Genotypic response of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) for resistance against gram pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera)

ra

 

Genotypic response of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)  for resistance against gram pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera)

Muhammad Zeeshan Shabbir1, Muhammad Arshad1, Babar Hussain*2, Imran Nadeem3, Shahbaz Ali1, Asim Abbasi1, Qurban Ali2,4

Adv. life sci., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 23-30, November 2014
*- Corresponding Author: Babar Hussain (Email: babar2331@gmail.com)
Author Affiliations

1- Department of Entomology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan
2- Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan
3- Entomological Research Institute, Ayyub Agricultural Research Institute, Faisalabad, Pakistan
4- Centre of Excellence in Molecular Biology, University of the Punjab Lahore, Pakistan 
[Date Received: 29/08/2014; Date Revised: 31/10/2014; Date Published Online: 25/11/2014]

Abstractaa download_button
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References

Abstract

Background: Chickpea is an important pulse crop of Pakistan. The pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner), is the major pest in most of the chickpea growing areas of the country. A field trial was carried out at Entomological Research Area, Ayub Agriculture Research Institute (AARI), Faisalabad, during growing season of 2012-13 to evaluate the resistance of chickpea genotypes against gram pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera).

Methods: Experiments were conducted in randomized complete block design (RCBD) with four replications having plot size 3 ft × 20 ft. Morphological characters of chickpea like pod trichome, pod wall thickness, pod length, pod breadth, pod area and number of pods per plant were measured. The pod borer larval population/pod infestation was recorded from fifteen randomly selected plants per plot after ten days interval.

Results: It was found that the genotypes which had higher trichomes length and density and pod wall thickness were more resistant against Helicoverpa infestation. Significant genetic variation for resistance against Helicoverpa armigera attack was found in chickpea and variety K-70005 showed resistant behavior followed by K-08004 and K-60062.

Conclusions: It was concluded from prescribed study that the most susceptible genotypes were K-70005, K-08004 and K-70008 for the attack of Helicoverpa armigera to reduce grain yield.

Key words: Chickpea, Genetic variation, Helicoverpa armigera, Pod borer, Resistance

Introduction

Chickpea is considered to be the third most important grain legume in the world being extensively grown in almost 45 countries of the world [1]. It is also grown over large acreage in northwestern USA, Australia, and the Mediterranean basin [2]. It is not only an important source of feed and food, but it also adds nitrogen to soil which increases soil richness [3]. Chickpea is a crop of sandy soils but for the last few years it is being grown on irrigated lands after the harvesting of rice as cereal-legume rotation for reducing the exhaustion of rare soil nutrients [4].

Chickpea comprises 17.2% protein, 5.4% fat and 3.0% minerals wherein the nutrition vitality is about 1507 kJ. The dependable values for de-husked splitting chickpea are 21.8%, 5.8% and 2.9% respectively. They are also a source of high-quality protein, so known as “a poor man’s meat” [5]. Chickpea is a cool dry season crop, mostly grown in rain-fed areas of Pakistan [6]. Chickpea is the main grain legume of Pakistan, cultivated over 1.05 m ha covering 75 percent of the total area under pulses. Total production of the chickpea in Pakistan was 291,000 tons [7]. Over the time, progress in chickpea production and grain yield is low in comparison with rest of the world and latent production of chickpea strains. High nutritional value, low water and nutrients requirements and fertility restoration are the significant features of the chickpea crop [8-10].

Among the key yield regulating components of chickpea; insects, pests and diseases cause severe damage to the crop. Chickpea pod borer (CPB), Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) is the utmost damaging pest of the chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and it is one of the main threatening factor for its production all over the world that caused great yield losses  [11-14]. Latent yield of chickpea crop is very low in Pakistan mostly due to the lack of improved varieties appropriate for cultivation both in irrigated as well as rain-fed areas. This problem can be stunned by developing high yielding genotypes to improve the living style of chickpea growing farmers [15,16]. The significance of large sized seed as an essential yield contributing factor in chickpea is well known by chickpea breeding programs in the world [17-20]. Upadhyaya et al., [21] indicated large seed size as skill related trait and component of yield and adaptation in chickpea. Host plant resistance bids a real implement in integrated pest management [22] for control of pest as compared to many other control methods [23,24]. Although, this pest can be controlled by using different integrated methods but host plant resistance is very effective and economical method to control CPB [25,26]. Considering the above factors, the present research was conducted to determine resistance/susceptibility of chickpea varieties against Helicoverpa armigera under field conditions. 

Methods

This research was conducted at Ayub Agriculture Research Institute (AARI), Faisalabad during the growing season of 2012-13. The K-60062, K-08003, K-08004, K-06005, K-70005, Ks-06006 and K-70008 chickpea varieties were used to assess the resistance potential of chickpea against Helicoverpa armigera infestation in relation to pod morphological traits. The experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with four replications. The treatments were randomly allotted to each block. The seeds of respective varieties/lines were sown on November 22, 2012 in rows with spacing of 30 cm and plant to plant distance of 15 cm. The gross plot size was maintained 3 ft × 20 ft. All other agronomic factors except the factor under study were kept constant. Usual cultural practices were adopted to maintain a good crop. The observations regarding the pod damage were recorded at the time of pest appearance by counting the total number of pods and number of pods damaged by the pest from 15 randomly selected plants from each plot at 10 days interval up to maturity. Recommended agronomic practices were carried out through the growing season.

Statistical Analysis
The data was statistically analyzed following Fisher’s analysis of variance technique and least significant difference [27] test was used to compare the treatments’ means at 5% probability level.

Results 

Analysis of variance reveals significant differences among the comparative performance of different chickpea varieties against all studied traits, presented in (Tables 1 & 2).

Effect of pod borer damage on pod length
The recorded observation showed that K-70005 performed better and highest pod length (2.05/cm) was observed for K-70005. The second highest pod length (1.84/cm) was found in variety K-08004 following the varieties K-06006 (1.79/cm), K-06005 (1.76/cm) and K-60062 (1.69/cm). The lowest pod length was found for K-70008 (1.49/cm) which was statistically similar to variety K-08003 (1.53/cm) (Fig 1a).

Effect of pod borer damage on pod breadth
The recorded observation showed that K-70005 (1.06) performed better as compared to other varieties. The lowest pods breadth was recorded (0.71) for variety K-70008 which was statistically at par with K-08003 (0.74) (Fig 1b).

Effect of pod borer damage on pod area
The maximum pods area (2.02/sq.cm) was recorded for K-70005 following by K-08004 (1.92/sq.cm), K-60062 (1.91/sq.cm) and K-06005 (1.83/sq.cm). The lowest pod area was (1.57/sq.cm) was noted for the variety K-70008 which was statistically same to K-08003 (1.59) (Fig 1c).

Effect of pod borer damage on pod wall thickness
The recorded observation showed that K-70005 performed better and highest pod wall thickness (0.14 /mm) was observed for K-70005. The second maximum and statistically same pod wall thickness was attained for K-60062 (0.13/mm) and K-08004 (0.13/mm). The least pod wall thickness was found for K-70008(0.10/mm) which was statistically similar to K-08003 (0.11/mm) (Fig 1d).

Effect of pod borer damage on pod trichome length
Recorded observation showed that K-70005 performed better and premier pod trichomes length (1.12/mm) was observed for K-70005. The second uppermost pod trichomes length (0.76/mm) was obtained for K-60062 following the variety K-08004 having the value (0.69 /mm). The lowest pod trichome length recorded for K-70008 (0.47/mm) was statistically similar to K-08003 (0.48/mm) (Fig. 2a).

Effect of pod borer damage on pod trichome density
The recorded observation showed that K-70005 performed better and highest pod trichome length (483.75/sq.cm) was observed for K-70005. Trichome density of pods (359.50/sq.cm) was found highest for K-08004 followed by K-06005 (352.50/sq.cm), K-60062 (351.50/sq.cm) and K-06006 (351.25/sq.cm). The lowest pod trichome density found for K-70008 was 239.50 /sq.cm, which was statistically similar to K-08003 (245.75/sq.cm) (Fig. 2b).

Effect of pod borer damage on No. of pods/ plant
The recorded observation showed that K-70008 performed better and gave more number of pods per plant (60.00) in chickpea and statically at par with the results of variety K-08003 which produced 56.25 pods per plant. Both varieties K-08003 and K-70008 have more number of pods per plant than all others (Fig. 2c).

Pod infestation %age after 10 days
The maximum pod-infestation after 10 days was recorded to be 6.38% on genotype K-70008 followed by K-08003 (6.03%) and K-60062 (5.98%). The variety K-70005 performed better against the infestation of gram pod borer when data of pod infestation was taken at 10 days interval. Pod infestation for K-70005 appeared to be 4.88%. This was the least infested variety among all seven varieties and showed maximum resistance against chickpea pod borer (Fig. 2d).

Pod infestation %age after 20 days

 

 

 

 

The maximum pod-infestation was recorded to be 7.59% on genotype K-70008 followed by K-08003 (7.48%), K-06006 (7.16%) and K-08004 having the pod infestation 6.93%. The variety K-70005 performed better against the infestation of gram pod borer and minimum pod infestation was recorded for this having the pod invasion 6.32% which did not differ significantly from 6.38% recorded on variety K-06005 (Fig. 3a).

Pod infestation %age after 30 days
The maximum pod-infestation after 30 days was recorded to be 8.95% on genotype K-70008 followed by K-08003 (8.93%) and K-60062(8.59%). The variety K-70005 performed better against the infestation of gram pod borer when data of pod infestation was taken at 30 days interval. Minimum pod infestation (6.98%) was recorded for this variety which was statistically similar to K-08004 having pod infestation 7.82% (Fig. 3b). 

Pod infestation %age after 40 days
The maximum pod-infestation after 40 days was recorded to be 10.84 % on genotype K-70008 followed by K-08003 (10.63 %) and K-06005 (9.57%). The variety K-70005 performed better against the infestation of gram pod borer when data of pod infestation was taken at 40 days interval. The pod infestation was recorded as 8.98% which was statistically similar to K-08004 (9.10%) followed by K-60062 (9.47%) and K-06006 (9.50%) as shown in Fig. 3c.

Pod infestation %age after 50 days
The maximum pod-infestation after 50 days was recorded to be 10.11% on genotype K-70008 followed by K-08003 (10.07%) and K-06005 (8.92%). The variety K-70005 was proved to be resistant against the pod borer as it showed pod infestation of only 8.38%. This data was statistically similar to the variety K-08004 (8.49%) followed by K-60062 (8.83%) and K-06006 (8.87%) as shown in Fig. 3d.

Tables & Figures

Figure 2

Figure 2
Figure 3

Figure 3
Table 1

Table 1
Table 2

Table 2

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion 

The results regarding the pod length showed that higher pod length had received lower pod damage and this result is correlated with the findings of the Clement et al. [28]  who reported that several characters like pod length, trichomes length of pods and pod wall thickness give resistance against Helicoverpa. While Hossain et al. [29] reported that outcomes of genotypes of chickpea which have greater pod length have  lesser pod borer damage. According to the results (Fig. 1c) the chickpea genotype containing the larger pod area expected inferior pod borer damage and genotypes having lower pods area suffered higher pod borer damage. The results given above in the table correlates to Hossain et al. [29] who reported that area of particular genotypes exhibited substantial result in developing tolerance mechanism against pod borer damage. Relationship learning presented an adverse association amongst, pod breadth, pod length and area to pod borer damage. The pods showing greater length, breadth and area are least effected by the gram pod borer. The recorded observation showed that the variety K-70005 performed better having value 1.06/cm (Fig. 1a,b,c). This result showed negative insignificant relation with the pod borer damage. The Variety K-70005 had more pod breath therefore it received low pod borer damage as compared to other varieties. This result correlates with Hossain et al. [30] who reported that association study also showed negative irrelevant relationship (y = - 23.337x + 34.985; R2=1.002) between pod breadth and pod borer damage. These conclusions showed that the genotypes of chickpea bearing more pod breadth received inferior pod borer damage. These results are also in accordance with Ali et al. [31] who reported that correlation studies of biomass per plant, pod breadth, number of pods per plant, number of secondary branches per plant, number of seeds per pod and 100-seed weight were optimistic and important at genotypic level but positive and extremely significant at phenotypic level which specified that choice for high yielding genotypes can be made on the base of these qualities.

According to the results (Fig. 1c) the chickpea genotypes having larger pod area received minor pod borer damage and genotypes having lower pod area suffered higher pod borer damage. The results given above in the table correlates to Hossain et al. [30] who reported that area of individual genotypes revealed major influence to produce resistance  against chickpea pod borer damage. parallel studies presented a negative association between pod breadths, pod length and pod area against pod borer damage. The pods having higher length, breadth and area are not desired by the pod borer. Results (Fig. 1d) showed that due to increase in the pod wall thickness, less pod borer damage was recorded on the genotypes. This result is in line with the results of Ujagir and Khare [32] and Shanower et al. [33], they have recognized pod wall thickness as a resistance mechanism against pod borer damage.

Results showed that with the increase in pod trichome length less pod infestation was recorded (Fig. 2a). These results correlate with the findings of Peter et al., [34] and Romies et al., [35] who stated that the length and density of trichomes on the pods of pigeonpea plant have the ability to develop resistance in host plant against the attack of H. armigera. Such findings have also been reported by Jeffree [35]; David and Easwaramoorthy, [35,36] and Hossain et al., [27-28] in which they reported that different types of trichomes and their coordination, length and density are associated with reduction to destruction in numerous crops by the insect. According to the present study the increase in pod trichomes density, less pod infestation was recorded (Fig. 2b) [32-33]. Some other researchers have also  described that in pigeonpea crop, pods having the higher length and density of pod trichomes had delivered great potential resistance in the host plant against the pod infestation. Density of pod trichomes observed in our results are also similar with the results of Shanower et al. [31] who observed that trichomes present on pods of Cajanus spp. had provided a resistance to the attack of gram pod borer. They suggested that by increasing the viscosity of non-glandular trichomes in pigeonpea, pods could diminish devastation and losses due to pod invasion affected by chickpea pod borer. Several morphological features which give anti-xenosis had been used for breeding the varieties to produce resistant mechanism against H. armigera damage.

According to the results shown in Fig. 2c, the genotypes of chickpea presenting more number of pods per plant potentiality got damage caused by gram pod borer and those genotypes which have lesser number of the pods per plant suffered lower injury caused by chickpea pod borer. These results correlates with the results of Hossain et al., [29] who described that pod borer damage was positively influenced by number of pods per plant i.e. the chickpea varieties exhibiting greater number of pods potentiality received higher damage caused by pod borer. Different chickpea genotypes displayed imperative difference in podding potential.  The occurrence of injuries caused by pod borer was also affected by number of pods per plant. The maximum damage caused by chickpea pod borer was perceived in the varieties generating maximum number of pods per plant. This happened generally because more pods were available to the gram pod borer for feeding with making less movement. This was generally similar to the results of Melchinger et al. [37] who identified positive relationship between the pod borer damage and number of pods per plant.

 

 

 

 

All the varieties of chickpea such as K-60062, K-08003, K-08004, K-06005, K-70005, K-06006 and K-70008 performed differently against the attack of H. armigera in terms of pod length, pod breath, pod area, pod wall thickness, pod trichomes length, pod trichome density and number of pods/plant that exhibit resistance to pod borer attack. The variety K-70005 showed great resistance against pod infestation 8.38% (Fig. 3) through the experiment due to having better morphological characters linked to resistance followed by K-08004 (8.49%) and K-60062 (8.83%). The most susceptible variety was K-70008 having higher pod infestation (10.11%) which was statistically at par with K-08003 (10.07%). Such genotypic variation in chickpea for resistance against pod borer was also reported by Jeffree [35]; Ali Q et al. [38]; Peter et al. [31]; Ujagir and Khare [30]; Hossain et al. [26]. So, this genotypic variation can be exploited in future breeding programmes to make pod borer resistance chickpea varieties.

References

  1. Sarwar N, Akhtar KP, Shah TM, Atta BM. Evaluation of chickpea advance genotypes against blight and wilt diseases under field conditions. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, (2012); 14993-996.
  2. Lamichhane JR, Saccardo F, Crinò P. Response of Chickpea Germplasms to New Italian Isolates of Ascochyta rabiei. Tunisian Journal of Plant Protection, (2012); 7(1): 19-25.
  3. Goñi I, Valentı́n-Gamazo C. Chickpea flour ingredient slows glycemic response to pasta in healthy volunteers. Food Chemistry, (2003); 81(4): 511-515.
  4. Baloch M, Zubair M. Effect of nipping on growth and yield of chickpea. J Anim Pl Sci, (2010); 20(3): 208-210.
  5. Zaman K, Shah IA, Khan MM, Ahmad M. Macroeconomic factors determining FDI impact on Pakistan's growth. South Asian Journal of Global Business Research, (2012); 1(1): 79-95.
  6. Gunes A, Inal A, Adak MS, Alpaslan M, Bagci EG, et al. Mineral nutrition of wheat, chickpea and lentil as affected by mixed cropping and soil moisture. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, (2007); 78(1): 83-96.
  7. Iqbal A, Ateeq N, Khalil IA, Perveen S, Saleemullah S. Physicochemical characteristics and amino acid profile of chickpea cultivars grown in Pakistan. Journal of Foodservice, (2006); 17(2): 94-101.
  8. Roth L, Marten G, Compton W, Stuthman D. Genetic variation of quality traits in maize (Zea mays L.) forage. Crop Science, (1970); 10(4): 365-367.
  9. Saleem M, Yunus M. Host plants, and nature and extent of damage of Heliothis armigera (Hubner). Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Research, (1982); 3(1): 54-58.
  10. Maurya RP, Ujagir R, Ahmad T. Evaluation of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) germplasm for the resistance to gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera Hübner (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Journal of Entomological Research, (2007); 31(3): 181-186.
  11. Kranthi K, Jadhav D, Kranthi S, Wanjari R, Ali S, et al. Insecticide resistance in five major insect pests of cotton in India. Crop Protection, (2002); 21(6): 449-460.
  12. Khattak G, Ashraf M, Zamir R, Saeed I. High yielding DESI chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) variety" Nifa-2005". PAKISTAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY, (2007); 39(1): 93.
  13. Ali Q, Ali A, Awan MF, Tariq M, Ali S, et al. Combining ability analysis for various physiological, grain yield and quality traits of Zea mays L. Life Science Journal, (2014); 11(8s): 540-551.
  14. Akhtar LH, Pervez MA, Nasim M. GENETIC DIVERGENCE AND INTER-RELATIONSHIP STUDIES IN. Pak J Agri Sci, (2011); 48(1): 35-39.
  15. Naveed MT, Ali Q, Ahsan M, Hussain B. Correlation and path coefficient analysis for various quantitative traits in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). International Journal for Agro Veterinary and Medical Sciences, (2012); 6(2): 97-106.
  16. Naveed, M.T., Q. Ali, U. Saeed and B. Hussain. 2012a. Combining ability analysis for various quantitative traits in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). International Journal of Biology, Pharmacy and Allied Sciences. 1(4):503-511.
  17. Upadhyaya HD, Kumar S, Gowda C, Singh S. Two major genes for seed size in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Euphytica, (2006); 147(3): 311-315.
  18. Biçer BT. The effect of seed size on yield and yield components of chickpea and lentil. African Journal of Biotechnology, (2009); 8(8).
  19. Saeed U, Ali Q, Naveed MT, Saleem M. Correlation analysis of seed yield and its components in chickpea (Cicer arietinum l.) genotypes. International Journal for Agro Veterinary and Medical Sciences, (2012); 6(4): 269-276.
  20. Awaan MF, Ahmed S, Nazar ZA, Akram F, Shahzad A, et al. Gene Action for Various Grain and Fodder Quality Traits in Zea Mays. Journal of Food and Nutrition Research, (2014); 2(10): 704-717.
  21. Shafique M, Nadeem S, Hamed M, Atta BM, Shah TM. Performance of some advance desi chickpea genotypes against pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) resistance. Pakistan Journal of Zoology, (2009); 41(4): 277-280.
  22. Benzing-Purdie LM, Ripmeester JA, Ratcliffe CI. Effects of temperature on Maillard reaction products. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, (1985); 33(1): 31-33.
  23. Sharma H, Dhillon M, Arora R. Effects of Bacillus thuringiensisδ‐endotoxin‐fed Helicoverpa armigera on the survival and development of the parasitoid Campoletis chlorideae. Entomologia experimentalis et applicata, (2008); 126(1): 1-8.
  24. Clement S, El-Din NE-DS, Weigand S, Lateef S. Research achievements in plant resistance to insect pests of cool season food legumes. Euphytica, (1993); 73(1-2): 41-50.
  25. Green P, Stevenson P, Simmonds M, Sharma H. Can larvae of the pod-borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), select between wild and cultivated pigeonpea Cajanus sp. (Fabaceae)? Bulletin of entomological research, (2002); 92(01): 45-51.
  26. Hossain MA, Haque AA, Prodhan M. Incidence and damage severity of pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Bangladesh Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, (2009); 44(2): 221-224.
  27. Balsdon JA, Espelie KE, Braman SK. Epicuticular lipids from azalea Rhododendron spp.) and their potential role in host plant acceptance by azalea lace bug, Stephanitis pyrioides (Heteroptera: Tingidae). Biochemical systematics and ecology, (1995); 23(5): 477-485.
  28. Ali Q, Ahsan M, Khan N, Latif A. Genetic variability for plant growth and crop-yield traits in Chickpea (cicer arietinum l.). International Journal of Biology, Pharmacy and Allied Sciences, (2012); 1(1): 57-63.
  29. Pal M. Wilt of Pigeonpea. Integratd Pest And Disease Management, (2009); 201.
  30. Shanower TG, Yoshida M, ETER JA. Survival, growth, fecundity, and behavior of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on pigeonpea and two wild Cajanus species. Journal of economic entomology, (1997); 90(3): 837-841.
  31. Peter A, Shanower T, Romeis J. The role of plant trichomes in insect resistance: a selective review. Phytophaga, (1995); 741-63.
  32. Linge S, Kalpande H, Sawargaonkar S, Hudge B, Thanki H. Study of genetic variability and correlation in interspecific derivatives of Pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.]. Electronic Journal of Plant Breeding, (2010); 1(4): 929-935.
  33. Eigenbrode SD, Espelie KE. Effects of plant epicuticular lipids on insect herbivores. Annual Review of Entomology, (1995); 40(1): 171-194.
  34. Prather LA, Jansen RK. Phylogeny of Cobaea (Polemoniaceae) based on sequence data from the ITS region of nuclear ribosomal DNA. Systematic botany, (1998); 57-72.
  35. Romeis J, Shanower T, Peter A. Trichomes on pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.] and two wild Cajanus spp. Crop science, (1999); 39(2): 564-569.
  36. Olson D, Andow D. Walking pattern of Trichogramma nubilale Ertle & Davis (Hymenoptera; Trichogrammatidae) on various surfaces. Biological Control, (2006); 39(3): 329-335.
  37. Melchinger AE, Gumber RK. Overview of heterosis and heterotic groups in agronomic crops. Concepts and breeding of heterosis in crop plants, (1998); (conceptsandbree): 29-44.
  38. Ali, Q., M. Elahi, M. Ahsan, M.H.N. Tahir, I. Khaliq, M. Kashif, A. Latif, U. Saeed, M. Shahbaz, N.H. Khan, T. Ahmed, B. Hussain, U. Shahzadi and M. Ejaz, 2012. Genetic analysis of Morpho-Physiological and quality traits in chickpea genotypes (Cicer arietinum L.).  African Journal of Agriculture Research, (2012); 7(23):3403-3412.