Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies 2018; 6(1): 942-946
E-ISSN: 2320-7078
P-ISSN: 2349-6800
JEZS 2018; 6(1): 942-946
© 2018 JEZS
Received: 25-11-2017
Accepted: 27-12-2017
L Vijaykumar
Department of Entomology,
College of Agriculture,
University of Agricultural
Sciences, Bangalore, V. C. Farm,
Mandya, Karnataka, India
J Jyothi
Department of Entomology,
College of Agriculture,
University of Agricultural
Sciences, Bangalore, V. C. Farm,
Mandya, Karnataka, India
K Madhusudan
National seed project, College of
Agriculture, University of
Agricultural Sciences, GKVK,
Bangalore, Karnataka, India
B Shivanna
Department of Entomology,
University of Agricultural
Sciences, GKVK, Bangalore,
Karnataka, India
Correspondence
L Vijaykumar
Department of Entomology,
College of Agriculture,
University of Agricultural
Sciences, Bangalore, V. C. Farm,
Mandya, Karnataka, India
New source of resistance against sesame leaf
webber and capsule borer, Antigastra catalaunalis
Dupounchel (Pyraustidae: Lepidoptera) in
Karnataka
L Vijaykumar, J Jyothi, K Madhusudan and B Shivanna
Abstract
Sixty sesame genotypes including 7 local cultivars were evaluated during 2016 for resistance against
sesame leaf webber and capsule borer, A. catalaunalis (Dup.) at ZARS, V. C. Farm, Mandya. Among the
60 genotypes evaluated AVT-8, IVT-15, IVT 5-1, IVT-9 and Kanakapura local were reacted as highly
resistant (HR) with mean pod damage of 1.15, 1.84, 1.86, 1.94 and 4.47%, respectively along with
cumulative leaf, flower and pod damage score of 1.00 while, four genotypes viz., AVT-3, AVT-1, IVT-
23 and IVT-27 in which, the leaf, flower and pod damage were varied between 9.76 to 14.20%, 3.58 to
5.88%, and 1.42 to 1.65%, respectively and were rated as resistant (R) with a cumulative score of 1.66.
Whereas, seven genotypes viz., IVT-5, IVT- 7, IVT -11, IVT-13, IVT-21, AVT-10, AVT 4-2, Shivalli
local were reacted as susceptible (S) with leaf, flower and pod damage varied between 30 to 40%, 15 to
20%, and 6 to 8%, respectively. Out of 60 genotypes evaluated under high pest pressure, 43 genotypes
were designated as highly susceptible (HS) with the mean leaf, flower and pod damage of more than
40.00, 20.00 and 8.00%, respectively.
Keywords: Sesame, Antigastra catalaunalis, Genotypes, Screening, Resistance
Introduction
Sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) is one of the oldest oilseed crop grown in tropical and warm
temperate regions of the world [1]. Nutritionally, sesame is rich in carbohydrate, proteins,
calcium and phosphorous [2].The mature seeds were used in confectioneries, cookies, cakes,
margarine and for bread making. The oil is used in the manufacture of soaps, cosmetics,
perfumes, insecticides as well as pharmaceutical products, and the oilcakes were used to feed
livestock as a source of nutrients [3]. In spite of its greater importance, the productivity and
yields low. The decrease in yields have been attributed to several factors which includes low
yielding varieties, poor agronomic practices, saline soils, poor drainage, poor planting
methods, weeds, diseases and insect pests [4, 5]. Among the factors, insect pests take a heavy
toll in yield loss [6]. The crop is reported to be damaged by 29 species of insect pests [5, 6] of
which, sesame leaf webber and capsule borer, A. catalaunalis is one of the most important and
threatening pest of sesame and gained major pest status by causing 90 per cent yield losses [6,
7]
. The sesame leaf webber and capsule borer is reported to attack all growth stage. Its
incidence can be seen at two weeks after germination and damage will be more severe during
flower initiation and capsule formation. In order to subdue the threat of this pest, the growers
primarily rely on chemical insecticides which had led to several problems viz., toxic residues,
elimination of natural enemies, environmental disharmony and development of resistance
among different pests. Keeping this in view, the present study was undertaken to investigate
the available sesame germplasm for resistance against A. catalaunalis.
Materials and Methods
A total of 60 sesame genotypes under Initial varietal trails (IVT) and advanced varietal trails
(AVT) including 7 popular local genotypes were screened for resistance against A.
catalaunalis. Field screening was carried out at Zonal Agricultural Research Station, V.C
farm, Mandya during kharif 2016. Each germplasm were replicated thrice with a spacing of 30
X 15 cm, between rows and plants, respectively. In each replication, the observation on leaf
infestation, flower infestation and capsule damage by A. catalaunalis were recorded on
~ 942 ~ 
Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies
 

10 designated plants on 30 and 60 days after sowing. The (R) with a cumulative score of 1.66 and a corresponding
healthy and damaged leaf, flower and capsules were counted grade 3. Four genotypes were rated moderately resistant (MR)
and finally percent leaf, flower and pod damage were by securing cumulative leaf, flower and pod damaging score
calculated as of 3.00 with corresponding grade 5. Likewise, seven
genotypes were categorized as susceptible (S) with a mean
No. of leaf/flower/pod damage cumulative leaf, flower and pod damaging score of 5.00 and
Per cent leaf/flower/pod damage =
Total No. of leaf/flower/pod 43 genotypes were reacted as highly susceptible (HS) with the
mean leaf, flower and pod damage of more than 40.00, 20.00
Further, the reaction of germplasm against A. catalaunalis and 8.00%, respectively.
Dup. was categorized by using 0-9 scale (Table 1 and 2) as The present investigation is contradicted by the reports of
suggested by Sridhar and Gopalan [8]. Patil et al. [10] who evaluated 24 sesame genotypes against A.
catalaunalis and rated two genotypes viz., OS-15 and OS-5 as
Table 1: Scoring method for evaluation of sesame genotype against tolerance to capsule borer, this might be due to the variation
A. catalaunalis. in the grading pattern followed by the author. However, the
Per cent damage results are in conformity with Karuppaiah and Nadarajan [6]
Cumulative score who reported that most of the genotypes were rated as highly
Leaf (A) Flower bud (B) Pod (C)
(A+B+C) / 3 susceptible. Similarly, One thousand four hundred and ninety
0-10 0-5 0-2 1 two sesame germplasm were screened for resistance to A.
10-20 5-10 2-4 3 catalaunalis by Shrivastava et al. [11], among the germplasm
20-30 10-15 4-6 5 tested, only four genotypes viz., SI 3, SI 1209, OTS 2 and T
30-40 15-20 6-8 7 44 recorded less than 10 per cent flower infestation and
>40 >20 >8 9 capsule damage and this variation in the damage might be due
to the intensity and pest pressure. Based on the cumulative
Table 2: Grading method for evaluation of sesame genotype against
score it has been observed that none of the genotypes free
A. catalaunalis.
from leaf webber and capsule borer infestation. The lowest
Cumulative score Grade Degree of resistance capsule damage was recorded in AVT-8 (1.5%) followed by
0–1 1 Highly resistant (HR) Kanakapura local (1.6%). Five genotypes viz., IVT-9, IVT-15,
1.1 – 2 3 Resistant (R) IVT 5-1, AVT-8 and Kanakapura local recorded less than 10,
2.1 – 3 5 Moderately Resistant (MR) 5 and 2% leaf, flower and pod damage, respectively and were
3.1 – 5 7 Susceptible (S) found promising to capsule borer (Table 3).
5.1 – 9 9 Highly Susceptible (HS) Among the 60 genotypes evaluated only four genotypes
namely AVT-3, AVT-1, IVT-23 and IVT-27 were rated
Results and Discussion resistance while, genotypes viz., IVT-19, Mangala, Madla and
In the present investigation, 60 sesame genotypes including 7 Kirugavalu rated as ‘moderately resistance (Table 4). The
local cultivars were evaluated under high pest pressure in present investigation are in close agreement with Karuppaiah
field conditions. Based on the intensity of damage assessed on and Nadarajan [6] who stated that none of the accession were
different plant parts at various stages, the accessions were free from attack by leaf webber and capsule borer. The
categorized as highly resistant (HR), resistant (R), moderately findings of Balaji and Selvanarayanan [12] also indicated the
resistant (MR), susceptible (S) and highly susceptible (HS) susceptibility of various germplasm to A. catalaunalis. But
genotypes as per the score suggested by Sridhar and Gopalan present results are contradicted by the findings of Anandh and
[8]
. Selvanarayanan [13] where they rated IVTS-2001-20, IVTS-
The infestation of A. catalaunalis was observed from early 2001-23, IVTS-2001-24, IVTS-2001-25 and IVTS-2001-26
vegetative phase to pod maturation phase and none of the as highly resistant to A. catalaunalis. This variation might be
genotypes were free from the infestation by the leaf webber due to variation in the damage potential and pest pressure by
and capsule borer. The present investigations was in A. catalaunalis across various locations. The present results
conformity with the study made by Kumar et al.[9] who were also in close agreements with Ahuja et al. [14] and
reported the incidence of leaf webber and capsule borer (A. detailed reports of Gupta [15] who evaluated 235 sesame
catalaunalis) from sowing till harvest. The per cent leaf, germplasm for resistance to A. catalaunalis and reported
flower and capsule damage were ranged from 7.79 to 9.91, eleven genotypes viz., SI-232-2, SI-911, SI-928, SI-934, SI-
3.27 to 4.76 and 1.15 to 1.84 per cent in resistant genotypes, 1400, SI-1496, SI-1499, SI-1556, SI-1843, SI-2174-2 and IC-
respectively. While in susceptible genotypes it varied from 205595 as possible source of resistance used in breeding
24.92 to 44.27, 15.31 to 48.14 and 5.25 to 12.54 per cent programme to develop resistant varieties for endemic
respectively (Table 3). To select promising genotypes for locations.
resistance breeding programme against A. catalaunalis, the
cumulative scoring was made. The resistance potential of the Conclusion
sesame genotypes against A. catalaunalis evaluated at 30 and Based on the results obtained, it can be concluded that the
60 days after sowing indicated that, out of 60 screened genotypes IVT-9, IVT-15, IVT 5-1, AVT-8 and Kanakapura
genotypes evaluated, five genotypes viz., IVT-9, IVT-15, IVT local can be considered as the most promising genotypes and
5-1, AVT-8 and Kanakapura local were reacted as highly may be used as source of resistance in future sesame
resistant (HR) with mean pod damage of 1.15, 1.84, 1.86, resistance breeding programme against Leaf webber and
1.94 and 4.47%, respectively along with cumulative leaf, capsule borer, A. catalaunalis.
flower and pod damage score of 1.00 with corresponding
grade 1 (Table 3). While, four genotypes viz., AVT-3, AVT-1,
IVT-23 and IVT-27 in which, the leaf, flower and pod
damage were varied between 9.76 to 14.20%, 3.58 to 5.88%,
and 1.42 to 1.65%, respectively and were rated as resistant
~ 943 ~ 
Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies
 

Table 3: Cumulative score of sesame genotypes against the infestation of A. catalaunalis.

30 DAS 60 DAS Cumulative score
Sl. Leaf Flower Pod Leaf Flower Pod Leaf Flower Pod
Genotype Mean
No. damage damage damage damage damage damage damage score damage score damage score Grade Reaction
score
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
1 IVT 1 27.06 19.19 4.72 36.10 21.42 7.87 31.59 7 20.31 9 6.30 7 7.66 9 HS
2 IVT 2 38.97 41.83 11.80 27.70 18.00 9.43 33.34 7 29.92 9 11.00 9 8.33 9 HS
3 IVT 3 27.69 31.25 7.80 29.50 21.30 12.54 28.59 5 26.28 9 10.00 9 7.66 9 HS
4 IVT 4 39.78 20.00 4.54 31.30 24.88 6.87 35.52 7 22.44 9 5.70 5 7.00 9 HS
5 IVT 5 28.11 14.58 5.60 19.70 14.88 5.84 23.91 5 14.73 5 5.72 5 5.00 7 S
6 IVT 6 40.00 18.39 7.76 32.70 22.63 9.51 36.33 7 20.51 9 8.60 7 7.66 9 HS
7 IVT 7 18.75 17.20 4.44 20.00 14.08 5.36 19.36 3 15.64 7 4.90 5 5.00 7 S
8 IVT 8 29.80 17.50 5.60 31.60 21.71 12.01 30.68 7 19.61 7 8.80 7 7.00 9 HS
9 IVT 9 7.29 4.39 1.26 9.93 4.20 1.94 8.61 1 4.29 1 1.60 1 1.00 1 HR
10 IVT 10 27.70 20.61 6.89 28.10 22.48 7.87 27.89 5 21.55 9 7.40 7 7.00 9 HS
11 IVT 11 19.25 14.73 5.67 23.70 13.19 3.81 21.50 5 13.96 5 4.74 5 5.00 5 S
12 IVT 12 29.31 15.73 6.66 35.60 18.69 7.76 32.45 7 17.21 7 7.20 7 7.00 9 HS
13 IVT 13 39.76 17.97 7.75 28.60 21.83 7.78 34.17 7 19.90 7 7.80 7 7.00 9 S
14 IVT 14 34.64 25.28 5.60 30.80 22.41 8.56 32.7 7 23.85 9 7.10 7 7.66 9 HS
15 IVT 15 5.94 4.44 1.44 7.97 4.76 1.84 6.95 1 4.60 1 1.60 1 1.00 1 HR
16 IVT 16 28.40 21.35 7.57 26.50 17.41 9.32 27.45 5 19.38 7 8.40 9 7.00 9 HS
17 IVT 17 38.05 18.88 7.87 31.10 24.03 7.83 34.57 7 21.46 9 7.90 7 7.66 9 HS
18 IVT 18 31.17 19.27 7.14 27.70 18.22 7.67 29.44 5 18.75 7 7.40 7 6.33 9 HS
19 IVT 19 15.62 9.52 3.44 15.00 9.25 3.98 15.29 3 9.38 3 3.70 3 3.00 5 MR
20 IVT 20 23.82 21.05 8.08 29.20 16.47 9.47 26.50 5 18.76 7 8.80 9 7.00 9 HS
21 IVT 21 25.65 14.94 4.40 23.70 14.90 4.83 24.70 5 14.92 5 4.60 5 5.00 7 S
22 IVT 22 39.14 25.25 7.91 34.40 17.53 10.27 36.76 7 21.39 9 9.10 9 8.33 9 HS

30 DAS 60 DAS Cumulative score

Sl. Leaf Flower Pod Leaf Flower Pod Leaf Flower Pod
Genotype Mean
No. damage damage damage damage damage damage damage score damage score damage score Grade Reaction
score
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
23 IVT 23 9.40 7.14 1.53 9.80 5.33 1.65 9.60 1 6.23 3 1.60 1 1.66 3 R
24 IVT 24 25.20 22.10 7.35 34.50 16.87 4.80 29.84 5 19.49 7 6.10 7 6.33 9 HS
25 IVT 25 34.11 26.04 8.69 26.30 22.22 6.60 30.20 7 24.13 9 7.60 7 7.66 9 HS
26 IVT 26 38.88 21.21 9.65 37.70 20.57 6.48 38.28 7 20.89 9 8.10 9 8.33 9 HS
27 IVT 27 8.92 8.69 1.73 9.76 5.88 1.46 9.34 1 7.28 3 1.60 1 1.66 3 R
28 IVT 28 25.80 20.61 6.34 36.60 20.28 5.99 31.21 7 20.45 9 6.20 7 7.66 9 HS
29 IVT 29 32.53 18.36 10.00 29.80 17.97 7.62 31.17 7 18.17 7 8.80 9 7.66 9 HS
30 IVT 1-1 37.45 21.64 10.90 31.10 20.25 7.64 34.28 7 20.95 9 9.30 9 8.33 9 HS
31 IVT 3-1 27.41 23.07 11.60 27.70 18.05 5.47 27.55 5 20.56 9 8.50 9 7.66 9 HS
32 IVT 5-1 4.04 3.03 2.00 9.91 3.60 1.86 6.975 1 3.315 1 1.93 1 1.00 1 HR
33 IVT 8-10 29.88 22.44 7.35 37.70 15.31 5.25 33.77 7 18.88 7 6.30 7 7.00 9 HS
34 IVT 10-1 37.65 23.36 9.48 43.20 20.08 7.57 40.4 9 21.72 9 8.50 9 9.00 9 HS
35 AVT 1 9.70 5.06 1.62 13.76 3.58 1.46 11.73 3 4.32 1 1.50 1 1.66 3 R
36 AVT 2 28.57 16.30 7.57 27.10 17.93 5.25 27.85 5 17.12 7 6.40 7 6.33 9 HS
~ 944 ~ 
Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies
 

37 AVT 3 9.30 4.65 2.32 14.20 4.83 1.42 11.77 3 4.74 1 1.90 1 1.66 3 R
38 AVT 4 27.71 22.22 9.83 25.90 21.00 5.87 26.82 5 21.61 9 7.90 7 7.00 9 HS
39 AVT 5 36.54 23.40 8.69 32.80 21.17 5.95 34.68 7 22.29 9 7.30 7 7.66 9 HS
40 AVT 6 32.01 23.86 7.63 35.80 16.41 6.35 33.91 7 20.14 9 7.00 7 7.66 9 HS
41 AVT 7 37.81 22.98 9.02 28.30 19.38 6.26 33.07 7 21.18 9 7.60 7 7.66 9 HS
42 AVT 8 3.77 2.15 1.75 7.79 3.27 1.15 5.78 1 2.71 1 1.50 1 1.00 1 HR
43 AVT 9 26.66 22.22 7.81 37.80 21.72 6.62 32.21 7 21.97 9 7.20 7 7.66 9 HS
44 AVT 10 22.08 9.57 6.87 20.00 12.80 6.85 21.02 3 11.19 5 6.90 7 5.00 7 S

30 DAS 60 DAS Cumulative score

Sl. Leaf Flower Pod Leaf Flower Pod Leaf Flower Pod
Genotype Mean
No. damage damage damage damage damage damage damage score damage score damage score Grade Reaction
score
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
45 AVT 11 36.69 25.00 10.40 38.50 18.01 5.74 37.59 7 21.51 9 8.10 9 8.33 9 HS
46 AVT 12 28.29 26.21 7.41 34.50 23.69 6.00 31.37 7 24.95 9 6.70 7 7.66 9 HS
47 AVT 13 35.63 24.46 9.15 35.20 20.53 6.69 35.40 7 22.50 9 7.90 7 7.66 9 HS
48 AVT 14 29.21 23.15 10.20 44.30 48.14 7.94 36.74 7 35.65 9 9.10 9 8.33 9 HS
49 AVT 15 35.76 23.07 8.40 27.40 27.80 4.82 31.57 7 25.44 9 6.60 7 7.66 9 HS
50 AVT DS 5 40.57 22.54 7.81 43.70 22.43 6.52 42.13 9 22.49 9 7.20 7 8.33 9 HS
51 AVT 4-2 25.10 14.28 5.18 27.90 14.97 5.714 26.50 5 14.63 5 5.40 5 5.00 7 S
52 AVT 4-1 26.92 27.72 7.84 35.20 21.22 3.83 31.08 7 24.47 9 5.80 5 7.00 9 HS
53 Mangala 19.25 4.12 3.22 18.50 9.32 3.54 18.88 3 6.72 3 3.40 3 3.00 5 MR
54 Kirugavalu 17.53 6.66 3.54 13.80 9.40 3.88 15.68 3 8.03 3 3.70 3 3.00 5 MR
55 Shivalli 17.75 15.53 5.92 26.80 13.30 5.54 22.29 5 14.42 5 5.70 5 5.00 7 S
56 Chikkmandya 32.94 27.55 7.48 32.40 16.01 5.50 32.69 7 21.78 9 6.50 7 7.66 9 HS
57 Kodihalli 40.00 20.45 9.09 28.70 18.75 6.99 34.37 7 19.60 7 8.00 9 7.66 9 HS
58 Kanakapura 4.47 2.94 2.00 9.86 4.24 1.26 7.16 1 3.59 1 1.60 1 1.00 1 HR
59 Madla 16.30 7.86 3.03 19.70 7.80 2.09 18.01 3 7.83 3 2.60 3 3.00 5 MR
60 GT-1 36.44 25.51 8.66 36.50 17.74 6.55 36.49 7 21.63 9 7.60 7 7.66 9 HS

Table 4: Field reaction of sesame genotypes against A. catalaunalis at Mandya, kharif 2016.
Per cent damage Cumulative
Scale Resistance category Genotypes
Leaf Flower Pod score
1 0-10 0-5 0-2 0-1 HR IVT 9, IVT 15, IVT 5-1, AVT 8,Kanakapura
3 10-20 5-10 2-4 1.1-2 R IVT 23, IVT 27, AVT 1, AVT 3
5 20-30 10-15 4-6 2.1-3 MR IVT 19, Mangala, Kirugavalu, Madla
7 30-40 15-20 6-8 3.1-5 S IVT 5, IVT 7, IVT 11, IVT 21, AVT 4-2, AVT 10, Shivalli
IVT 1, IVT 2, IVT 3, IVT 4, IVT 6, IVT 8,IVT 10, IVT 12, IVT 13, IVT 14, IVT 16,IVT 17, IVT 18, IVT 20, IVT 22, IVT
9 >40 >20 >8 5.1-9 HS 24,IVT 25, IVT 26, IVT 28, IVT 29, IVT 1-1, IVT 3-1, IVT 8-10, IVT 10-1, GT 1, AVT 2,AVT 4, AVT 5, AVT 6, AVT
7, AVT 9, AVT 11, AVT 12, AVT 13, AVT 14, AVT, AVT 15, AVT DS 5, AVT 4-1, Chikkmandya, Kodihalli.

~ 945 ~ 
Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies
 

Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to ICAR-Indian Institute of Oil Seeds
Research, Hyderabad for providing genetic materials. Thanks
are also due to Director of Research, University of
Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, Associate Director of
Research, Zonal Agricultural Research Station, V. C. Farm,
Mandya and Final year B. Sc. (Agri.) Hands on Training & E-
learning (HOT) Students of 2016-17 batch for their help.

References
1. Ssekabembe CK, Osiru DSO, Ogenga-Latigo MW,
Nantongo S, Okidi J. Some aspects of sesame production
in Northern and Eastern Uganda. In: Proceedings of
African Crop Science Conference. 2001; 5:689-697.
2. Weiss EA. Oilseed crops. Edn 2, Vol. 80, Longman
London. New York, 1983, 282-340.
3. Seegeler CJP. Oil Plants in Ethiopia, their taxonomy and
agricultural significance. Centre for Agricultural
Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen, 1983.
4. Rai BK. Pests of oilseed crops in India and their control.
ICAR, New Delhi, 1976, 100-121.
5. Mbah MC, Akueshi CO. Aflatoxin in mould infested
sesame seeds. African Journal of Biotechnology. 2009;
8(3):391-394.
6. Karuppaiah V, Nadarajan L. Host plant resistance against
sesame leaf webber and capsule borer, Antigastra
catalaunalis Duponchel (Pyraustidae: Lepidoptera).
African Journal of Ariculrural Research. 2013;
8(37):4674-4680.
7. Ahuja DB, Bhakhetia DRC. Bio-ecology and
management of insect pests of sesame. A Review:
Journal of Insect science. 1995; 8:1-19.
8. Sridhar PR, Gopalan M. Studies on screening and
mechanism of resistance against the shoot webber,
Antigastra catalaunalis (Duponchel). Entomon. 2002;
27(4):365-373.
9. Kumar R, Ali S, Chandra U. Seasonal incidence of
insect-pests of Sesamum indicum. Annals of Plant
Protection Sciences. 2009; 17(2):459-526.
10. Patil SK, Dharne PK, Shambharka DA. Response of
different promising genotypes of sesame to major insect
pests and leaf spot disease. Sesame and Safflower
Newsletter. 2001; 16:72-74.
11. Shrivastava N, Duhoon SS, Jharia HK, Singh BR.
Screening of sesame germplasm for resistance against
leaf roller and capsule borer (Antigastra catalaunalis
Dup.). Indian Journal of Plant Genetic Resources. 2001;
14:203.
12. Balaji K, Selvanarayanan V. Evaluation of resistance in
sesame germplasm against shoot webber and capsule
borer. Indian Journal of Plant Protection. 2009; 37(1-
2):35-38.
13. Anandh VG, Selvanarayanan V. Reaction of sesame
germplasm against shoot webber Antigastra catalaunalis
Duponchel and phyllody. Indian Journal of Plant
Protection. 2005; 33(1):35-38.
14. Ahuja DB, Kalyan RK, Solanki ZS. Resistance of wild
and cultivated sesame (Sesamum spp.) to Antigastra
catalaunalis (Dup.) Lepidoptera: Pyralidae. Entomon.
2007; 32(4):273-277.
15. Gupta MP. Field screening of sesame germplasm against
leaf roller and capsule borer, Antigastra catalaunalis
Dup. Indian Journal of Plant Protection. 2004; 32(1):42-
44.

~ 946 ~