Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:29:16.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some field and screenhouse experiments on maize resistance to Chilo partellus under Western Kenya conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

Z. T. Dabrowski  and
E. O. Nyangiri
Z. T. Dabrowski
Affiliation:
The International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), P.O. Box 30772, Nairobi, Kenya
E. O. Nyangiri
Affiliation:
The International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), P.O. Box 30772, Nairobi, Kenya
Get access

Abstract

The results of five experiments on maize resistance to Chilo partellus, suggest that there are at least five levels of relationships affecting plant colonization, larval survival and damage level: non-acceptance for oviposition shown by Inbred D and G and CIMMYT lines 125, 33, 324 and 178 (s3). Preferred Inbred A was oviposited 2–3 times higher. Feeding of young larval instars on young leaves or leaf sheaths, reduced on CIMMYT lines 324, 125 and 33; concentration of feeding of young larval instars on the upper growing part of plant, extensive on the highly susceptible Inbred A and reduced on all resistant lines tested; penetration of young larval instars into stem, reduced on CIMMYT lines 34 and 125 and Inbred G; and feeding of older larval instars in stem, reduced on CIMMYT lines 324, 178, 125 and Inbred G.

Keywords

MaizeChilo partellusthe spotted stalk-borerstem borersnon-preferencenon-acceptanceantixenosisantibiosistolerancescreening for resistanceoviposition
Type
Research Articles
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 4 , Special Issue 1-2: Crop-Borers and Emerging Strategies for their Control , June 1983 , pp. 109 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1983

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

Beck, S. D. (1965) Resistance of plants to insects. A. Rev. Ent. 10, 207–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiarappa, L. (1971) Crop Loss Assessment Methods. FAO UN and Commonwealth Agr. Bureaux, Alden & Mowbray Ltd. Alden Press, Oxford, 84 pp.Google Scholar
Dabrowski, Z. T. (1976) Bases of Plant Resistant to Pests (in Polish). PIWRL, Warszawa, 163 pp.Google Scholar
Dabrowski, Z. T. (1979) Host plant/insect relationships and studies on plant resistance in the ICIPE in 1979. ICIPE Seventh Annual Report, Nairobi, pp. 15–18.Google Scholar
de Ponti, O. M. B. (1977) Resistance in Cucumis sativus L. to Tetranychus urticae Koch. 1. The role of plant breeding in integrated control. Euphvtica 26, 633–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duerden, J. C. (1953) Stem-borers of cereal crops of Kongwa, Tanganyika 1950–1952. E. Afric. Agric. J. 19, 105–119.Google Scholar
Guthrie, W. D. (1974) Techniques, accomplishments and future potential of breeding for resistance to European corn-borer in corn. In Proc. Summer Inst. Biol. Control Plants Ins. Dis. (Ed. by Maxwell, F. G. and Harris, F. A.) pp. 359–380. University of Mississippi Press, Jackson.Google Scholar
Harris, K. M. (1956) Cereal stem-borers, Northern Region of Nigeria. Ann. Rep. Agric. Dep. Fed. Nigeria 1955–1956.Google Scholar
Hudon, M. and Chiang, M. S. (1976) Resistance of maize inbred lines to leaf feeding by ECB in Quebec, Canada. Rept. Inter. Proj. Ostrinia nubilalis, Agric. Res. Inst. Hunger. Acad. Sci. Phase III, pp. 73–80.Google Scholar
Jepson, W. F. (1954) A Critical Review of the World Literature on the Lepidopterous Stalk-borers of Tropical Graminaceous Crops. Commonwealth Institute of Entomology. London, 127 pp.Google Scholar
Kogan, M. and Ortman, E. E. (1978) Antixenosis a new term proposed to replace Painter's ‘non-preference’mortality of resistance. Ent. Soc. Am. Bull. 24, 175–76.Google Scholar
Omolo, E. O. (1979) Screening maize and sorghum cultivars for resistance to stem-borers complex. ICIPE Seventh Annual Report, Nairobi, pp. 19–20.Google Scholar
Omolo, E. O. (1980) Screening maize lines for resistance to stem-borers. ICIPE Eighth Annual Report, Nairobi, pp. 7–8.Google Scholar
Painter, R. H. (1951) Insect Resistance in Crop Plants. Macmillan Inc., New York, 520 pp.Google Scholar
Sarup, P., Marwaha, K. K., Panwar, V. P. S. and Siddiqui, K. H. (1977) Studies on insect plant relationship—Evaluation of ‘introduction nursery’ for resistance to the maize stalk-borer, Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) under artificial infestation. J. ent. Res. 1, 151–57.Google Scholar
Sarup, P., Marwaha, K. K., Panwar, V. P. S. and Siddiqui, K. H. (1978) Identification of sources of resistance to the maize stalk-borer, Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) amongst world germplasms comprising ‘international nursery’. J. ent. Res. 2, 154–59.Google Scholar
Southwood, T. (1966) Ecological Methods with Particular References to the Study of Insect Populations. Chapman and Hall, London, 391 pp.Google Scholar
Starks, K. J. and Doggett, H. (1970) Resistance to a spotted stem borer in sorghum and maize. J. econ. Ent. 63, 197–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar