable loss was ranged from 1.4 to 83.5 percent and the lowest avoidable losses were recorded in 17 genotypes, which grouped under resistant category. Highest avoidable losses were recorded in 18 highly susceptible genotypes where as the remaining 75 genotypes were grouped under moderate category. International Research Journal of Biological Sciences _____________________________________________ISSN 2278-3202Vol. 4(1), 47-54, January (2015) Int. Res. J. Biological Sci. International Science Congress Association 52 Table-4 Grouping of greengram genotypes based on their Mean + SD values for plot yield under unprotected conditions Low Yielders (21 genotypes) Mean –SD ( 52.0 ) Moderate Yielders (72 genotypes) Values between ( Mean –SD to .6;ä„° Mean + SD) (52.0 to 180.9) High Yielders (17 genotypes) .6;ä„° Mean +S.D ( .6;ä„° 180.9) KSAS-06/44, KSAS-06/245, KSAS-06/378, KSAS-06/407 NDS-391 NSKMS-72 NSKMS- 174 NS-04-112 (0), KARS- 27 (20.0) KARS- 22 (25.5 ) KARS-166 (26.5 ) KARS-165 (27.5 ) Asha (29 .0) RMG-492 (30.5 ) KM-2241 (41.5 ) MGG-330 (45.5 ) MGG-359 (48.0) Line -76 (49 .0) BAR-02/22 (49.5) KM-9-136 (51 .0) MGG-367 (51.5 ) KM-9-128 (57.0), TARM-1(64.0), KM-9-121(64.5), WGG-48 (68.0), NM-1 (69.5), KM-8-666 (70.5), LGG-497 (71.0), LGG-491(73.5), KM-203 (75.0), MADHIRA MUNG (75.5), MGG-350 (75.5), ML-1299 (80), IPM-02-03(81), KM-195 (81.5), BDYR (84.0), COGG912 (84), KM-9-134 (88.5), LGG-547 (92), PANT-M-5 (93.5), UPM-99-3 (98.0), KM-8-653 (99.5), KM-8-654 (103), PDM-54 (103), SML-668 (103), MGG-332 (105), IPM-02-14 (106), MGG-356 (106), MGG-335 (106.5), KM-200 (107), KM-8-659 (108.5), KM-8-656 (109.5), GG-10 (111.5), KM-8-660 (111.5), WGG-43 (112), WGG-49 (113), KM-8-662 (114.5), PUSA VISHAL (114.5 ), KM-173 (115 ), KM-8-651 (115.5 ), PUSA-9531 (115.5), KM-9-122 (116.5), LGG-549 (116.5), KM-8-667 (118), GG-16 ( 118.5), KM-8-664 (120), WGG-47 (121 ), GG-17 (123), KM-8-655 (123.5), MGG-341 (124), WGG-45 (124 ), MGG-349 (125.5 ), KM-8-661 (130), WGG-42 (130.5 ), KM-8-652 (134), MGG-361 (139), MGG-351(140.5), WGG-2 (142), MGG-360 (142.5), MGG-336 (143.0), V-90 (144), KM-9-126 (146), UPM-84-178 (146.5), SM-131 (150.5), EC-19515 (153.5), MGG-353 (155), WGG-44 (155.5), LGG-502 (167), KM-8-657 (167.5), LGG-522 (170), KM-8-658 (172 ), LGG-477(173) and LGG-541 (180 ) KM-8-668 (337 ) LGG-538 (305.5) LGG-540 (257 ) MGG-348 (237.5) LGG-551 (224.5 ) LGG-521 (222.5 ) MGG-347 (215 ) KM-9-123 (213.5) MGG- 295 (210 ) LGG-528 (209 ) LGG-543 (205.5 ) LGG-544 (204.5 ) LGG-545 (200 ) LGG-542 (198.5) WGG-46 (192.5 ) GG-9 (182 ) LGG-527 (182 ) The highest percent Avoidable losses were recorded in the genotypes KM-8-666 (83.5%), KM-8-656 (76.9%), KM-9-121 (76%), LGG-497 (75.5%) and LGG-514 (75%). The lowest avoidable losses were recorded in the genotypes MGG-336 (1.4%), KM-8-655 (2.4%), MGG-335 (3.2%), Madhira Mung (7.9%), KARS-165 (8.3%), KM-9-122 (9.0%), Pusa Vishal (9.1%), MGG-295 (10.6%), GG-9 (10.8%) and MGG-353 (11.9%) (table-6). Conclusion The low yielding greengram genotypes, KARS-22 (25.5), KARS-166 (26.5), Asha (29.0), KM-2241 (41.5), MGG-330 (45.5), MGG-359 (48.0), Line -76 (49.0), BAR-02/22 (49.5), KM-9-136 (51.0), MGG-367 (51.5) under unprotected conditions, became moderate yielders (KARS-22 (56.5), KARS-166 (82.5), Asha (95.5), KM-2241 (110.5), MGG-330 (110), MGG-359 (137.5), Line -76 (185), BAR-02/22 (60.0), KM-9-136 (139), MGG-367 (73.0)) under protected conditions. Similarly, the moderate yielding genotypes, viz., KM-8-666 (70.5) and KM-8-656 (109.5) under unprotected conditions, became high yielders (KM-8-666 (427) and KM-8-656 (473.5)) under protected conditions, this significant yield improvement, might be due to Maruca management. Management provides protection from initial floral damage due to Maruca and after initial damage in the resistant lines, the Maruca larvae required time to cause significant damage to the International Research Journal of Biological Sciences _____________________________________________ISSN 2278-3202Vol. 4(1), 47-54, January (2015) Int. Res. J. Biological Sci. International Science Congress Association 53 new flowers and young pods developing through second flush of flowers. Tolerance is clearly indicated by the high level of recovery from Maruca damage in the resistant selections by yield compensation mechanism by a second flush of flowers. The resistant lines show clear non-preference for oviposition and antibiosis, both under multi and no choice conditions. Hence, it is concluding that we can avoid 83.5 percent yield losses by choosing resistant varieties and adopting management practices against Maruca. References 1.National Agricultural Innovation Project report submitted by Central Research Institute for Dry land Agriculture (2012)2.Vishakanthaiah M and Jagadeesh babu C.S., Bionomics of the tur webworm, Maruca testulalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), Mysore Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 14: 529-532 (1980)3.Zahid M.A., Islam M.M and Begum M.R., Determination of economic injury levels of Maruca vitrata in Mungbean, Journal of Agricultural Rural Development, 6(1and2): 91–97 (2008) 4.Shivalingaswami, T. M and Balasubramanian, R., Studies on the susceptibility of groundnut varieties to infestation by Carydon serratus (Oliver) Coleoptera : Bruchidae, Bulletin of Grain Technology.30, 137-140 (1992)5.Anantha kumari, D., Jagadeshwar Reddy, D and Sharma, H. C., Effect of grain yield in Pigeonpea genotypes with different levels of resistance to the pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera. Indian Journal of Plant Protection, 34(2),184-187 (2006)6.Umbarkar P.S., Prasanna G.J and Jethva D.M., Estimation of yield losses by pod borer complex in greengram, Legume Research: An International Journal, 34(4), 308 (2011) Table-5 Grouping of greengram genotypes based on their Mean + SD values for plot yield under protected conditions Poor Yielders (11 genotypes) Mean –SD ( 55.8 ) Moderate Yielders (91 genotypes) Values between ( Mean –SD to �.25;å”– Mean + SD) (55.8 to 355.2) High Yielders (8 genotypes) ( �.25;å”– Mean + SD) ( �.25;å”– 355.2) KSAS-06/44, KSAS-06/245, KSAS-06/378, KSAS-06/407 NSKMS-174 (0), NDS-391(0), NSKMS-72 (0), KARS-165 (30.0), KARS-27 (34.0), NS-04-112 (0), RMG 492 (51.5) KARS-22 (56.5), BAR-02/22 (60.0),MGG-367 (73.0), MADHIRA MUNG (82.0),KARS-166 (82.5), Asha (95.5), COGG912 (105.5), TARM-1 (107.5), MGG-330 (110), MGG-335 (110), ML-1299 (110), KM-2241 (110.5), IPM-02-03 (113.5), KM-203 (122),PUSA VISHAL (126), KM-8-655 (126.5),KM-9-122 (128), KM-195 (135.5), MGG-359 (137.5), KM-9-136 (139),KM-9-134 (143.5), MGG-336 (145),MGG-350 (146), MGG-349 (148), KM-8-651(148.5), KM-8-654 (148.5),KM-200 (152), NM-1(158), KM-173 (159),MGG-332(163), WGG-43 (164), GG-16 (167.5),UPM-99-3 (167.5), IPM-02-14 (168), MGG-356 (168.5), SML-668 (168.5),KM-8-662 (169), WGG-42 (171.5),PANT-M-5 (172), PDM-54 (172), KM-8-652 (173), GG-10 (174.5), GG-17 (175), MGG-353 (176), BDYR (177.5), PUSA-9531(178.5), KM-8-653 (182), KM-9-126 (183.5), LGG-549 (184.5), Line -76 (185), EC-19515 (188.5), KM-8-661(189), MGG-360 (196), WGG-48 (196.5), KM-8-667 (197.5), MGG-361 (197.5), GG-9 (204), SM 131 (209.5), KM-8-660 (210), MGG-341 (211), LGG-477 (214), KM-8-664 (219), WGG-45 (221), KM-9-128 (222), LGG-502 (225.5), KM-8-657 (228.5), LGG-547 (232), LGG-543 (234.5), LGG-527(235), MGG-295 (235), WGG-49 (235.5), KM-8-658 (239.5), KM-8-659 (241), LGG-545 (242.5), LGG-541 (258), LGG-522 (260.5), MGG-347 (265), KM-9-121(268.5), LGG-521 (272), LGG-491 (273.5), MGG-351 (274),WGG-44 (277.5), LGG-542 (288), LGG-497 (289.5), UPM-84-178 (290.5),WGG-46 (296.5), LGG-528 (301.5),WGG-47 (313.5), V-90 (321.5 ), KM-9-123 (327) and WGG-2 (327) LGG-544 (368 ) MGG-348 (370) KM-8-666 (427) KM-8-656 (473.5) LGG-538 (527.5 ) LGG-551 (578.5 ) KM-8-668 (1000 ) LGG-540 (1028 ) International Research Journal of Biological Sciences _____________________________________________ISSN 2278-3202Vol. 4(1), 47-54, January (2015) Int. Res. J. Biological Sci. International Science Congress Association 54 Table-6 Grouping of greengram genotypes based on their Mean + S D values for Avoidable Losses for M. vitrataResistant genotypes (18) Mean–SD(14.46) Susceptible genotypes (72) Values between Mean –SD to .6;ä„° Mean + SD(14.46 to 57.96) Highly susceptible genotypes (20) .6;ä„°Mean+ SD(.6;ä„° 57.96) KSAS-06/44 (0), KSAS-06/245 (0), KSAS-06/378 (0), KSAS-06/407 (0), NDS-391 (0), NSKMS-72 (0), NSKMS-174 (0), MGG-336 (1.4), KM-8-655 (2.4), MGG-335 (3.2), MADHIRA MUNG (7.9), KARS-165 (8.3), KM-9-122 (9.0), PUSA VISHAL (9.1), MGG-295 (10.6), GG-9 (10.8), MGG-353 (11.9) and LGG-543 (12.4). MGG-349 (15.2), BAR-02/22 (17.5),LGG-545 (17.5), LGG-521 (18.2), EC-19515 (18.6), MGG-347 (18.9), LGG-477 (19.2), COGG912 (20.4), KM-9-126 (20.4), KM-8-651 (22.2), KM-8-652 (22.5), LGG-527 (22.6), WGG-42 (23.9), LGG-502 (25.9), KM-8-657 (26.7), MGG-360 (27.3), ML-1299 (27.3), KM-173 (27.7), KM-8-658 (28.2), SM-131(28.2), IPM-02-03 (28.6), GG-16 (29.3), MGG-367 (29.5), KM-200 (29.6), MGG-361 (29.6), GG-17 (29.7), LGG-541(30.2), KM-8-654 (30.6), LGG-528 (30.7), LGG-542(31.1), KM-8-661(31.2),WGG 43(31.7), KM-8-662 (32.2), KM-9-123(34.7), LGG-522 (34.7), WGG-46 (35.1), PUSA-9531(35.3), MGG-332 (35.6), MGG-348 (35.8), GG-10 (36.1), IPM-02-14 (36.9), LGG-549 (36.9), MGG-356 (37.1), KM-9-134 (38.3), KM-203 (38.5), SML-668 (38.9), KM-195 (39.9), PDM-54 (40.1), KM-8-667 (40.3), TARM-1 (40.5), RMG-492 (40.8), KARS- 27 (41.2), MGG-341(41.2), UPM-99-3 (41.5), LGG-538 (42.1), WGG-45 (43.8), WGG-44 (44.0), LGG-544 (44.4), KM-8-664 (45.2), KM-8-653(45.3), PANT-M-5 (45.6), KM-8-660 (46.9), MGG-350 (48.3), MGG-351 (48.7), UPM-84-178 (49.6), WGG-49 (52.0), BDYR (52.7), KARS- 22 (54.9), KM-8-659 (55.0), V-90 (55.2), NM-1 (56.0) and WGG-2 (56.6). MGG-330 (58.6), LGG-547 (60.3), LGG-551(61.2), WGG-47 (61.4), KM-2241 (62.4), KM-9-136 (63.3), MGG-359 (65.1), WGG-48 (65.4), KM-8-668(66.3), KARS-166 (67.9), Asha (69.6), LGG-491(73.1), Line-76 (73.5), KM-9- 128 (74.3), LGG-540 (75.0), LGG-497 (75.5), KM-9-121 (76.0), KM-8-656 (76.9), KM-8-666 (83.5) and NS-04-112 (100.0) 7.Iqbal Singh, Sekhon N, Poonam Sharma and Bains, T. S Response of Mungbean varieties to plant populations in summer seasons, Journal of Food legumes,20(1), 115-116 (2007)8.Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur Frontline Demonstrations on Pulse crops Report, 51-68 (2002-2005)