Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T01:16:50.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nature of resistance in rice varieties against leaffolder Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Guenée)*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

K. Dakshayani ,
J. S. Bentur  and
M. B. Kalode
K. Dakshayani
Affiliation:
Directorate of Rice Research, Rajendranagar Hyderabad, 500 030, India
J. S. Bentur
Affiliation:
Directorate of Rice Research, Rajendranagar Hyderabad, 500 030, India
M. B. Kalode*
Affiliation:
Directorate of Rice Research, Rajendranagar Hyderabad, 500 030, India
*
+Author for correspondence.
Get access

Abstract

Nature of resistance against the rice leaffolder, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Guenee) was studied in 16 rke varieties selected on the basis of greenhouse feeding test. Resistant varieties as a group were less preferred for feeding by the larvae in a free choice test lasting 10 days. Cut leaf assay with limited choice brought out subtle differences among some of the test varieties In larval settling response. Larval preference was correlated positively with the leaf area damage noted In feeding test, per cent pupation and leaf width, and negatively with trichome density. However, oviposltton preference was neither distinct nor correlated with resistance or leaf morphology. An antibiosis component in the test varieties ARC 11128, Balam, Gorsa, ARC 7064 and Ptb 19 was distinctly manifested as reduced larval survival, lower pupation rate and pupal weights in comparison with the susceptible check. When neonate larvae were reared on the meridic diets containing the leaves of the varieties Darukasail, Balam or Ptb 12, antibiotic effects were much more pronounced in comparison with the larvae reared on the diet containing the leaves of the susceptible check TN 1.

Résumé

La nature de la réesistance contre la chenille enrouleuse des feuilles, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Guenée) est étudiée sur 16 variétés de riz en conditions de serre. Les variétés résistantes constituent un groupe, étaient moins préferées pour l'alimentation par les larves en condition de libre choix sur une période de 10 jours. Des simulations portant sur la coupure des feullles avec un choix limitc apporte des differencessensibles entre les variétés dans l'etablissement de la larve. La preference larvaire était corrélée positivement avec la surface foliaire endommagée dans les tests d'alimentation, avec le pourcentage de pupaison et la largeur foliaire; elle est négativement correlee avec la densité des trichomes. Cependant, la preference pour l'oviposition n'était ni distincte ni correiée avec la resistance ou la môrphologie foliaire. Un composant d'antibiosis dans les varlétés testées, ARC 11128, Balam, Gorsa, ARC 7064 et Ptb 19, est distingue dans la reduction de la survie larvaire, la baisse de la pupaison et du poids des pupes, en comparaison avec des témoins. Les effets antibiotiqu esétaknt plus prononcés sur des larves néonates élevéessur des milieux artificiels abase des feuilles des variétés Darukasail, Balam et Pt b12 par rapport àcelles éle vées sur des milieux àbase de feulles de la variété sensible TNI.

Keywords

Cnaphalocrocis medinalisresistancerice varietiesantixenosisantibiosismeridic diet
Type
Research Articles
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , February 1993 , pp. 107 - 114
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.)

Footnotes

*

DRR Publication No. 5.

References

REFERENCES

Abenes, M. L. P. and Khan, Z. R. (1990) Biology of leaffolders (LF) on susceptible IR 36 and resistant TKM 6. Int. Rice Res. Newsl 15, 14.Google Scholar
Beach, R. M. and Todd, J. W. (1988a) Foliage consumption and developmental parameters of the soybean looper and the velvetbean caterpillar (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) reared on susceptible and resistant soy bean genotypes. J. econ. Entomol. 81, 310–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beach, R. M. and Todd, J. W. (1988b) Opposition preference of soybean looper (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) among four soybean genotypes differing in larval resistance. J. econ. Entomol. 81, 344–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentur, J. S. and Kalode, M. B. (1989) Evaluation of rice germplasm against rice leaf folder (LF) in the greenhouse. Int. Rice Res. Newsl. 14, 14.Google Scholar
Bentur, J. S. and Kalode, M. B. (1990) A feeding test to identify rice varieties resistant to the rice leaf folder, Cnaphalocrocis meciinalis (Guenée). Proc. Ind. Acad. Sci. (Anim.Sci.) 99, 483–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, N. M. and Nair, M. R. G. K. (1974) Effect of rice varieties on the extent of leaf consumption by caterpillars of Cnaphalocrocis medinalis. Agric. Res. J. Kerala 12, 106–107.Google Scholar
Dakshayani, K., Bentur, J. S. and Kalode, M. B. (1988) A meridic dtetforrice leaf folder, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Guenée). Entomon 13, 309–311.Google Scholar
Dhaliwal, G. S., Shahi, H. N., Gill, P. S. and Maskina, M. S. (1979) Field reaction of rice varieties to leaffolder at various nitrogen levcls. Int. Rice Res. Newsl. 4, 7.Google Scholar
Duncan, D. B. (1951) Asignificant test for differences between ranked treatments in an analysis of variance. Va. J. Sci. 2, 71–189.Google Scholar
Garg, D. K. (1984) Field resistance to rice leaffolder. Int. Rice Res. Newsl. 9, 9–10.Google Scholar
Hanifa, A. M. and Subramanian, T. R. (1973) Association of leaf roller resistance with certain plant characters in rice. Madras agric. J. 60, 1805.Google Scholar
Isenhour, D. J., Wiseman, B. R. and Widstrom, N. W. (1985) Fall armyworm (Lepidoptera Noctuidae) feeding responses on corn foliage and foliage/ artificial diet medium mixtures at different temperatures. J. econ. Entomol. 78, 328–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Islam, Z. (1991) Rice yellow stem borer (YSB) egg deposition preferences. Int. Rice Res. Newsl. 16, 24–25.Google Scholar
Khan, Z. R. (1987) Artificial diet for rearing rice leaffolder. Int. Rice Res. Newsl. 12, 30–31.Google Scholar
Khan, Z. R., Barrion, A. T., Litsinger, J. A., Castilla, N. P. and Joshi, R. C. (1988) A bibilography of rice leaffolders (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Insect Sci. Appl. 9, 129–174.Google Scholar
Khan, Z. R., Rueda, B. P. and Caballero, P. (1989) Behavioural and physiological responses of rice leaffolder Cnaphalocrocis medinalis to selected wild rices. Ent. exp. Appl. 52, 7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Majumdar, N. D., Pathak, K. A. and Borthakur, D. N. (1984) Reaction of rice genotypes to leaf folder Cnaphalocrocis medinalis Guenée. Oryza 21, 205–208.Google Scholar
Medina, E. B. and Heinrichs, E. A. (1986) Response of the rice leaffolder (LF) to extracts of resistant rice varieties. Int. Rice Res. Newsl. 11, 20.Google Scholar
Medina, E. B. and Tryon, E. H. (1986) Response of leaffolder (LF) Cnaphalocrocis medinalis G. to extracts of resistant O. sativa and O. brachyantha. Int. Rice Res. Newsl. 11, 23.Google Scholar
Murugesan, S. and Chelliah, S. (1983) Rice yield losses caused by leaffolder damage to the flag leaf. Int. Rice Res. Newsl. 8, 14.Google Scholar
Nadarajan, L. and Skaria, B. P. (1988) Leaffolder resurgence and species composition in Pattambi, Kerala. Int. Rice Res. Newsl. 13, 33–34.Google Scholar
Panda, N. (1979) Principles of Host-plant Resistance to Insect Pests. Hindustan Publishing Corporation Delhi, India, pp. 386.Google Scholar
Panda, S. K. and Shi, N. (1989) Carbofuran induced rice leaffolder (LF) resurgence. Int. Rice Res. Newsl. 14, 30.Google Scholar
Pandya, H. V., Shah, A. H. and Purohit, M. S. (1987) Yield tosses caused by leaffolder (LF) damage alone and combined with yellow stem borer (YSB) damage. Int. Rice Res. Newsl. 12, 28.Google Scholar
Saxena, R. C. and Khan, Z. R. (1991) Electronic recording of feeding behaviour of Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) on resistant and susceptible rice cultivars. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 84, 316–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrivastava, S. K. (1989) Leaffolder (LF) damage and yield loss on someof the selected rice varieties. Int. Rice Res. Newsl. 14, 10.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. N. and Pellmyr, O. (1991) Evolution of opposition behaviour and host preferences in Lepidoptera. Anna. Rev. Entomol. 36, 65–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
velusamy, R. and Chelliah, S. (1985) Field screening for resistance to leaffolder (LF). Int. Rice Res. Newsl. 10, 9.Google Scholar
Villanueva, F. F. D. and Khan, Z. R. (1988) Mode of feeding on selected wild rices and weight gain of first-instar larvae of rice leaffolder (LF). Int. Rice Res. Newsl. 13, 17.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. L., Wiseman, B. R. and Widstrom, N. W. (1984) Growth response of corn earworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) larvae on meridic diets containing fresh and lyophilised corn silk. J. econ. Entomol. 77, 1159–1162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiseman, B. R. and Widstrom, N. W. (1986) Mechanism of resistance in “Zapaltoe Chico” corn silk to fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) larvae. J. econ. Entomol. 79, 1390–1393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiseman, B. R., Widstrom, N. W. and McMillian, W. W. (1983) Influence of resistant and susceptible corn silks on selected developmental parameters ofcom earworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) larvae. J. econ. Entomol. 76, 1288–1290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiseman, B. R., Guelder, R. C. and Lynch, R. E. (1984) Fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) resistance bioassays using a modified pinto bean diet. J. econ. Entomol 77, 545–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiseman, B. R., Pitre, H. N., Fates, S. L. and Duncan, R. R. (1986) Biological effects of developing sorghum panicles in a meridic diet on fall army-worm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) development. J. econ. Entomol. 79, 1637–1640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar