Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T18:44:39.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Componental analysis of the factors influencing resistance to sorghum midge, Contarinia sorghicola Coq.*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

H. C. Sharma ,
P. Vidyasagar  and
K. Leuschner
H. C. Sharma
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)Patancheru, A.P. 502 324, India
P. Vidyasagar
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)Patancheru, A.P. 502 324, India
K. Leuschner
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)Patancheru, A.P. 502 324, India
Get access

Abstract

Studies were conducted on components of resistance to sorghum midge on four resistant (DJ 6514, AF 28, TAM 2566 and IS 15107) and two susceptible (CSH 1 and Swarna) cultivars. Short floral parts, faster rate of grain development and high tannin content of grain were apparently associated with resistance to sorghum midge, Contarinia sorghicola Coq. Genotypic and phenotypic correlations between the factors associated with resistance to sorghum midge were in the same direction (positive or negative) as their association with resistance to this insect. Glume g2, lemma 12, anther and lodicule length, rate of grain development based on dry weight (except oviposition), and tannin content of mature grain showed correlation and path coefficients (direct effects) in the same direction. These characters can serve as a useful criteria to select for resistance to sorghum midge.

Using D2 and canonical cluster analysis, AF 28 was found to be distinct from other sources of midge resistance. However, based on larvae/100 florets, DJ 6514 was also placed distantly from TAM 2566 and IS 15107. Based on egg numbers, adults emerged and grain damage, DJ 6514 was grouped with TAM 2566 and IS 15107. Susceptible hybrid check, CSH 1 was generally placed distantly from the self pollinated susceptible variety, Swarna. These results indicate that the sources of resistance to sorghum midge are diverse, and there is a distinct possibility of increasing the levels and diversity of resistance to this insect.

Résumé

Analyse des composantes des facteurs qui influencent la résistance à la cécidomyie du sorgho Contarinia sorghicola Coq.: Des études ont été effectuées sur les composantes de la résistance à la cécidomyie du sorgho portant sur quatre cultivars résistants (DJ 6514, AF 28, TAM 2566 et IS 15107) et deux cultivars sensibles (CSH 1 et Swarna). Des parties florales courtes, un développement plus rapide des graines, ainsi qu'une teneur élevée en tanin de la graine étaient apparemment associés avec la resistance à la cécidomyie du sorgho Contarinia sorghicola Coq. Des corrélations génotypiques et phénotypiques entre les facteurs asssociés avec la résistance à la cécidomyie avaient la même orientation (positive ou négative) que leur association avec la résistance à cet insecte. La glume g2, la glumelle inférieure 12, la longueur de l'anthére et de la lodicule, le développement de la graine par rapport au poids sec (sauf ponte), et la teneur en tanin de la graine mure ont montré une corrélation et des path-coefficients (effets directs) dans la même orientation. Ces caractéres peuvent servir de critéres utiles de sélection pour la résistance à la cécidomyie.

L'utilisation de D2 et l'analyse en grappes canonique a permis de mettre en évidence que AF 28 était distinct des autres sources de résistance à la cécidomyie. Cependant, par rapport au nombre de larves/100 florets, DJ 6514 était également éloigné de TAM 2566 et IS 15107. Par rapport aux nombres d'oeufs, nombre d'adultes émergés, et endommagement des graines, DJ 6514 était groupé avec TAM 2566 et IS 15107. Le témoin hybride sensible, CSH 1 était généralement éloigné de la variété sensible autogame, Swarna. Ces résultats indiquent que les sources de résistance à la cécidomyie sont diverses, et qu'il existe une possibilité distincte d'amélioration des niveaux et de la diversité de la résistance à cet insecte.

Keywords

SorghumContarinia sorghicolaresistancecomponental analysisSorghoContarinia sorghicolarésistanceanalyse des composantes
Type
Research Articles
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 11 , Issue 6 , December 1990 , pp. 889 - 898
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1990

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

Ball, C. R. and Hastings, S. H. (1912) Grain sorghum production in the San Antonio region of Texas. USDA Bureau of Plant Ind. Bull. 237, 12–25.Google Scholar
Bergquist, R. R., Rotar, P. and Mitchell, W. C. (1974) Midge and anthracnose head blight resistance in sorghum. Trop. Agric. (Trinidad) 54, 431–435.Google Scholar
Bowden, J. and Neve, R. A. (1953) Sorghum midge and resistant varieties in the Gold Coast. Nature 171, 551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandrasekharaiah, S. R., Murthy, B. R. and Arunachalam, V. (1969) Multivariate analysis of divergence in sorghum. Nat. Inst. Sci. India, Bull. 35, 172–195.Google Scholar
Dewey, D. R. and Lu, K. H. (1959) A correlation and path coefficient analysis of components of crested wheat grass seed production. Agron. J. 51, 515–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geering, Q. A. (1953) The sorghum midge, Contarinia sorghicola in East Africa. Bull, entomol. Res. AA, 363–366.Google Scholar
Harris, K. M. (1961) The sorghum midge, Contarinia sorghicola (Coq.) in Nigeria. Bull, entomol. Res. 44, 363–366.Google Scholar
Harris, K. M. (1976) The sorghum midge. Ann Appl. Biol. 84, 114–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J. W. (1977) Status of breeding for midge resistance. In Tenth Biennial Sorghum Research and Utilization Conference, 2–4 March 1977, Wichita, Kansas, USA. Grain Sorghum Producers Association, Wichita, Kansas, USAGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J. W., Rosenow, D. T. and Teetes, G. L. (1973) Resistance to the sorghum midge in converted exotic sorghum cultivars. Crop Sci. 113, 754–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kofoid, K. D., Maranville, J. W. and Ross, W. M. (1982) Relationship of the testa to agronomic and nutritional traits in sorghum. Crop Sci. 22, 190–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, C. C. (1956) The concept of path coefficients Biometrica 12, 190–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertin, M. L., Scoyoc, S. V. and Buttler, L. G. (1978) A critical evaluation of the Vanillin reaction as an assay for tannin in sorghum. J. Agric. Fed. Chem. 26, 1214–1219.Google Scholar
Murty, A. D. and Subramaniam, T. R. (1978) Varietal susceptibility of sorghum to the midge (Contarinia sorghicola Coq.). Madras Agric J. 65, 180–182.Google Scholar
Omori, T., Agrawal, B. L. and House, L. R. (1983) Componental analysis of the factors influencing shoot fly resistance in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench). JARQ 17, 215–218.Google Scholar
Omori, T., Agrawal, B. L. and House, L. R. (1988) Genetic divergence to shoot fly, Atherigona soccata Rond. in sorghum, Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench. Insect Sci. Applic. 9, 483–488.Google Scholar
Passlow, T. (1965) Bionomics of sorghum midge, Contarinia sorghicola (Coq.) in Queensland, with particular reference to diapause Queensland J. Agric. Anim. Sci. 22, 149–167.Google Scholar
Rao, C. R. (1952) Biometrical Research. John Wiley and Sons, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Rossetto, C. J. (1985) Sorghum midge: Host plant resistance mechanisms. In Proc. Int. Sorghum Entomol. Work., pp. 293–300. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, A.P. 502–324, India.Google Scholar
Rossetto, C. J., Goncalves, W. and Diniz, J. L. M. (1975) Resistancia da variedada AF-28 a Mosca do sorgho, na ausencia de outras variedades Anais Soc. Entomol. Brazil 4, 16.Google Scholar
Santos, J. H. T. and Carmo, C. M. (1974) Evaluation of resistance to Contarinia sorghicola of sorghum lines from Cameroon, Africa Collection. Sorghum Newsl. 17, 10–11.Google Scholar
Sharma, H. C. (1985a) Future strategies for pest control in sorghum in India. Trop. Pest Manage. 31, 167–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, H. C. (1985b) Screening for midge (Contarinia sorghicola Coq.) resistance and resistance mechanisms. In Proc. Int. Sorghum Entomol. Work., pp. 275–291. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru A.P. 502 324, IndiaGoogle Scholar
Sharma, H. C., Vidyasagar, P. and Leuschner, K. (1988) No-choice cage technique to screen for resistance to sorghum midge (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). J. econ. Entomol. 81, 415–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, H. C., Leuschner, K. and Vidyasagar, P. (1990a) Factors influencing oviposition by the sorghum midge, Contarinia sorghicola Coq Ann. Appl. Biol. 116, 431–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, H. C., Vidyasagar, P. and Leuschner, K. (1990b) Components of resistance to the sorghum midge, Contarinia sorghicola Coq Ann. Appl. Biol. 116, 327–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shyamsunder, J., Parameshwarappa, R., Nagaraja, H. K. and Kajjari, N. B. (1975) A new genotype in sorghum resistant to midge (Contarinia sorghicola Coq.). Sorghum Newsl. 18, 33.Google Scholar
Wiseman, B. R. and McMillian, W. W. (1968) Resistance in sorghum to sorghum midge, Contarinia sorghicola (Coquillett) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). J. Entomol. Soc. Ga. 3, 147.Google Scholar