Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:18:12.535Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Antixenosis component of resistance to corn planthopper, Peregrinus maidis (Ashmead) in sorghum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

B. M. Chandra Shekar ,
K. D. Reddy ,
B. U. Singh  and
D. D. R. Reddy
B. M. Chandra Shekar
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, College of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University
K. D. Reddy
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, College of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University
B. U. Singh*
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, College of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University
D. D. R. Reddy
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, College of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University
*
* Address for correspondence: National Research Centre for Sorghum, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad 500 030 (AP), India.
Get access

Abstract

Antixenosis component of resistance to corn planthopper, Peregrinus maidis (Ashm.) was investigated in 10 selected sorghum genotypes at three plant growth stages (30,45 and 60 DAG) under laboratory and field (rainy and postrainy seasons) conditions. In a free-choice test, the orientationa) and settling responses of nymphs and brachypterous adults on all genotypes although influenced by the olfactory and visual responses, then- feeding was notsustained due to gustatory stimuli indicating their significant role in determining the degreeof antlxenosis. The genotypes IS 18676, IS 19349 and IS 18677 showed a high degree of antixenosls in settling fewer nymphs and adults consistently at 30,45 and 60 DAG. This finding was supported with low colonization of nymphs, and brachypterous and macropterous adults under field conditions. In addition, high degree of antixenosis for oviposition in both laboratory and field tests was evidenced on IS 18676 and IS 19349 at 30,45 and 60 DAG, but on SPV 472 and SPV 475 only at specific plant growth stages. The variability in the rate of adult colonization together with suitability of plant growth stages for oviposition has contributed to variable degrees of antixenosis for oviposition.

Résumé

L'antixenosis, composante dans la résistance du mai's vis À vis de ia clcadelle, Peregrinus maïdis est évaluée sur 10 génotypes de sorgho sélectionées, à trois stades de développement de la plante (30,45 et 60 jours après levée) en conditions de laboratoire et de champs (saisons pluvieuse et seche). Dans les tests de libre choix, les réponses dans l'orientation et I'établissement des nymphes et adultes ailés sur les plantes, peuvent être influencée par les réponses olfactive et vlsuelle; cependant la prise de nourriture nétait pas soutenue par des stimuli gustatifs indiquant un rôle significatif dans les dégrés d'antixenosis. Les génotypesis 18676, IS 19349, IS 18677 ont montré des degrés élevés d'antixenosis dans I'établissement de très peu de nymphes et d'adultes à 30,45 et 60jours après levée. Ces résulats sont en harmonie avec la faible colonisation des nymphes, des brachyptères et macroptères en condition naturelle. En plus, un degré élevé d'antixenosis pourla ponte en conditions naturelle et de laboratoire est établi sur les variétés IS 18676 et IS 19349 à 30, 45 et 60 jours après levée, mais à des stades spécifiques de développement sur SPV472 et SPV 475. La variabilité dans le taux de colonisation combinée avec la convenance de certains stades de développement pour la ponte ont contribué à des dégres variables d'antixenosispour l'oviposition.

Keywords

Antixenosiscorn planthopperorientational responseovipositionPeregrinus maidissorghum
Type
Research Articles
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , February 1993 , pp. 77 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1993

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

Agarwal, R. K., Verma, R. S. and Bharaj, G. S. (1978) Screening of sorghum lines for resistance against shoot bug, Peregrinus maidis Ashmead (Homoptera: Delphacidae). JNKW Res. J. 12, 116.Google Scholar
Backus, E. A. (1985) Anatomical and sensory mechanisms of leafhopper and planthopper feeding behaviour. In The Lectfhoppers and Planthoppers (Edited by Nault, L. R. and Rodriguez, J. G.), pp. 163–194. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.Google Scholar
D'Arcy, C. J. and Nault, L. R. (1982) Insect transmission of plant viruses and mycoplasmalike, rickettsia-like organisms. Plant Disease 66, 99–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, D. B. (1955) Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 11, 1–41.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
Gunathilagaraj, K., and Chelliah, S. (1985) Components of resistance to the whitebacked planthopper, Sogatella furcifera (Horváth) in some rice varieties. Trop. Pest Manage. 31, 38–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, J. S. (1950a) Aphid migration and the spread of plant viruses. Nature (Lond.) 135, 1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, J. S. (1950b) Host finding and host alternation in aphids. Trans. 8th Int. Congr. Ent., Stockholm, 1948. pp. 423–426.Google Scholar
Khan, M. Q. and Rao, A. S. (1956) The influenceof the black ant, Componotus compressus F. on the incidence of two homopterous crop pests. Indian J. Entomol. 18, 199–200.Google Scholar
Khan, Z. R. and Saxena, R. C. (1985) Behavioural and physiological responses of Sogatella furcifera (Homoptera: Delphacidae) to selected resistant and susceptible rice cultivars. J.econ. Entomol. 78, 1280–1286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, P. W. (1958) Contact chemoreception in some heteroptera including chemoreception internalto the stylet food canal. J. Insect Physiol. 2, 338–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyake, T. (1966) Studies on the bionomics of three species of planthoppers: Laodelphax striatellus Fallen, Sogata furcifera Horvárth, and Nilaparvata lugens Stal. specially on their diapause. Bull. Hiroshima Agric. Exp. Stn. 24, 1–53.Google Scholar
Miyake, T. and Fujiwara, A. (1961) Studies on the diapause and host plant preference in the whitebacked planthopper, Sogata furcifera Horváh Jap. J. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 5, 174–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyake, T. and Fujiwara, A. (1962) Studies on the hibernation and diapause on the whitebacked planthopper, Sogata furcifera (Horvath) and the brown planthopper Nilaparvata lugens Stal. Bull. Hiroshima Agric. Exp. Stn. 13, 1–73.Google Scholar
Moericke, V. (1955) Uber die labenzgcwohnheitender geflugetten blattlause (Aphidina) unter besonderer Berucksichtigunz des verhaltens beim landen. Z. angew. Entomol. 37, 29–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, H. J. (1958) The behaviour of Aphis fabae in selecting its host plants, especially different varieties of Viciafaba. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1, 66–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuorteva, P. (1962) Studies on the causes of the phytopathogenicity of Calligynopona pellucida (F.) (Homoptera: Araeopidae). Ann. Zool. Soc. Bot. Fern. Vanamo 23, 1–58.Google Scholar
Pablo, S. J. (1977) Resistance to the whitebacked planthopper, Sogatella furcifera (Horváth) in ricevarieties. Ph.D. Thesis, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, India.Google Scholar
Pathak, M. D. and Saxena, R. C. (1980) Breeding approaches in rice. In Breeding Plants Resistant to Insects (Edited by Maxwell, F. G. and Jennings, P. R.), pp. 421–455. John Wiley& Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Pospisil, J. (1972) Olfactory orientation of certain phytophagous insects in Cuba. Acta Entomol. Bohemoslov. 69, 7–17.Google Scholar
Prabhakar, B., Rao, P. K. and Rao, B. H. K. M. (1981) Noteon hemipterous species complex on sorghum at Hyderabad. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 51, 818–819.Google Scholar
Rajasekhar, P. (1989) Studies on the population dynamics of major pests of sorghum and bioecology and crop loss assessment due to the shoot bug, Peregrinus maidis (Ashmead). Ph.D.Thesis, Andhra Pradesh Agric. Univ., Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, India.Google Scholar
Rawat, R. R. and Saxena, D. K. (1967) Studies on the bionomics of Peregrinus maidis (Ashmead) (Homoptera: Araeopidae). JNKVV Res. J. 1, 64–67.Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Rivera, R. (1972) Resistance to the whitebacked planthopper, Sogatella furcifera in rice varieties. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. Philippines, Los Baños, Philippines.Google Scholar
Singh, B. U. and Rana, B. S. (1992) Stability of resistance to corn planthopper, Peregrinus maidis (Ashmead), in sorghum germplasm. Insect Sci. Applic. 13, 251–263.Google Scholar
Vaidya, G. R. and Kalode, M. B. (1981) Studies on biology and varietal resistance of whitebacked planthopper, Sogatella furcifera (Horváth). Indian J. Plant Prot. 10, 3–12.Google Scholar