Sorghum Resistance to the Rice Weevil, Sitophilus oryzae (L.): Antixenosis

  • K. Pramod Kumar Reddy
  • B. U. SinghEmail author
  • K. Dharma Reddy
Research Article


Thirty-five grain sorghum genotypes representing 6 variable groups (A/B-lines, R-lines, commercial varieties, germplasms, mutants and locals) were evaluated for the orientation, colonisation and oviposition responses of the rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), governing the antixenosis component of resistance. In free-choice tests, the orientation and colonisation responses of the weevil were identical among all the genotypes at 24 h, varied at 48 h, and differed widely by 72 h after adult release. High degrees of antixenosis for colonisation by the adult weevils were observed among all the genotypes except 2077A and 2219B, which suggests a predominant reaction to gustatory rather than visual or olfactory stimuli. One to five egg plugs per seed were oviposited, frequently near the endosperm close to the seed base. Greater levels of antixenosis for oviposition were noticed in 2077B, DJ 6514 and IS 11758 in free-choice tests, and 2219B, M 148-138, P 721 and Nizamabad (M) in no-choice tests. To the contrary, M 35-1, Swati and Lakadi showed greater susceptibility for oviposition. Significantly less damage to seed was observed on 2219A/B, 116B, IS 9487, IS 11758, CSV 8R(M) and Local Yellow. Although the differences in seed weight loss were not significant, this parameter was relatively lower in AKMS 14B and 2219B than in the other genotypes. This indicates the need to increase the levels of resistance among the parental A/B-lines in the development of hybrids, in order to ensure better protection from rice weevil infestation in stored sorghum.

Key Words

sorghum rice weevil Sitophilus oryzae storage pest antixenosis oviposition resistance breeding 


La résistance antixénotique de trente cinq génotypes de sorgho appartenant à 6 groupes différents (lignée A/B, lignée R, variétés commerciales, germoplasmes, mutants et locaux) a été évaluée vis à vis des comportements d’orientation, de colonisation et d’oviposition du curculionide du riz, Sitophilus oryzae (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). En situation de choix, les réponses d’orientation et de colonisation du curculionide sont identiques pour tous les génotypes après 24 h, variables après 48 h, et très différentes 72 h après le lâcher des adultes. A l’exception, du 2077A et du 2219B, tous les génotypes ont exprimé un niveau élevé d’antixénose sur le comportement de colonisation des curculionides adultes, suggérant un mode d’action au travers de stimuli gustatifs plutôt que visuels ou olfactifs. Une à cinq masses d’oeufs par graine ont été déposees, frequemment près de l’endosperme à la base de la graine. Les niveaux les plus élevés d’antixénose sur le comportement d’oviposition ont été observés sur les génotypes 2077B, DJ 6514 et IS 11758 en situation de choix, et sur les génotypes 2219B, M 148-138, P 721 et Nizamabad (M) en situation de non-choix. Au contraire, les génotypes M 35-1, Swati et Lakadi apparaissent plus sensibles pour l’oviposition. Des dégâts significativement plus faibles ont été observés sur graine pour les génotypes 2219A/B, 116B, IS 9487, IS 11758, CSV 8R (M) et Local Jaune. Bien que les différences de perte de poids de la graine ne soient pas significatives, ce paramètre est relativement plus faible chez AKMS 14B et 2219B que chez les autres génotypes. Ceci indique la nécessité d’accroître les niveaux de résistance des lignées parentales A/B pour la production d’hybrides, afin d’assurer une meilleure protection contre l’infestation par le curculionide du riz sur le sorgho stocké.

Mots Clés

sorgho curculionide du riz Sitophilus oryzne ravageur des stocks antixénose oviposition résistance sélection variétale 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adetunji J. F. (1988) A study of the resistance of some sorghum seed cultivars to Sitophilus oryzae (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 24, 67–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borikar P. S. and Tayde D.. S. (1979) Resistance in sorghum to Sitophilus oryzae Linn. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. 88B, 273–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cotton R.T. (1963) Pests of Stored Grain and Grain Products. Burgess Publication Co., London. 318 pp.Google Scholar
  4. Davey P. M. (1965) The susceptibility of sorghum to attack by the weevil, Sitophilus oryzae (L.). Bull. Entomol. Res. 56, 287–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dethe M.D., Dharne P.K. and Kale V.D. (1981) Studies on the susceptibility of grains of some sorghum hybrids and varieties to rice weevil and lesser grain borer. Bull. Grain Technol. 19, 22–25.Google Scholar
  6. Diaz C.G. (1967) Some relationships of representative races of corn from the Latin American germplasm seed bank to intensity of infestation by the rice weevil, Sitophilus zeamais Motsch. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). PhD thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Dobie P. (1974) The laboratory assessment of the inherent susceptibility of maize varieties to post-harvest infestation by Sitophilus zeamais Motsch (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 10, 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doggett H. (1957) The breeding of sorghum in East Africa 1. Weevil resistance in sorghum grains. Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 25, 1–9.Google Scholar
  9. Doraiswamy V., Subramanian T. R. and Dakshinamurthy A. (1976) Varietal preference in sorghum for the weevil, Sitophilus oryzae L. Bull. Grain Technol. 14, 107–110.Google Scholar
  10. Duncan D. B. (1955) Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 11, 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fademula A. and Horber E. (1984) Resistance of sorghum varieties to Sitophilus oryzae and Sitotroga cerealella, pp. 418–434. In Proc. 3rd Intl. Working Conf. Stored-Product Entomology, Oct. 23–28, 1983. Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Frankenfeld J. C. (1948) Staining methods for detecting weevil infestation in grain. USDA Agricultural Research Administration, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine Series No. ET 256.Google Scholar
  13. Halstead D. G. H. (1963) External sex differences in stored products Coleoptera. Bull. Entomol. Res. 54, 119–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holloway G. L. (1985) The effect of increased grain moisture content on life-history characters of Sitophilus oryzae (L.) after staining egg plugs with acid fuchsin. J. Stored Prod. Res. 21, 165–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Horber E. (1984) Principles, problems, progress and potential in host resistance to stored grain insects, pp. 391–417. In Proc. 3rd Intl. Working Conf. on Stored-Product Entomology, 23–28 October 1983. Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Hunkapiller P. D. (1970) A search for resistance to the maize weevil, the lesser grain borer, and the Angoumois grain moth among 269 cultivars of sorghum. PhD thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, USA.Google Scholar
  17. Krishnamurthy K., Raghunatha G., Rajasekhara B. G. and Mushtaq Ali R. M. (1976) Differential resistance of sorghum genotypes to stored grain insect pests. Bull. Grain Technol. 14, 206–210.Google Scholar
  18. Larrain P. I., Araya J. E. and Paschke J. D. (1995) Methods of infestation of sorghum lines for the evaluation of resistance to the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Crop Protection 14, 561–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lenge S. (1973) Laboratory studies of varietal sorghum grain resistance to the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais Motsch. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). PhD thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, USA.Google Scholar
  20. Mannechoti P. (1974) Studies of resistance of 92 sorghum and 38 maize cultivars to four species of stored product insects. MSc thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, USA.Google Scholar
  21. Mbata G. N. (1992) The use of resistant crop varieties in the control of storage insects in the tropics and subtropics. Ambiol. 21, 475–478.Google Scholar
  22. McCain F. S., Eden W. G. and Singh D. N. (1964) A technique for selecting rice weevil resistance in corn in the laboratory. Crop Sci. 4, 109–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Miller A., Philips R. and Cline L. D. (1969) Rearing Manual for Stored-Product Insects used by USDA Stored-Product Insect Research and Development Laboratory. Savannah, Georgia. Stored Product Insects Research and Development Laboratory, Savannah, Georgia, USA.Google Scholar
  24. Mills R. B. (1985) Insect pests of stored sorghum grain, pp. 337–344. In Proc. Sorghum Entomol. Workshop. July 15–21, 1984 Texas A&M University, College Station, USA. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India.Google Scholar
  25. Phillips J. K., Walgenbach C. A., Klein J. A., Burkholder W. E., Schmuff N. R. and Fales H. M. (1985) (R*,S*)-5-’hydroxy-4-methyl-3-heptanone: a male produced aggregation pheromone of Sitophilus oryzae (L.) and S. zeamais Motsch. J. Chem. Ecol. 11, 1263–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reddy D. B. (1951) Determinaton of sex in adult rice and granary weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Pan-Pacific Entomol 25, 13–16.Google Scholar
  27. Rogers R.R. and Mills R.B. (1974a) Evaluation of a world sorghum collection for resistance to the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais Motsch. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 47, 36–41.Google Scholar
  28. Rogers R. R. and Mills R. B. (1974b) Reaction of sorghum varieties to maize weevil infestation under three RH. J. Econ. Entomol. 67, 692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Russell M. P. (1962) Effect of sorghum varieties on the lesser rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae 1. Oviposition, immature mortality and size of adults. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 55, 678–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Russell M. P. and Rink M. M. (1965) Some effects of sorghum varieties on the development of a rice weevil, Sitophilus zeamais (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 58, 73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Samuel C. K. and Chatterjee S. M. (1953) Studies on the varietal resistance and susceptibility of jowar (sorghum) to storage pests of India. Indian J. Entomol. 15, 225–239.Google Scholar
  32. Sharifi S. (1972) Oviposition site and egg-plug staining related to development of two species of Sitophilus in wheat kernels. Z. Angew. Entomol. 71, 428–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shazali M. E. H. (1982) The biology and population ecology of four insect pests of stored sorghum with particular reference to competition and succession. PhD thesis, University of Reading, Reading, UK.Google Scholar
  34. Shazali M. E. H. (1987) Weight loss caused by development of Sitophilus oryzae and Sitotroga cerealella (Oliv.) in sorghum grains of two size classes. J. Stored Prod. Res. 23, 233–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shazali M. E. H. and Smith R. H. (1985) Life history studies of internally feeding pests of stored sorghum, Sitotroga cerealella (Ol.) and Sitophilus oryzae (L.) J. Stored Prod. Res. 21, 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shiota C. M. and Lara F. M. (1985) Resistencia de genotipos de sorgo ao ataque do gorgulho do milho, em condicoes de laboratorio. Fitossani Porta 69, 1–10.Google Scholar
  37. Stevens P. A., and Mills R. B. (1973) Comparison of techniques for screening sorghum grain varieties for resistance to rice weevil. J. Econ. Entomol. 66, 1222–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Subramanyam B., Wright V. F. and Fleming E. E. (1992) Laboratory evaluation of food habits for their relative ability to retain three species of stored product beetles. J. Agric. Entomol. 9, 117–127.Google Scholar
  39. Teetes G. L., Chantrasorn W., Johnson J. W., Granovsky T. A. and Rooney L. W. (1981) Maize weevil: A Search for Resistance in Converted Exotic Sorghum Kernels. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn Bull. 1371. Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA.Google Scholar
  40. Teli V. S., Pawar M. B. and Kalbhor S. E. (1983) Studies on varietal susceptibility of some sorghum varieties and hybrids to Sitophilus oryzae Linn. Sci. Cult. 49, 218–219.Google Scholar
  41. Urrelo R. (1989) Influence of susceptible and resistant maize accessions on the development of Sitophilus zeamais Motsch. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) with initial feeding in specific kernel area. J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 62, 32–43.Google Scholar
  42. Van der Schaaf P., Wilbur D. A. and Painter R. H. (1969) Resistance of corn to laboratory infestation of the larger rice weevil, Sitophilus zeamais. J. Econ. Entomol. 62, 352–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Venkatrao S., Nuggenhalli R. N., Swaminathan N., Pingle S. V. and Subramanian V. (1958) Effect of insect infestation on stored grain II. Studies of kafir corn (Sorghum vulgare L.). J. Sci. Fd. Agric. 9, 837–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Villacis J., Sosa C. and Ortega A. A. (1972) Comportamiento de Sitotroga cerealella Olivier (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) y de Sitophilus zeamais Mots. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) en diez tipos de maiz con characteristics constanstes. Agricien. 9, 3–16.Google Scholar
  45. Walgenbach C. A. and Burkholder W. E. (1986) Factors affecting the response of the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), to its aggregation pheromone. Environ. Entomol. 15, 733–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. White S. C. (1975) Laboratory studies on levels and causes of insect resistance in stored sorghum varieties. MSc thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, USA.Google Scholar
  47. Widstrom N. W., McMillian W. W. and Wiseman B. R. (1978) Improving effectiveness of measurement for seed resistance to maize weevil. J. Econ. Entomol. 71, 901–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Williams J. O. and Mills R. B. (1980) Influence of mechanical damage and repeated infestation of sorghum on its resistance to Sitophilus oryzae (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 16, 51–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wiseman B. R., Redlinger L. M. and Wiser W. J. (1972) Appraisal of methods for measuring corn kernel resistance to Sitophilus zeamais. J. Econ. Entomol. 65, 790–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wongo L. E. (1990) Factors of resistance in sorghum against Sitotroga cerealella (Oliv.) and Sitophilus oryzae (L.). Insect Sci. Applic. 11, 179–188.Google Scholar
  51. Wongo L. E. and Pedersen J. R. (1988) Influence of sorghum storage farm on development and progeny of Sitotroga cerealella (Oliv.) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) and Sitophilus oryzae (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Contribution No. 88-447-J, Kansas Agric. Exp. Stn., Kansas State Univ., Manhattan, Kansas, USA.Google Scholar
  52. Wongo L. E. and Pedersen J. R. (1990) Effect of threshing different sorghum cultivars on Sitotroga cerealella (Oliv.) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) and Sitophilus oryzae (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 26, 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ICIPE 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Pramod Kumar Reddy
    • 1
    • 2
  • B. U. Singh
    • 1
    Email author
  • K. Dharma Reddy
    • 2
  1. 1.National Research Centre for SorghumRajendranagar, HyderabadIndia
  2. 2.Department of Entomology, College of AgricultureAcharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural UniversityRajendranagar, HyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations