Screening of Solanum melongena Against Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee

Agricultural Entomology


Master's Thesis, 2012

118 Pages, Grade: A


Free online reading


3
ABSTRACT
The present investigations were carried out in Division of Entomology,
SKUAST-K, Shalimar to screen some important varieties/genotypes of brinjal
against L.orbonalis under field conditions and also to determine morphological,
biochemical characteristics of brinjal showing some degree of tolerance against
this pest. All the 12 varieties/genotypes as treatment were raised in Randomized
Block Design with 3 replications. The relative susceptibility of various brinjal
genotypes to L.orbonalis infestation was ascertained by recording number, weight
of infested and uninfested fruits. Relative susceptibility of shoots was done by
recording number of damaged/undamaged shoots from each entry upto harvest
time and percentage calculated. Observations in respect of several morphological
characters including fruit length, fruit diameter, shape and volume index, length of
peripheral seed ring, ratio of length of peripheral seed ring, length of seed less
area, ratio of length of seed less area, pericarp thickness, shoot/leaf hairs, yield per
plant, number of fruits per plant, plant height, number of branches per plant,
roughness/smoothness of calyx, flower and fruit colour and biochemical
characters including total phenols, total sugars, moisture and ash were assayed.
Correlation between borer infestation with morphological and biochemical
characters was also determined. All genotypes screened revealed that none of
them were immune to the infestation of L.orbonalis. On the basis of level of
infestation on number basis genotypes were grouped as: 2 resistant genotypes
(Brinjal-85 and Local long); 2 fairly resistant (Shalimar Brinjal purple Round-8
and Shalimar Brinjal purple Round-1); 5 tolerant (Shalimar Brinjal purple Long-
42, Shalimar Brinjal purple Long-208, Shalimar Brinjal Long-217, Dilruba-2 and
Brinjal purple Long); 2 susceptible (Brinjal oblong, Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2)
and one highly susceptible (Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1) while as, on weight basis
one resistant, 2 fairly resistant, 4 tolerant, 3 susceptible and 2 highly susceptible.
Five genotypes were recorded resistant and 7 as fairly resistant on the basis of
mean percent shoot infestation. Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1(highly susceptible) and
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2 (susceptible) recorded the maximum fruit infestation of
23.07, 20.00 and 22.50, 21.75 per cent on number and weight basis, respectively.
While as, Brinjal-85 and Local Long (resistant) genotypes suffered minimum fruit
damage of 3.30, 5.15 and 3.29, 6.71 per cent on number and weight basis,
respectively. Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1 and Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2 exhibited
highest fruit and shoot infestation having maximum pericarp thickness, fruit
length, number of branches, number of fruits and minimum shoot hairs, leaf hairs
and ratio of peripheral seedring length. While as, Brinjal-85 and Local Long
recorded maximum shoot hairs, leaf hairs and ratio of length of seedring. Brinjal
genotypes with higher percentage of borer infestation were found to have higher
total sugar content both in fruits and shoots. Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1 and
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2 recorded fruit infestation of 23.07 and 20.00 per cent

4
were found to have 14.63±0.66 and 14.0±60.039mg/g dry weight of total sugars at
final stage of harvest. On the other hand Brinjal-85 and Local Long supporting
fruit infestation of 3.30 and 5.15 per cent recorded 5.87±0.489 and 6.22±0.408
mg/g dry weight of sugars at final stage of harvest. Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1 and
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2 with highest fruit and shoot infestation recorded total
phenols of 0.67±0.023, 0.72±0.011 mg/g in fruit and 0.88±0.030, 0.98±0.015
mg/g in shoot, respectively at final stage of harvest. While as, Brinjal-85 and
Local Long with lowest fruit and shoot infestation exhibited total phenols of
1.51±0.022, 1.45±0.035 in fruit and 2.30±0.057, 2.09±0.069 in shoot, respectively
at final stage of harvest. Fruit infestation on number basis exhibited positive and
significant correlation with infestation on weight and shoot basis. Infestation on
number and weight basis revealed negative correlation with length of peripheral
seed ring, ratio of length of peripheral seed ring, shape index and number of hairs
on shoots and leaves. Fruit infestation was positively correlated with fruit
diameter, pericarp thickness, length of seedless area, number of fruits per plant
and number of branches per plant. Moisture and total sugars exhibited positive
correlation while as, ash and phenols recorded negative correlation with borer
infestation.
Key words : Brinjal, Screening, Shoot borer, Fruit borer, Incidence,
Morphology, Biochemical parameters

5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ll the praises for Allah the creator and sustainer of world, I have the faith
that nothing would have been possible even with the best level of my effort
without his constant shower of blessings, which went a long way in making
my endeavour successful. May Allah's blessing be upon his most revered prophet,
Hazrat Muhammad
(SAW)
, his family and all his companions.
With profound sense of gratitude, I place on record my sincere thanks
and personal regards to Dr. Ab. Rouf Wani, Associate Professor, Division of
Entomology, SKUAST-K, Shalimar Chairman of my Advisory Committee, for
being the best advisor one could ever dream. I appreciate all his contribution of
time, impeccable and benevolent guidance, valuable suggestions, constructive
criticism and constant encouragement during the entire course of this work
which resulted in its successful completion.
I am extremely thankful to the worthy members of my advisory
committee Dr. Nazir Ahmad Wani, Professor/Chief Scientist, Division of
Entomology; Dr. Shabir Hussain Khan, Assocaite Professor & Incharge,
Division of Vegetable Science; Dr. Tariq Ahamd Raja, Assocaite Professor,
Division of Statistics and Dr. Sheikh Bilal Ahmad, Professor/Chief Scientist,
Division of Entomology, (Dean PG Nominee) for their constant help, valuable
suggestions and kind co-operation throughout the present study.
My thanks are also due to all the members of faculty of Division of
Entomology and in particular to Prof. M.I.S. Waliullah, Professor & Head
Division of Entomology.
I express heartiest appreciation for the valuable suggestions, constant
help and cooperation received by me during the entire course of investigation
from Dr. G.M. Mir, Dr. B.K. Nehru, Dr. S.S. Pathnia, Dr. M.A. Parray, Dr.
Milak Mukhtar, Dr. Muneer A. Sofi, Dr. R.K. Tikoo, Dr. Shaheen Gul and
other office/field staff of the Division of Entomology. I thank them for
providing me timely help and facilities.
A

6
I express my sincere appreciation to the staff members at Directorate of
Resident Instruction and Central Library staff for their help to accomplish this
task.
It is pertinent to mention here that my project would not have been
accomplished successfully without the painstaking efforts and high level
cooperation of Dr. G.I. Hassan, Division of Fruit Science, SKUAST-Kashmir.
I extend special thanks to my dear friends ­ Mr. Shakeel Samoon, Hilal,
Tausef, Imtiyaz, Altaf, Rafiq, Irshad Abbas, Mushtaq, Abas, Muneeb,
Shahnawaz, Sajad, Shakeel, Malik Sohail, Rouf Farooqui, Iqbal Geelani, Sohail
Wagay, Parveez Ahmad, Mr. Sheraz Mehdi, Fayaz Ahmad, Sartaj Ahmad,
Junaid, Abid Ali, Bhat Hilal, Rayees Ahmad, Shaiq Ahmad, Murtaza Hussain,
Talat Majeed, Tariq Ahmad, Shabir Bangroo, for their constant support, help
and encouragement.
I shall be failing in my duties if I will not thank my family especially
parents Mr. Gh. Mohd. Dar And Khati, brothers Mohammad Yousuf, Afroz
Ahmad and sisters Nighat, Shameema, Shahnaz, Sameera and aunty Fatima and
Raja to whom I am deeply indebted for their tremendous moral and monetary
support and constant encouragement.
Last but not least special thanks to Mr. Younus Ahmad and Mr. Rafiq
Ahmad of M/s Universal Computers, Shalimar for composing this manuscript
and giving it a final shape.
All those who care for me may not have got a mention, but none shall
ever be forgotten.
Showket Ahmad Dar
Place : Shalimar, Srinagar
Dated :

7
CONTENTS
Chapter
Page
No.
ABSTRACT ... 3
LIST OF TABLES ... 9
LIST OF FIGURES ... 11
LIST OF PLATES ... 12
1 INTRODUCTION ... 13
2 REVIEW OF LITRATURE ... 16
2.1
Studies on incidence and severity of important brinjal varieties/genotypes
against shoot and fruit borer under field conditions ... 16
2.2
Determination of morphological and biochemical characteristics of brinjal
varieties/genotypes exhibiting some degree of tolerance against the brinjal shoot
and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee) ... 23
3 MATERIAL AND METHODS ... 32
3.1 Studies on incidence and severity of important brinjal varieties/genotypes
against shoot and fruit borer under field conditions ... 32
3.2
Determination of morphological/biochemical characteristics responsible
for exhibiting resistance to brinjal shoot and fruit borer (L. orbonalis) ... 21
3.3
Biochemical characters ... 25
3.4
Statistical analysis of data ... 27
4 EXPERIMENTAL FINDINGS ... 28
4.1
Incidence and severity of brinjal varieties/genotypes to Leucinodes
orbonalis Guenee ... 28
4.2
Morphological and biochemical characteristics of brinjal
varieties/genotypes exhibiting some degrees of tolerance against Leucinodes
orbonalis Guenee ... 39

8
4.3
Correlation between the morphological characteristics of brinjal in
relation to infestation by Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee ... 55
4.4
Correlation coefficient between various biochemical characteristics
(phenol, sugars, moisture and ash) and infestation by Leucinodes orbonalis
Guenee: ... 57
5 DISCUSSION ... 59
5.1
Incidence and severity of brinjal important varieties/genotypes against
shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee) under field conditions ... 59
5.2
Morphological and biochemical characteristics of brinjal
varieties/genotypes exhibiting some degree of tolerance against the brinjal shoot
and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee) ... 62
CONCLUSIONS ... 74
LITERATURE CITED ... i

9
LIST OF TABLES
Table
No.
Particulars
1.
Relative susceptibility of different brinjal genotypes to
shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee)
during 2011
2.
Frequency distribution of brinjal varieties/genotypes for
fruit infestation on number basis to shoot and fruit borer
(Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee) during 2011
3.
Frequency distribution of brinjal varieties/genotypes for
fruit infestation on weight basis to shoot and fruit borer
(Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee) during 2011
4.
Frequency distribution of brinjal varieties/genotypes for
infestation on shoot basis to shoot and fruit borer
(Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee) during 2011
5.
Different
categories
of
resistance
of
brinjal
varieties/genotypes to shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes
orbonalis Guenee) on number basis during 2011
6.
Different
categories
of
resistance
of
brinjal
varieties/genotypes to shoot and
fruit
borer
(Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee) on number basis during
2011
7.
Different
categories
of
resistance
of
brinjal
varieties/genotypes to shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes
orbonalis Guenee) on shoot basis during 2011

10
8.
Morphological
characters
of
different
brinjal
varieties/genotypes screened during 2011
9.
Morphological characters of different brinjal
varieties/genotypes during 2011
10.
Total phenol content of shoots and fruits of different
brinjal varieties/genotypes screened against shoot and fruit
borer (Leucinodes
orbonalis Guenee) during 2011
11.
Total sugar content of shoots and fruits of different brinjal
varieties/genotypes screened against shoot and fruit
borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee) during 2011
12.
Total moisture and ash content of different brinjal
varieties/genotypes screened against shoot and fruit
borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee) during 2011
13.
Correlations
between
various
morphological
characteristics of brinjal varieties/genotypes in relation to
susceptibility to shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes
orbonalis Guenee) during 2011
14.
Correlations among various biochemical characteristics of
different brinjal varieties/genotypes in relation to
susceptibility to shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes
orbonalis Guenee) during 2011

11
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig.
No.
Particulars
1.
Standard curve for the estimation of phenols in
brinjal during 2011
2.
Standard curve for the estimation of sugars in brinjal
genotypes during the year 2011

12
LIST OF PLATES
Plate
No.
Particulars
1.
Experimental layout of brinjal varieties/genotypes screened
for susceptibility to L. orbonalis Guen. during 2011
2.
Brinjal genotypes resistant to L. orbonalis Guenee
3.
Brinjal genotypes fairly resistant to L. orbonalis Guenee
4.
Brinjal genotypes tolerant to L. orbonalis Guenee
5.
Brinjal genotypes susceptible to L. orbonalis Guenee
6.
Brinjal genotype highly susceptible to L. orbonalis Guenee

13
1 INTRODUCTION
The eggplant or brinjal (Solanum melongena Linnaeus) belongs to family
Solanaceae is believed to be native of tropics of the old world. It is one of the
most important vegetable crops widely grown in different parts of the world and
usually finds a place as "poor man's crop". India seems to be original habitat as
this plant still exists here in wild state (Lester and Hasan, 1991; Bothara, 2003;
Ahmad, 2004).
India is the second largest producer of brinjal crop after China. In India it
is cultivated in an area of 0.612 million hectares with production of 105.63
million tons and average productivity is 17.2 metric tons per hectare (Anonymous,
2010). While among the states, area under this crop in Jammu and Kashmir is 850
hectares with the production of 17000 metric tons and productivity of 20 metric
tons per hectare (Anonymous, 2011).
Brinjal is most nutritious having all the essentials of balanced diet. It is
also known for its ayurvedic medicinal properties (Rajan and Markose, 2002) and
white brinjal is said to be good for diabetic patients (Choudhery, 1967). The peel
or skin of deep blue/purple varieties of brinjal has significant amounts of phenolic
flavonoid phytochemicals called anthocyanins which act as antioxidants and have
potential health effects against cancer, ageing, inflammation and neurological
diseases (USDA national nutrient database, 2011).
It is grown in almost all parts of country and has been a common vegetable
of our diet. Brinjal is full of all the essential nutrients as 100 g of edible portion
contains 24 k calories, 92.7 per cent moisture, 40 per cent carbohydrates, 1.4 g
protein, 0.3 g fat, 0.3 mg sodium, 0.17 mg copper, 2.0 mg potassium, 44 mg
sulphur, 52 mg chlorine, 18 mg oxalic acid, 18 mg calcium, 16 mg magnesium, 47
mg phosphorus, 0.9 mg iron, 12 mg vitamin C and 0.74 µg of
-carotene (USDA
national nutrient database, 2011).

14
This crop is infested by more than a dozen of insect pests from nursery till
harvest (Alam and Sana, 1962). Among insect pests infesting brinjal crop, brinjal
shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee is the most destructive and is
the major constraint in the production of brinjal not only in Indian subcontinent
but also in South Africa, Cango and Malaysia. Besides, brinjal the pest is also
reported to infest the potato shoots grown during rainy season (Nair, 1967; Misra
and Chand, 1975).The pest is found almost throughout the year with varying
intensity and is difficult to control being internal feeder. During later stages of
plant growth the larvae bore into the flower bud and enter into the tender fruits
through calyx end without leaving any visible sign of infestation (Butani and
Jotwani, 1984). The larvae of this pest bore into growing shoots, midrib of leaves
and fruits (Pradhan, 1969) and its activity within the shoot causes dropping and
withering of shoot (Alam and Sana, 1962). Consequently the plant becomes
stunted in growth and fruit become unmarketable, moreover the fruit becomes
unfit for human consumption as infested fruits contain feaces of larvae.
The infestation by this pest has been recorded as high as 70 per cent in
Bangladesh (Patel and Basu, 1948; Srinivasan and Basher, 1961), 42.7 per cent
(Srinivasan and Gowder, 1959) and 18.8 per cent (Jotwani and Sarup, 1963) in
India, 16 to 64 per cent (Alam and Sana, 1964) and 95.8 per cent (Akther and
Khawaja, 1973) in Pakistan. In India Nath et al. (2008) reported that fruit damage
could be 70 to 90 per cent while Rahman (2007) reported that it could be as high
as 100 per cent in Bangladesh if no control measures are taken.
Considering the nature of damage of this pest, chemical control is quite
strenuous. Once the pest enters the fruit it is rather difficult to control except the
use of persistent insecticides on foliage during the first and second instar of the
pest. Economic consideration and environmental pollution resulting from
excessive use of such persistent toxicants have aroused interest in the
development of pest resistant cultivars. Use of resistant varieties would be the

15
most economic way and the success of such programmes depends upon the extent
of genetic variability for resistance in the germplasm.
A wide range of susceptibility to brinjal shoot and fruit borer has been
reported in the cultivated brinjal cultivars (Khorsheduzzaman et al., 2010 and
Humayun et al., 2011).Among the most prevalent allelochemicals in the brinjal
are the phenols, which have been effective growth inhibitors and causing the
direct toxicity to the larvae of the L.orbonalis Guenee in nature (Mohan et al.,
1987).
Though this insect pest has received much attention in other parts of the
country but no systematic efforts have been made in Jammu and Kashmir State.
Among the various strategies adopted to combat the brinjal shoot and fruit borer,
one alternate strategy is to improve plant defense mechanism against this
economically important pest. It is important to have an understanding of
variability of host plant varieties/genotypes in respect of source of resistance, as
no systematic work has been conducted under agro-climatic conditions of
Kashmir on morphological and biochemical characteristics of host plant as a
source of resistance. Therefore, present study has been undertaken with following
objectives:
Studies on incidence and severity of important brinjal varieties/
genotypes against shoot and fruit borer under field conditions.
Determination
of
morphological
and
biochemical
characteristics of brinjal varieties/genotypes exhibiting some
degree of tolerance against this pest.

16
2 REVIEW OF LITRATURE
The available review of literature has been framed as per the following
objectives mentioned in the synopsis:
2.1 Studies on incidence and severity of important brinjal varieties/genotypes
against shoot and fruit borer under field conditions.
2.2 Determination of morphological and biochemical characteristics of brinjal
varieties/genotypes exhibiting some degree of tolerance against the brinjal
shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee)
2.1
Studies on incidence and severity of important brinjal
varieties/genotypes against shoot and fruit borer under field
conditions
Brinjal (Solanum melongena) is a popular vegetable crop grown year
round in South East Asia but production of this cash crop is hindered by eight
major insect pests causing enormous damage to the crop in every season and in
every year (Biswas et al., 1992). Among the various factors responsible for low
yield of brinjal, brinjal shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee.) is the
most destructive in India (Krishnaiah, 1980) which may cause 100 per cent
damage if no control measures are applied in Bangladesh (Rahman, 2007).
However, Alam (1969) in Pakistan expressed that incidence of this pest occurs
sporadically but Dhankar (1988) found the pest occurrence in outbreaks every
year throughout India wherever the brinjal is grown.
Peshwani and Lall (1964) exhibited yield loss of 20.7 per cent in Delhi
while as, Singh et al. (1967) observed 61 per cent in Punjab (India); Panda et
al.(1971)14.70 per cent in South India; Krishnaiah and Vijay (1975) 15.8 to 100
per cent in India; Dhankar et al. (1977) 63 per cent in Haryana; Mote (1979)
11.51 to 39.05 per cent in Hyderabad; Duodu (1981) 31.4 to 61.6 per cent in
Karnataka; Mehto and Lal, (1981) 6.77 to 28.8 per cent in India; Mote (1981)
2.11 to 45.13 per cent in India; (Yein and Rathaiah, 1984) 11.62 to 22.2 per cent

17
in Assam; (Tewari and Murthi, 1985) 25.88 to 61.57 per cent in India; Duodu
(1986)14.82 to 53.5 per cent in India; Dhankar and Sharma (1986) 27.09 to 55.5
per cent in India; Raju et al.(1987) 34.9 to 66.7 per cent in India; Islam and
Karim (1991) 67 per cent in Bangladesh; Sharma (1994) 23.4 to 20.5 per cent in
India; Chaudhary et al.(1995) 29.2 to 35.54 per cent in India; Rahman (1997) 90
per cent in Bangladesh; Saeed and Khan (1997) 50 to 70 per cent in Pakistan;
Ashoke and Abhishek (2002) 33.65 to 53.02 per cent in India; Kumar and Shukla
(2002) 33 to 53 per cent in Bangalore; Cork (2004) observed 80 per cent damage
in Northern India and Bangladesh. Shahnawaz et al. (2011) 46.6 percent in Sindh
(Pakistan). However, Sandhanayake and Edirisinghe (1992) recorded fruit damage
range of 15 to 70 per cent in all the brinjal growing areas of world.
Screening of brinjal varieties/genotypes/hybrids/accessions against L.
orbonalis was carried world over and were categorized as resistant viz., Aushey
(Lall and Ahmad, 1965); Solanum nigrum, S.khasianum, S.xanthocarpum and
S.nigrum (Lal et al. 1970; Dhankar et al.1977); Solanum khasianum, S.anomalum
and S.incanum (Lal et al. 1976); Arka Mahima and Arka Sanjivans (Kale et
al.1986); Dorly, Long Green, Mysore, H-4 and SM-41(Nawala and Souone,
1977); anomalum, gilo, innacum, indicum, intergriifolium, khasianum,
sisymbrifolium and xanthocarpum (Khan et al.1978; Sharma et al.1980; Chelliah
and Srinivasan, 1983; Singh and Kalda, 1997; AVRDC, 1999; Behera et al.1999;
Behera and Singh, 2002); S-4 and PPC (Gill and Chadha, 1979); Kuchia
(Isahaqua and Chaudhuri, 1984); Singnata (Kabir et al.1984); Gopurin, Baramasi,
Punjab Bahar ,Junagadh Bhaltu, Nurki, PPC and Gulabidhoria (Kale et al.1986);
PPC and PBR 129-5 (Singh and Sidhu, 1986); PBR-129-5, ARV-2-C and PBR-
91-1(Patil and Ajri, 1991); Lines SM-17-4, PBR-129-5 and Punjab Barsati
(Dilbagh et al.1991); Chakiasi, Doli-5 and Pusa Purple Cluster (Jyani et al.1995);
Pusa Purple Long, Pusa Purple Cluster, Junagadh Long, Pusa Kranti, S-17-5-39-9,
21-4-22 and Arka Kusumkar (Patil et al.1995); Arka Kusumakar, Nischintpur,
Brinjal Long Green, Altapati, Arka Shirish, Manipur, Makra and Chikan Long

18
(Gangopadhyay et al.1996); Pusa Purple Cluster and BB-13 (Munoj-Kumar et
al.1997); Sweta, Ravaiyai, Kitri ARBH-555, Aspara, MEBH-11, Brinjal-925 and
Shibham -02 (Rajendran and Gopalan, 1998); EG075 (Alam et al.1999); Turbo
(Alam et al.2003); Bl-009 and ISD-006 (Srinivasan et al.2005).
The brinjal varieties/genotypes/hybrids/accessions which are categorized
as susceptible are: cross PK44 x Bhag (Lall and Ahmad, 1965); A-61 and Arka
Kusumakar (Nawala and Sonone, 1977); T-3 Local , Punjab Bahar, S-6, S-5, PPL
and H-4(Gill and Chadha, 1979); Muktakeshi (Kabir et al.1984); Punjab
Chamkila (Singh and Sidhu, 1986; Dilbagh et al.1991); Green Brinjal Round,
Suphal, Gourkij, Brinjal No-3 and Light Purple Round (Gangopadhay et al.
1996); Jhumka (Ali et al.1980); accessions viz., Pant Samrat, KT-4, PB-26, PB-
29, PB-34, BB-46, Composit-2, NDBH-7, NDB-25, Pusa Hybrid-5, PB-38, PB--
39, PB-41, PB-44, and ARBH-527 (Munoj-Kumar et al.1997); Soorakundu
Local, Sarukuvalayapatti, Bejo Sheetal and Pusa Hybrid-6 (Rajendran and
Gopalan, 1998) and Bejo Sheetal and Pusa Hybrid-6 (Yadav and Sharma, 2005).
Whileas, Annamalai (Subbaratnam and Butani, 1981); Nischindipur Local,
Nuktajhuri, Shyamla, Dhepa, Banaras Local Long, BB-1, Navkiran and Kalo
Dhepa (Mukhopadhyay and Mandal, 1994); Jhumka and Baromashi (Begum and
Mannan, 1997; Baksha and Ali, 1982; Miah, 1992; Begum, 1995; Miah and
Begum, 1993) acts as tolerant.
Panda et al. (1971) evaluated 19 brinjal varieties for resistance to
L.orbonalis and ascertained that the varieties Black Pendy, H-165 and H-407 as
resistant and the variety Muktakeshi as susceptible. Further, they reported that
infestation of this pest to shoot ranged from 1.02 to 14.07 per cent in Haryana
under field conditions.
Dhanker et al. (1977) reported that in the variety Pusa Purple Long shoot
damage was in the range of 5.01 to 20.4 per cent whileas, fruit damage was 20.2
per cent.

19
Rant and Souone (1980) reported 31 to 34 per cent damage in round green
variety of brinjal. Subbaratnam (1987) in South India found shoot borer
infestation of 0.9 and 7.0 per cent in Pusa Purple Long and Indo American
Hybrid, respectively.
Subbarathnam (1982) found that varieties Unnati, Daftari, Black Round
and Pusa Purple Round had shoot damage ranging from 8.15 to 12.71 per cent in
India.
Satyanarayann (1984) in Madras recorded borer infestation of 14.9, 33.0
and 41.8 per cent in Bhagyamati, Pusa Kranti and Pusa Purple Long varieties of
brinjal, respectively.
Dhankar and Sharma (1986) in Haryana reported that fruit infestation on
number basis was 27.08 and 66.43 in varieties Pusa Purple Cluster-2 and
Selection-1, respectively.
Tejavathu et al. (1991) in India worked on eight relatively resistant
parents, namely Annamalai with infestation of 20.4, 24.3 and 15.7; Pant samrat
31.9, 35.4 and 31.7; Bhagyamathi 31.8, 32.0, and 29.6; Pusa purple cluster 32.6,
32.6 and 31.2; H7 32.7, 33.1 and 29.3; NOB-25 37.3, 37.2 and 30.7; Pusa Bhairav
35.5, 35.3 and 28.8 and BL-1 42.5, 38.9 and 35.0 per cent on shoot and in fruit on
number and weight basis, respectively.
Sah et al. (1995) in India reported lowest fruit infestation of 23 on number
basis and 25.34 per cent on weight basis in varieties Kachbachia and Anpurma,
respectively.
Grewal et al. (1995) in India reported that hybrid varieties Ravaiya and
Sweta were resistant to brinjal shoot and fruit borer (L. orbonalis Guenee) and
recorded shoot and fruit damage range 1 to10 per cent.
Panda (1999) screened about 174 brinjal genotypes for resistance to L.
orbonalis in India and found none of the brinjal entries immune to larval attack.

20
However, mean percentage of shoot and fruit infestation varied from 1.61 to 44.1
and 8.5 to 100 per cent, respectively.
Awasthi (2000) in Bilaspur carried research on susceptibility of 12 brinjal
genotypes to shoot and fruit borer and recorded the lowest percentage of fruit
infestation in genotypes Nurk (27%) and CH-150-16-4-1 (32%) whereas, rest of
the accessions were found susceptible to the pest.
Chaudhary and Sharma (2000) screened 9 genotypes in India and found
genotypes Arka Kesv, Arka Neelkanth, Arka Nidhi and SM-6-6 as resistant with
infestation ranging between 2.88 to 5.64 per cent.
Krishna et al. (2001) in India found 43 per cent fruit infestation in variety
Ramy Round Purple which was comparatively most susceptible while minimum
fruit and shoot infestation was reported in variety SM-02.
Singh and Singh (2001) screened 29 cultivars of brinjal against shoot and
fruit borer (L. orbonalis Guenee) wherein none of the cultivar was found to be
resistant to the pest but 3,5 and 8 number of cultivars were highly tolerant,
tolerant and moderately tolerant,respectively. Eleven and 2 number of cultivars
were susceptible and highly susceptible. They further reported that Cultivar
Kuchia (HRS-4) was highly tolerant followed by Pithoria and Lata Begum.
Sridhar et al. (2001) screened 54 genotypes of brinjal including five wild
species and some F
I
crosses for resistance to brinjal shoot and fruit borer under
field conditions of Orissa and observed none of the cultivated species as resistant
to pest. Three wild species viz., S. khasianum, S.virum and S. incanum were found
resistant with fruit infestation ranging from 0.5 to 10.0 per cent and cultivated
lines CHB-103, 187 and 259 were identified as fairly resistant to the L. orbonalis.
Ghosh et al. (2001) screening various brinjal accessions in West Bengal
and designated Pusa Purple Cluster and Black Beauty as resistant. Vinod et al.
(2001) in Palmpur screened 13 solanum genotypes and 30 F
I
crosses of S.
melongena for resistance to brinjal shoot and fruit borer wherein variety Arka

21
Keshi, 4 genotypes and 11 F
1
crosses were found resistant with damage range of
2.75 to 10 per cent.
Asati et al. (2002) in Chhattisgarh reported that lowest per cent fruit
infestation in KS-227 (22.3), D-2-88-6 (22.78), DBR-8 (25.51), ARB-1 (27.35),
Mukta Keshi (30.47) and CHBR-3 (31.67) on weight basis. Whileas, on the basis
of per cent number damage, lowest borer infestation of 20.11 and 22.9 was
noticed in the genotypes D-2-88-6 and DBR-8, respectively.
Hossain et al. (2002) screened 20 varieties of brinjal for their
resistance to brinjal shoot and fruit borer (L. orbonalis) in Gazipur (Bangladesh)
and reported that varieties Jhumki and Baromashi as tolerant; Ultara, Singnath,
Sadaball, BL0-96, BL045, BL072, BL0101, B 1081, BL 0117 (Khotkhotia-1),
Islam Puri and Laffa as moderately susceptible. Further, they reported that
varieties viz., BL008, BL085, BL095, BL098, BL0114 and Borka were
susceptible and the variety Nayakajal as highly susceptible. Highest infestation
(32.89 per cent) was recorded at 70 DAT and lowest infestation (5.18 per cent)
was found at 40 DAT. Similar findings were also reported by Baksha and Ali
(1982), Ahmad et al. (1985), Das and Singh (1990) and Begum (1995).
Jat et al. (2003) in Jobner (India) screened 10 cultivars viz., Pusa Kranti,
Unnati, Pusa Purple Round, Pusa Purple Long, SM-10, Neelum Long, Pant
Rituraj, Arka Kusumakar, Daftari and Black Round for resistance to shoot and
fruit borer and found shoot infestation ranging from 2.28 to 12.7 per cent. Authors
further reported that maximum fruit infestation of 46.51 per cent in Pusa Purple
Round. Whileas, genotypes Arka kusumakar and SM-10 were found to be
resistant to L.orbonalis.
Senapati (2003) recorded very low shoot infestation ranging from 4 to 11.1
per cent during screening of 12 aubergine cultivars against brinjal shoot and fruit
borer in India.

22
Bharadiya and Patel (2004) in Gujarat screened 18 cultivars against shoot
and fruit borer and found lowest pest incidence in SKN BSR-14. Dadmal et al.
(2004) conducted research on 6 varieties viz., Annamalai, Green Round, KKM-1,
PKM-1, Nattu Kathiri and Pootheri Local and eight hybrids viz., BSS-430,
Darpan Green Gold (EP-05), Haritha, MEBJ-99, Shanti, Super Usha, MEBH-9
and Vijay ARBH-905 and categorized all varieties/hybrids as tolerant suffering 21
to 30 per cent of fruit damage.
Yadav and Sharma (2005) conducted a field screening of eleven brinjal
varieties for their resistance against the brinjal shoot and fruit borer in Rajasthan
and reported that varieties Green Oblong, Selection Puja and Pusa Purple Long as
less susceptible with infestation upto 25 per cent followed by varieties Pusa
Hybrid-5, Pusa Kranti, Kokilla, Pusa Upkar and Aarti as moderately susceptible
with infestation ranging from 25 to 35 per cent whileas, varieties Navkiran, Pusa
Uttam and Pusa Hybrid -6 were susceptible with infestation more than 35 per
cent.
Elanchezhyan et al. (2008) conducted a field screening of 25 brinjal
varieties/hybrids against shoot and fruit borer in Tamil Nadu and found lowest
shoot damage of 8 per cent and fruit damage of 8.7 per cent on number basis and
9.2 per cent on weight basis in variety Sweta, but highest shoot damage of 41.77
per cent and fruit damage of 51.9 per cent on number and 46.4 per cent weight
basis was observed in Pusa Hybrid-6. Further, they found Aspara, Brinjal-925,
Kitri, ARBH-555, MEBH-11and Shubham (02) as fairly resistant to shoot and
fruit borer within the range of 11.0 to 20.0 per cent of shoot and fruit
infestation. Elanchezhyan et al. (2009) in another experiment reported genotypes
Sweta as resistant, Shubham (02) as fairly resistant, Green Gold (EP-050) as
tolerant, Soorakundu local as susceptible and Bejo-Sheetal as highly susceptible
to shoot and fruit borer infestation.
Humayun et al. (2011) carried research on different cultivars of brinjal in
Rawalpindi (Pakistan) and observed maximum fruit infestation of 58.60 per cent

23
in cultivar Neelam followed by Black Long 47.93 per cent. Whileas, minimum
fruit infestation of 21.57 per cent was observed in Nirala. Similarly, maximum
shoot infestation of 43.15 and 37.72 per cent was observed in Neelam and Kanha-
091, respectively. Whileas, Nirala was found to be least attacked by the pest
exhibiting only 15.81 per cent of shoot infestation.
Ghosh et al. (2011) carried study on interspecific progenies of brinjal
(Solanum melongena L.) for resistance to shoot and fruit borer (L.orbonalis
Guenee) in Tamil Nadu and found that the progeny BC
3
F
5
recorded the maximum
shoot and fruit damage of 22.22 and 18.18 per cent whileas, the progeny of F
8
generation recorded minimum shoot and fruit infestation of 14.29 and 15.09 per
cent, respectively.
2.2
Determination of morphological and biochemical characteristics of
brinjal varieties/genotypes exhibiting some degree of tolerance against
the brinjal shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee)
Plants have learnt to fight back in the form of defense mechanism against
multiple pressures exerted by various agencies of which insect pests are of
immense importance. These defense mechanisms have been exploited world over
as the host plant resistant to insects and include an array of morphological and
biochemical characteristics that tend to render the plant unsuitable for utilization.
2.2.1 Morphological characteristics
Patel and Basu (1948), Gill and Chadha (1979) and Isahaqua and
Chaudhuri (1984) reported that round fruited varieties were susceptible to borers
whileas, Grewal and Singh (1995) observed that long fruited varieties were more
susceptible to borers. Further, they also found no linear correlation between
length of fruit and degree of fruit damage. Ali et al. (1994) reported that varieties
with small, oval, slightly long, intermediate long and long shaped fruits having
greenish white to green coloured fruits were resistant. Whileas, round purple
black and black coloured fruits were susceptible.

24
Lall and Ahmad (1965), Ali et al. (1994) reported that hardness of fruit
skin and flesh due to compact seed arrangement and tight calyx affects the larval
entry into the fruit thereby provides some degree of resistance to shoot and fruit
borers. Panda et al. (1971) found that resistant varieties viz., Thorn Panday, Black
Pendy, H-165 and H-407 posses tightly arranged seeds in mesocarp which act as
a mechanical barrier for the larval entry.
Panda and Das (1974) and Ali et al. (1994) demonstrated the importance
of trichomes in imparting resistance to brinjal shoot and fruit borer. However,
Rant and Souone (1980) reported that tolerance of varieties (MEBH-9 and Vijay)
is due to hard to semi hard shoot with medium to dense pubescence.
Krishnaiah and Vijay (1975) reported that 6 varieties (Annamalai, Green
Round, KKM-1, PKM-1, Nattu Kathiri and Pootheri Local) and 8 hybrids
(BBS-430 Darpan, Green Gold (EP-05), Haritha, MHBJ-99, Shanthi, Super
Usha, MEBH-9 and Vijay ARBH-905) were tolerant to L. orbonalis. The tolerant
nature of above entries of brinjal was attributed by hardness of fruit skin and
flesh.
Mote (1981) and Grewal and Singh (1995) reported that green fruited
varieties exhibited low fruit damage and length of fruit had no correlation with
fruit infestation. However, Rant and Souone (1980) found that light green
coloured fruits were less susceptible to borers.
Subbaratnam (1982) and Jat et al. (2003) reported that thickness of
pericarp and mesocarp were positively correlated with degree of fruit damage.
Chelliah and Srinivasan (1983) observed that shoots with compact vascular
bundles having thick layer of lignified cells and less area of pith provides
resistance to borer.
Sharma et al. (1985), Malik et al. (1986), Ali et al. (1994) and Behera et
al. (1998) found that diameter of fruit was positively correlated with infested fruit
yield, number of holes and larvae per fruit. Behera et al. (1998) and Ali et al.

25
(1994) further found that round/oblong fruits were more affected by borers.
Sharma et al. (1985) and Lal (1991) reported that possible reason for high
susceptibility of Navkiran, Pusa Uttam and Pusa Hybrid-6 might be due to the
round shaped fruit with less number of seeds with soft and smooth surface.
Mishra et al. (1988) evaluated 24 brinjal varieties and reported that
anatomical characters like tightly arranged seeds in mesocarp, thick fruit skin and
closely packed vascular bundles in pulp may be cause of resistance to borers, they
further reported that leaf colour did not play any role in resistance. Grewal and
Singh (1995) reported the resistant reaction of hybrids, (Sweta and Ravaiya) to
shoot and fruit borer were due to the presence of tough fruit skin, narrow
pericarp, extra longish fruits with light purple colour, less seedless area and less
peripheral seed-ring.
Grewal et al. (1995) and Gangopadhyay et al. (1996) found that variety
Brinjal Green Long was less susceptible due to its green colour, long fruit shape
and hard fruit surface, Gangopadhyay et al. (1996) further reported that resistance
to borers is conferred not only by any single physical character like spines, shape,
size or arrangement of seeds in mesocarp but is collective effort of all these
characters.
Panda (1999) screened some 174 brinjal cultivars for resistance to brinjal
fruit and shoot borer and found that leaf hair density and number of shoots per
plant played a role in restricting the shoot damage. Whileas, the fruit characters
such as tight calyx, long fruits and tightly packed seeds in mesocarp increased the
resistance in fruits to borers.
Ghosh and Senapati (2001) reported that hybrid varieties (Pusa Purple
Cluster and Black Beauty) were resistant due to presence of purple coloured
leaves.
Sridhar et al. (2001) reported that less damage was observed in the
genotypes which posses relatively long fruits and tightly arranged seeds.

26
Similarly, Vinod et al. (2001) reported that attack of borer was comparatively less
in genotypes having less fruits with tightly arranged seeds in mesocarp.
Hossain et al. (2004) found that variety having less number of trichomes,
simple and branched on leaves was highly susceptible. While as, the varieties with
numerous compact but simple branched with or without distinct stalk was
resistant to borers. Similarly, Duffy (1986) summarized trichome effect as
interference with colonization, entrapment, physiological incompatibility and
lethality to borers.
Jat and Pareek (2003) reported that light green coloured fruits were not
preferred by the L. orbonalis whereas, fruits having narrow pericarp and mesocarp
with compact seed rings and closely arranged seeds in mesocarp were less
infested.
Asati et al. (2004) screened thirty-day old seedlings of 9 improved brinjal
cultivars namely KS-224, ABR-1, Mukta Keshi, KS-227, DBR-8, CHBR-1,
CHBR-2, CHBR-3, and D-2-88-6 along with three local cultivars viz., Golianda
local purple, Golianda local green Bhegra local and found that the percentage of
borer infested fruits were due to the cumulative effect of number of holes/fruit
and calyx diameter.
Hazra et al. (2004) reported that thick terminal shoot, long and wide calyx
and plump fruits of high weight were positively correlated with susceptibility of
shoot and fruit borer. They further reported that genotypes having less plump and
hard fruit with thick skin fall under resistant category.
Shinde (2007) found the positive correlation of fruit infestation with total
fruit weight, fruit length, calyx length and fruit and shoot thickness. Similar,
opinion were earlier expressed by Malik et al. (1986).Chandrashekhar et al.
(2008) evaluated 10 brinjal genotypes for their resistance to shoot and fruit borer
and observed a significant and positive correlation between thickness of pericarp
and mesocarp with resistance and non-significant with fruit length.

27
Elanchezhyan et al. (2008) reported that lowest shoot and fruit damage
was due to presence of tough fruit skin, narrow pericarp, extra longish fruit, tight,
purple fruit colour, less seedless area and less peripheral seedring in the varieties
Pusa purple Cluster and Black Beauty. They further found that the tolerant nature
of varieties viz., Annamalai, Green Round, Nattu Kathiri, Pootheri Local, PKM-1,
KKM-1, BSS-99, Shanthi, Super Usha, MEBH-9 and Vijay ARBH-905 were
attributed to hardness of the fruit skin and flesh; hard to semi-hard shoot and
medium to dense pubescence.
Gupta and Kauntey (2008) studied the fruit characters of brinjal in relation
to the infestation by shoot and fruit borer( L. orbonalis) and revealed that length
of peripheral seed ring and seed less area of fruit is linearly co-related with the
degree of infestation. Ahmad et al. (2009) screened 20 brinjal varieties/lines and
found that shoot infestation was positively correlated with plant height, stem
diameter, number of branches/plant, third leaf length and third leaf diameter.
Humayun et al. (2011) found a very strong and negative correlation
between fruit infestation and leaf trichomes, stem thickness and stem hair density.
A negatively significant correlation was also found between fruit infestation and
plant height, crown hair density. Whileas, the correlations of leaf hair density and
leaf area was also significantly negative. They further, reported a positive and
significant correlation with fruit yield but non-significant correlation with number
of primary branches/plant.
2.2.2 Biochemical characteristics
Secondary plant compounds in brinjal act as "first line of defense" against
brinjal shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee) and act as a deterrent
or repellent for other insect herbivores. Biochemical basis of resistance is a
potential tool in management strategy with regard to integrated approach for the
control of this pest.

28
2.2.2.1 Phenol
Mohan et al. (1987) reported that phenols are extremely abundant plant
allelochemicals often associated with feeding deterrence or growth inhibition of
herbivores. The phenols in a fairly large concentration could ward off insect pests
because of direct toxicity. Chadha et al. (1990) observed that both bitterness and
discoloration of fruits increases with increase in total phenol content which are
responsible for feeding deterrence.
Raju et al. (1987), Darekar et al. (1991), Muthukumar (2002), Rajan and
Chakravarthi (2002) and Dadmal et al. (2004) found a strong negative correlation
between pest infestation and total phenol content in brinjal. However,
Kalappanavar and Hiremathi (2000) found that high phenolic content in resistant
brinjal genotypes may be due to more sugars as it is a precursor for phenolic
compound synthesis.
Kalloo (1988) reported that biochemical constituents like phenols and
phenolic oxidase are available in brinjal and posses insect resistant properties.
Hung and Rhodes (1973) reported that oxidation of phenolic constituents by
polyphenol oxidase enzyme produces the toxic quinone which acts as a feeding
deterrent to the borers.
Devarajaiah (1992) found that polyphenol content were highest in the
shoots and fruits of Solanum macrocarp which exhibits resistance to the shoot and
fruit borer. Similarly, the genotypes with higher glycoalkaloid, total phenol and
polyphenol oxidase would help to improve resistance to shoot and fruit borer
(Doshi et al., 1998).
Baskaran (2001) confirmed that total solanine content and total phenol
content reduces the borer population in brinjal.Similarly, Hedin et al. (1983);
Sexena (1986) and Panda and Khush (1995) found that phenols were involved in
resistance against pests.

29
Asati et al. ( 2002) studied the relationship between the total phenol and
chlorophyll content of 12 brinjal cultivars viz., KS-224, ABR-1, Multa Keshi, KS-
227, DBR-8, CHNR-1, CHBR-2, CHBR-3, D-2-88-6, Gollanda Local (purple),
Gollanda Local (green) and Bhegra local, wherein total phenol content were
higher after 80 days than 60 days of sowing and the variety DBR-8 recorded the
highest phenol content both after 60 and 80 days after sowing. The authors
further, reported that total phenol content had a direct negative correlation with
fruit borer infestation. Similarly, Soundorarajen and Baskaran (2005) found a
strong negative correlation between borer infestation and total phenol content.
Shinde (2007) also found negative correlation between the total phenol content
and brinjal crop infestation.
Prabhu et al. (2009) found that among the parents of intervarietal crosses
EP65 had the highest level of peroxidase, polyphenol oxidase and total phenol
content in both shoot and fruit. Further, authors also reported that cross EP65 x
Pusa Uttam had the highest level of peroxidase and polyphenol oxidase activity
and the genotype with higher or moderate level of these biochemical constituents
suffered less shoot and fruit infestation.
Khorsheduzzaman et al. (2010) reported highest polyphenol oxidase in the
genotypes in decreasing order of" TURBO BL009 ISD006 EG075
EG058.They further, found that higher phenol activity in the shoots exhibit
resistant reaction to borer activity. Similar, results were also found by Singh et al.
(1982); Bajaj et al. (1989) and Martin (2004).
Ghosh et al. (2011) found a negative correlation between the phenols,
solasodine, polyphenoloxidase activity and shoot and fruit borer damage and
further found that genotypes having higher content of these biochemicals could be
utilized in the breeding programme for the development of resistant brinjal
varieties against this pest.

30
2.2.2.2 Sugars
Lapidus et al. (1963) reported that insect susceptible plant parts
had higher concentration of sugars as total soluble sugars act as feeding stimulant
in the brinjal varieties. Darekar et al. (1991) screened 9 varieties of brinjal for
resistance to shoot and fruit borer and reported that total sugers where positively
correlated with fruit infestation. Raju et al. (1987) and Shukla et al. (1998) found
a strong positive correlation between fruit infestation and total sugar content.
Similarly, Jat and Pareek (2003) found that biochemical characters such as total
sugars, free amino acids and crude protein were positively correlated with fruit
infestation by L. orbonalis.
Hazra et al. (2004) reported that concentration of feeding stimulants
(sugars) showed a strong positive correlation with fruit infestation. They further,
found that total sugar content in 100 g fresh fruits of tolerant genotype (HE-12)
was 1.48 mg/100g as against the 3.62 mg/100 g in the most susceptible genotype.
Elanchezhyan et al. (2009) found a positive correlation between total soluble
sugars and borer attack. In brinjal variety "Sweta" (Resistant) the total soluble
sugar was 5.8 mg/g, as compared to the 18.0 mg/g in "Bejo Sheetal"
(Susceptible).
Ghosh et al. (2011) found a positive correlation between the sugar content
and borer infestation. Authors further found that varieties lower in total soluble
sugar and reducing sugar content could be utilized in the breeding programme for
the development of borer resistant varieties in brinjal.
2.2.2.3 Ash
Dadmal et al. (2004) found a negative correlation between ash content and
infestation by borers. Similarly, Shinde (2007) found a negative correlation of
fruit infestation with ash and silica content of eggplant.
Elanchezhyan et al. (2009) reported a negative correlation between ash
content and borer infestation. In brinjal variety "Sweta" (Resistant) ash content

31
recorded was 12.3 per cent as compared to 10.1 per cent in variety "Bejo Sheetal"
(Susceptible).
2.2.2.4 Moisture
Panda (1999) reported that low percentage of moisture restricts the attack
of shoot and fruit borer. Jat and Pareek (2003) reported that moisture content had
a significant positive correlation with shoot damage by borers. Dadmal et al.
(2004); Kale et al. (1986) and Patil et al. (1994) reported a positive correlation
between moisture content and shoot damage by borers.
Hazra et al. (2004) reported that lower moisture content in the fruits was
associated with less susceptibility to the infestation by L. orbonalis Guenee.
Elanchezhyan et al. (2009) reported a positive correlation between
moisture content in leaves and shoot damage by L. orbonalis. They further,
reported 78.4 per cent moisture in brinjal variety "Sweta" (Resistant) as compared
to the 89.2 per cent in "Bejo Sheetal" (Susceptible).

32
3 MATERIAL AND METHODS
3.1 Studies on incidence and severity of important brinjal
varieties/genotypes against shoot and fruit borer under field
conditions
The present investigations were carried out in the experimental field of
Division of Entomology, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and
Technology of Kashmir, Shalimar, Srinagar which is situated at the height of 1650
meters above the mean sea level. Twelve important brinjal varieties/genotypes
were screened against brinjal shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis
Guenee), at the experimental site having clay loam soil type (Plate-1).
The experimental material was transplanted in plots of size 3x 2 m on 1
st
June 2011 in Randomized Block Design with three replications of each
variety/genotype having row to row and plant to plant distance maintained at 60
and 45 cm, respectively. Other agronomic practices were carried out as per the
Package of Practices recommended by Division of Olericulture, SKUAST-K,
Shalimar. However, no insecticidal treatment was given to the experimental
material.
Five plants per replication of each treatment were tagged at random and
observed for relative susceptibility of various brinjal genotypes to the L. orbonalis
infestation by recording weight and numbers of infested and uninfested fruits
from each entry upto harvest and percentage of infestation was calculated.
Fruit damage on the basis of weight as well as on number was recorded at
weekly intervals commencing from first picking (40 DAT) till harvest of the crop.
Per cent infestation by weight (g) =
Weight of infested fruit
x 100
Total weight of fruits taken
Per cent infestation by number =
Number of fruits damaged
x 100
Total number of fruits taken

33
Plate-1 : Experimental layout of brinjal varieties/genotypes screened
for susceptibility to L. orbonalis Guen. during 2011

21
The shoot damage was recorded at weekly intervals commencing from 15
DAT till 45 DAT. 5 plants per replication of each treatment were selected for
recording the per cent incidence of the shoot damage:
Per cent incidence (shoot) =
Number of shoots damaged
x 100
Total number of shoots taken
On the basis of mean per cent fruit damage due to brinjal shoot and fruit
borer (L. orbonalis) the severity was graded as under
Fruit damage
(%)
Grade
Rating
0
Highly resistant
0
1-5
Resistant
1
6-10
Fairly resistant
2
11-16
Tolerant
3
17-20
Susceptible
4
21
Highly susceptible
5
3.2
Determination
of
morphological/biochemical
characteristics
responsible for exhibiting resistance to brinjal shoot and fruit borer
(L. orbonalis)
In order to determine a relationship between plant characters and their
relative susceptibility to L. orbonalis all the 12 brinjal varieties/genotypes were
raised at the Experimental Area of Division of Entomology, SKUAST-K,
Shalimar in Randomized Block Design with three replications each during the
year 2011 and observations in respect of following physical characters were
recorded:

22
3.2.1. Morphological characters
3.2.1.1 Fruit length (cm)
Five fruits per replication were taken randomly at harvest for recording the
fruit length. It was recorded from the calyx end to the lower end of the fruit by
measuring scale.
3.2.1.2 Fruit diameter (cm)
Five fruits per replication were randomly taken at harvest for recording the
fruit diameter. It was recorded by measuring the circumference of the fruit from
two ends on each side at mid of fruit in such a way that 1/4
th
of the fruit length
was left on each side. The mean circumferences in case of cylindrical/round fruits
were converted into diameter as follows:
a) Cylindrical fruits : Fruit diameter was calculated as :
Circumference (x) = 2
rl
r = x/2
l
r = d/2
d=2r
l = length
r = radius
d=diameter
b) Round fruits:
Circumference (x) = 4
r
2
l
r
2
= x/4
l
r= x/4l
r = d/2
d = 2r
l = length
d= diameter
r = radius

23
3.2.1.3 Shape and volume index
Five fruits per replication were taken for recording the shape and volume
index at harvest.
Shape index =
Fruit length
Fruit diameter
Volume index (cm
3
) = Fruit length x Fruit diameter
3.2.1.4 Length of peripheral seed ring (cm)
Five fruits per replication were taken for measuring the length of
peripheral seed ring. It was measured in cm scale after dissecting the fruits
longitudinally.
3.2.1.5 Ratio of length of peripheral seed ring (RLPS)
Five fruits per replication were taken for recording the RLPS. It was
calculated by dividing the length of peripheral seed ring to total length of fruit as:
RLPS =
Length of peripheral seed ring
Total length of fruit
3.2.1.6 Length of seedless area (cm)
Five fruits per replication were taken for measuring the length of seedless
area. It was measured from both upper end of the seed ring to the calyx end and
from lower end of seed ring area to the lower tip of the fruit.
3.2.1.7 Ratio of length of seedless area (RLSA)
Five fruits per replication were taken for recording the RLSA.
R LSA =
Length of seedless area
Total length of fruit
3.2.1.8 Pericarp thickness (mm):
Five fruits per replication were taken for measuring the pericarp
thickness. It was carried with the help of vernier caliper. Breadth of area between
peripheral seed ring and fruit skin was taken as pericarp thickness.

24
3.2.1.9 Shoot and leaf hairs
Five leaves from each replication were observed on 15 and 45 DAT for
recording the number of hairs per 1 cm
2
leaf area. Shoot hairs were observed on
15 to 45 DAT from 1 cm shoot length from 5 shoots per replication.
3.2.1.10 Yield per plant (kgs)
Total weight of pest infested and uninfested fruits from 15 plants of each
variety/genotype were observed right from I
st
day of harvest till last day of harvest
at weekly intervals and average yield per plant were worked out accordingly.
3.2.1.11 Number of fruits per plant
Total numbers of fruits per 15 plants per treatment were recorded till
harvest and pooled to get the average number of fruits per plant. Total number of
pest infested and uninfested fruits were worked out.
3.2.1.12 Plant height (cm)
Fifteen plants from each treatment were taken for recording the plant
height at 70 DAT by measuring scale.
3.2.1.13 Number of branches per plant
Fifteen plants from each treatment were taken for recording the number of
branches per plant at 45 DAT.
3.2.1.14 Roughness/smoothness of calyx
This character was recorded from 15 calyx using Ri for roughness and Si
for smoothness at 45 DAT.
3.2.1.15 Flower and fruit colour
Flower and fruit colour were observed visually from 15 flowers and 15
fruits per treatment, respectively.

25
3.3
Biochemical characters
Biochemical analysis was carried in laboratories of division Entomology,
Post Harvest Technology, Olericulture and Soil Science, (SKUAST-K). From
each replication representative oven dried sample of 100mg and 0.5 g from shoots
and fruits were taken for the estimation of total sugars and phenols.
3.3.1 Estimation of Total Sugars
Soluble sugar was estimated in shoots at 15 and 45 DAT, while in fruits at
45 and 70 DAT by Anthrone method as given by Sadasivan and Manickam
(1992).
Procedure: 100 mg of the sample (shoot and fruit) were taken and hydrolyzed
in a boiling water bath for 3 hours with 5 ml of 2.5 HCl and cooled at room
temperature. Then it was neutralized with solid sodium carbonate until the
effervescence got ceased and the volume was made to 100 ml and centrifuged at
5000 rpm for 20 minutes. The supernatants were collected and 1 ml aliquots were
taken for further analysis. Standards were prepared by taking the 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.8
and 1ml of working standards while 0 served as blank. Volume was made to 1 ml
in all the tubes including sample tube by adding distilled water. 4 ml of anthrone
reagent was added to each tube and heated for 8 minutes in a boiling water bath.
Then cooled rapidly and green to dark green colour were read in
spectrophotometer at 630 nm. Standard graph was drawn by plotting
concentration of standard on the X-axis vs absorbance on Y-axis (Appendix-I).
From the graph amount of total sugar present in the sample were calculated as :
Total sugars
(mg/g)
=
Sugar value from graph (µg)
x
Total volume of extract
(ml)
x 100
Aliquot sample used (1 ml)
Weight of sample (mg)

26
3.3.2 Estimation of Total Phenols
Total phenols were estimated from fruit samples at 45 and 70 DAT while
as, in shoots at 15 and 45 DAT by Folin-Ciocalteu reagent method as given by
Bray and Thrope (1954).
Procedure: Sample of shoot and fruit each weighing 0.5 g was taken and grinded
with the help of pestle and mortar along with 10 ml of 80% ethanol. Later
sample was centrifuged and homogenated at 10, 000 rpm for 20 minutes.
Supernatant was saved and residues were re-extracted with 5 times volume of
80% ethanol. Samples were centrifuged again at 10, 000 rpm and the supernatants
were pooled. The supernatant was evaporated to dryness and residue was
dissolved in 5ml of distilled water. Aliquots of (0.2 to 2) were pipette out into
different test tubes and 0.5 ml of Folin-Ciocalteu Reagent (FCR) was added to
each. After 3 minutes 2 ml of 20% Na
2
CO
3
was added to each tube and mixed
thoroughly. Then tubes were placed in boiling water for exactly 1 minute and
pooled. Absorbance was measured in spectrophotometer at 650 nm against
reagent blank. Finally standard curve using different concentrations of catechol
was prepared.
From the standard curve concentration of phenols in the test sample were
estimated and expressed as mg of phenols per gram of sample material
(Appendix-II).
Phenols (mg/g) =
Micro liters from stand curve x volume x dilution
Weight of sample x 1000
3.3.3 Moisture determination (JAOAC, 1977)
Estimation of moisture content was carried in the laboratories of division
Post Harvest Technology and Soil Science, (SKUAST-K).
A representative shoot sample of weight 5 and 1 grams were taken for
determination of moisture and ash content respectively, and was done as per the
method developed by JAOAC (1977).

27
Procedure: Five grams of wet portion of each 15 plants per replication were
taken at the time of harvest. Air oven was regulated at the temperature of 135±2
o
C
using low covered almonium dishes. 5 g weight of test portion was taken into
each dish and shaked until content get evenly distributed and covers were
removed. Then dishes were placed in oven as quickly as possible and dried for 2
hours ± 5 minutes and covers were placed on dishes transferred to desiccator till it
gets cooled. Weight again and loss in weight on drying (LOD) were calculated
which gives an estimate of moisture content in the sample.
Percentage of moisture =
Weight loss on drying (g)
x 100
Weight of test portion (g)
3.3.4 Ash content (JAOAC, 1977)
Estimation of ash content was carried out in the laboratory of division Soil
Science as per the method developed by JAOAC (1977)
In this context the test portion 1g of each treatment were taken at harvest
(oven dried brinjal plant) into porcelain crucible and placed in temperature
controlled furnace preheated to 600
o
C and kept at his temperature for about 2
hours. Crucible were directly transferred to desiccator and then cooled and weight
was noted immediately.
Percentage of ash =
Weight of test portion (g) - weight loss on ashing (g)
x 100
Weight of test portion (g)
3.4
Statistical analysis of data
Research data was subjected to the analysis of variance and difference was
compared at 5 and 1 per cent level of significance. Simple correlation between
morphological and biochemical plant characters with infestation of brinjal shoot
and fruit borer (L.orbonalis) was worked out.

28
4 EXPERIMENTAL FINDINGS
4.1
Incidence and severity of brinjal varieties/genotypes to Leucinodes
orbonalis Guenee
Promising 10 varieties and two hybrids of brinjal were screened against
the brinjal shoot and fruit borer (BSFB), Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee under the
natural infestation conditions in the field of Entomology SKUAST-K, Shalimar.
Each genotype as a treatment was raised in Randomized Block Design with three
replications having row to row and plant to plant distance maintained at 60 cm
and 45 cm, respectively adopting all university recommended agronomic
practices. Observations with regard to borer infestation were recorded from
transplanting upto harvest. At each observation number and weight of infested and
uninfested fruits from each entry was recorded and percentage calculated.
The results presented in Table-1 revealed that borer infestation amongst
different varieties/genotypes varied significantly on number basis and was in the
range of 3.30 to 23.07 per cent. None of varieties/genotype including the
commonly grown Local Long was immune to the borer damage. Genotypes
Brinjal -85 and Local Long recorded the minimum infestation of 3.30 and 5.15
per cent and differed statistically. Amongst the other genotypes, Shalimar Brinjal
Purple Round-1 and Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8 were observed to suffer the
mean damage of 8.33 and 10.08 per cent and were significantly at par. Genotypes
viz., Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42, Shalimar Brinjal Long-208, Shalimar
Brinjal Long-217, Dilruba-2, Brinjal Purple Long and Brinjal Oblong were
observed to suffer the mean damage of 11.11, 12.50, 14.28, 16.60, 16.63 and
18.18 per cent, respectively. Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42 and Shalimar
Brinjal Long-208 were statistically at par. Similarly, Dilruba-2, Brinjal Oblong
and Brinjal Purple Long were also at par but Shalimar Brinjal Long-217 is
significantly different from all other varieties/genotypes. Shalimar Brinjal
Hybrid-2 suffered the damage of 20.00 per cent and differed significantly.

29
Table-1 :
Relative susceptibility of different brinjal genotypes to shoot
and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee) during 2011
S.
No.
Genotype
Mean borer infested
fruits per plant
(per cent)
Mean
borer
infestation
per shoot
(per cent)
Number
Weight
1.
Shalimar Brinjal Long-217
14.28
e
(22.07)
14.70
d
(22.53)
6.70
e
(14.55)
2.
Local Long
5.15
b
(12.71)
6.71
b
(14.64)
4.60
b
(12.62)
3.
Brinjal Oblong
18.18
f
(25.20)
18.50
e
(25.43)
7.50
f
(15.88)
4.
Brinjal Purple Long
16.63
f
(24.31)
17.40
e
(24.57)
7.50
f
(15.88)
5.
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42
11.11
d
(18.90)
12.90
c
(21.06)
5.34
c
(13.34)
6.
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1
23.07
h
(28.48)
22.50
f
(28.26)
9.10
g
(17.53)
7.
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8
8.33
c
(16.70)
8.29
b
(16.65)
4.96
b
(12.82)
8.
Dilruba-2
16.60
f
(24.19)
17.00
e
(24.36)
6.97
e
(15.75)
9.
Brinjal-85
3.30
a
(11.92)
3.29
a
(11.90)
2.34
a
(6.91)
10. Shalimar Brinjal Long-208
12.50
d
(19.43)
13.50
d
(21.54)
6.20
d
(14.37)
11. Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2
20.00
g
(26.06)
21.28
f
(27.48)
7.70
f
(16.08)
12. Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1
10.08
c
(18.72)
11.50
c
(19.81)
5.10
c
(13.02)
CD
(P = 0.05)
1.77
1.83
0.37
Each figure is the mean of three replicate
Data in parenthesis is angular transformed value
The value in individual columns superscripted by similar letter(s) don't differ significantly

30
However, Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1 suffered the maximum infestation of 23.07
per cent and differed significantly from all other genotypes screened under natural
infestation conditions (Plate-2 to 6).
Almost similar trend was noticed in all 12 genotypes when infestation on
weight basis was recorded (Table-1). Lowest infestation of 3.29 per cent was
recorded in Brinjal-85 followed by 6.71 and 8.29 per cent in Local Long and
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8 which were significantly at par. Genotypes viz.,
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1, Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42, Shalimar
Brinjal Long-208 and Shalimar Brinjal Long-217 suffered fruit weight damage of
11.50, 12.90, 13.50 and 14.70 per cent, respectively. However, Shalimar Brinjal
Purple Round-1 and Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42 were significantly different.
Whereas, Shalimar Brinjal Long-208 and Shalimar Brinjal Long-217 were
significantly at par. The genotypes viz., Dilruba-2, Brinjal Purple Long and
Brinjal Oblong were significantly different from other genotypes but at par with
each other and recording the weight damage of 17.00, 17.30 and 18.50 per cent,
respectively. Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1 and Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2 were
statistically at par and suffered maximum weight damage of 22.50 and 21.28 per
cent, respectively under natural conditions.
On the basis of mean per cent shoot infestation by BSFB all the 12
varieties/genotypes suffered less damage as compared to fruit. The genotypes
Brinjal-85 recorded the minimum shoot infestation of 2.34 per cent and differed
statistically from all other genotypes. Genotypes viz., Local Long and Shalimar
Brinjal Purple Round-8 suffered shoot infestation of 4.60 and 4.96 per cent and
were statistically at par. Genotypes viz., Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1,
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42, Shalimar Brinjal Long-208, Shalimar Brinjal
Long-217, Dilruba-2, Brinjal Purple Long, Brinjal Oblong and Shalimar Brinjal
Hybrid-2 suffered shoot damage of 5.10, 5.34, 6.20, 6.70, 6.97, 7.50, 7.50, 7.70
and 9.10 per cent, respectively. Genotypes viz., (Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42
and Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1); (Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2,

31
Brinjal-85 (3.30% fruit infestation)
Local Long (5.15% fruit infestation)
Plate-2 :
Brinjal genotypes resistant to L. orbonalis Guenee

32
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1 (10.08% fruit infestation)
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8 (8.33% fruit infestation)
Plate-3 :
Brinjal genotypes fairly resistant to L. orbonalis Guenee

33
Plate-4 :
Brinjal genotypes tolerant to L. orbonalis Guenee
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42
(11.11% infestation)
Shalimar Brinjal Long-208
(12.50% infestation)
Dilruba-2 (16.60% infestation)
Shalimar Brinjal Long-217
(14.28% infestation)
Brinjal Purple Long (16.63% infestation)

34
Shalimr Brinjal Hybrid-2 (20 % fruit infestation)
Brinjal Oblong (18.18% fruit infestation)
Plate-5 :
Brinjal genotypes susceptible to L. orbonalis Guenee

35
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1 (23.07% fruit infestation)
Plate-6 :
Brinjal genotype highly susceptible to L. orbonalis Guenee

31
Brinjal Oblong and Brinjal Purple Long); (Dilruba-2 and Shalimar Brinjal Long-
217) differ significantly with one another however, Shalimar Brinjal Long-208
also differ significantly with the above groups. Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1
recorded maximum shoot infestation of 9.10 per cent and differed significantly
from all other genotypes screened under natural infestation conditions (Table-1).
The findings on frequency distribution of fruit infestation on number basis
to BSFB are depicted in Table-2. Occurrences of 2, 2, 5, 2 and 1 were recorded in
(Brinjal-85 and Local Long), (Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1, Shalimar Brinjal
Purple Round-8), (Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42, Shalimar Brinjal Long-208,
Shalimar Brinjal Long-217, Dilruba-2, Brinjal Purple Long), (Brinjal Oblong,
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2) and Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1 for 1-5, 6-10, 11-16,
17-20 and 21 per cent borer infestation.
The results on frequency distribution of fruit infestation on weight basis to
BSFB (Table-3) indicated that the genotypes viz., (Brinjal-85); ( Shalimar Brinjal
Purple Round-8,Local Long); (Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1, Shalimar Brinjal
Purple Long-42, Shalimar Brinjal Long-208, Shalimar Brinjal Long-217);
(Dilruba-2, Brinjal Purple Long, Brinjal Oblong) and (Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-
1,Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2) fall in the occurrences of 1, 2, 4, 3 and 2 with
infestation range of 1-5, 6-10, 11-16, 17-20 and 21 per cent, respectively.
Similarly frequency distribution on shoot damage basis (Table 4) to BSFB
indicated that the genotypes viz., (Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42, Shalimar
Brinjal Purple Round-1, Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8, Local Long, Brinjal-
85) and (Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1, Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2, Brinjal Oblong,
Brinjal Purple Long, Dilruba-2, Shalimar Brinjal Long-217, Shalimar Brinjal
Long-208) fall in the occurrences of 5 and 7 with the infestation range of 1-5 and
6-10 per cent, respectively.

32
Table-2 :
Frequency distribution of brinjal varieties/genotypes for fruit
infestation on number basis to shoot and fruit borer
(Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee) during 2011
S.
No.
Mean
rating of
infestation
(per cent)
Rank on
the basis of
infestation
Mean
infestation
(per cent)
Number of
occurrences
Genotypes
1
0
-
0
0
None
2.
1-5
1
5.15
b
(12.71)
2
Local Long
3.30
a
(11.92)
Brinjal-85
3.
6-10
2
10.08
c
(16.72)
2
Shalimar Brinjal Purple
Round-1
8.33
c
(16.70)
Shalimar Brinjal Purple
Round-8
4.
11-16
3
16.63
f
(24.31)
5
Brinjal Purple Long
16.60
f
(24.19)
Dilruba-2
14.28
e
(22.07)
Shalimar Brinjal Long-217
12.50
d
(19.43)
Shalimar Brinjal Long-208
11.11
d
(18.90)
Shalimar Brinjal Purple
Long-42
5.
17-20
4
20.00
g
(26.06)
2
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2
18.18
f
(25.20)
Brinjal Oblong
6.
21
5
23.07
h
(28.48)
1
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1
Total
Rank
(0-5)
CD (P = 0.05)
=1.77
12
Each figure is the mean of three replicate.
Data in parenthesis is angular transformed value.
The value in individual columns superscripted by similar letter(s) do not differ significantly

33
Table-3 :
Frequency distribution of brinjal varieties/genotypes for fruit
infestation on weight basis to shoot and fruit borer
(Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee) during 2011
S.
No.
Mean
rating of
infestation
(per cent)
Rank on
the basis of
infestation
Mean
infestation
(per cent)
Number of
occurrences
Genotypes
1
0
0
0
0
None
2.
1-5
1
3.29
a
(11.90)
1
Brinjal-85
3.
6-10
2
8.29
b
(16.65)
2
Shalimar Brinjal Purple
Round-8
6.71
b
(14.64)
Local Long
4.
11-16
3
14.70
d
(22.53)
4
Shalimar Brinjal Long-
217
13.50
d
(21.54)
Shalimar Brinjal Long-
208
12.90
c
(21.06)
Shalimar Brinjal Purple
Long-42
11.50
c
(19.81)
Shalimar Brinjal Purple
Round-1
5.
17-20
4
18.50
e
(25.43)
3
Brinjal Oblong
17.40
e
(24.57)
Brinjal Purple Long
17.00
e
(24.36)
Dilruba-2
6.
21
5
22.50
g
(28.26)
2
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1
21.28
f
(27.48)
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2
Total
Rank
(0-5)
CD
(p = 0.05)
=1.83
12
Each figure is the mean of three replicate.
Data in parenthesis is angular transformed value.
The value in individual columns superscripted by similar letter(s) do not differ significantly.

34
Table-4 :
Frequency distribution of brinjal varieties/genotypes for
infestation on shoot basis to
shoot
and
fruit
borer
(Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee) during 2011
S.
No.
Mean
rating of
infestation
(per cent)
Rank on
the basis of
infestation
Mean
infestation
(per cent)
Number of
occurrences
Genotypes
1.
0
-
0
0
None
2.
1-5
1
5.34
c
(13.34)
5
Shalimar Brinjal Purple
Long-42
5.10
c
(13.02)
Shalimar Brinjal Purple
Round-1
4.96
b
(12.82)
Shalimar Brinjal Purple
Round-8
4.60
b
(12.62)
Local Long
2.34
a
(6.91)
Brinjal-85
3.
6-10
2
9.10
g
(17.53)
7
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1
7.70
f
(16.08)
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2
7.50
f
(15.88)
Brinjal Oblong
7.50
f
(15.88)
Brinjal Purple Long
6.97
e
(15.75)
Dilruba-2
6.70
e
(14.55)
Shalimar Brinjal Long-
217
6.20
d
(14.37)
Shalimar Brinjal Long-
208
4.
11-16
-
0
0
None
5.
17-20
-
0
0
None
6.
21
-
0
0
None
Total
Rank
(0-5)
CD
(p = 0.05)
= 0.37
12
Each figure is the mean of three replicate
Data in parenthesis is angular transformed value
The value in individual columns superscripted by similar letter(s) don't differ significantly

35
On the basis of levels of infestation of twelve varieties/genotypes different
categories were developed for resistance to brinjal shoot and fruit borer
(L.orbonalis Guenee) as resistant, fairly resistant, tolerant, susceptible and highly
susceptible. However, none of the varieties/genotype exhibited immunity to
L.orbonalis. On the basis of fruit number damaged (Table 5) genotypes viz.,
Brinjal-85 and Local Long fall into resistant category with mean infestation
ranging from 1 to 5 per cent. Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1 and Shalimar
Brinjal Purple Round-8 fall in the fairly resistant category with infestation range
of 6 to 10 per cent. Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42, Shalimar Brinjal Long -208,
Shalimar Brinjal Long -217, Dilruba-2 and Brinjal Purple Long fall in the tolerant
category exhibiting infestation between 11 to 16 per cent. Whileas, Susceptible
category include Brinjal Oblong and Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2 with infestation
range of 17 to 20 per cent. However, Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1 fall in highly
susceptible category and exhibited the infestation more than 21 per cent under
natural infestation conditions.
On the basis of fruit weight damaged (Table 6) by brinjal shoot and fruit
borer all the twelve varieties/genotypes were categorized as resistant Brinjal-85
with infestation range of 1 to 5 per cent and fairly resistant viz., Local Long and
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8 with infestation between 6 to 10 per cent.
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1, Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42, Shalimar
Brinjal Long -208 and Shalimar Brinjal Long -217 fall in tolerant category
exhibiting infestation ranging from 11 to 16 per cent. Susceptible category
includes the genotypes viz., Dilruba-2, Brinjal Purple Long and Brinjal Oblong
exhibited infestation between 17 to 20 per cent. However, Shalimar Brinjal
Hybrid-1 and Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2 fall into highly susceptible category and
suffered infestation more than 21 per cent.
Similarly on the basis of shoot damage (Table 7) all the twelve
varieties/genotype screened fall into two categories viz., resistant which includes
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1, Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42, Local Long,

36
Table-5 :
Different categories of resistance of brinjal varieties/genotypes
to shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee) on
number basis during 2011
S.
No.
Categories/Genotypes
Mean rating
of infestation
(per cent)
Mean fruit
infestation on
number basis
(per cent)
1 Entries with Highly Resistant category
-
0
2 Entries with Resistant categories
(1-5)
Brinjal-85
3.30
a
(11.92)
Local Long
5.15
b
(12.71)
3 Entries with Fairly Resistant categories
(6-10)
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8
8.33
c
(16.70)
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1
10.08
c
(16.72)
4 Entries with Tolerant categories
(11-16)
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42
11.11
d
(18.90)
Shalimar Brinjal Long-208
12.50
d
(19.43)
Shalimar Brinjal Long-217
14.28
e
(22.07)
Dilruba-2
16.60
f
(24.91)
Brinjal Purple Long
16.63
f
(24.31)
5 Entries with Susceptible categories
(17-20)
Brinjal Oblong
18.18
f
(25.20)
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2
20.00
g
(26.06)
6 Entries with Highly Susceptible
categories
(21)
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1
23.07
h
(28.48)
CD
(p = 0.05)
= 1.77
Each figure is the mean of three replicate
Data in parenthesis is angular transformed value
The value in individual columns superscripted by similar letter(s) don't differ significantly

37
Table-6 :
Different categories of resistance of brinjal varieties/genotypes
to shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee) on
number basis during 2011
S.
No.
Categories/Genotypes
Mean rating
of infestation
(per cent)
Mean fruit
infestation on
weight basis
(per cent)
1
Entries with Highly Resistant categories
0
0
2
Entries with Resistant categories
(1-5)
Brinjal-85
3.29
a
(11.90)
3
Entries with Fairly Resistant categories
(6-10)
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8
8.29
b
(16.65)
Local Long
6.71
b
(14.64)
4
Entries with Tolerant categories
(11-16)
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1
11.50
c
(19.81)
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42
12.90
c
(21.06)
Shalimar Brinjal Long-208
13.50
d
(21.54)
Shalimar Brinjal Long-217
14.70
d
(22.53)
5
Entries with Susceptible categories
17-20
Dilruba-2
17.00
e
(24.36)
Brinjal Purple Long
17.40
e
(24.57)
Brinjal Oblong
18.50
e
(25.43)
6
Entries with Highly Susceptible categories
(21)
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2
22.50
f
(28.26)
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1
21.28
g
(27.48)
CD
(p = 0.05)
= 1.83
Each figure is the mean of three replicate
Data in parenthesis is angular transformed value
The value in individual columns superscripted by similar letter(s) do not differ significantly

38
Table-7 : Different categories of resistance of brinjal varieties/genotypes to
shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee) on shoot basis
during 2011
S.
No.
Categories/Genotypes
Mean rating of
infestation
(per cent)
Mean shoot
infestation.
(per cent)
1 Entries with Highly Resistant categories
-
0
2 Entries with Resistant categories
(1-5)
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42
5.34
c
(13.34)
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1
5.10
c
(13.02)
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8
4.96
b
(12.82)
Local Long
4.60
b
(12.62)
Brinjal-85
2.34
a
(6.91)
3 Entries with Fairly Resistant categories
(6-10)
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1
9.10
g
(17.53)
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2
7.70
f
(16.08)
Brinjal Oblong
7.50
f
(15.88)
Brinjal Purple Long
7.50
f
(15.88)
Dilruba-2
6.97
e
(15.75)
Shalimar Brinjal Long-217
6.70
e
(14.55)
Shalimar Brinjal Long- 208
6.20
d
(14.37)
4 Entries with Tolerant categories
11-16
0
5 Entries with Susceptible categories
17-20
0
6 Entries with Highly Susceptible categories
21
0
CD
(p = 0.05)
= 0.37
Each figure is the mean of three replicate
Data in parenthesis is angular transformed value
The value in individual columns superscripted by similar letter(s) do not differ significantly

39
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8 and Brinjal-85 exhibiting shoot infestation
between 1 to 5 per cent. Whileas, genotypes viz., Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1,
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2, Brinjal Oblong, Brinjal Purple Long, Dilruba-2,
Shalimar Brinjal Long -208 and Shalimar Brinjal Long -217 fall in fairly resistant
category with shoot infestation between 6 to 10 per cent. However, none of the
twelve varieties/genotypes screened fall in tolerant, susceptible or highly
susceptible category.
4.2
Morphological
and
biochemical
characteristics
of
brinjal
varieties/genotypes exhibiting some degrees of tolerance against
Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee
4.2.1 Morphological characters of brinjal varieties/genotypes in relation to
resistance to Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee
In order to determine a relationship between plant characters and their
relative susceptibility to L. orbonalis, all the 12 brinjal varieties/genotypes were
raised at the Experimental Area of Division of Entomology, SKUAST-K,
Shalimar in Randomized Block Design, each with three replications. The results
obtained are presented in Table 8.
4.2.1.1 Fruit length (cm)
Fruit length ranged from 7.52 to 17.19 cm. Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1
(highly susceptible) and Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2 (susceptible) exhibited
maximum damage corresponding to maximum fruit length of 16.45 and 17.19 cm,
respectively. But, Brinjal-85 (resistant) and Local Long (resistant) recorded low
infestation with fruit length of 7.52 and 11.01 cm, respectively (Table 8).
Genotype viz., Brinjal Oblong, Brinjal-85, Brinjal Purple Long and Dilruba-2
were significantly at par in respect of fruit length of 7.52, 7.52, 9.48 and 10.05
cm. Similarly, genotypes viz., Local Long, Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8,
Shalimar Brinjal Long-217, Shalimar Brinjal Long-208 and Shalimar Brinjal
Purple Round-1 having fruit length of 11.01, 11.16, 12.40, 13.10 and 14.20 cm,
respectively were also significantly at par. Similar observations have been
recorded in case genotypes viz., Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42, Shalimar
Brinjal Hybrid-1 and Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2.

40
Table-8 :
Morphological characters of different brinjal varieties/genotypes screened during 2011
S.
No
Genotypes
Fruit
Length
FL (cm)
Fruit
Diameter
FD (cm)
Shape
Index.
(FL/FD)
Volume
Index
FL x FD
(cm
2
)
Length of
peripheral
seedring
LPS (cm)
Length
of
seedless
area
LSA
(cm)
Ratio of
length of
peripheral
seed ring
(RLPS)
LPS/FL
Ratio of
length of
seedless
area
(RLSA)
LSA/FL
Pericarp
thickness
(mm)
Plant
height
(cm)
Number
of
branches/
plant
Numb
er of
fruits/
plant
Yield/
plant
(kgs)
1
Shalimar Brinjal Long-217
12.40
b
4.47
a
2.24
a
44.91
a
5.10
c
6.47
c
0.41
b
0.52
c
6.22
c
95
d
15
c
14
b
1.30
a
2
Local Long
11.01
b
5.60
b
2.07
a
63.43
b
7.33
c
3.32
a
0.66
d
0.30
a
6.40
c
102
e
10
a
13
a
1.40
a
3
Brinjal Oblong
7.52
a
4.76
b
1.57
a
35.67
a
4.03
b
7.36
c
0.53
c
0.97
f
8.04
d
67
b
15
c
11
a
1.60
b
4
Brinjal Purple Long
9.48
a
7.35
d
1.45
a
79.64
c
4.34
b
7.23
c
0.45
b
0.76
e
7.27
c
97
e
17
c
22
d
1.60
b
5
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42
14.86
c
7.00
c
1.85
a
92.87
c
6.61
d
5.09
b
0.44
b
0.34
a
4.91
b
90
d
12
b
18
c
1.60
b
6
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1
16.45
c
4.01
a
4.32
b
69.33
b
3.29
a
12.49
d
0.20
a
0.76
e
8.65
d
100
e
16
d
26
d
2.10
c
7
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8 11.16
b
3.35
a
4.37
b
46.92
a
7.16
e
3.95
a
0.64
c
0.35
a
4.14
a
69
b
11
a
12
a
1.50
b
8
Dilruba-2
10.05
a
4.50
a
2.15
a
43.19
a
4.62
b
7.14
c
0.45
b
0.71
d
5.95
b
95
d
16
c
10
a
1.11
a
9
Brinjal-85
7.52
a
5.11
b
2.35
a
54.10
a
6.01
d
3.22
a
0.79
e
0.42
b
3.30
a
60
a
9
a
10
a
1.10
a
10 Shalimar Brinjal Long-208
13.10
b
3.77
a
3.33
b
47.36
a
6.20
d
6.41
c
0.47
b
0.49
c
5.14
b
93
d
13
b
16
b
1.40
a
11 Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2
17.19
c
3.60
a
5.47
c
59.23
b
3.63
a
11.90
d
0.21
a
0.69
d
8.11
d
95
d
17
c
20
c
1.90
c
12 Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1 14.20
b
3.39
a
4.42
b
50.56
a
6.93
e
5.00
b
0.48
b
0.35
a
4.00
a
80
c
12
b
12
a
1.20
a
CD
(P= 0.05)
3.37
1.30
1.45
20.10
0.62
1.01
0.11
0.061
1.06
6.20
2.07
3.27
0.31
Each figure is the mean of three replicate
The value in individual columns superscripted by similar letter(s) do not differ significantly

41
4.2.1.2 Fruit diameter (cm)
Fruit diameter ranged from minimum of 3.35 to maximum of 7.35 cm.
Fruit diameter of 7.35 cm was recorded in Brinjal Purple Long followed by 7.00
cm in Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42 and both were significantly at par to each
other. Fruit diameter of 3.35, 3.39, 3.60, 3.77, 4.01, 4.47 and 4.50 cm was
recorded in Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8, Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1,
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2, Shalimar Brinjal Long-208, Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-
1, Shalimar Brinjal Long-217 and Dilruba-2, respectively. Similarly, Brinjal
Oblong, Brinjal-85 and Local Long recorded were significantly at par with each
other in respect of fruit diameter of 4.76, 5.11 and 5.60cm (Table 8).
4.2.1.3 Shape and volume index
Maximum shape index of 5.47 was recorded in genotype Shalimar Brinjal
Hybrid-2 which is statistically different from other genotypes. While as, minimum
of 1.45 was recorded in Brinjal Purple Long which is at par with Brinjal Oblong,
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42, Local Long, Dilruba-2, Shalimar Brinjal Long-
217 and Brinjal-85 having shape index of 1.57, 1.85, 2.07, 2.15, 2.24 and 2.35 cm,
respectively. Genotypes viz., Shalimar Brinjal Long-208, Shalimar Brinjal
Hybrid-1, Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8 and Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1
recorded the shape index of 3.33, 4.32, 4.37 and 4.42, respectively and
significantly at par.
Volume index ranged from minimum of 35.67 cm
2
in Brinjal Oblong to
the maximum of 92.87 cm
2
in Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42. However, volume
index of Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42 (92.87cm
2
) is significantly at par with
Brinjal Purple Long (79.64 cm
2
). Volume index of 43.19, 44.91, 46.92, 47.36,
50.56 and 54.10 cm
2
were significantly at par in respect of Dilruba-2, Shalimar
Brinjal Long-217, Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8, Shalimar Brinjal Long-208,
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1 and Brinjal-85. Similarly, Shalimar Brinjal

42
Hybrid-2, Local Long and Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1 were also at par and
recorded the volume index of 59.23, 63.43 and 69.33 cm
2
, respectively (Table 8).
4.2.1.4 Length of peripheral seed ring (cm)
The length of peripheral seedring was maximum (7.33cm) in genotype
Local Long (resistant) which is significantly at par with Shalimar Brinjal Purple
Round-1 (6.93cm) and Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8 (7.16cm). However,
minimum length (3.29cm) of peripheral seedring was recorded in highly
susceptible Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1 which was also at par with minimum length
(3.63cm) in respect of susceptible Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2. Brinjal Oblong,
Brinjal Purple Long and Dilruba-2 supported length of peripheral seedring of
4.03, 4.34 and 4.62cm and were found to be significantly at par to each other.
Brinjal-85, Shalimar Brinjal Long-208 and Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long -42
recorded length of peripheral seedring of 6.01, 6.20 and 6.61cm, respectively.
However, Shalimar Brinjal Long-217 recorded length of peripheral seed ring of
5.10 cm which differed significantly from all other genotypes.
4.2.1.5 Ratio of length of peripheral seedring
Ratio of length of peripheral seedring was maximum (0.79) in resistant
genotype Brinjal-85 and differs significantly from Local Long (0.66). Whileas,
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1(highly susceptible) recorded minimum ratio of 0.20
and was at par with susceptible Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2 (0.21).Further it was
observed that the genotypes viz., Shalimar Brinjal Long-217, Shalimar Brinjal
Purple Long-42, Dilruba-2, Brinjal Purple Long, Shalimar Brinjal Long-208 and
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1 had the ratios of 0.41, 0.44, 0.45, 0.45, 0.47 and
0.48, respectively were significantly at par to each other. Similar trends were also
observed in case of genotypes viz., Brinjal Oblong and Shalimar Brinjal Purple
Round-8 which exhibited ratios of 0.53 and 0.64.

43
4.2.1.6 Length of seedless area (cm)
Maximum length of seedless area of 12.49 cm was observed in Shalimar
Brinjal Hybrid-1(highly susceptible) which is significantly at par with Shalimar
Brinjal Hybrid-2 (susceptible) wherein 11.90 cm of length of seedless area was
recorded and differs from all other genotypes. However, minimum length of
seedless area (3.22cm) was found in Brinjal-85(resistant) which was at par with
Local Long (3.32cm) and Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8 (3.95cm). Genotypes
viz., Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1 and Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42
recording length of seedless area of 5.00 and 5.09cm and were at par to each
other. Length of seedless area of 6.41, 6.47, 7.14, 7.23 and 7.36 cm was recorded
in Shalimar Brinjal Long-208, Shalimar Brinjal Long-217, Dilruba-2, Brinjal
Purple Long and Brinjal Oblong, respectively (Table 8).
4.2.1.7 Ratio of length of seedless area (RSLA)
Maximum ratio of length of seedless area of 0.97 was recorded in Brinjal
Oblong and differs significantly from all other genotypes. Minimum RSLA of
0.30 was observed in Local Long (resistant) which was at par with 0.34, 0.35 and
0.35 recorded in Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42, Shalimar Brinjal Purple
Round-8 and Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1, respectively. Shalimar Brinjal
Hybrid-1(highly susceptible) and Brinjal Purple Long (susceptible) recorded
RSLA of 0.76. But the genotypes viz., Shalimar Brinjal Long-208 (0.49) and
Shalimar Brinjal Long-217(0.52) were at par to each other. Similar observations
were also recorded for genotypes Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid -2 and Dilruba-2.
However, the genotype Brinjal-85 recording the RSLA of 0.42 which differed
statistically from all other genotypes screened.
4.2.1.8 Pericarp thickness (mm)
Maximum pericarp thickness of 8.65 mm was recorded in genotype
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1(highly susceptible) which was significantly at par with
susceptible Brinjal Oblong (8.04 mm) and Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2 (8.11mm).

44
While as, minimum pericarp thickness was observed in Brinjal-85 (3.30 mm)
which was at par with Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1(4.00 mm) and Shalimar
Brinjal Purple Round-8 (4.14 mm). Pericarp thickness of 4.91mm was observed in
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42 which is at par with Shalimar Brinjal Long-208
(5.14 mm) and Dilruba-2 (5.95 mm). Likewise, genotype Shalimar Brinjal Long-
217 (6.22mm) was at par with Local Long (6.40 mm) and Brinjal Purple Long
(7.27mm).
4.2.1.9 Yield per plant (kg)
Yield per plant was recorded maximum in highly susceptible Shalimar
Brinjal Hybrid-1 (2.10kg) which was significantly at par with susceptible
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2 (1.90 kg). However, minimum yield per plant was
recorded in resistant Brinjal-85 (1.10kg) which was at par with Dilruba-2 (1.11
kg), Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1 (1.20 kg), Shalimar Brinjal Long-217 (1.30
kg), Shalimar Brinjal Long-208 (1.40 kg) and Local Long (1.40 kg). Similarly,
genotypes viz., Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8 (1.50kg), Brinjal Oblong (1.60
kg), Brinjal Purple Long (1.60 kg) and Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42 (1.60 kg)
were also statistically at par to each other (Table 8).
4.2.1.10 Number of fruits per plant
Maximum numbers of fruits (26.0) per plant were recorded in highly
susceptible Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1 which was significantly different from all
other genotypes. Whileas, minimum were recorded in genotype Brinjal-85 and
Dilruba-2 (10 each) which are at par with Brinjal Oblong (11.0), Shalimar Brinjal
Purple Round-1 (12.0), Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8 (12.0) and Local Long
(13.0). Fourteen and sixteen fruits per plant were harvested from Shalimar Brinjal
Long-217 and Shalimar Brinjal Long-208, respectively and were statistically at
par to each other. Similarly, Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42 and Shalimar
Brinjal Hybrid-2 were also at par with 18 and 20 fruits per plant, respectively.

45
However, Shalimar Brinjal Long recorded 22 fruits per plant and differed
significantly from all other genotypes.
4.2.1.11 Plant height (cm)
Maximum plant height of 102 cm was observed in Local Long which was
significantly at par with plant height of 100 cm recorded in Shalimar Brinjal
Hybrid-1 whereas, minimum plant height of 60 cm was observed in Brinjal-85.
Plant height of 90 cm was recorded in Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42 which
was at par with Shalimar Brinjal Long-208 (93cm), Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2
(95cm), Dilruba-2 (95cm) and Shalimar Brinjal Long-217 (95cm). Plant heights
of 67 and 69cm recorded in Brinjal Oblong and Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8
were statistically at par to each other. However, plant heights of 80 and 97 cm
were recorded in Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1 and Brinjal Purple Long,
respectively which differed statistically (Table 8).
4.2.1.12 Number of branches per plant
The number of branches per plant (Table 8) in genotypes viz., (Brinjal
Purple Long, Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2); (Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1, Dilruba-2);
(Brinjal Oblong, Shalimar Brinjal Long-217) and (Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-
42, Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1) was 17, 16, 15 and 12 in each group which
differ significantly to each other. Genotypes viz., Brinjal-85, Local Long and
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8 recorded 9, 10 and 11 branches per plant.
Shalimar Brinjal Long-208 recorded 13 branches per plant and was at par with
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42 and Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1.
4.2.1.13 Flower and fruit colour
Flower and fruit colour of Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1 (highly susceptible)
was purple and light purple while as, in Brinjal-85 (resistant ) it was light purple
and purple, respectively (Table 9).

46
4.2.1.14 Roughness/smoothness of calyx
Calyx of Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1(highly susceptible) and Shalimar
Brinjal Hybrid-2 (susceptible) was smooth (Si) with no spines, but calyx of
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1 and Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8 were also

47
Table-9 :
Morphological characters of different brinjal varieties/genotypes during 2011
S.
No.
Varieties/hybrids
Flower colour
Fruit colour
Roughness or
smoothness of
calyx
Shoot hairs
(1 cm of
Shoot
length)
15 DAT
Shoot hairs
(1cm of shoot
length)
45 DAT
Leaf
hairs
(1 cm
2
)
15 DAT
Leaf
hairs.
(1 cm
2
)
45 DAT
1
Shalimar Brinjal Long -217
Whitish purple
Whitish
Purple
Smooth
194.8
d
254.8
b
263.4
c
288.1
c
2
Local Long
Purple
Light purple
Light rough
220.0
f
268.3
b
337.2
d
355.8
e
3
Brinjal Oblong
Light purple
Dark purple
Smooth
176.3
b
196.0
a
217.4
b
225.4
b
4
Brinjal Purple Long
Light purple
Purple
Smooth
182.2
c
230.1
b
222.4
b
230.2
b
5
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long -42
Light purple
Purple
Smooth
208.4
e
247.3
b
313.1
d
335.8
d
6
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1
Purple
Light Purple
Smooth
155.0
a
166.0
a
180.6
a
188.7
a
7
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8
Light pink
Purple
Smooth, few
spines
215.1
e
273.3
c
306.8
d
337.8
d
8
Dilruba-2
Whitish purple
Light purple
Smooth
187.9
c
247.2
b
225.8
b
236.8
b
9
Brinjal-85
Light purple.
purple
Rough
222.7
f
294.5
c
350.2
e
368.3
e
10
Shalimar Brinjal Long-208
purple
Purple
Smooth
202.2
d
249.2
b
286.4
c
328.6
d
11
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2
Light Purple
Light Purple
Smooth
170.0
b
172.2
a
213.4
a
220.8
b
12
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1
Light purple
Purple
Smooth, few
spines
211.4
e
232.7
b
318.0
d
331.3
d
CD
(P= 0.05)
10.3
39.8
33.6
25.6
Each figure is the mean of three replicate; The value in individual columns superscripted by similar letter(s) do not differ significantly

48
smooth with few spines. However, in resistant genotypes viz., Local Long and
Brinjal-85 the calyx were light rough and rough (Ri), respectively with
considerable spine density (Table 9).
4.2.1.15 Shoot and leaf hairs
The maximum shoot hairs/cm (222.7) at 15days after transplanting (Table
9) was recorded in Brinjal-85 (resistant) which were at par with resistant Local
Long (220). But, minimum shoot hairs/cm of (155.0) were observed in Shalimar
Brinjal Hybrid-1 (highly susceptible). Shoot hairs/cm at 45 DAT were also
maximum (294.5) in Brinjal-85 and was significantly at par with fairly resistant
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8 (273.3). Minimum shoot hairs/cm (166.0) were
recorded in Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1 and was at par with Shalimar Brinjal
Hybrid-2 (172.2) and Brinjal Oblong (196.0).
Leaf hairs/cm
2
at 15DAT was maximum (350.2) in resistant Brinjal-85
which was significantly different from all other genotypes. Minimum leaf
hairs/cm
2
(180.6) was recorded in highly susceptible Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1
which was at par with susceptible Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2 (213.4). Leaf
hairs/cm
2
at 45 DAT were recorded maximum (368.3) in Brinjal-85 which was at
par with Local Long (355.8) while as, minimum leaf hairs/cm
2
were observed in
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1 (188.7) which differed significantly from Shalimar
Brinjal Hybrid-2 (220.8) (Table 9). Leaf hairs/cm
2
were comparatively more in
number than shoot hairs/cm.
4.2.2 Biochemical characters of brinjal varieties/genotypes in relation to
resistance to Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee
Brinjal genotypes screened not only varied in their percentage borer
infestation but also varied for other biochemical characteristics.
In order to determine relationship between plant characters and their
relative susceptibility to L.orbonalis, all the 12 brinjal varieties/genotypes were
raised at the Experimental Area of Division of Entomology, SKUAST-Kashmir,

49
Shalimar in Randomized Block Design with three replications each and
observations in respect of following biochemical characters were recorded. The
results obtained are presented in Tables 10, 11 and 12.
4.2.2.1 Phenol
Quantitative analysis of shoots and fruits of 12 genotypes of brinjal were
carried out to determine the total phenol content by Folin-Ciocalteu reagent
method (Bray and Thorpe, 1954). Shoots samples were collected for analysis at
two different growth stages one at 15 DAT and another at 45 DAT while as, fruits
samples were collected and analyzed at 45 and 70 DAT, respectively.
At initial stage (15 DAT) total phenol content in shoots ranged from
minimum of 0.73±0.020 to the maximum of 1.93±0.038 mg/g of dry weight
(Table 10). Genotypes Brinjal-85 (resistant) and Local Long (fairly resistant)
registered total phenol content of 1.93±0.038 and 1.61±0.059 mg/g, respectively
while as, Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1(highly susceptible) and Shalimar Brinjal
Hybrid-2 (susceptible) recorded the total phenol content of 0.73± 0.020 and
0.84±0.003 mg/g of dry weight, respectively.
At final stage (45 DAT) total phenol ranged from minimum of 0.88±0.030
mg/g to the maximum of 2.30±0.057 mg/g of dry weight, respectively. Shalimar
Brinjal Hybrid-1 and Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2 exhibited the maximum shoot
infestation of 9.10 and 7.70 per cent, corresponding to total phenol content of
0.88±0.030 and 0.98±0.015 mg/g, respectively at 45 DAT. Genotypes viz., Brinjal
Oblong, Brinjal Purple Long, Dilruba-2, Shalimar Brinjal Long-217, Shalimar
Brinjal Long-208, Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42, Shalimar Brinjal Purple
Round-1 and Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8 recorded the shoot damage of 7.50,
7.50, 6.97, 6.70, 6.20, 5.34, 5.10 and 4.96 per cent, in response of the total phenol
content of 1.16±0.029, 1.31±0.044, 1.39±0.030, 1.49±0.038, 1.58±0.041,
1.67±0.007, 1.81±0.098 and 1.93±0.133 mg/g of dry weight, respectively at final
stages of shoot growth. However, minimum shoot infestation of 2.34 and 4.60 per

50
Table-10 :
Total phenol content of shoots and fruits of different brinjal
varieties/genotypes screened against shoot and fruit borer
(Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee) during 2011
S. No.
Genotypes
Mean
borer
infestation
per shoot
(per cent)
Shoots
Mean fruit
infestation
on number
basis
(per cent)
Fruits
15 DAT 45 DAT
45 DAT 70 DAT
1. Shalimar Brinjal Long-217
6.70
e
(14.55)
1.32
c
±0.027
1.49
d
±0.038
14.28
e
(22.07)
0.88
b
±0.011
0.97
c
±0.033
2. Local Long
4.60
b
(12.62)
1.61
e
±0.060
2.09
h
±0.069
5.15
b
(12.71)
1.36
d
±0.072
1.45
e
±0.035
3. Brinjal Oblong
7.50
f
(15.88)
0.98
b
±0.027
1.16
b
±0.029
18.18
f
(25.20)
0.72
a
±0.065
0.78
a
±0.015
4. Brinjal Purple Long
7.50
f
(15.88)
1.19
c
±0.055
1.31
c
±0.044
16.63
f
(24.31)
0.78
b
±0.049
0.83
b
±0.014
5.
Shalimar Brinjal Purple
Long-42
5.34
c
(13.34)
1.50
d
±0.019
1.67
e
±0.0072
11.11
d
(18.90)
1.10
c
±0.056
1.21
d
±0.059
6. Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1
9.10
g
(17.53)
0.73
a
±0.020
0.88
a
±0.030
23.07
h
(28.48)
0.58
a
±0.006
0.67
a
±0.023
7.
Shalimar Brinjal Purple
Round-8
4.96
b
(12.82)
1.61
e
±0.059
1.93
g
±0.133
8.33
c
(16.70)
1.31
d
±0.015
1.29
d
±0.060
8. Dilruba-2
6.97
e
(15.75)
1.30
c
±0.035
1.39
c
±0.030
16.60
f
(24.19)
0.81
b
±0.024
0.87
b
±0.013
9. Brinjal-85
2.34
a
(6.91)
1.93
f
±0.038
2.30
i
±0.057
3.30
a
(11.92)
1.41
d
±0.050
1.51
e
±0.022
10. Shalimar Brinjal Long-208
6.20
d
(14.37)
1.41
d
±0.037
1.58
d
±0.041
12.50
d
(19.43)
1.06
c
±0.069
1.07
c
±0.060
11. Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2
7.70
f
(16.08)
0.84
a
±0.003
0.98
a
±0.015
20.00
g
(26.06)
0.66
a
±0.068
0.72
a
±0.011
12.
Shalimar Brinjal Purple
Round-1
5.10
c
(13.02)
1.54
d
±0.021
1.81
f
±0.098
10.08
c
(16.72)
1.20
c
±0.001
1.24
d
±0.060
CD
(P= 0.05)
0.37
0.14
0.11
1.77
0.14
0.13
Each figure is the mean of three replicate
The value in individual columns superscripted by similar letter(s) do not differ significantly

51
Regression equation :
Y = 0.24 + 0.005X
R
2
= 0.974
Standard curve for phenols estimated (absorbance vs concentration) by Folin-Ciocalteu reagent
method as given by Bray and Thrope (1954).
Fig. 1 : Standard curve for the estimation of phenols in brinjal during 2011

50
cent was recorded in Brinjal-85 (resistant) and Local Long (fairly resistant) with
the maximum total phenol content of 2.30±0.057 and 2.09±0.069 mg/g of dry
weight at final stages of shoot growth, respectively.
The total phenols in brinjal fruits at 45 DAT ranged from minimum of
0.58±0.006 mg/g of dry weight in (highly susceptible) Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1
to the maximum of 1.41±0.050 mg/g in Brinjal-85 (resistant). Total phenol
content at 70 DAT was comparatively higher than 45 DAT and ranged from
0.67±0.023 to 1.51±0.022. The genotypes viz., Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2, Brinjal
Oblong, Brinjal Purple Long, Diruba-2, Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42,
Shalimar Brinjal Long-217, Shalimar Brinjal Long-208, Shalimar Brinjal Purple
Round-8, Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1 and Local Long, exhibited the fruit
infestation of 20.00, 18.18, 16.63, 16.60, 14.28, 12.50, 11.11, 10.08, 8.33 and 5.15
per cent corresponding to the phenol content of 0.72±0.011, 0.78±0.015,
0.83±0.014, 0.87±0.013, 1.21±0.059, 0.97±0.033, 1.07±0.060, 1.29±0.060,
1.24±0.060 and 1.45±0.035 mg/g dry weight, respectively. However, at initial
stages (45DAT) genotype groups viz., (Brinjal Oblong, Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-
1, Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2); (Shalimar Brinjal Long-217, Brinjal Purple Long,
Diruba-2); ( Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42, Shalimar Brinjal Long-208,
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1) and (Local Long, Shalimar Brinjal Purple
Round-8, Brinjal-85) differed significantly in total phenol content. Similarly, at
final stages (70DAT) total phenol content in genotype groups viz., (Shalimar
Brinjal Hybrid-1, Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2, Brinjal Oblong); (Brinjal Purple
Long, Dilruba-2); (Shalimar Brinjal Long-217, Shalimar Brinjal Long-208);
(Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42, Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1, Shalimar
Brinjal Purple Round-8) and (Local Long, Brinjal -85) also differed significantly
(Table 10).
The results also indicate that there were substantial increases in the total
phenol content in response to the advancement in plant age.

51
4.2.2.2 Sugars
Total sugars in shoot and fruit samples were estimated by Anthrone
method as given by Sadasivan and Manickam (1992).
In initial stages (15 DAT) total sugar content in shoots ranged from
minimum of 5.45±0.348 mg/g in Brinjal-85 (resistant) to the maximum of
11.47±0.829 mg/g of dry weight in Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1(highly susceptible)
(Table 11). However, at final stages (45 DAT) it was comparatively less and
ranged from minimum of 3.03±0.120 in Brinjal-85 to maximum of 9.5±0.116
mg/g dry weight in Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid -1 and suffered the shoot infestation
of 9.10 and 2.34 per cent, respectively. Genotypes viz., Brinjal Oblong, Brinjal
Purple Long, Dilruba-2, Shalimar Brinjal Long -217, Shalimar Brinjal Long -208,
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42, Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1 and Shalimar
Brinjal Purple Round-8, recorded the shoot damage of 7.50, 7.50, 6.97, 6.70, 6.20,
5.34, 5.10 and 4.96 per cent, corresponding to the total sugar content of
8.24±0.085, 7.36±0.137, 6.86±0.067, 6.00±0.012, 5.96±0.015, 5.24±0.088,
4.86±0.042 and 4.05±0.135 mg/g of dry weight, respectively at 45 DAT.
In fruits total sugars were comparatively higher than shoots. It ranges from
the minimum of 5.59±0.309 in Brinjal-85 (resistant) to the maximum of
13.18±0.252 mg/g of dry weight in Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid -1 (highly
susceptible) at initial stage of fruit growth (45DAT).
However, at final stages (70 DAT) total sugar content in fruits ranged from
minimum of 5.87±0.489 in resistant Brinjal-85 to the maximum of 14.63±0.669
mg/g of dry weight in highly susceptible genotype Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1and
exhibited the fruit infestation on number basis of 3.30 and 23.07 per cent,
respectively. Genotypes viz., Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2, Brinjal Oblong, Brinjal
Purple Long, Dilruba-2, Shalimar Brinjal Long-217, Shalimar Brinjal Long -208,
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long 42, Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1, Shalimar
Brinjal Purple Round-8 and Local Long recorded the fruit infestation of 20.00,

52
Table-11:
Total sugar content of shoots and fruits of different brinjal
varieties/genotypes screened against shoot and fruit borer
(Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee) during 2011
S. No.
Genotypes
Mean
borer
infestation
per shoot
(per cent)
Shoots
Mean fruit
infestation
on number
basis
(per cent)
Fruits
15 DAT 45 DAT
45 DAT 70 DAT
1. Shalimar Brinjal Long-217
6.70
e
(14.55)
8.08
c
±0.427
6.00
f
±0.012
14.28
e
(22.07)
9.37
d
±0.404
9.44
c
±0.164
2. Local Long
4.60
b
(12.62)
5.80
a
±0.498
3.36
b
±0.018
5.15
b
(12.71)
6.16
a
±0.402
6.22
a
±0.408
3. Brinjal Oblong
7.50
f
(15.88)
9.59
d
±0.347
8.24
i
±0.085
18.18
f
(25.20)
11.49
e
±0.578
12.51
e
±0.691
4. Brinjal Purple Long
7.50
f
(15.88)
8.91
d
±0.500
7.36
h
±0.137
16.63
f
(24.31)
10.80
e
±0.564
11.36
d
±0.394
5.
Shalimar Brinjal Purple
Long-42
5.34
c
(13.34)
7.17
b
±0.587
5.24
e
±0.088
11.11
d
(18.90)
7.99
c
±0.184
8.14
b
±0.327
6. Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1
9.10
g
(17.53)
11.47
f
±0.826
9.50
j
±0.116
23.07
h
(28.48)
13.18
i
±0.252
14.63
f
±0.669
7.
Shalimar Brinjal Purple
Round-8
4.96
b
(12.82)
6.07
a
±0.452
4.05
c
±0.135
8.33
c
(16.70)
6.64
b
±0.355
6.82
a
±0.366
8. Dilruba-2
6.97
e
(15.75)
8.28
c
±0.520
6.86
g
±0.067
16.60
f
(24.19)
9.73
d
±0.345
10.47
c
±0.130
9. Brinjal-85
2.34
a
(6.91)
5.45
a
±0.348
3.03
a
±0.120
3.30
a
(11.92)
5.59
a
±0.309
5.87
a
±0.489
10. Shalimar Brinjal Long-208
6.20
d
(14.37)
7.50
c
±0.551
5.96
f
±0.015
12.50
d
(19.43)
8.60
c
±0.271
9.13
b
±0.296
11. Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2
7.70
f
(16.08)
10.53
e
±0.751
9.47
j
±0.176
20.00
g
(26.06)
12.73
f
±0.113
14.06
f
±0.393
12.
Shalimar Brinjal Purple
Round-1
5.10
c
(13.02)
6.41
b
±0.438
4.86
d
±0.042
10.08
c
(16.72)
7.19
b
±0.170
7.41
b
±0.301
CD
(P= 0.05)
0.37
0.78
0.29
1.77
0.71
1.03
Each figure is the mean of three replicate
The value in individual columns superscripted by similar letter(s) do not differ significantly

53
Regression equation :
Y = 0.015+0.005 X
R
2
= 0.977
Standard curve for sugars estimated (absorbance vs concentration) by Anthrone method as given
by Sadasivam and Manickam (1992).
Fig. 2 : Standard curve for the estimation of sugars in brinjal genotypes
during the year 2011

53
18.18, 16.63, 16.60, 14.28, 12.50, 11.11, 10.08, 8.33 and 5.15 per cent on number
basis corresponding to the total sugar content of 14.06±0.393, 12.51±0.691,
11.36±0.394, 10.47±0.130, 9.44±0.164, 9.13±0.296, 8.14±0.327, 7.41±0.301,
6.82±0.366 and 6.22±0.408 mg/g of dry weight, respectively.
Total sugar content in shoots and fruits of all the 12 genotypes differ
significantly however, lower content was estimated in resistant genotypes as
compared to higher content in highly susceptible genotypes. The initial level of
total sugar content amongst the twelve varieties/genotypes increased significantly
from 5.45±0.348 to 11.47 ±0.826 mg/g in shoots, but at final stages it decreased
on maturity from 9.50±0.116 to 3.03±0.120 mg/g dry weight. However, with
maturity in fruits total sugar content at initial and final stages increased
significantly from 5.59±0.309 to 13.18±0.252 and 5.87±0.489 to 14.63±0.669
mg/g on dry weight basis, respectively.
4.2.2.3 Moisture
Moisture determination was done at harvest by a method as given by
JAOAC (1977).
The total moisture content estimated in all the twelve varieties/genotypes
ranged from 78.72 to 94.00 per cent at the time of harvest with highest moisture
content of 94.0 per cent in Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1(highly susceptible) which
was statistically at par with 93.20 per cent recorded in Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2
(susceptible) and supported supporting the shoot infestation of 9.10 and 7.70 per
cent, respectively. Lower moisture content of 78.72 per cent were recorded in
Brinjal-85 (resistant) which was at par with 79.66 per cent estimated in Local
Long (fairly resistant) supporting the shoot infestation of 2.34 and 4.60 per cent,
respectively. Genotypes viz., (Dilruba-2, Brinjal Oblong, Brinjal Purple Long);
(Shalimar Brinjal Long-217, Shalimar Brinjal Long-208, Shalimar Brinjal Purple
Long-42); (Shalimar brinjal purple round-1) and (Shalimar brinjal purple round-8)
differed significantly in respect of moisture content (Table 12).

54
Table-12 :
Total moisture and ash content of different brinjal
varieties/genotypes screened against shoot and fruit borer
(Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee) during 2011
S.
No.
Genotypes
Mean shoot
infestation
(per cent)
*Mean total
moisture and ash
content
(per cent)
Moisture
Ash
1. Shalimar Brinjal Long-217
6.70
e
(14.55)
88.29
d
(70.01)
11.67
c
(19.97)
2 Local Long
4.60
b
(12.62)
79.66
a
(63.17)
12.52
d
(20.86)
3. Brinjal Oblong
7.50
f
(15.88)
91.80
e
(73.43)
10.64
b
(18.99)
4. Brinjal Purple Long
7.50
f
(15.88)
90.64
e
(72.16)
10.75
b
(19.13)
5. Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42
5.34
c
(13.34)
86.76
d
(68.59)
11.86
c
(20.16)
6. Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1
9.10
g
(17.53)
94.00
f
(75.86)
9.38
a
(17.21)
7. Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8
4.96
b
(12.82)
80.65
b
(63.89)
12.50
d
(20.69)
8. Dilruba-2
6.97
e
(15.75)
90.26
e
(71.84)
11.50
c
(19.81)
9. Brinjal-85
2.34
a
(6.91)
78.72
a
(62.51)
12.63
d
(21.1)
10. Shalimar Brinjal Long-208
6.20
d
(14.37)
88.03
d
(70.04)
11.68
c
(19.97)
11. Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2
7.70
f
(16.08)
93.20
f
(74.87)
9.75
a
(18.18)
12. Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1
5.10
c
(13.02)
84.90
c
(67.22)
12.07
c
(20.28)
CD
(P= 0.05)
0.37
1.81
0.66
*Estimated at harvest
Each figure is the mean of three replicate
Data in parenthesis is angular transformed value
The value in individual columns superscripted by similar letter(s) don't differ significantly

55
4.2.2.4 Ash
Ash content was also recorded at harvest through a method as given by
JAOAC (1977). Total ash content ranged from 9.38 to 12.63 per cent in all the
twelve genotypes screened (Table 12) with minimum content of 9.38 per cent in
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid -1 (highly susceptible) and maximum of 12.63 per cent in
Brinjal-85 (resistant). Genotypes viz., Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2, Brinjal Oblong,
Brinjal Purple Long, Dilruba-2, Shalimar Brinjal Long-217, Shalimar Brinjal
Long-208, Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42, Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1,
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8 and Local Long registered the total ash content
of 9.75, 10.64, 10.75, 11.50, 11.67, 11.68, 11.86, 12.07, 12.50 and 12.52 per cent,
respectively at harvest. Total ash content in Brinjal-85 was significantly at par
with Local Long (fairly resistant) and Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8, but
differed significantly from rest of the genotypes.
4.3
Correlation between the morphological characteristics of brinjal in
relation to infestation by Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee
Correlation between various physical characters of brinjal and infestation
of L.orbonalis is presented in Table 13. Infestation of L.orbonalis on fruit number
basis exhibited positive and significant correlation of 0.992 and 0.973 with
infestation on fruit weight and shoot basis, respectively. Fruit infestation on
number, weight and shoot basis revealed negative correlation with shape index,
length of peripheral seed ring, and ratio of length of peripheral seed ring. Similar
observation was also recorded in respect of shoot and fruit hairs at both 15 and 45
DAT. But there was a positive of (r=0.929) and (r=0.928) correlation between
fruit infestation at 1 per cent level of significance with fruit diameter and length of
seedless area, respectively. However, correlation between per cent infestation
(fruit and shoot) with volume index, ratio of length of seedless area, pericarp
thickness, plant height, number of branches, number of fruits per plant and yield
per plant were positive at 5 per cent level of confidence.

56
Table-13:
Correlations between various morphological characteristics of brinjal varieties/genotypes in relation to
susceptibility to shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee) during 2011
Mean
infestation
number
basis
(per cent)
Mean
infestation
weight
basis (per
cent)
Mean shoot
infestation
(per cent)
Fruit length
(cm)
Fruit
diameter
(cm
2
)
Shape
index
Volume
index
(cm
2
)
Length of
peripheral
seed ring
(cm)
Length of
seed less
area
(cm
2
)
Ratio of
length of
peripheral
seed ring
Ratio of
length
of
seedless
area
Pericarp
thickness
(mm)
Plant
height
(cm)
No.of
branches
per
plant
No.of
fruits per
plant
Yield per
plant
(Kgs)
Shoot
hairs 15
DAT
Shoot
hairs 45
DAT
Leaf
hairs 15
DAT
Leaf hairs
45 DAT
X1
X2
X3
X4
X5
X6
X7
X8
X9
X10
X11
X12
X13
X14
X15
X16
.X17
.X18
.X19
.X20
X1
.992
**
.973
**
.904**
.929**
-.918**
.921**
-.968
**
.928
**
-.858
*
.819
*
.822
*
.952
**
.977
**
.740
*
.945
**
-.976
**
-.895
**
-.971
**
-.956
**
X2
.956
**
.909**
.938**
-.906**
.949**
-.957
**
.923
**
-.894
**
.789
*
.837
*
.972
**
.972
**
.719
*
.931
**
-.959
**
-.905
**
-.950
**
-.936
**
X3
.970**
.669*
-.666*
.634*
-.978
**
.927
**
-.780
*
.860
**
.874
**
.908
**
.966
**
.664
*
.964
**
-.991
**
-.865
**
-.983
**
-.969
**
X4
.667*
-.696*
.675*
-.955**
.971**
-.745
*
.795*
.648*
.909**
.879*
.863*
.668*
-.845*
-.836*
-.832*
-.965**
X5
-.768
*
.605*
-.911**
.914**
-.673*
.826*
.676*
.814*
.769*
.825*
.638*
-.797*
-.798*
-.885**
-.898**
X6
.634*
-.921**
.808*
-.667*
.734*
.725*
.802*
.820*
.873*
.629*
-.803*
-.803*
-.927**
-.979**
X7
-.951**
.911**
-.702*
.657*
.699*
.685*
.765*
.667*
.625*
-.840*
-.698*
-.840*
-.989**
X8
.909
**
-.609
*
.793
*
.690
*
.785
*
.890
*
.847
*
.938
**
.982
**
-.654
*
-.686
*
-.694
*
X9
-.832
**
.696*
.809
*
.850
**
.891
**
.954
**
.984
**
-.950
**
-.920
**
-.893
**
-.884
**
X10
.648*
.656*
.808
*
.800
**
.736
*
.695
*
-.781
*
-.695
*
-.755
*
-.724
*
X11
.777
*
.764
*
.874
**
.832
*
.767
*
-.858
*
-.699
*
-.891
**
-.901
**
X12
.781
*
.859
*
.876
*
.849
*
-.885
**
-.830
*
-.859
*
-.868
**
X13
.938
**
.833
*
.857
*
-.898
**
-.829
*
-.894
**
-.864
**
X14
.920
**
.914
**
-.965
**
-.852
*
-.981
**
-.975
**
X15
.983
**
-.987
**
-.932
**
-.942
**
-.950
**
X16
-.980
**
-.913
**
-.934
**
-.925
**
X17
.908
**
.977
**
.974
**
X18
.831
*
.846
*
X19
.989
**
X20

57
4.4
Correlation coefficient between various biochemical characteristics
(phenol, sugars, moisture and ash) and infestation by Leucinodes
orbonalis Guenee:
The total phenol content in shoot and fruit was negatively correlated
(Table 14) with fruit and shoot infestation of L.orbonalis at 1 per cent level of
significance. However, there was a positive and significant correlation of 0.971
and 0.976 between shoot and fruit infestation and total sugar content at final
stages of growth. Correlation between shoot infestation and total moisture content
was positively (r= 0.980) but, it was negatively (r= -0.954) correlated with total
ash content at 1 per cent level of significance.

58
Table-14:
Correlations among various biochemical characteristics of different brinjal varieties/genotypes in relation
to susceptibility to shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee) during 2011
Mean fruit
infestation on
number basis
(per cent)
Mean fruit
infestation on
weight basis
(per cent)
Mean shoot
infestation
(per cent)
Total
Sugars in
fruit
(45 DAT)
Total
Sugars in
fruit
(70 DAT)
Total
Sugar in
shoot
(15 DAT)
Total
Sugar in
shoot (45
DAT)
Total
Phenol in
fruit
(45 DAT)
Total
Phenol in
fruit
(70 DAT)
Total
Phenol in
shoot
(15 DAT)
Total
Phenol in
shoot
(45 DAT)
Moisture
(per cent)
Ash
(per cent)
X
2
X
3
X
4
X
5
X
6
X
7
X
8
X
9
X
10
X
11
X
12
X
13
X
1
0.992**
0.973**
0.978**
0.971**
0.972**
0.981**
-0.985**
-0.988**
-0.963**
-0.963**
0.98**
-0.954**
X
2
0.951**
0.975**
0.965**
0.964**
0.981**
-0.98**
-0.981**
-0.966**
-0.993**
0.986**
-0.951**
X
3
0.979**
0.976**
0.98**
0.967**
-0.975**
-0.973**
-0.956**
-0.972**
0.957**
-0.957**
X
4
0.997**
0.995**
0.995**
-0.883*
-0.897**
-0.981**
-0.992**
0.97**
-0.982**
X
5
0.995**
0.995**
-0.972**
-0.837*
-0.979**
-0.985**
0.963**
-0.986**
X
6
0.987**
-0.971**
-0.826*
-0.981**
-0.844*
0.959**
-0.987**
X
7
-0.976**
-0.976**
-0.827*
-0.833*
0.978**
-0.831*
X
8
0.992**
-0.824*
-0.955**
0.818*
-0.938**
X
9
-0.819*
-0.814*
0.821*
-0.932**
X
10
-0.826*
0.815*
-0.832*
X
11
0.825*
-0.825*
X
12
-0.94**
*Significant at 5 per cent;
**Significant at 1 per cent

59
5 DISCUSSION
Development and use of insect resistant varieties is an integral part of
Integrated Pest Management. It provides a lot of advantages in managing the
insect pests being compatible with most of other approaches of pest management
(Dhaliwal and Dilawari, 1993). Resistant varieties can be used with other cultural
practices for an effective control of insect pests (Kogan, 1975). Involvement of
resistant varieties in pest management programme reduces the number of
insecticidal sprays thus minimizing the chance of development of resistance by
pests to the insecticides. According to Painter (1958) the use of resistant varieties
may integrate with other methods of pest control to achieve stable pest
suppression. There are several reports on the development of insect resistant
varieties in vegetable crops which can be involved in I P M programme.
Although a large number of brinjal accessions have been reported resistant
to brinjal shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee) hardly any one of
these have been involved in inheritance studies. Efforts have been made in the
present investigation to screen twelve different brinjal varieties/genotypes
including two hybrids for their relative susceptibility to L.orbonalis under natural
infestation conditions and to determine morphological and biochemical
characteristics which may be associated with various degrees of borer infestation.
5.1
Incidence and severity of brinjal important varieties/genotypes
against shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee) under
field conditions
During the present studies, the varieties/genotypes screened were
categorized as Highly Resistant, Resistant, Fairly Resistant, Tolerant, Susceptible
and Highly Susceptible corresponding to fruit infestation range of 0,1-5, 6-10, 11-
16, 17-20 and 21 per cent. Earlier different categories in percentage had been
developed by different workers and indicated as: Tolerant- 1 to 15, Moderately
Tolerant-16 to 25, Susceptible-26 to 40 and Highly Susceptible 41 (Subbaratnam
and Butani, 1981) in Bangalore; Immune- 0, Highly Resistant- 1 to 10,

60
Moderately Resistant- 11 to 20, Tolerant- 21 to 30, Susceptible- 31 to 40 and
Highly Susceptible- 41 to 50 (Mishra et al.1988) in India; Immune- 0, Resistant-1
to 15, Moderately Resistant- 16 to 30, Susceptible-31 to 45 and Highly
Susceptible 46 (Tajevathu 1991) in New Delhi; Resistant- 0, Highly Resistant-
10.1 to 15,Tolerant-15.1 to 20, Moderately Tolerant- 20.1 to 25, Susceptible- 25.1
to 30 and Highly Susceptible 25.1 (Singh and Singh, 2001) in Meghalaya;
Resistant-1 to 10, Fairly Resistant-11 to 20, Tolerant- 21 to 30, Susceptible-31 to
40 and Highly Susceptible 41 (Elanchezhyan et al. 2009) in Tamil Nadu. The
variation in the infestation categories between present and earlier studies could be
attributed to the different varieties/genotypes studied under different agro-climatic
conditions.
The present studies revealed a wide range of variation in susceptibility
among various varieties/genotypes of brinjal against L.orbonalis. All the
genotypes lacked immunity, but Brinjal-85 was categorized as resistant whereas,
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrib-1 highly susceptible to this pest. Infestation on number
basis ranged between 3.30 to 23.07 per cent. The two hybrids viz., Shalimar
Brinjal Hybrid-1 and Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2 recorded maximum level of
L.orbonalis infestation. Tejavathu et al. (1991) also recorded maximum pest
infestation of 43.8 per cent in cross NDB-25 x Anna. Studies further indicated that
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1 exhibited high susceptibility which is almost in
conformity to Rajendran and Gopalan (1998) and Yadav and Sharma (2005) who
also recorded Pusa Hybrid-6 as susceptible to the pest. However, the present
investigations differed with the findings of Munoj-Kumar et al. (1997) which
could be due to the difference in varieties/genotypes under studies at different
locations. Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2 and Brinjal Oblong were found susceptible
with infestation level of 22.50 and 18.18 per cent, respectively. This is in
conformity with Tejavathu et al. (1991) who also observed a high susceptibility of
brinjal hybrids to L.orbonalis infestation.

61
Other varieties investigated hold promise in developing traits of tolerance
in brinjal to the borer infestation. Genotypes viz., Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-
42, Shalimar Brinjal Long-208, Shalimar Brinjal Long -217, Dilruba-2 and Brinjal
Purple Long were found to have fruit infestation of 11.11, 12.50, 14.28, 16.60 and
16.63 per cent on number basis, respectively. While as, genotypes viz., Shalimar
Brinjal Purple Round-1 and Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8 were found to
exhibit fairly resistance with the infestation of 10.08 and 8.33 per cent. However,
Brinjal-85 and Local Long were resistant with infestation of 3.30 and 5.15 per
cent, respectively. The present results are in consonance with the studies of Mote
et al. (1981), Mehto et al. (1981) and Tejavathu et al. (1991) who recorded the
fruit infestation on number basis in the range of 11.62 to 22.20, 7.7 to 23.27 and
20.4 to 24.3 per cent, respectively.
A wide range of variation to L.orbonalis susceptibility among various
varieties/genotypes of brinjal has been recorded on the basis of fruit weight
damage and ranged between 3.29 to 22.50 per cent. This is in close proximity
with Sah et al. (1995) who also found maximum fruit weight infestation of 25.34
per cent. Hybrids viz., Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1 and Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2
were highly susceptible with the weight loss of 21.28 and 22.50 per cent.
Genotypes viz., Dilruba-2, Brinjal Purple Long and Brinjal Oblong were
susceptible to L.orbonalis infestations and registered the weight damage of 17.00,
17.40 and 18.50 per cent, respectively. While as, Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-
1, Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42, Shalimar Brinjal Long-208 and Shalimar
Brinjal Long -217 were tolerant and suffered the weight damage of 11.50, 12.90,
13.50 and 14.70 per cent, respectively. Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8 and
Local Long exhibited fairly resistance with weight damage of 8.29 and 6.71 per
cent. However, Brinjal-85 exhibited resistance with weight damage of 3.29 per
cent under natural infestation conditions. Results further revealed that percent
damage was maximum on weight basis compared to number basis which is more
or less similar with the observations of Asathi et al. (2002); Sharma, (1994) and

62
Dhankar and Sharma, (1986) who also reported maximum damage on weight
basis than on number basis.
On the basis of shoot infestation, all the twelve varieties/genotypes
screened were designated as resistant and fairly resistant with infestation range of
2.34 to 9.10 per cent. Among all genotypes only five viz., Shalimar Brinjal Purple
Long-42, Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1, Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8,
Local Long and Brinjal-85 exhibited resistance with shoot infestation of 5.34,
5.10, 4.96, 4.60 and 2.34 per cent, respectively; whereas, other genotypes viz.,
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1, Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2, Brinjal Oblong, Brinjal
Purple Long, Dilruba-2, Shalimar Brinjal Long -217 and Shalimar Brinjal Long -
208 were fairly resistant with shoot infestation of 9.10, 7.70, 7.50, 7.50, 6.97, 6.70
and 6.20, respectively. However, hybrid genotypes had higher infestation as
compared to the rest of the genotypes. This is in conformity with findings of
Subbarathnam (1982), Subbaratnam (1987), Grewal et al. (1995), Panda (1999),
Sridhar et al. (2001) and Senapati et al. (2003) who also recorded shoot
infestation of 8.15 to 12.71, 0.9 to 7.0, 1.0 to 10.0, 5.01 to 20.64, 0.5 to 10.0 and
4.0 to 11.1 per cent, respectively.
5.2
Morphological
and
biochemical
characteristics
of
brinjal
varieties/genotypes exhibiting
some degree of tolerance against
the brinjal shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes
orbonalis Guenee)
5.2.1 Morphological characters of brinjal varieties/genotypes in relation to
resistance to Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee
In the present investigations, out of 12 varieties/genotypes screened
against L.orbonalis; Brinjal-85 (resistant) recorded minimum length of seedless
area (3.22 cm), pericarp thickness (3.30 mm), fruit length (7.52 cm), plant height
(60 cm), number of branches per plant (9.0), number of fruits per plant (10.0) and
maximum number of leaf hairs (368.3), shoot hairs (294.5) and ratio of length of
peripheral seedring (0.79).Relationship between brinjal borer and certain
morphological characters of various accessions has been worked out by Panda and
Das (1975), Ali et al. (1994), Hossain et al.(2002), Ghosh et al. (2011) and

63
Humayun et al. (2011) who found that with the increase of leaf lamina hair
density/cm
2
and shoot hair density/cm there is decreases in host susceptibility. In
present results, Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1 and Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2 recorded
maximum value of fruit length, pericarp thickness, length of seedless area, plant
height, number of branches per plant, number of fruits per plant and minimum
value of length of peripheral seedring, shoot hairs and leaf hairs. The present
results are in agreement with Grewal and Singh, (1996) and Hossain et al. (2002)
who found that plant height, fruit length, pericarp thickness, length of seedless
area and number of branches per plant positively correlated with L.orbonalis
infestation. Similarly, Hazra et al. (2004) and Ghosh et al. (2011) also found a
significant positive correlation between fruit weight per plant, weight per fruit and
borer infestation.
Both resistant genotypes viz., Brinjal-85 and Local Long recorded the
maximum ratio of peripheral seedring length as 0.79 and 0.66 in comparison to
minimum of 0.2 and 0.21 in Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1(highly susceptible) and
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2 (susceptible), respectively. Therefore, genotypes
Brinjal-85 and Local Long provided less and Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1 and
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2 provided more fleshy area (pulp) for borer
consumption. Panda et al. (1971); Krishnaiah and Vijay (1975); Lal et al.(1976);
Subbaratnam (1982); Mishra et al.(1988); Ali et al.(1994); Panda (1999); Sridhar
et al.(2001); Jat and Pareek (2003) and Gupta and Kauntey, (2004) found that
narrow pericarp thickness and compact arrangement of seeds were negatively
associated with infestation as the tight and compact arrangement of seeds in
mesocarp acted as a mechanical seed barrier to the entry of larva inside the pulp.
During the present studies, the borer infestation is positively correlated
with volume index, fruit length and negatively correlated with shape index, ratio
of peripheral seedring length and roughness of calyx. Similarly, Gupta and
Kauntey (2004) found that volume index is positively and shape index, ratio of
length of peripheral seedring, roughness of calyx is negatively associated with

64
pest damage. Ghosh et al. (2011) observed a positive correlation between fruit
length and fruit infestation. Genotype Brinjal Oblong with light purple flowers,
dark purple fruits and smooth calyx were susceptible and suffered the fruit
damage of 18.18 per cent on number basis as compared to fairly resistant
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1 and Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8 which
exhibited the fruit infestation of 10.08 and 8.33 per cent, respectively. Jat and
Pareek (2003) too reported that variety (Pusa Kranti) with oblong and purple
coloured fruits having loosely arranged seeds exhibited maximum fruit damage
while as, variety SM-10 with round, light green coloured fruits with compact
seedrings showed the minimum damage by L.orbonalis.
During the present investigations, it was found that genotype Shalimar
Brinjal Hybrid-1 with light purple fruit and purple flower had a relationship with
shoot and fruit infestation which is more or less in conformity with findings of
Rout and Soune, (1980); Mote, (1981); Ali et al. (1994); Grewal et al. (1995);
Grewal and Singh, (1996) and Gangopadhyay et al. (1996) who reported that
green colour of fruit contribute towards resistance and purple and light purple
coloured fruits contribute towards susceptibility.
In present study, a significant and positive correlation was recorded
between fruit and shoot infestations with fruit diameter, length of seedless area,
pericarp thickness, volume index, fruit length, number of branches per plant,
number of fruits per plant and plant height while as, correlation with peripheral
seedring length, ratio of peripheral seedring length, shoot hairs and leaf hairs were
negatively significant. Infestation by brinjal shoot and fruit borer is also supported
by smoothness of calyx. Present investigations also draws a strong support from
the findings of Shinde (2007); Behera et al. (1998); Malik et al.(1986) and
Sharma et al.(1985) who observed that fruit diameter and fruit weight are
positively correlated with the pest infestation. Furthermore, Behera et al. (1998)
strongly stressed that infested fruit yield per plant was mainly due to direct effect
of its diameter and that oblong fruits were more affected as they provides more

65
feeding zone (pulp), have loosely arranged seeds and accommodate more number
of larvae per fruit.
5.2.2 Biochemical characters of brinjal varieties/genotypes in relation to
resistance to Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee
Biochemical factors of the host plant have been reported to play a vital
role in resistance to various insect pests (Panda and Khush, 1995) and relatively
resistant genotypes contained higher amount of phenols inherently (Dhaliwal and
Dilawari, 1993) as these are often associated with the feeding deterrence, growth
inhibition and in higher concentration could ward off insect pests because of the
direct toxicity (Mohan et al., 1987). Preneetha (2002) found that while selecting
brinjal genotypes for shoot and fruit borer resistance, apart from their performance
based on the yield, consideration may also be given on the quantity of
biochemical constituents.
In present investigations, out of 12 varieties/genotypes screened Brinjal-85
(resistant) and Local Long (resistant) recorded lowest fruit infestation of 3.30 and
5.15 per cent whereas, shoot infestation was 2.34 and 4.60 per cent, respectively,
corresponding to the high level of total phenols both at initial and final stages of
crop growth. In Brinjal-85 and Local Long total phenol content at initial stage of
shoot was registered as 1.93±0.038, 1.61±0.059 and at final stage
2.30±0.057,2.09±0.069 mg/g dry weight whileas, in fruits total phenol content at
initial stage was registered as 1.41±0.035,1.36±0.072 and at final stage
1.51±0.022,1.45±0.035 mg/g dry weight, respectively. This finding is analogous
to the observations made by Doshi et al. (1998), Prabhu et al. (2007) and
Khorsheduzzaman et al. (2010) who found that selection of genotypes with higher
total phenols and polypheol oxidase activity improve resistance to shoot and fruit
borer infestation.
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1 (highly susceptible) and Shalimar Brinjal
Hybrid-2 (susceptible) recorded highest fruit infestation of 23.07 and 20.00 per
cent (number basis) and shoot infestation of 9.10 and 7.70 per cent, respectively

66
corresponding to low levels of total phenol both at initial and final stages of
growth, whereby in Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1 and Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2
total phenol content at initial stages of fruit was registered as 0.58±0.006,
0.66±0.068 and at final stages 0.67±0.023,0.72±0.011 mg/g dry weight while as,
in shoots phenol content at initial stage was recorded 0.73±0.020,0.84±0.003 and
at final stage 0.88±0.030,0.98±0.015 mg/g dry weight, respectively. This is in
conformity with the findings of Prabhu et al.(2007) who observed that total
phenol content and its activity is higher in shoots as compared to fruits at all
stages of growth.
The present results indicated that phenols are important factors in
conferring non-preference, antibiosis and exhibited a clear variation with the age
of the crop which is in agreement with Kaur et al., (1985), Kalloo (1988) and
Prabhu et al. (2007) who reported that phenols possessed the insect resistance
properties and there is a clear variation in total phenolic content with age of the
crop. In general, total phenol content increased with the age of the crop, and the
genotypes with higher phenol content impart the resistance by having direct
negative effect on L.orbonalis infestation (Doshi et al .1998). The cultivars having
higher total phenols in leaves supported fewer insect pests in brinjal
(Soundararajan and Baskaran 2001). A negative and significant correlation existed
between phenols in shoots and fruits with infestation by L.orbonalis and is
supported by Shinde (2007) who found that phenols are negatively correlated with
the borer damage and are responsible to impart resistance against pests.
In present investigations, out of 12 varieties/genotypes screened, Brinjal-
85 (resistant) and Local Long (resistant) recorded lowest fruit and shoot
infestation corresponding to the low levels of total sugars both at initial and final
stages of crop growth as in Brinjal-85 and Local Long total sugar content at initial
stage of fruit was registered as 5.59±0.309, 6.16±0.402 and at final stage
5.87±0.489, 6.22±0.408 mg/g dry weight whileas, in shoots total sugar content at
initial stage was registered 5.45±0.348,5.80±0.498 and at final stage

67
3.03±0.120,3.36±0.018 mg/g dry weight, respectively. The results are in
agreement with Khorsheduzzaman et al. (2010), Isahaque and Chaudhuri, (1984)
and Panda and Das, (1975) who found that susceptible genotypes contain higher
content of total sugars as compared to resistant ones.
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1 (highly susceptible) and Shalimar Brinjal
Hybrid-2 (susceptible) recorded highest fruit (number basis) and shoot infestation
corresponding to high levels of total sugars both at initial and final stages of
growth as in Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1 and Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2 total sugar
content at initial stages of fruit was registered as 13.18±0.252, 12.73±0.113 and at
final stages 14.63±0.669, 14.06±0.393 mg/g dry weight while as, in shoots total
sugar content at initial stage was recorded 11.47±0.826, 10.53±0.751 and at final
stage 9.50±0.116, 9.47±0.176 mg/g dry weight, respectively. Tolerant genotypes
viz., Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42, Shalimar Brinjal Long-208, Shalimar
Brinjal Long-217, Dilruba-2 and Brinjal Purple Long recorded the shoot and fruit
infestation ranging between 5.34 to 7.50 and 11.11 to 16.63 per cent, respectively
and had total sugar content in shoots and fruits at final stage ranging from
5.24±0.088 to 7.36±0.137 and 8.41±0.327 to 11.36±0.394 mg/g dry weight,
respectively. Total sugar content in fruits was comparatively higher as compared
to the shoots and is supported by results of Panda and Das, (1975) who found that
higher sugar content is present in brinjal fruits as compared to shoots which acted
as feeding stimulant for borers. Lower levels of total sugars were found in
genotypes which are fairly resistant and resistant to the L.orbonalis infestation.
Fairly resistant genotypes viz., Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8 and Shalimar
Brinjal Purple Round-1 suffered the infestation of 8.33 and 10.08 per cent on
number basis and were found to have total sugar content of 6.07±0.452,
6.41±0.438 and 4.05±0.135, 4.86±0.042 mg/g dry weight both at initial and final
stages of shoot growth, respectively whileas, in fruits total sugar content was
comparatively higher ranging from 6.64±0.355 to 7.19±0.170 and 6.82±0.366 to
7.41±0.301mg/g dry weight at initial and final stages of fruit growth, respectively.

68
Resistant genotypes viz., Brinjal-85 and Local Long were found to suffer the
infestation of 3.30 and 5.51 per cent; registered the lowest total sugar content of
5.45±0.348, 5.80±0.498 and 3.03±0.120, 3.36±0.018 mg/g dry weight at initial
and final stages of shoot growth, respectively whileas, in fruits total sugar content
was comparatively higher ranging from 5.59±0.309, 6.16±0.402 and 5.87±0.489,
6.22±0.408 mg/g dry weight at initial and final stages of fruit growth,
respectively. The results are in conformity with Jat and Pareek, (2003) who found
that varieties Arka Kusumakar and SM-10 suffer less infestation by borers and
contained less total sugars of 3.56 and 3.66 per cent, respectively.
Genotypes viz., Brinjal-85 and Local Long provided less feeding stimulus
to borers due to high phenols and low total soluble sugars, thus could be utilized
in the breeding programme for the development of shoot and fruit borer resistant
varieties in brinjal. These results are in agreement with Lapidus et al. (1963);
Knapp et al. (1965); Kalode and Pant (1967); Jat and Pareek, (2003) and
Khorsheduzzaman et al. (2010) who found that in brinjal, sugar content acted as a
feeding stimulant to the borers.
Moisture content in brinjal at harvest were found positively and
significantly correlated with the borer infestation. It ranged from 78.72 per cent in
resistant (Brinjal-85) to 94.00 per cent in highly susceptible genotype (Shalimar
Brinjal Hybrid-1).The present results are in consonance with the findings of Kale
et al.(1986); Patil et al.(1994); Jat and Pareek,(2003) and Dadmal et al.(2004)
who reported increased palatability of shoot with more moisture content in brinjal
varieties. The present results are also supported by Hazra et al. (2004) and
Elanchezhyan et al. (2009) who found positive and significant correlation
between L.orbonalis and shoot damage.
Lowest ash content of 9.38 per cent was recorded in the most susceptible
genotype Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1 and highest content of 12.63 per cent in the
resistant Brinjal-85, which is in close proximity with the results of Elanchezhyan
et al. (2009) who found less ash content in susceptible Bejo Sheetal (10.10%) and

69
maximum in resistant Sweta (12.30 per cent). Also negative correlation was
observed between ash content and shoot damage during the present investigation.
The results are in agreement with Panda and Das (1975); Patil et al. (1994) and
Dadmal et al. (2004) who found that ash content has negative correlation with
L.orbonalis infestation.

70
6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The present studies were undertaken to screen brinjal varieties/genotypes
against shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee to correlate the pest
infestation with physico-chemical characteristics of the plant.
A total of 12 varieties/genotypes as treatments were raised in Randomized
Block Design with three replications in the Experimental field of Division of
Entomology, SKUAST-Kashmir, Shalimar having row to row and plant to plant
distance maintained at 60 and 45 cm, respectively as per recommended agronomic
package and practices of University. All genotypes including two hybrids viz.,
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1 and Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2 were screened against
L.orbonalis under the natural/field conditions. Observations with regard to shoot
and fruit borer infestation were recorded up to harvest. At each observations
number of infested and uninfested shoots and fruits (number and weight basis)
from each entry were recorded and percentage calculated.
None of the genotype was found immune to shoot and fruit borer
infestation. Relative susceptibility studies among different varieties/genotypes
revealed that Brinjal-85(resistant) had minimum 3.30 per cent fruit damage on
number basis whereas, maximum fruit infestation of 22.07 per cent was recorded
in Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1(highly susceptible).The genotype Brinjal-85
exhibited minimum weight damage of 3.29 per cent whereas, Shalimar Brinjal
Hybrid-1 recorded 22.50 per cent maximum damage. On the basis of shoot
infestation, Brinjal-85 recorded minimum shoot infestation of 2.34 per cent
whereas, Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1 exhibited maximum infestation of 9.10 per
cent. However, hybrid genotypes had higher shoot and fruit infestation as
compared to rest of screened genotypes.
The mean rating of fruit infestation on number basis of less than 6 per cent
assigned with rank 1 was observed in resistant genotype Brinjal-85 and Local
Long whereas, the maximum per cent infestation of more than 21 was exhibited

71
by highly susceptible genotype Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1 designated as rank 5.
Fruit infestation on weight basis of less than 6 per cent was recorded in resistant
genotype Brinjal-85 whereas, highly susceptible genotype Shalimar Brinjal
Hybrid-1 and Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2 observed more than 21 per cent borer
infestation on weight basis.
Frequency distribution of brinjal genotypes for shoot infestation by
L.orbonalis showed 5 resistant genotypes viz., Shalimar Brinjal Purple Long-42,
Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-1, Shalimar Brinjal Purple Round-8, Local Long,
Brinjal-85 assigned with rank 1 registered 1-5 per cent borer infestation and the
rest 7 fairly resistant genotypes viz., Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1, Shalimar Brinjal
Hybrid-2, Brinjal Oblong, Brinjal Purple Long, Dilruba-2, Shalimar Brinjal Long-
217 and Shalimar Brinjal Long- 208 with rank 2 recorded upto 10 per cent borer
infestation on shoot basis.
On the basis of level of fruit infestation (number and weight) all the 12
genotypes were categorized as resistant, fairly resistant, tolerant, susceptible and
highly susceptible while as, on the basis of shoot infestation genotypes were
categorized as resistant and fairly resistant to borer infestation. Not only did the
12 brinjal genotypes varied in percentage borer infestation but they also varied for
other physical characteristics such as fruit length, fruit diameter, shape index,
volume index, peripheral seed ring length, length of seed less area, ratio of length
of peripheral seedring, ratio of length of seedless area, pericarp thickness, plant
height, number of branches per plant, number of fruits per plant, yield per plant,
roughness/smoothness of calyx, shoot hairs and leaf hairs.
Correlation between borer infestation and plant characters of brinjal
genotypes indicated that fruit infestation of L.orbonalis on number basis exhibited
positive and significant correlation at 1 per cent level of significance with
infestation on weight and shoot basis. Borer infestation of fruit and shoot revealed
negative correlation with peripheral seedring length, shape index, shoot and leaf

72
hairs at 1 per cent level of significance. While as, correlation of fruit infestation
was statistically negative with the ratio of length of peripheral seedring.
Quantitative analysis of fruit and shoot of 12 brinjal genotypes were
assayed for total sugars, phenols, moisture and ash content. Phenols in shoot and
fruit revealed that brinjal genotypes with higher percentage of borer infestation
recorded low level of phenols whereas, those suffering relatively low damage
were found to have high phenol content. It was also observed that there was
substantial increase in phenols in shoots and fruits during the plant growth.
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1(highly susceptible) and Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2
(susceptible) recorded the total phenol content at initial stages of fruit as
0.58±0.006, 0.66±0.068 and at final stages 0.67±0.023, 0.72±0.011 mg/g dry
weight while as, in shoots phenol content at initial stage was recorded 0.73±0.020,
0.84±0.003 and at final stage 0.88±0.030, 0.98±0.015 mg/g dry weight,
respectively. The resistant genotypes viz., Brinjal-85 and Local Long registered
1.93±0.038, 1.61±0.059 and 2.30±0.057,2.09±0.069 mg/g dry weight of total
phenols at initial and final stages, respectively in shoots while as, in fruits total
phenol content at initial stage registered 1.41±0.035,1.36±0.072 and at final stage
1.51±0.022,1.45±0.035 mg/g dry weight, respectively.
Shoots and fruits of resistant, fairly resistant, tolerant, susceptible and
highly susceptible genotype varied significantly in the total sugar content. Brinjal
genotypes with higher percentage of borer infestation were found to have higher
content of total sugars. In contrast genotypes supporting less damage contained
lesser sugar levels. Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1 (highly susceptible) and Shalimar
Brinjal Hybrid-2 (susceptible) recorded highest fruit (number basis) and shoot
infestation corresponding to high levels of total sugars both at initial and final
stages of growth. Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1 and Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2
recorded total sugar content in fruit at initial stages as 13.18±0.252, 12.73±0.113
and at final stages 14.63±0.669, 14.06±0.393 mg/g dry weight while as, in shoots
total sugar content at initial stage was recorded 11.47±0.826, 10.53±0.751 and at

73
final stage 9.50±0.116, 9.47±0.176 mg/g dry weight, respectively. Resistant
genotypes viz., Brinjal-85 and Local Long suffered the lowest infestation
corresponding to the lowest total sugar content of 5.45±0.348, 5.80±0.498 and
3.03±0.120, 3.36±0.018 mg/g dry weight at initial and final stages of shoot
growth, respectively while as, in fruits total sugar content was comparatively
higher 5.59±0.309, 6.16±0.402 and 5.87±0.489, 6.22±0.408 mg/g dry weight at
initial and final stages of fruit growth, respectively.
Moisture content in brinjal at harvest were found positively and
significantly correlated with the borer infestation. It ranged from 78.72 per cent in
resistant genotype (Brinjal-85) to 94.00 per cent in highly susceptible (Shalimar
Brinjal Hybrid-1). Lowest ash content of 9.38 per cent was recorded in the highly
susceptible Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1 and highest content of 12.63 per cent in the
resistant Brinjal-85.
Correlation between biochemical characteristics with fruit and shoot
infestation indicated that phenol content in fruits and shoots were negatively and
significantly correlated at various stages of plant growth and development with
infestation of L.orbonalis at 1 per cent level of significance. However, there was a
positive and significant association at 1 per cent level of significance between
total sugars with shoot and fruit infestation at both stages of estimation. A
negative and significant correlation at 1 per cent level of significance was
observed between ash content and borer infestation, while positive and significant
correlation at 1 per cent level of significance was observed between total moisture
content and infestation by L.orbonalis Guenee.

74
CONCLUSIONS
All the 12 varieties/genotypes of brinjal including 2 hybrids (Shalimar
Brinjal Hybrid-1 and Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2) revealed that none of the
genotype was immune to the infestation by L. orbonalis.
On the basis of level of infestation, the genotypes were grouped as
resistant, fairly resistant, tolerant, susceptible and highly susceptible.
Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-1 and Shalimar Brinjal Hybrid-2 were highly
susceptible and recorded maximum pericarp thickness, fruit length,
number of branches, number of fruits and minimum shoot hairs, leaf hairs
and ratio of length of peripheral seedring. While as, Brinjal-85 and Local
Long were resistant and recorded maximum shoot hairs, leaf hairs and
ratio of length of seedring
Brinjal genotypes with higher percentage of borer infestation were found
to have higher total sugar content in shoots and fruits, in contrast,
genotypes supporting less damage contained lesser total sugar levels in
shoots and fruits at all stages of growth and development. Phenols in shoot
and fruit revealed that brinjal genotypes with higher percentage of borer
infestation recorded low level of phenols whereas, those suffering
relatively low damage were found to have high phenol content.
Phenol content in shoots and fruits were negatively correlated with
infestation by L. orbonalis. A positive and significant correlation was
recorded between total sugars in shoot and fruits at both stages of
estimation with borer infestation. Moisture content in the brinjal estimated
at the time of harvest was positively correlated, while as ash content was
negatively correlated with infestation by L. orbonalis.
Based on the results of present studies, genotypes Brinjal-85 and Local
Long can be incorporated in the crop improvement programme for
evolving brinjal genotypes resistant to the L. orbonalis. Genotypes
showing susceptibility to brinjal shoot and fruit borer may not be
recommended for cultivation.

i
LITERATURE CITED
Ahmad, H., Rahman, M.H., Haque, M.M. and Ahmad, K.S. 2009. Studies on
shoot and leaf characters of brinjal plant and their quantitative relationship
with brinjal shoot and fruit borer. Journal of Bangladesh Agricultural
University 7(1) : 29-32.
Ahmad, M.S., Rashid, M.A., Amzad, A.K.M. and Abdullah, A.M. 1985.
Comperative susceptibility of different cultivars of brinjal against
Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. (Leperidoptera: Pyralidae). Bangla. Hort. 13 :
20-24.
Ahmed, R. 2004. Goodbye pesticide: Pheromone traps working in Jassore. The
Daily Star, June 16, 2001.
Akther, M. and Khawaja, Z.S. 1973. Quantative estimation of damage of brinjal
by brinjal shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.). Journal of
Agricultural Research Pakistan 11(1) : 78-83.
Alam, M.Z. and Sana, D.L. 1962. Biology of Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. in East
Pakistan. A review of research. Division of Entomology 19 : 192-200. East
Pakistan Agriculture Research Institute Dacca.
Alam, M.Z. and Sana, D.L.1964. Biology of brinjal shoot and fruit borer,
Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. in East Pakistan. The Scientist 5 : 13-24.
Alam, M.Z. 1969. Insect pests of vegetables and their control in East Pakistan.
The Agriculture Information Service. Department of Agriculture, 3, R.K.
Mission Road, Dhaka. East Pakistan, p. 146.

ii
Alam, S.N., Rashid, M.A., Jhalal, R.C., Satpathy, S., Rai, S. and Talekar, N.S.
1999. Crop loss estimation caused by Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee in
potato. Pest Management in Horticulture Ecosystems 11 : 64-65.
Alam, S.N., Rashid, M.A., Rouf, F.M.A., Jhala, R.C., Patel, J.R., Satpathy, S.,
Shivalingaswamy, T.M., Rai, S., Wahundeniya, I., Cork, A. and Talekar,
N.S. 2003. Development of an integrated pest management strategy for
eggplant shoot and fruit borer in South Asia, Technical Bulletin TB 28,
AVRDC. The World Vegetable Centre, Shanhua. Taiwan, p.52.
Ali, M.I., Ahmad, S. and Rahman, T. 1994. Host Plant Resistance in brinjal
against brinjal shoot and fruit borer, (Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.). In :
Annual Research Report, Entomological Division, Bangladesh Agriculture
Research Institute, Gazipur, Bangladesh, pp. 52-53.
Ali, M.I., Ali, M.S. and Rahman, M.S.1980. Field evaluation of wilt disease and
shoot and fruit borer attack of different cultivars of brinjal. Bangladesh
Journal Agricultural Sciences 7 : 193-194.
Anonymous, 2010. National Horticultural Board (NHB).2010. Area and
Production for Horticulture Crops. National Horticulture Board Report,
India.
Anonymous, 2011. Department of Agriculture, Government of Jammu and
Kashmir. Annual Report of Estimated Area and Production of Vegetable
Crops in Kashmir Division, pp. 1-2.
Asati, B.S., Sarnaik, D.A., Thakur, B.S. and Guhey, A. 2002. Shoot and fruit
borer incidence as influenced by total phenol and chlorophyll content in
round fruited brinjal varieties. Orissa Journal of Horticulture 30(2) : 100-
104.

iii
Asati, B.S., Sarnaik, D.A., Thakur, B.S. and Rai, N. 2004. Correlation studies in
round fruited brinjal against fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.).
Progressive Horticulture 36(1) : 132-134.
Ashoke, K. and Abhishek. S. 2002. Varietal preference of fruit and shoot borer,
Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. on brinjal. Insect Environ. 8(1) : 44.
Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center (AVRDC). 1999. AVRDC
Report, AVRDC publication No.00-503. Asian Vegetable Research and
Development Center, Shanhua, Taiwan, p. 152.
Awasthi, A.K. 2000. Preliminary screening of brinjal genotypes to Leucinodes
orbonalis Guen. Insect and Environment 6(1) : 33-34.
Bajaj, K., Singh, L.D. and Kaur, G. 1989. Biochemical basis of relative field
resistance of eggplant to the shoot and fruit borer. Vegetable Sciences 16 :
145-149.
Baksha, M.W. and Ali, M.I. 1982.Relative susceptibility of different cultivars of
brinjal to brinjal shoot and fruit borer. Bangla. J. Agric. 7 : 22-26.
Baskaran, P. 2001. Mechanism of resistance in brinjal (Solanum melongena L) to
whitefly (Bemisia tabaci Gen.). Madras Agricultural Journal 88 : 657-
659.
Begum, A. and Mannan, M.A. 1997. Screening of brinjal varieties/genotypes
against brinjal shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis.In:Ann.Res.ins,
Gazipur, Bangladesh, pp. 35-36.
Begum, M.A. 1995. Study of anatomical characters in relation to resistance
against brinjal shoot and fruit borer. Pakistan Journal of Biological
Sciences, pp. 42-43.

iv
Behera, T.K. and Singh, N.2002.Interspecific crosses between eggplants (Solanum
melongena L.) with related Solanum species. Science Horticulture
Amsterdam 95 : 165-172.
Behera, T.K., Narendra, S., Kalda, T.S., Gupta, S.S. and Singh, N. 1998. Inter-
relationship and path analysis studies on yield, characters relating to shoot
and fruit borer resistance in brinjal. Vegetable Science 25(2) :149-154.
Behera, T.K., Singh, N. Kalda, T.S. and Gupta, S.S. 1999. Screening for shoot and
fruit borer incidence in eggplant genotype under Delhi conditions. Indian
Journal of Entomology 61(4) : 372-375.
Bharadiya, A.M. and Patel, B.R. 2004. Screening of brinjal varieties/genotypes
for resistance to the shoot and fruit borer, (Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.)
under North Gujarat conditions. Pest Management and Economic Zoology
12(2) : 223-225.
Biswas, G.C., Sattar, M.A. and Seba, M.C. 1992. Survey and monitoring of insect
pests of brinjal Khagracharia Hilly Region. Annual Report. 1991-92,
Entomol, Div., Bari, Joydebpur, Gazipur, pp. 40-42.
Bothara, P.A. 2003. Bioefficacy of different endosulphan formulations against
brinjal shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee. Insect Science
4(1) : 103-104.
Bray, H.G. and Thrope, W.V. 1954. Analysis of phenolic compounds of interest
in metabolism. Methods of Biochemistery Analysis 1 : 27-52.
Butani, D.K. and Jotwani, M.G. 1984.Insects in vegetables. Periodical Expert
Book Agency. D-42, Vivek Vihar-110032. India, pp. 293.

v
Chadha, M.L., Sharma, C.M. and Bajaj, K.L. 1990. Inhertance of bitterness in
brinjal (Solanum melongena L). Indian Journal of Horticulture 47 : 244-
249.
Chandrashekhar, C.H., Malik, V.S. and Singh, R.2008.Morphological and
biochemical factors of resistance in eggplant against Leucinodes orbonalis
Guen.(Pyralidae:Lepidoptera). Entomol. 31(40) : 337-345.
Chaudhary, D.R. and Sharma, S.D. 2000. Screening of some brinjal cultivars
against bacterial wilt and fruit borer. Agricultural Science Digest 20(2) :
129-130.
Chaudhary, M.N.A., Iqbal, M.N. and Chaudhary, M.S. 1995. Screening of
germplasm against insect pests of brinjal crop. Capsicum and Eggplant
News Letter 14 : 85-86.
Chelliah, S. and Srinivasan, K. 1983. Resistance in bhendi, brinjal and tomato to
major insect and mite pests. In : Proceeding of the Resistance to Pests and
Diseases. Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India, p. 47.
Choudhery, B.1967.Vegetable.National Book trust, New. Delhi, p. 45.
Cork, A. 2004. Integrated pest management of brinjal borer in South-East Asia.
Sustainable Agri. Univ. of Greenwitch, England, pp. 1-2.
Dadmal, S.M., Nemade, S.B. and Akhare, M.D. 2004. Field screening of brinjal
cultivars for resistance to Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. Pest Management
in Horticultural Ecosystem 10(2) : 145-150.
Darekar, K.S., Gaikwad, B.P. and Chavan, V.D.1991.Screening of eggplant
cultivars for resistance to shoot and fruit borer. Journal of Maharashtra
Agricultural University 16(3) : 601-603.

vi
Das, A.N. and Singh, B.R. 1990. Field reactions of brinjal varieties against shoot
and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. (Lepedoptera: Pyralidae)
Environment and Ecology 8 : 761-762.
Devarajaiah, 1992. Studies on shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guen)
resistance in brinjal. M.Sc. Thesis University of Agricultural Sciences,
Bangalore
Dhaliwal, G.S. and Dilawari, V.K. 1993. Advances in Host Resistance to insects.
Kalyani Publishers, India, p. 443.
Dhankar, B., Singh and Singh, K. 1977. Screening and variability studies for
relative susceptibility to shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis
Guen.). In : Normal and ratoon crop of brinjal (Solanum melongena. L).
Haryana Journal of Horticulture Science 6(1-2) : 50-58.
Dhankar, B.S. and Sharma, N.K. 1986. Variability in relation to shoot and fruit
borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.) infestation in brinjal (Solanum
melongena L.). Haryana Journal of Horticultural Science 15 : 243-248.
Dhankar, B.S. 1988. Progress in resistance studies in Eggplant (Solanum
melongena L.) against shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.)
infestation. Tropical Pest Management 34 : 343-345.
Dilbagh, S., Chandha, M.L. and Singh, D. 1991. Effect of morphological
characters of brinjal on incidence of Leucinodes orbonalis. Journal of
Agricultural Research, Punjab Agricultural University 28 : 345-353.
Doshi, K.M., Bhalala, M.K. and Kathiria, K.B.1998. Correlation and path analysis
for yield, fruit borer infestation, little leaf incidence and quality traits in
brinjal (Solanum melongena L). Capsicum and Eggplant News Letter 17 :
84-87.

vii
Duffey, S.S.1986. Plant glandular trichomes their partial role in defense against
insects. In Insect and the Plant Surface. Edward Arnorld, pp. 360.
Duodu, A. 1981. Field evaluation of eggplant cultivars to infestation by the shoot
and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.(Lepidoptera:Pyralidae) in
Ghana. Tropical Pest Management 32 : 4.
Duodu, Y.A. 1986. Field evaluation of eggplant cultivars to infestation by the
shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. (Pyralidae:
Lepidoptera) in Ghana. Tropical Pest Management 32 : 347-349.
Elanchezhyan, K., Murali, R.K. and Rajavel, D.S. 2008. Field screening of brinjal
varieties on major pests and their natural enemies. Journal of Biopesticides
1(2) : 113-120.
Elanchezhyan, K. Murali, R.K. and Rajavel, D.S. 2009. Biochemical basis of
resistance in brinjal genotypes to shoot and fruit borer, (Leucinodes
orbonalis Guen.). Journal of Entomological Research 32(2) : 101-104.
Gangopadhyay, C., Maity, T.K. and Mandal, S.K. 1996. Screening of brinjal
germplasms against shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.).
Environment and Ecology 14(4) : 834-836.
Ghosh, A., Makesh, S., Pugalendhi, L. and Veeraragavathathm, D. 2011.
Evaluation of interspecific progenies of brinjal (Solanum melongena L. x
S. viarum) for resistance to shoot and fruit borer and high marketable
yield. SABRAO Journal of Breeding and Genetics 43(2) : 201-213.
Ghosh, S. and Senapati, S.K. 2001. Field screening of brinjal varieties commonly
grown in Teria region of west Bengal against pest complex. Crop
Research 21(2) : 157-163.

viii
Gill, C.K. and Chadha, M.L. 1997. Resistance in brinjal to shoot and fruit borer,
Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. (Pyralidae: Lepidoptera). Indian Journal of
Horticulture 36(1) : 67-71.
Grewal, R.S. and Singh, D. 1995. Fruit characters of brinjal in relation to the
Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. Indian Journal of Entomology 57(4) : 336-
343.
Grewal, R.S., Dilbagh, S. and Singh, D.1995. Fruit characters of brinjal in relation
to the infestation by L. orbonalis Guen. Indian Journal of Entomology,
57(4) : 336-343.
Gupta, Y.C. and Kauntey, R.P.S. 2008. Studies on fruit characters in relation to
infestation of shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guen).In brinjal,
(Solanum melongena L.). Journal of Entomological Research 32(2) :119
123.
Hazra, P., Dutta, R. and Maity, T.K. 2004. Morphological and biochemical
characters associated with field tolerance of brinjal (Solanum melongena
L.) to shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.) and their
implication in breeding for tolerance. Indian Journal of Genetics and
Plant breeding 64(30) : 255-256.
Hedin, P.A., Jenkins, J.N., Collum, D.H., White, W.H. and Parrott, W.L. 1973.
Multiple factors in cotton contributing to resistance to the tobacco
budworm, Heliothis virescens F., pp. 346-365. In : P.A. Hedin (Ed).
Plant Resistance to Insects. ACS. Symp. Ser. 208, Am. Chm. Soc.,
Washington D.C.
Hossain, M.M., Shahjahan, M., Salam, M.A. and Begum, M.A. 2002. Screening
of Brinjal varieties and lines against Brinjal Shoot and Fruit Borer,

ix
Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences
5(10) : 1032-1040.
Hossain, M.M., Shahjahan, A.K.M. and Saad-Ud-Doula, P. 2004. Study of
anatomical characters in relation to resistance against the brinjal shoot and
fruit borer. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences 5(6) : 672-678.
Humayun, J., Ata, U.M., Muhammad, A., Muhammad, M.A. and Tariq, M. 2011.
Relationship between morphological characters of different aubergine
cultivars and fruit infestation by Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee. Pakistan
Journal of Botany 43(4) : 2023-2028.
Hung, C.L. and Rhode, R.A. 1973. Phenol accumulation related to resistance in
tomato infection by root knot lesion nematodes. J. Nematol 5 : 233-258.
Isahaqua, N.M.M. and Chaudhuri, R.P.1984.Comparative susceptibility of some
varieties of eggplant to shoot and fruit borer in Assam. Indian Journal of
Agricultural Sciences 54(9) : 751-752.
Islam, M.N. and Karim, M.A. 1991. Management of the Brinjal Shoot and Fruit
Borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee (Lepidoptera:Pyralidae) in field. In :
Annual Research Report, Entomol. Div., BARI, Gazipur, Bangladesh, pp.
44-46.
JAOAC, 1977. Journal of Association of official Agricultural Chemists JAOAC
60, 322 : Official method for determination of moisture and ash content in
plants, America.
Jat, K.L. and Pareek, B.L. 2003. Biophysical and biochemical characters in brinjal
against Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. Indian Journal of Entomology 65(2) :
252-258.

x
Jat, K.L., Swaroop, S. and Maurya, R.P. 2003. Screening of brinjal varieties for
resistance to shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. Haryana
Journal of Horticultural Sciences 32(1/2) : 152-153.
Jotwani, M.Q. and Sarup, P. 1963. Evaluation of control schedule for brinjal
Solanum melongena L. (Variety Pusa Purple Long), particularly against
the fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guen).Indian Journal of Entomology
25(4) : 275-291.
Jyani, D.B., Patel, N.C., Patel, J.R. and Ratanpara, H.C. 1995. Field evaluation of
some brinjal varieties for resistance to insect pests and little leaf disease.
Gujarat Agricultural University Research Journal 122 : 75-77.
Kabir, M.H., Mia, M.D., Azim, L., Begum, R.A. and Ahmad, A. 1984. Field
screening of twelve brinjal varieties against shoot and fruit borer,
Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. (Pyralidae: Lepidoptera). Bangladesh
Journal of Zoology 12(1) : 47-48.
Kalappanavar, I.K. and Hiremathi, R.V. 2000. Biochemical factors for multiple
resistance to foliar disease of sorghum. Madras Agricultural Journal 87(1-
3) : 66-70.
Kale, P.B., Mohod, U.V., Dod, V.N. and Thakare, H.S.1986. Screening of brinjal
germplasm (Solanum spp.) for resistance to shoot and fruit borer
(Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.) under field conditions. Vegetable Science
13(2) : 376-382.
Kalloo, 1988. Solanaceous crops. In : Vegetable Breeding. Vol. 2. CRC press.
INC BOCA Raton, Florida, pp. 520-570.
Kalode, M.B. and Pant, N.C. 1967. Studies on the amino acids, nitrogen and
moisture content of maize and sorghum varieties and their relation to

xi
Chilo zonellus (Swin) resistance. Indian Journal of Entomology 29(2) :
139-144.
Kaur, G., Bajaj, K.L. and Chadha, M.L. 1985. Quality characters in fruits of
eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) as affected by maturity. Vegetable
Sciences 12(2) : 68-72.
Khan, R., Rao, G.R. and Baksh, S. 1978. Cytogenetics of Solanum integrifolium
and its possible use in eggplant breeding. Indian Journal of Genetics and
Plant Breeding 38 : 343-347.
Khorsheduzzaman, A.K.M., Alam, M.Z., Rahman, M.M., Khaleque, M.A. and
Mian, I.H. 2010. Biochemical basis of resistance in eggplant (Solanum
melongena. L) to Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. and their correlation with
shoot and fruit infestation. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Research
35(1) : 149-155.
Knapp, J.L., Hedin, P.A. and Douglas, W.A. 1965. Amino acids and reducing
sugars in silks of corn resistant or susceptible to corn earworm. Annals of
Entomology Society of America 58(3) : 401-402.
Kogan, M. 1975. Plant resistance in pest management. An introduction to insect
pest management, Metcalf, R. L and Luckmann, W., Bds., Wiley
interscience, New York, p. 103.
Krishna, T.M., Lal, O.P. and Srivastava, Y.N. 2001. Extent of losses caused by
shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. to promising varieties of
brinjal, Solanum melongena L. Journal of Entomological Research 25(3) :
205-212.

xii
Krishnaiah, K. and Vijay, O.P. 1975. Evaluation of brinjal varieties for resistance
to shoot and fruit borer Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. Indian Journal of
Horticulture 32 : 84-86.
Krishnaiah, K. 1980. Methodology for assessing crop losses due to pests and
diseases. UAS Tech. Series No. 33 : 259-267.
Kumar, A. and Shukla, A. 2002. Varietal preference of fruit and shoot borer,
Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. on brinjal. Insect Environment 8(1) : 44.
Lal, O.P, Sharma, D., Verma, T.S. and Chandra, J.C. 1970. Resistance in brinjal
to shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.). Vegetable Science 3
: 111-116.
Lal, O.P., Sharma, R.K., Verma, T.S., Bhagehandani, P.M. and Chandra, J. 1976.
Resistance in brinjal to shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis
Guen.(Pyralidae:Lepidoptera). Vegetable Sciences 3(2) : 111-116.
Lal, O.P. 1991. Varietal resistance in the eggplant Solanum melongena against the
shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. (Lepidoptera:
Pyralidae). Zeitschrift-fur-Pflanzenkrankheiten-und-Pflanzenschutz 98(4) :
405-410.
Lall, B.S. and Ahmad, S.Q. 1965. Biology and control of brinjal fruit and shoot
borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.). Journal of Economic Entomology 58
: 448-451.
Lapidus, J.B., Cleary, R.W., Davision, R.H., Fish, F.W. and Augusttine, M.G.
1963. Chemical factors influencing host selection by the Mexican bean
beetle, Epillachna varivestis Muls. Journal of Agriculture and Food
Chemistry 11 : 402-463.

xiii
Lester, R.N. and Hasan, S.M.Z. 1991. Origin and domestication of the brinjal
eggplant, Solanum melongena, from S. incanum, in Africa and Asia. In :
Solanaceae III : Taxonomy, Chemistry, Evolution [Eds. J.G. Hawkes, R.N.
Lester, M. Nee and N. Estrada-R]. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew,
Richmond, UK, pp. 369-387.
Malik, A.S., Dhankhar, B.S. and Sharma, N.K. 1986. Variability and correlation
among certain characters in relation to shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes
orbonalis Guen.) infestation in brinjal. Haryana Agricultural University
Journal 36(11) : 11-14.
Martin, S. 2004. Biochemical and molecular profiling of diversity in Solanum spp.
and its impact on pests. An MSc thesis in Biotechnology, Tamil Nadu
Agricultural University, Coimbatore, India, p. 124.
Mehto, D.N. and Lall, B.S. 1981. Comparative susceptibility of different brinjal
cultivars against brinjal shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis
Guen.). Indian Journal of Entomology 43 : 108-109.
Mehto, D.N., Sharma and Lal, B.S. 1981. Comperative susceptibility of different
brinjal cultivars against brinjal fruit and shoot borer. Indian Journal of
Entomology 43 : 108-109.
Miah, M.R.U. 1992. Screening of brinjal varieties / cultivars against brinjal shoot
and fruitborer. In : Ann. Res. Report, 1991-92. Entomol. Div., Bangle.
Agril. Res. Ins, and Bangladesh, pp. 36-37.
Miah, M.R.U. and Begum, A. 1993. Screening of brinjal varieties/cultivars
against brinjal shoot and fruit borer. In : Ann. Res. Report, 1991-92.
Entomol. Div., Bangle. Agril. Res. Ins, and Bangladesh, pp. 45-47.

xiv
Mishra, P.N., Singh, Y.V. and Nautiyal, M.C.1988.Screening of brinjal varieties
for resistance to shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.
(Pyralidae:Lepidoptera). South Indian Horticultural Sciences 36(4) : 188
192.
Mishra, V.K. and Chand, P. 1975. Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. as a pest.
Entomology Newsletter 5 : 24-25.
Mohan, S., Jayaraj, S., Purusothaman, D. and Rangarajan, A.V. 1987. Use of
Azospirillum biofertilizer for the control of sorghum shootfly. Current
Science, pp. 725-734.
Mote, N. 1981. Varietal resistance in eggplant to Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.
screening under field conditions. Indian Journal of Entomology 43 : 112
115.
Mote, U.N. 1979. Varietal resistance of brinjal fruit and shoot borer Leucinodes
orbonalis Guen. Bulletin of Entomology 20 : 75-77.
Mukhopadhyay, A. and Mandal, A. 1994. Screening of brinjal (Solanum
melongena L.) for resistance to major insect pests. Indian Journal of
Agricultural Sciences 64(11) : 798-803.
Munoj-Kumar, Ram, H.H., Singh, Y.V. and Kumar, M. 1997. Screening and
breeding for resistance to shoot and fruit borer in brinjal. Recent
Horticulture 4 :152-155.
Muthukumar, M. 2002. Studies on ecology and environment of major insect pests
of brinjal (Solanum melongena L.). M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, Tamil Nadu
Agriculture University. Killikulam, p.136.

xv
Nair, R.K. 1967. Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) as
serious pest of potato plant in Mysore state. Indian Journal of Entomology
29 : 96-97.
Nath, D., Vishawa, C. and Singh, S. 2008. Evaluation of insecticides and neem
formulation for control of Earias vittella. Annual Plant Protection
Sciences 15 : 206-207.
Nawala, R.N. and Souone, H.N. 1977. Studies on resistance in some of the brinjal
(Solanum melongena L.) varieties to shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes
orbonalis Guen). Journal of Maharastea Agricultural University 2(2) :
184.
Painter, R.H.1958. Resistance of plants to insects. Annual Review of Entomology
3 : 267-290.
Panda, N.A., Mahapatra, G. and Sachoo, M.1971. Field evaluation of some brinjal
varieties for resistance to shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis
Guen.). Indian Journal of Agriculture Sciences 41 : 597-601.
Panda, R.N. and Das, R.C. 1974. Ovipositional preference of fruit and shoot borer
(Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.) to some varieties of brinjal. South India
Horticulture 22 : 46-50.
Panda, N. and Khush, G.S. 1995. Host Plant Resistance to Insects. IRRI CABI, p.
431.
Panda, H.K.1999. Screening of brinjal cultivars for resistance to Leucinodes
orbonalis Guen. Insect and Environment 4 (4):145-146.
Patel, B.R. and Ajri, D.S. 1991. Studies on proximate composition of some
important cultivars of brinjal. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural
University 19(3) : 336-369.

xvi
Patel, G.A. and Basu, A.C. 1948. Bionomics of Leucinodes orbonalis (Guen.) and
Epilancha spp (Coleoptera).The important pests of brinjal (Solanum
melongena. L) in Bengal. Proceeding of Zoological Society of Bengal 1(2)
: 117-121.
Patel, M.M., Patel, C.B. and Patel, M.B. 1995. Screening of brinjal varieties
against insect pests. Gujrat Agricultural University Research Journal
20(2) : 98-102.
Patil, B.R., Ajri, D.S. and Patil, G.D. 1994. Studies on proximate composition of
some improved cultivars of brinjal. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural
University 19(3) : 366-369.
Peshwani, K.M. and Lal, R.1964. Estimation of loss of brinjal fruit caused by
shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis (Guen.). Indian Journal of
Entomology 26(1) : 112-113.
Prabhu, M., Natarajan, S., Veeraragavthatham, D. and Pugalendhi, L. 2009. The
biochemical basis of shoot and fruit borer resistance in interspecific
progress of brinjal (Solanum melongena L). Eurasia Journal of
Biosciences 3 : 50-57.
Pradhan, S.1969. Insect pests of crops. National Book Trust of India. New Delhi,
p-208.
Preneetha, S. 2002. Breeding for shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis G.)
resistance in brinjal (Solanum melongena L.). PhD Thesis, Tamil Nadu
Agricultural University, Coimbatore.
Rahman, A.K.M.Z. 1997. Screening of 28 brinjal lines for resistance tolerance
against the brinjal shoot and fruit borer. Annual Report. Entomology

xvii
Division, Bangladesh Agriculture Research Institute, Joydebhpur,
Ghazipur. Bangladesh, pp. 32-35.
Rahman, M.M. 2007. Vegetables IPM in Bangladesh, pp. 457-462. In :
Redcliffe's IPM World Textbook, University of Minnesota.
Rajan, J.K. and Chakravarti, A.K. 2002. Biochemical changes during fruit
development in eggplant (Solanum melongena L). Capsicum and Eggplant
Newsletter 21 : 93-95.
Rajan, S. and Markose, B.L. 2002. Propagation of Horticultural Crops.
Horticulture Science Series 6 : 94.
Rajendran, B. and Gopalan, M.1998. Screening and grading of brinjal (Solanum
melongena L.) accessions for resistance to spotted beetle (Henosepilachna
vigintopunctata).Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 68:224-225
Raju, B., Reddy, G.P.V., Murthy, M.M.K. and Prasad, V.G. 1987. Biochemical
factors in varietal resistance of eggplant for spotted leaf beetle and shoot
and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.). Indian Journal of
Agricultural Sciences 57 : 142-147.
Rant, U.M. and Souone, H.N. 1980. Tolerance in brinjal varieties to shoot and
fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.). Vegetable Sciences 7(1) : 70-73.
Sadasivam, S. and Manickam, A. 1992. In : Biochemical methods for agricultural
sciences, Wiley Eastern Limited, New Delhi, pp.11-12.
Saeed, M.Q. and Khan. I.A. 1997. Population abundance and chemical control of
brinjal fruit borer. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture 13 : 399-402.

xviii
Sah, S.S.P., Gupta, S.C. and Yazdani, S.S. 1995. Relative resistance of brinjal
cultivars to Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. Journal of Insect Science 8(2) :
194-195.
Sandhanayake, W.R.M. and Edirisinghe, J.P. 1992. Trathala flavoorbitalis:
Parasitization and development in relation to host stage attacked. Insect
Science Applications 13(3) : 287-292.
Satyanarayana, M. 1984. Varietal performance of brinjal genotypes under rainfed
conditions of Andhra Pradesh. Madras Agricultural Journal 71 : 489-490.
Senapati, A.K. 2003. Comparative susceptibility of different brinjal cultivars
against brinjal fruit and shoot borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. Journal
Interacademia 7(1) : 127-129.
Sexena, R.C. 1986. Biochemical basis of insect resistance in rice varieties. In:
Natural Resistance of plant to pests: Role of Allelochemicals. [Eds. M.B.
Green and P.A. Hedin] ADS.Symp.Ser.296, Am.Chm.Soc., Washington
D.C, pp.142-156.
Shahnawaz, K., Nisar, A.K., Abdul, H.S., Shahida, M., Rab, D.K. and
Muhammad, U.N. 2011. Extent of infestation by brinjal fruit borer
(Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.). Sharhad J. Agric. 27 : 3.
Sharma, D.R., Chawdhury, J.B., Ahuja, U. and Dhankar, B.S.1980.Interspecific
hybridization in the genus Solanum. A cross between S.melongena and S.
khasianum through embryo culture. Zeistschrift Furpflanzenzuchtung
Journal of Plant Breeding 85 : 248-253.
Sharma, N.K., Dhankhar, B.S. and Pandita, M.L. 1985. Inter-relationship and path
analysis studies for yield and susceptibility to shoot and fruit borer
components in brinjal. Haryana Journal of Horticulture Sciences 14 : 1-2.

xix
Sharma, S.S. 1994. Field reaction of promosing brinjal cultivars against jassids
and shoot and fruit borer. Haryana J. Hort. Sci. 23(4) : 338-340.
Shinde, K.G. 2007. Correlation of physical and chemical characters in brinjal in
relation to shoot and fruit borer infestation. Advances in Plant Sciences
20(2) : 613-615.
Shukla, B.C., Rajeev, G. and Kaushik, V.K. 1998. Path coefficient analysis of
plant and fruit characters affecting the fruit damage by Leucinodes
orbonalis in brinjal. In : Correlation studies in round fruited brinjal
against fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.). Progressive Horticulture
36(1) : 132-134.
Singh, B.U., Rana, B.S. and Rao, N.G.P. 1982. Host Plant Resistance to mite
(Oligonychus indicus Hirst.) and its relationship with Shootfly
(Altherigona soccata Rond) resistance in sorghum. J. Entomol. Res. 5 : 25-
30.
Singh, D. and Sidhu, A.S. 1986. Management of pest complex in brinjal. Indian
Journal of Entomology 48(3) : 305-311.
Singh, Sardar and Guram, M.S.1967.Trials for control of brinjal shoot and fruit
borer. Plant Protection Bulletin 18 : 13-17.
Singh, T.H. and Kalda, T.S. 1997. Source of resistance to shoot and fruit borer in
eggplant (Solanum melongena L.).PKV Research Journal 21(2) : 126-128.
Singh, Y.P. and Singh, P.P. 2001. Screening of brinjal cultivars against shoot and
fruit borer, (Leucinodes orbonalis Guen) at medium high altitude hills of
Meghalaya. Indian Journal of Plant Protection 29(1-2) : 34-38.
Soundarajan, R.P. and Baskaran, P.2005.Effect of antibiosis components of
eggplant on the development biology of whitefly parastoids. Encarsia

xx
transvena and Eretmocerus mundus M (Aphelinidae: Hymenoptera). In :
National Seminar on Sustainable Insect Pest Management [Eds. S.
Ignacimuthu and S. Jayaraj]. Loyala College, Chennai, p. 298.
Sridhar, V., Vijaj, O.P. and Naik, G. 2001. Field evaluation of brinjal (Solanum
spp.) germplasm against shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.
Insect and Environment 6(4) : 155-156.
Srinivasan, K.M. and Basher, M.1961.Some borer resistant brinjal genotypes.
Indian Farming 11(8) : 19.
Srinivasan, P.M. and Gowder, P.B.1959. How to control the brinjal borer. Indian
Horticulture 3(2) : 7.
Srinivasan, R., Huang, C.C. and Talekar, N.S. 2005. Characterisation of resistance
in eggplant shoot and fruit borer. In : Proceedings of the National
Symposium on Recent Advances in Integrated Management of Brinjal
Shoot and Fruit Borer. October 3-4, Varanasi, India, pp. 90-93.
Subbaratnam, G.N.1987. Studies on the internal characters of shoot and fruit borer
of governing resistance to shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis
Guen.). South Indian Horticulture 35 : 82-84.
Subbaratnam, G.V. and Butani, D.K. 1981. Chemical control of insect pest
complex of brinjal. Entomon. 8(1) : 97-100.
Subbaratnam, G.V.1982.Studies on the internal characters of shoot and fruit of
brinjal governing resistance to shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis
Guen. South Indian Horticulture 30(1) : 217-220.
Tejavathu, H.S., Kalda, T.S. and Gupta, S.S.1991.Note on relative resistance to
shoot and fruit borer in eggplant. Indian Institute of Horticulture Science
84(4) : 356-359.

xxi
Tewari, G.C. and Murthi, P.N.K. 1985. Field screening of eggplant varieties to
infestation by shoot and fruit borer. Indian Journal of Agricultural
Sciences 53 : 82-84.
USDA Nutrient Database. 2011. Eggplant, pp. 1-11.
Vinod, S., Ramesh, L. Anil, C. and Sharma, V. 2001. Screening of brinjal
(Solanum spp.) germplasm against shoot and fruit borer, (Leucinodes
orbonalis Guen.). Insect and Environment 7(3) : 126-127.
Yadav, D.S. and Sharma, M.M. 2005. Evaluation of brinjal varieties for their
resistance against shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.).
Indian Journal of Entomology 67(2) : 129-132.
Yein, B.R. and Rathiah, Y. 1984. Field incidence of shoot and fruit borer and
bacterial wilt in some promising cultivars of brinjal and their yield
performance. Journal of Research, Assam Agriculture University 5 : 104-
107.

xxii
APPENDIX ­ I
Standard concentrations and calculated values against respective
absorbances (for the estimation of total sugars)
S.
No.
Concentration in
µg (X)
*Absorbance at 650 nm
(Y±S.D)
Calculated value
(Y)
01
20
0.109±0.005
0.115
02
40
0.220±0.012
0.215
03
60
0.342±0.026
0.315
04
80
0.440± 0.038
0.415
05
100
0.531±0.035
0.515
06
120
0.653±0.119
0.615
07
140
0.738±0.028
0.715
08
160
0.851±0.045
0.815
09
180
0.950±0.020
0.915
* Mean of three observations

xxiii
APPENDIX ­ II
Standard concentrations and calculated values against respective
absorbances (for the estimation of total phenol)
S.
No.
Concentration in
µg (X)
*Absorbance at 630 nm
(Y±S.D)
Calculated value
(Y)
01
20
0.129±0.005
0.124
02
40
0.247±0.012
0.224
03
60
0.349±0.026
0.324
04
80
0.483±0.038
0.424
05
100
0.553±0.035
0.524
06
120
0.679±0.119
0.624
07
140
0.793±0.213
0.724
* Mean of three replications
118 of 118 pages

Details

Title
Screening of Solanum melongena Against Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee
Subtitle
Agricultural Entomology
College
Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Jammu  (SKUAST-K, srinager)
Course
Agriculture
Grade
A
Author
Year
2012
Pages
118
Catalog Number
V353822
ISBN (Book)
9783668403116
File size
2266 KB
Language
English
Tags
screening, solanum, against, leucinodes, guenee, agricultural, entomology
Quote paper
Showket Ahmad Dar (Author), 2012, Screening of Solanum melongena Against Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/353822

Comments

  • No comments yet.
Read the ebook
Title: Screening of Solanum melongena Against Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee



Upload papers

Your term paper / thesis:

- Publication as eBook and book
- High royalties for the sales
- Completely free - with ISBN
- It only takes five minutes
- Every paper finds readers

Publish now - it's free