Advertisement

International Journal of Tropical Insect Science

, Volume 11, Issue 6, pp 889–898 | Cite as

Componental Analysis of the Factors Influencing Resistance to Sorghum Midge, Contarinia Sorghicola Coq.

  • H. C. Sharma
  • P. Vidyasagar
  • K. Leuschner
Research Article

Abstract

Studies were conducted on components of resistance to sorghum midge on four resistant (DJ 6514, AF 28, TAM 2566 and IS 15107) and two susceptible (CSH 1 and Swarna) cultivars. Short floral parts, faster rate of grain development and high tannin content of grain were apparently associated with resistance to sorghum midge, Contarinia sorghicola Coq. Genotypic and phenotypic correlations between the factors associated with resistance to sorghum midge were in the same direction (positive or negative) as their association with resistance to this insect. Glume g2, lemma 12, anther and lodicule length, rate of grain development based on dry weight (except oviposition), and tannin content of mature grain showed correlation and path coefficients (direct effects) in the same direction. These characters can serve as a useful criteria to select for resistance to sorghum midge.

Using D2 and canonical cluster analysis, AF 28 was found to be distinct from other sources of midge resistance. However, based on larvae/100 florets, DJ 6514 was also placed distantly from TAM 2566 and IS 15107. Based on egg numbers, adults emerged and grain damage, DJ 6514 was grouped with TAM 2566 and IS 15107. Susceptible hybrid check, CSH 1 was generally placed distantly from the self pollinated susceptible variety, Swarna. These results indicate that the sources of resistance to sorghum midge are diverse, and there is a distinct possibility of increasing the levels and diversity of resistance to this insect.

Key Words

Sorghum Contarinia sorghicola resistance componental analysis 

Mots Cléfs

Sorgho Contarinia sorghicola résistance analyse des composantes 

Résumé

Analyse des composantes des facteurs qui influencent la résistance à la cécidomyie du sorgho Contarinia sorghicola Coq.: Des études ont été effectuées sur les composantes de la résistance à la cécidomyie du sorgho portant sur quatre cultivars résistants (DJ 6514, AF 28, TAM 2566 et IS 15107) et deux cultivars sensibles (CSH 1 et Swarna). Des parties florales courtes, un développement plus rapide des graines, ainsi qu’une teneur élevée en tanin de la graine étaient apparemment associés avec la résistance à la cécidomyie du sorgho Contarinia sorghicola Coq. Des corrélations génotypiques et phénotypiques entre les facteurs asssociés avec la résistance à la cécidomyie avaient la même orientation (positive ou négative) que leur association avec la résistance à cet insecte. La glume g2, la glumelle inférieure 12, la longueur de l’anthére et de la lodicule, le développement de la graine par rapport au poids sec (sauf ponte), et la teneur en tanin de la graine mure ont montré une corrélation et des path-coefficients (effets directs) dans la même orientation. Ces caractéres peuvent servir de critéres utiles de sélection pour la résistance à la cécidomyie.

L’utilisation de D2 et l’analyse en grappes canonique a permis de mettre en évidence que AF 28 était distinct des autres sources de résistance à la cécidomyie. Cependant, par rapport

au nombre de larves/100 florets, DJ 6514 était également éloigné de TAM 2566 et IS 15107. Par rapport aux nombres d’oeufs, nombre d’adultes émergés, et endommagement des graines, DJ 6514 était groupé avec TAM 2566 et IS 15107. Le témoin hybride sensible, CSH 1 était généralement éloigné de la variété sensible autogame, Swarna. Ces résultats indiquent que les sources de résistance à la cécidomyie sont diverses, et qu’il existe une possibilité distincte d’amélioration des niveaux et de la diversité de la résistance à cet insecte.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ball C. R. and Hastings S. H. (1912) Grain sorghum production in the San Antonio region of Texas. USDA Bureau of Plant Ind. Bull. 237, 12–25.Google Scholar
  2. Bergquist R. R., Rotar P. and Mitchell W. C. (1974) Midge and anthracnose head blight resistance in sorghum. Trop. Agric. (Trinidad) 54, 431–435.Google Scholar
  3. Bowden J. and Neve R. A. (1953) Sorghum midge and resistant varieties in the Gold Coast. Nature 171, 551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chandrasekharaiah S. R., Murthy B. R. and Arunachalam V. (1969) Multivariate analysis of divergence in sorghum. Nat. Inst. Sci. India, Bull. 35, 172–195.Google Scholar
  5. Dewey D. R. and Lu K. H. (1959) A correlation and path coefficient analysis of components of crested wheat grass seed production. Agron. J. 51, 515–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Geering Q. A. (1953) The sorghum midge, Contarinia sorghicola in East Africa. Bull. entomol. Res. 44, 363–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Harris K. M. (1961) The sorghum midge, Contarinia sorghicola (Coq.) in Nigeria. Bull. entomol. Res. 44, 363–366.Google Scholar
  8. Harris K. M. (1976) The sorghum midge. Ann. Appl. Biol. 84, 114–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Johnson J. W. (1977) Status of breeding for midge resistance. In Tenth Biennial Sorghum Research and Utilization Conference, 2–4 March 1977, Wichita, Kansas, USA. Grain Sorghum Producers Association, Wichita, Kansas, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Johnson J. W., Rosenow D. T. and Teetes G. L. (1973) Resistance to the sorghum midge in converted exotic sorghum cultivars. Crop Sci. 113, 754–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kofoid K. D., Maranville J. W. and Ross W. M. (1982) Relationship of the testa to agronomic and nutritional traits in sorghum. Crop Sci. 22, 190–210.Google Scholar
  12. Li C. C. (1956) The concept of path coefficients. Biometrica 12, 190–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mertin M. L., Scoyoc S. V. and Buttler L. G. (1978) A critical evaluation of the Vanillin reaction as an assay for tannin in sorghum. J. Agric. Fed. Chem. 26, 1214–1219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Murty A. D. and Subramaniam T. R. (1978) Varietal susceptibility of sorghum to the midge (Contarinia sorghicola Coq.). Madras Agric. J. 65, 180–182.Google Scholar
  15. Omori T., Agrawal B. L. and House L. R. (1983) Componental analysis of the factors influencing shoot fly resistance in sorghum Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench). JARQ 17, 215–218.Google Scholar
  16. Omori T., Agrawal B. L. and House L. R. (1988) Genetic divergence to shoot fly, Atherigona soccata Rond. in sorghum, Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench. Insect Sci. Applic. 9, 483–488.Google Scholar
  17. Passlow T. (1965) Bionomics of sorghum midge, Contarinia sorghicola (Coq.) in Queensland, with particular reference to diapause. Queensland J. Agric. Anim. Sci. 22, 149–167.Google Scholar
  18. Rao C. R. (1952) Biometrical Research. John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  19. Rossetto C. J. (1985) Sorghum midge: Host plant resistance mechanisms. In Proc. Int. Sorghum Entomol. Work., pp. 293–300. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, A.P. 502 324, India.Google Scholar
  20. Rossetto C. J., Goncalves W. and Diniz J. L. M. (1975) Resistancia da variedada AF-28 a Mosca do sorgho, na ausencia de outras variedades. Anais Soc. Entomol. Brazil 4, 16.Google Scholar
  21. Santos J. H. T. and Carmo C. M. (1974) Evaluation of resistance to Contarinia sorghicola of sorghum lines from Cameroon, Africa Collection. Sorghum Newsl. 17, 10–11.Google Scholar
  22. Sharma H. C. (1985a) Future strategies for pest control in sorghum in India. Trop. Pest Manage. 31, 167–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sharma H. C. (1985b) Screening for midge (Contarinia sorghicola Coq.) resistance and resistance mechanisms. In Proc. Int. Sorghum Entomol. Work., pp. 275–291. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru A.P. 502 324, India.Google Scholar
  24. Sharma H. C, Vidyasagar P. and Leuschner K. (1988) No-choice cage technique to screen for resistance to sorghum midge (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). J. econ. Entomol. 81, 415–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sharma H. C, Leuschner K. and Vidyasagar P. (1990a) Factors influencing oviposition by the sorghum midge, Contarinia sorghicola Coq. Ann. Appl. Biol. 116, 431–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sharma H. C, Vidyasagar P. and Leuschner K. (1990b) Components of resistance to the sorghum midge, Contarinia sorghicola Coq. Ann. Appl. Biol. 116, 327–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shyamsunder J., Parameshwarappa R., Nagaraja H. K. and Kajjari N. B. (1975) A new genotype in sorghum resistant to midge (Contarinia sorghicola Coq.). Sorghum Newsl. 18, 33.Google Scholar
  28. Wiseman B. R. and McMillian W. W. (1968) Resistance in sorghum to sorghum midge, Contarinia sorghicola (Coquillett) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). J. Entomol. Soc. Ga. 3, 147.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ICIPE 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. C. Sharma
    • 1
  • P. Vidyasagar
    • 1
  • K. Leuschner
    • 1
  1. 1.International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)PatancheruIndia

Personalised recommendations