Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T23:56:20.663Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating sorghum genotypes for multiple insect resistance*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

K. F. Nwanze ,
Y. V. R. Reddy ,
S. L. Taneja ,
H. C. Sharma  and
B. L. Agrawal
K. F. Nwanze
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru P. O., Andhra Pradesh 502 324, India
Y. V. R. Reddy
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru P. O., Andhra Pradesh 502 324, India
S. L. Taneja
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru P. O., Andhra Pradesh 502 324, India
H. C. Sharma
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru P. O., Andhra Pradesh 502 324, India
B. L. Agrawal
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru P. O., Andhra Pradesh 502 324, India
Get access

Abstract

Most germplasm lines and improved sorghum genotypes identified as resistant to shoot fly (Atherigona soccata Rond.), stem borer (Chilo partellus Swin.), midge (Contarinia sorghicola Coq.) and head bugs (Calocoris angustatus Leth.) are resistant to only one of these insects which usually will infest the same crop during the same season. At ICRISAT Center, India, a technique was developed in which entries were subjected to an array of combinations of pest infestations for identifying and separating genotypes with resistance to one or more insects.

Using this technique, 220 resistance sources and breeding lines were evaluated for multiple insect resistance. Less than 10% of shoot fly resistance sources had acceptable resistance (< 3 on a scale of 1–9) to shoot fly, but over 50% showed good resistance (scores of 1–3) to stem borer. IS 18551 and IS 2195 were the best entries with resistance to both shoot fly and stem borer. However, the majority (80–90%) of shoot fly and stem borer resistant sources were highly susceptible to midge with scores > 8. Similarly, all midge resistant sources were highly susceptible to shoot fly but less so to stem borer where seven midge lines had scores < 5. IS 22464 was the best midge line with a score of 3 for stem borer resistance. Advanced breeding lines showed a wider range of resistance to shoot fly, stem borer and midge with a higher frequency for resistance to stem borer, PS 28060−3 and PM 14388−1 were the most promising breeding lines.

Résumé

La plupart des lignées des ressources génétiques et des génotypes de sorgho améliorés qui sont identifiés comme résistants à la mouche des pousses (Atherigona soccata Rond.), au borer ponctué du sorgho (Chilo partellus Swin.) à la cécidomyie (Contarinia sorghicola Coq.) et à la punaise des panicules (Calocoris angustatus Leth.) ne le sont qu'à un seul de ces insectes qui infestent généralement la même culture pendant la même campagne. Une technique, mise au point au Centre ICRISAT en Inde, permet de soumettre les entrées à une grande série de combinaisons d'infestations par les insectes en vue d'identifier et de séparer les génotypes ayant une résistance à un ou plusieurs insectes.

Grâce à cette technique, 220 sources de résistance et lignées de séléction ont été évaluées pour la résistance multiple aux insectes. Moins de 10% des sources de résistance à la mouche des pousses avaient une résistance acceptable (< 3 sur une échelle de notation de 1 à 9) à la mouche des pousses. Mais, plus de 50% de celles-ci ont manifesté une bonne résistance (1 à 3) au borer ponctué. Les sorghos IS 18551 et IS 2195 étaient les meilleures entrées avec une résistance aussi bien à la mouches des pousses qu'au borer. Par ailleurs, la majorité (80 à 90%) des sources de résistances à la mouche des pousses et au borer étaient extrêmement sensibles à la cécidomyie (> 8). De même, toutes les sources de résistance à la cécidomyie étaient très sensibles à la mouche des pousses mais l'étaient moins au borer. Sept lignées résistantes à la cécidomyie avaient des notes de < 5. IS 22464 était la meilleure lignée résistante à la cécidomyie avec une note de 3 pour la résistance au borer. Des lignées de sélection avancées ont montré une plus grande diversité de résistance à la mouche des pousses, au borer et à la cécidomyie, avec une fréquence plus élevée de résistance au borer. Les lignées de sélection PS 28060−3 et PM 14388−1 se sont avérées les plus prometteuses.

Keywords

Sorghuminsect pestsshoot flyAtherigona soccatastem borerChilo partellusmidgeContarinia sorghicolaresistance sourcesbreeding linesmultiple insect resistanceSorghoinsectes ravageursmouche des poussesAtherigona soccataborer ponctuéChilo partellusla cécidomyie Contarinia sorghicolasources de résistancelignées de selectionrésistance multiple aux insectes
Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 12 , Issue 1-2-3: Current Topics in Tropical Entomology , June 1991 , pp. 183 - 188
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ajayi, O. (1989) Stem borers of sorghum in West Africa with emphasis on Nigeria. In International Workshop on Sorghum Stem Borers, 17–20 Nov. 1987, ICRISAT Center, India. Patancheru, A. P. 502 324, India: ICRISAT. pp. 27–31.Google Scholar
Agrawal, B. L., Sharma, H. C. and Leuschner, K. (1987) Registration of ‘ICSV 197’ midge resistant sorghum cultivar. Crop Sci. 27, 1312–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum, A. (1967) Varietal resistance of sorghum to the sorghum shoot fly (Atherigona varia var. soccata). Crop Sci. 7, 461–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gahukar, R. T. and Jotwani, M. G. (1980) Present status of field pests of sorghum and millets in India. Trop. Pest Manage. 26, 138–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, K. M. (1962) Lepidopterous stem borers of cereals in Nigeria. Bull. Entomol. Res. 53, 139–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, K. M. (1985) The sorghum midge: A review of published information, 1895–1983. In Proceedings of the International Sorghum Entomology Workshop (Edited by Kumble, V.), pp. 227–232. ICRISAT, Patancheru, India.Google Scholar
Jotwani, M. G., Sharma, G. C., Kundu, G. G., Sukhani, T. R., Verma, K. K., Singh, S. P. and Samarjit, Rai (1978) Investigations on insect pests of sorghum and millets with special reference to host plant resistance: Final Technical Report (1972–1977). Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, India.Google Scholar
Jotwani, M. G. and Young, W. R. (1972) Recent development on chemical control of insect pests of sorghum in sorghum in the seventies (Edited by Rao, N. G. P. and House, L. R.), pp. 377–398. Oxford and IBH, New Delhi, India.Google Scholar
Kundu, G. G. (1985) E-304 a high yielding sorghum derivative resistant to stem borer, Chilo partellus Swinhoe. Bull. Entomol. 26, 25–27.Google Scholar
Luginbill, P. Jr (1969) Developing resistant plants — the ideal method of controlling insects. USD A - ARS Prod. Res. Rep. 111, 1–14.Google Scholar
Mihm, J. A., Peaks, F. B., and Ortega, A. (1978) New procedures for efficient mass production and artificial infestations with lepidopterous pests of maize. CIMMYT Review.Google Scholar
Nwanze, K. F. (1988) Distribution and seasonal incidence of some major insect pests of sorghum in Burkina Faso. Insect Sci. Applic. 9, 313–321.Google Scholar
Kishore, Prem, Rana, B. S. and Agarwal, K. N. (1985) Selection for the shoot fly, Atherigona soccata Rondani resistance in high yielding varieties of sorghum. J. Entomol. Res. 9, 188–194.Google Scholar
Kishore, Prem, Rana, B. S. and Sharma, G. C. (1984) Selection for the stem borer, Chilo partellus (Swinhoe.), resistance in segregating generations of sorghum. J. Entomol. Res. 8, 20–24.Google Scholar
Seshu Reddy, K. V. and Davies, J. C. (1979a) Pests of sorghum and pearl millet, and their parasites recorded at ICRISAT Center, India up to August 1979, Cereal Entomology Progress Report 2. ICRISAT, Patancheru, India.Google Scholar
Seshu Reddy, K. V. and Davies, J. C. (1979b) A new medium for mass rearing of sorghum stem borer, Chilo partellus Swinhoe (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and its use in resistance screening. Ind. J. Plant Prot. 6, 48–55.Google Scholar
Sharma, H. C. (1985) Screening for host plant resistance to mirid head bugs in sorghum. In Proceedings of the International Sorghum Entomology Workshop (Edited by Kumble, V.), pp. 317–336. ICRISAT, Patancheru, India.Google Scholar
Sharma, H. C. and Davies, J. C. (1981) A literature review on the sources and mechanisms of resistance to the sorghum midge (Contarinia sorghicola). Sorghum Entomology Progress Report 5. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru, India.Google Scholar
Sharma, H. C., Taneja, S. L. and Leuschner, K. (1983) Screening sorghums for resistance to insect pests. Paper Presented at the All India Coordinated Sorghum Improvement Workshop, 18–21 April 1983. Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, India. (Limited distribution).Google Scholar
Sharma, H. C., Vidyasagar, P. and Leuschner, K. (1988a) Field screening sorghum for resistance to sorghum midge (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). J. econ. Entomol. 81, 327–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, H. C., Vidyasagar, P. and Leuschner, K. (1988b) No-choice cage technique to screen for resistance to sorghum midge (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). J. econ. Entomol. 81, 415–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, B. U. and Rana, B. S. (1986) Resistance in sorghum to the shootfly (Atherigona soccata Rondani. Insect Sci. Applic. 7, 577–587.Google Scholar
Singh, B. U., Rana, B. S., Reddy, B. B. and Rao, N. G. P. (1983) Host plant resistance to stalk-borer, Chilo partellus Swin., in sorghum. Insect Sci. Applic. 4, 407–413.Google Scholar
Soto, P. E. (1972) Mass rearing of the sorghum shootfly and screening for host plant resistance under greenhouse conditions. In Control of Sorghum Shootfly (Edited by Jotwani, M. G. and Young, W. R.), pp. 137–148. Oxford & IBH, New Delhi.Google Scholar
Starks, K. J. (1970) Increasing infestation of the sorghum shootfly in experimental plots. J. econ. Entomol. 63, 1715–1716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taneja, S. L. and Leuschner, K. (1985a) Methods of rearing, infestation and evaluation for Chilo partellus resistance in sorghum. In Proceedings of the International Sorghum Entomology Workshop (Edited by Kumble, V.), pp. 175–188. ICRISAT, Patancheru, India.Google Scholar
Taneja, S. L. and Leuschner, K. (1985b) Resistance screening and mechanism of resistance in sorghum to shootfly. In Proceedings of the International Sorghum Entomology Workshop (Edited by Kumble, V.), pp. 115–129. ICRISAT, Patancheru, India.Google Scholar
Wiseman, B. R., Davis, F. M. and Campbell, J. E. (1980) Mechanical infestation device used in fall armyworm plant resistance programs. Fla. Entomol. 63, 425–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar