Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T03:27:06.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Resistance in sorghum to the sorghum shootfly: larval development and adult longevity and fecundity on selected cultivars*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

A. K. Raina
Affiliation:
International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology, P.O. Box 30772, Nairobi, Kenya
H. Z. Thindwa
Affiliation:
International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology, P.O. Box 30772, Nairobi, Kenya
S. M. Othieno
Affiliation:
International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology, P.O. Box 30772, Nairobi, Kenya
R. T. Corkhill
Affiliation:
International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology, P.O. Box 30772, Nairobi, Kenya
Get access

Abstract

From field screening of two international nurseries of the sorghum shootfly (Atheriaona saccata), seven promising cultivars were selected for investigating the mechanism(s) of resistance. These cultivars were IS 1054, IS 1082, IS 2146, IS 2195, IS 2312, IS 3962 and IS 5613. CSH-1, a hybrid variety from India, was used as a susceptible control. Results from observations on larval development and mortality and the longevity and fecundity of resulting females when released on either CSH-1 or the parent cultivars are reported.

Mortality among the first-instar larvae was very high on IS 2146 followed by IS 2312 and IS 5613. IS 2146, IS 3962 and IS 2312 sustained the least growth of larvae. The larvae in these cultivars were often confined to the upper region of the central shoot.

The survival rate of flies from IS 2146 was very low, and the longevity was significantly reduced in the case of flies from IS 2146 and IS 2195. The preoviposition period was significantly longer when flies were released on IS 1082 and IS 2312. Fecundity of the flies did not differ significantly when released on CSH-1; however, it was significantly reduced when released on parent cultivars in all cases except IS 1054. It is concluded that IS 2146 possesses strong antibiosis for the sorghum shootfly followed by IS 2312 and IS 5613.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1981

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

Blum, A. (1967) Varietal resistance of sorghum varieties resistant to the sorghum shootfly (Atherigona varia soc-cata). Crop Sci. 7, 461462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum, A. (1968) Anatomical phenomena in seedlings of sorghum varieties resistant to the sorghum shootfly (Atherigona varia seccata). Crop Sci. 8, 388391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum, A. (1972) Sorghum breeding for shootfly resistance in Israel. In Control of Sorghum Shootfly (Ed. by Jotwani, M. G. and Young, W. R.). Oxford & IBH, New Delhi, India.Google Scholar
Burton, G. W., Hana, W. W., Johnson, J. G. Jr, Leuck, D. B., Monson, W. G., Powell, J. B., Wells, H. D. and Windstrom, N. W. (1977) Pleiotropic effects of the tr trichomeless gene in pearl millet on transpiration, forage quality and pest resistance. Crop Sci. 17, 613616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jotwani, M. G., Marwaha, K. K., Srivastava, K. M. and Young, W. R. (1970) Seasonal incidence of shootfly (Atherigona varia seccata Rond.) in Jowar hybrids at Delhi. Indian J. Ent. 32, 715.Google Scholar
Jotwani, M. G., Sharma, G. C., Srivastava, B. G. and Marwaha, K. K. (1971) Ovipositional response of shootfly, Atherigona varia seccata (Rondani) on some of the promising resistant lines of sorghum. In Investigations on Insect Pests of Sorghum and Millets (Ed. by Pradhan, S.), pp. 119122. Final Technical Report (1965–1970), Division of Entomology, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi.Google Scholar
Jotwani, M. G. and Srivastava, K. P. (1970) Studies on sorghum lines resistant against shootfly, Atherigona varia seccata Rond. Indian J. Ent. 32, 13.Google Scholar
Maiti, R. K., Bidinger, F. R., Seshu Reddy, K. V., Gibson, P. and Davies, J. C. (1980) Nature and occurrence of trichomes in sorghum lines with resistance to the sorghum shootfly. Joint Progress Report: Sorghum Physio-logy-3/Sorghum Entomology-3, ICRISAT, India.Google Scholar
Ponnaiya, B. W. X. (1951) Studies on the genus Sorghum II. The cause of resistance in sorghum to the insect pest, Atherigona indica M. Madras Univ. J. 21, 203217.Google Scholar
Raina, A. K. (1981) Movement, feeding behaviour and growth of larvae of the sorghum shootfly, Atherigona soccata. Insect Sci. Applic. 2, 7781.Google Scholar
Singh, R. and Narayana, K. L. (1978) Influence of different varieties of sorghum on the biology of the sorghum shootfly. Indian J. agric. Sci. 48, 812.Google Scholar
Singh, S. R., Vedamoorthy, G., Thobbi, V. V., Jotwani, M. G., Young, W. R., Balan, J. S., Srivastava, K. P., Sandhu, G. S. and Krishnananda, N. (1968) Resistance to stem borer Chilo zonellus (Swinhoe) and stemfly, Atherigona varia soccata Rond, in the world sorghum collection in India. Mem. ent. Soc. India 7, 179.Google Scholar
Soto, P. E. and Laxminarayana, K. (1971) A method for rearing the sorghum shootfly, J. econ. Ent. 64, 553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taksdal, G. and Baliddawa, C. W. (1975) Studies of the biology of sorghum shootflies, Atherigona spp. (Muscidae: Diptera) and shootfly sorghum host plant relationships. Z. angew. Ent. 79, 239249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodhead, S. and Bernays, E. A. (1978) The chemical basis of resistance of Sorghum bicolor to attack by Locusta migratoria. Entomologia exp. appi. 24, 123144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, W. R. (1970) Sorghum insects. In Sorghum Production and Utilization (Edited by Wall, J. S. and Ross, W. M.), pp. 235287. Avi, Westport, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Young, W. R. (1972) Sources of resistance to the sorghum shootfly Atherigona varia soccata Rond. In Control of Sorghum Shootfly (Ed. by Jotwani, M. G. and Young, W. R.). Oxford & IBH, New Delhi.Google Scholar