Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T23:20:06.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stability of resistance to corn planthopper, Peregrinus maidis (Ashmead) in sorghum germplasm

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

B. U. Singh  and
B. S. Rana
B. U. Singh
Affiliation:
All India Coordinated Sorghum Improvement Project, National Research Centre for Sorghum, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad 500 030, India
B. S. Rana
Affiliation:
All India Coordinated Sorghum Improvement Project, National Research Centre for Sorghum, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad 500 030, India
Get access

Abstract

Stability of resistance to corn planthopper, Peregrinus maid is (Ashmead), was studied over three plant growth stages in 56 sorghum germplasm accessions. Genotype x stage interactions were significant. Plant age exerted a profound influence on the rate of oviposition, establishment of nymph, macropterous and brachypterous adult populations and plant damage. Resistance to corn planthopper was stable over three growth stages in IS 18557, IS 18677 and PJ 8K(R), which also supported low colonization of nymph and adult populations; IS 12308 was unstable due to high deviation. Significantly low rate of oviposition on resistant as compared to susceptible genotypes and the positive and significant correlation between oviposition and plant damage illustrated that antixenosis for oviposition is the primary mechanism of resistance. As a consequence the genotypes preferred for oviposition showed susceptibility due to higher plant damage. Establishment of nymphs was affected on the genotypes, IS 1054, IS 1082, IS 2194, IS 3992, IS 12308, IS 18676 and IS 19349 which may be due to the factors involved either in reduced hatchability of eggs and/or deterrence or poor feeding preference of nymphs.

Résumé

La stabilité de la résistance à la delphacide du maïs, Peregrinus maidis (Ashmead) a été étudiée sur 3 stades de développement des accessions du germplasme de sorgho. Les interactions génotype x stade sont significatives. L'âge de la plante exerce une grande influence sur le taux de l'oviposition, l'établissement des larves et des populations adultes de macroptères et de brachyptères et sur les dégâts. La résistance de la cicadelle du maïs est stable aux 3 stades de développement chez IS 18557, IS 18677 et PJ 8K(R); celles-ci enregistrent une colonisation faible de populations larvaires et imaginales. IS 12308 est instable en raison de l'écart type élevé. Le taux de l'oviposition sur les génotypes résistants comparés aux sensibles ainsi que la corrélation positive et significative entre l'oviposition et les dégâts sur les plantes, démontrent que l'antixenosis pour l'oviposition est le premier mécanisme de résistance. Comme conséquence, les génotypes préférés pour l'oviposition affichent une grande sensibilité au regard des dégâts sévères observés. L'établissement des larves est affecté sur les génotypes IS 1054, IS 1082, IS 2194, IS 3992, IS 12308, IS 18676 et IS 19349; ceci peut être dû aux facteurs impliqués soit dans la réducation des éclosions des oeufs, soit la deterrence ou la préférence alimentaire faible des larves.

Keywords

Antixenosiscorn planthoppermechanisms of resistancePeregrinus maidisresistancesorghum germplasmstability of resistanceAntixenosisdelphacide du maïsmécanisme de résistancePeregrinus maïdisgermplasme de sorghostabilité de la résistance
Type
Research Articles
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , April 1992 , pp. 251 - 263
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1992

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

Ashmead, W.H. (1890) The corndel phacid, Delpax maidis. Psyche 5, 167–168; 321–324.Google Scholar
Ayyar, T. V. R (1940) Handbook of Economic Entomology for South India. Superintendent, Govt. Press, Madras.Google Scholar
Chelliah, S. and Basheer, M. (1965) Biological studies of peregrinus maidis (Ashmead (Araeopidae: Homoptera) on sorghum. Indian J.Entomol. 27, 466–471.Google Scholar
Choi, S. Y., Lee, S. W., Chung, B. K. and Kim, J. W. (1982) Varietal resistance of Korean new rice cultivars to the white backed planthopper, Sogatella furcifera (Horvath) III. Seoul Natl. Univ. Coll. Agric. Bull. 7, 36–40.Google Scholar
Eberhart, S. A. and Russell, W. A. (1966) Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop. Sci. 6, 36–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisk, J. (1978) Resistance of Sorghum bicolor to Rhopalosiphum maidis and Peregrinus maidis as affected by differences in the growth of the host. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 23, 227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisk, J. (1980) Effect of HCN, phenolic acids and related compounds in Sorghum bicolor on the feeding behaviour of the planthopper, Peregrinus maidis. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 27, 211–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fullaway, D. T. (1918) The corn leafhopper, Peregrinus maidis (Ashm.). Hawaii Bd. Agric. Forestry Div. Entomol. Bull. No. 4.Google Scholar
Khan, Z. R. and Saxena, R. C. (1985) Behavioural and physiological responses of Sogatella furcifera (Homoptera: Delphacidae) to selected resistantand susceptible rice cultivars. J. Entomol. 78, 1280–1286.Google Scholar
Lefroy, H. M. (1915) The more important insects injurious to Indian agriculture. Mem. Dept. Agric. Indian Entomol. Ser. 1.Google Scholar
Rana, B. S., Jotwani, M. G. and Rao, N. G. P (1981) Inheritance of host plant resistance to shootfly. Insect Sci. Applic. 2, 105–109.Google Scholar
Rao, Y. R. (1923a) Life history of Pundaluoya simplica Distant. The cholam leafhopper. Madras Agric. Dept. Yearbk pp. 27–31.Google Scholar
Rao, Y. R. (1923b) A note on the dimorphism in Pundaluoya simplica Dist. (Dicranotropis) maidis Ashm. Rep. Proc. 5th Entomol. Mfg. Pusa. pp. 406–408.Google Scholar
Rawat, R. R. and Saxena, D. K. (1967) Studies on the bionomics of Peregrinus maidis (Ashmead) (Homoptera: Araeopidae). JNKW Res. J. 1, 64–67.Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Rivera, (1972) Resistance to whitebacked planthopper, Sogatella furcifera (Horvath) in rice varieties. M.Sc. Thesis, Univ. Philippines, Los Banõs, Philippines.Google Scholar
Singh, B. U. and Rana, B. S. (1984) Influence of varietal resistance on oviposition and larval development of stalk-borer, Chilo partellus Swin., and its relationship to field resistance in sorghum. Insect Sci. Applic. 5, 287–296.Google Scholar
Singh, S. P. and Jotwani, M. G. (1980) Mechanism of resistance in sorghum to shootfly II. Antibiosis. Indian J. Entomol. 42, 352–360.Google Scholar
Woodhead, S., Padgham, D. and Bernays, E. A. (1980) Insect feeding on different sorghum cultivars in relation to cyanide and phenolic acid content. Ann. Appl. Biol. 95, 151–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar