Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T11:07:59.485Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Greenhouse evaluation of rice cultivars for resistance to gall midge, Orseolia oryzae (Wood-Mason) and studies on mechanism of resistance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

Mangal Sain  and
M. B. Kalode
Mangal Sain
Affiliation:
Directorate of Rice Research, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500 030, India
M. B. Kalode
Affiliation:
Directorate of Rice Research, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500 030, India
Get access

Abstract

A total of 2256 germplasm accessions, 3000 advanced generation breeding lines and 150 released varieties of rice were screened under artificial infestation in the greenhouse. Among these, 15 new germplasm accessions, 50 breeding lines derived from 16 crosses and 15 released varieties were resistant. Antibiosis was the predominant resistance mechanism; antixenosis affecting oviposition was noted in 33 resistant varieties. Biochemical composition of a set of resistant varieties along with susceptible checks, revealed that nitrogen content of seven test varieties was significantly higher than that of the susceptible checks, while in other six varieties it was lower than the checks. Similarly, eight of the resistant varieties had considerably higher percentage of polyphenolic compounds in basal stem portion, but seven other cultivars showed significantly lower concentration as compared to susceptible checks. Thus, it was apparent that there was no clear trend among the resistant cultivars as a group in relation to quantitative differences of chemical components analysed.

Résumé

Un total de 2256 acquisitions de la banque de matériel (végétal) génétique, 3000 lignées avançées de selection de génération et 150 variétés de riz mises sur marché ont été soumises à l'infestation artificielle en serre pour criblage. Parmi celles-ci, 15 nouvelles acquisitions de la banque de matériel génétique, 15 lignées de selection issues de 16 croisements et 15 variétés mises sur marché ont été trouvées résistantes. Le méchanisme de résistance dominant ici était l'antibiose; l'antixénose liée à la ponte a été observée sur 33 variétés résistantes. La composition biochimique d'un lot de variétés résistantes aux côtés de témoins susceptibles a révélé que la teneur en azote de sept variétés testées était significativement plus élévée que celle de témoins susceptibles alors que chez six autres variétés, elle était plus faible par rapport aux témoins. De même, huit autres variétés résistantes avaient nettement un plus haut pourcentage de composés polyphénoliques au niveau de la base de la tige tandis que sept autres variétés ont montré une plus faible concentration, comparées aux témoins susceptibles. Par conséquent, il était évident qu'aucune tendance claire ne s'était dégagées au sein des variétés résistantes en tant que groupe vu les differences quantitatives au niveau de composantes chimiques analysés.

Keywords

AntibiosisantixenosisOrseolia oryzaericeresistancegall midgegermplasmdonorsAntibioseantixénoseOrseola oryzaerizrésistancecécidomyiebanque de matériel génétiquedonneurs
Type
Research Articles
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , February 1994 , pp. 67 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1994

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

Anonymous (1952) CRRI (Central Rice Research Institute) Annual Report, 1952. ICAR, New Delhi, India (Mimeo).Google Scholar
Anonymous (1969) AICRIP (All India Coordinated Rice Improvement Project) Progress Report, Kharif 1977. ICAR, New Delhi, India (Mimeo).Google Scholar
Anonymous (1970) AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists) “Official Method of Analysis” 11th Ed. AOAC, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
Anonymous (1977) IRRI (International Rice Research Institute) Annual Report of 1976. Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines.Google Scholar
Anonymous (1981) Reaction of differential varieties to the rice gall midge Orseolia oryzae in Asia. International Rice Research Institute, Research Paper Series No. 61, p. 14.Google Scholar
Anonymous (1983) All India Coordinated Rice Improvement Project (AICRIP). Progress Report, Kharif 1983—ICAR, New Delhi, India (Mimeo).Google Scholar
Anonymous (1984) Directorate of Rice Research (DRR), Progress Report Kharif 1984—ICAR, New Delhi, India (Mimeo).Google Scholar
Anonymous (1985) Directorate of Rice Research (DRR), Progress Report, Kharif 1985, ICAR—New Delhi, India (Mimeo).Google Scholar
Anonymous (1986) Directorate of Rice Research (DRR) Progress Report, Kharif 1986, ICAR—New Delhi, India (Mimeo).Google Scholar
Arifin, K. and Van Vreden, G. (1977) Mass rearing of the rice gall midge, Orseolia oryzae (Wood-Mason) Contrb. CRIA, Bogor, No. 12.Google Scholar
Das, Y. T. (1976) Some factors of resistance to Chilo suppressalis in rice varieties. Entomol. exp. Appl. 20, 131–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubois, M., Gilles, K. A., Hamilton, J. K., Rebers, P. A. and Smith, F. (1956) Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Analytical Chemistry 28(3), 350–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegdekatti, R. M. (1927) The rice gall midge in North Kanara. Agric. J. India 22, 461–463.Google Scholar
Heinrichs, E. A. and Pathak, P. K. (1981) Resistance to the rice gall midge, Orseolia oryzae in rice. Insect Sci. Applic. 1, 123–132.Google Scholar
Hidaka, T. (1974) Recent studies on the rice gall midge, Orseolia oryzae (Wood-Mason), (Cecidomyiidae:Diptera). Rev. Plant Prot. Res. 7, 99–143.Google Scholar
Hidaka, T. and Vungsilabutr, P. (1971) Study on larval development of rice gall midge on susceptible and resistant rice varieties. Annual Report 1971. Rice Department. Ministry of Agriculture Bangkok, Thailand. 728 pp.Google Scholar
Israel, P., Vedamurthy, G. and Rao, Y. S. (1961) Varietal resistance to the gall midge, Pachydiplosis oryzae (Wood-Mason) and other insect pests of paddy. Working paper No. 21. 9th meeting Working Party of Rice Production and Protection, FAO, International Rice Commission, New Delhi, India pp. 5. (Mimeo).Google Scholar
Joshi, R. C. and Venugopal, M. S. (1984) Mechanism of resistance in rice to gall midge Orseolia oryzae (Wood-Mason) I. Antibiosis. Indian J. Entomol. 46 (4), 479–481.Google Scholar
Kalode, M. B. (1980) The rice gall midge—varietal resistance and chemical control. In Rice Improvement in China and other Asian Countries. IRRI and Chinese Academy of Agriculture Sciences, IRRI, Los Banos Philippines, pp. 173–193.Google Scholar
Kalode, M. B. and Bentur, J. S. (1988) Donors for resistance to Andhra Pradesh biotype 4 gallmidge (GM). Int. Rice Res. Newsl. 13, 16.Google Scholar
Kalode, M. B. and Bentur, J. S. (1989) Characterization of Indian biotypes of the rice gall midge, Orseolia oryzae (Wood-Mason) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). Insect Sci. Applic. 10, 214–219.Google Scholar
Kalode, M. B., Krishna, T. S., Pophaly, D. J. and Lakshminarayana, A. (1977a) Note on new donors having multiple resistance to major insect pests of rice. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 47, 626–627.Google Scholar
Kalode, M. B., Pophaly, D. J., Kasi Viswanathan, P. R. and Sreeramulu, M. (1977b) Studies on resistance and mass rearing of rice gall midge Orseolia (Pachydiplosis) oryzae (Wood-Mason). Madras Agric. J. 64, 733–739.Google Scholar
Kalode, M. B., Sain, Mangal, Bentur, J. S., Pophaly, D. J. and Raghavaiah, H. (1983) New donors and mechanism of resistance to gall midge in rice grown in the green house. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 53, 483–485.Google Scholar
Krishnamurthy Rao, B. H. and Krishnamurthy, C. (1964) Control of important sugarcane and paddy pests by cultural practices in Nizamabad district. Andhra Agric. J. 7(6), 218–228.Google Scholar
Modder, W. W. D. and Alagoda, A. (1971) A comparison of the susceptibility of rice varieties. IR 8 and Warangal 1263, to attack by the gall midge, Pachydiplosis oryzae (Wood-Mason) (Dipt., Cecidomyiidae). Bull. Entomol. Res. 61, 745–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, Cong-Tieu (1922) Note sur ure chcidomic du riz (Pachydiplosis oryzae) (Wood-Mason). Bull. Eco. Indo-China. 25, 590–592.Google Scholar
Panda, N. (1979) Principles of Host Plant Resistance to Insect Pests. Hindustan Publishing Corporation, India (Delhi).Google Scholar
Pathak, M. D. and Dale, D. (1983) In biochemical basis of resistance in host plants to insect pests. In Chemistry and World Supplies. The New Frontiers, Chemerawen II (ed.) Schemilt, L. W.. Pergamon Press, Oxford, New York.Google Scholar
Pathak, M. D. and Khugh, G. S. (1979) Studies on varietal resistance to brown plant hopper at IRRI. Paper Presented at Brown Planthopper Symposium. April 1977, IRRI, Philippines.Google Scholar
Pathak, P. K. and Heinrichs, E. A. (1982) A Bibliography of Varietal Resistance to the Rice Gall Midge, Orseolia oryzae (Wood-Mason). CAB, London.Google Scholar
Peraiah, A. and Roy, J. K. (1979) Studies on biochemical nature of gall midge resistance in rice. Oryza 16(2): 149–150.Google Scholar
Perera, N. and Fernando, H. E. (1969) Laboratory culture of the rice gall midge, Pachydiplosis oryzae (Wood-Mason). Bull. Entomol. Res. 58, 439–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prakasa Rao, P. S. (1972) Ecology and control of Tryporyza incertulas (Walker) and Pachydiplosis oryzae (Wood-Mason) in rice. Ph.D. thesis, Utkal University, Bhubaneswar, India.Google Scholar
Rao, Y. S., Israel, P., Yadava, C. P. and Roy, J. K. (1971) Nature of gall midge resistance in rice. Curr. Sci. 40, 497–498.Google Scholar
Rajamani, S. (1982) Factors affecting gall midge resistance in paddy. Ph.D. thesis, Utkal University, Bhubaneswar, India.Google Scholar
Roy, J. K., Israel, P. L. and Panwar, M. S. (1969) Breeding for insect resistance in rice. Oryza 6(2), 38–44.Google Scholar
Roy, J. K., Israel, P. and Panwar, M. S. (1971) Breeding for resistance to insect pests. Oryza 8 (Suppl.), 129–134.Google Scholar
Saxena, R. C. and Khan, Z.R. (1989) Factors affecting resistance of rice varieties to planthoppers and leafhoppers. Agric. Zool. Rev. 3, 97–132.Google Scholar
Seshu, D. V., Prakasa Rao, P. S., Kalode, M. B., Shastry, S. V. S, Srinivasan, T. E., Rao, J. R., Misra, B. C., Prasad, K., Rao, U. P., Kulshreshtha, J. P. and Roy, J. K. (1974) Breeding for resistance to rice gall midge, leaf hoppers and planthoppers in India. In International Rice Research Conference, 1974. International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos, Philippines (Mimeo).Google Scholar
Shastry, S. V. S., Freeman, W. M., Seshu, D. V., Israel, P. and Roy, J. K. (1972) Host plant resistance to rice gall midge. In Rice Breeding. IRRI, Los Banos, Philippines, pp. 353–365.Google Scholar
Sogawa, K. (1973) Feeding behaviour of the brown plant hopper and brown planthopper resistance of indica rice Mudgo. Laboratory of Applied Entomology Faculty of Agriculture. Nagoya University. Bull. No. 4.Google Scholar
Swain, T. and Hills, W. E. (1959) The phenolic constituents of Prumus domestica. Quantitative analysis of phenolic constituents. J. Sc. Food and Agric. 10, 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venkataswamy, T. (1966) Association between hairiness and resistance to gall midge (Pachydiplosis oryzae) in rice. Andhra Agric. J. 13, 149.Google Scholar
Vidyachandra, B., Roy, J. K. and Das, Bhaskar (1981) Chemical differences in rice varieties susceptible or resistant to gall midge and stem borer. Int. Rice Res. Newslett. 6(2), 7.Google Scholar