ABSTRACT ARTICLE INFORMATION Received: December 10, 2012 Received in revised form: June 17, 2013 Accepted: June 20, 2013 Email: The present research on the response of pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis on five chickpea, (Cicer arietinum L.) varieties KK-1, KK-2, KC-98, Lawaghar and Sheenghar were conducted under laboratory condition. Two sets of experiment; no-choice test and free choice test were carried out in the Complete Randomized Design (CRD) with four replications. The results were evaluated on the basis of eggs laid/female, developmental period, total number of adults emerged, adult longevity of male and female, adult weight (mg), % adult emergence, percent grain damage and weight loss. Results of no-choice test revealed that none of the cultivar was completely resistant to C. chinensis, however, their response varied significantly. Taking weight loss as a standard parameter, cultivar Lawaghar (4 % weight loss) was significantly least susceptible, KK-2 (28%) and Sheenghar (31%) moderately susceptible while KC-98 (60%) and KK-1 (70%) were highly susceptible. The results of free- choice test also revealed that none of the cultivars was completely immune to the attack of C. chinensis. In free-choice test, variety Lawaghar also received significantly less number of eggs by C. Chinensis. INTRODUCTION 60% loss in seed weight and 45.50 to 66.30% loss in protein content of pulses is due to infestation caused by this beetle Pulses constitute major source of protein in the diet of people (Faruk et al., 2011). In case of heavy infestation of grains by of developing countries. Pulses contain 20-30% of protein pulse beetle the grains lose their germination capacity and which is almost three times higher than cereals (Doharey et become unfit for human consumption. To reduce storage al., 1983). Major pulse crops grown in the country are losses in pulses, usually some chemicals or fumigants are chickpea, Cicer arietinum L.; lentil, Lens culinaris.; mung applied. The use of these chemicals not only increase input bean, Vigna radiata L.; mash, Vigna mungo L; and khesari, cost but also is health hazardous. Therefore, there is a need to Lathyrus sativus L. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, chickpea is search for some non-chemical methods. Investigating grown in the Southern areas, i.e., Karak, Bannu and D.I. Khan resistance source in the cultivable varieties is the best option districts. It is traditionally grown on residual soil moisture in this regard. The present study is therefore planned to screen after the rainy season in the months of October and November the five available cultivars for their resistance to pulse beetle (Bashir, 1986). C. chinenis. Pulse beetle C. chinensis is one of the serious storage pests of Chickpea. C. chinensis has been reported to cause serious MATERIALS AND METHODS damage to pulses in Bangladesh, India and many countries of the world. It is cosmopolitan in distribution found in the Varieties used for screening countries where tropical and subtropical conditions prevail. It has a capability to infest not only cultivated host plants in the Five varieties of chickpea which are presently under field but also in storage (Fahad, 2011). It is recorded that 55- cultivation in pulses growing areas are selected for screening. Keywords: EVALUATION OF RESISTANCE IN LOCAL CHICKPEA VARIETIES AGAINST THE PULSE BEETLE, CALLOSOBRUCHUS CHINENSIS L. (COLEOPTERA: BRUCHIDAE) *Corresponding Author: Falak Naz falak05@yahoo.com Pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis, chickpea, varietal resistance 1 1 2 3 Ayesha Siddiqa , Farzana Perveen , *Falak Naz and Muhammad Ashfaque 1 Department of Zoology, Hazara University, Garden Campus, Mansehra-21300, Pakistan 2 National Insect Museum, IPEP, NARC Park Road, Islamabad, Paksitan 3 Insect Pest Management Programme, IPEP, NARC, Park Road Islamabad, Pakistan Journal homepage: www.pakentomol.com Pakistan Entomologist Cite this article as: 77 Siddiqa, A., F. Perveen1, F. Naz and M. Ashfaque, 2013. Evaluation of resistance in local chickpea varieties against the pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis L. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Pak. Entomol., 35(1): 43-46. 43