Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-15T23:39:00.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ovipositional responses of Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) to certain susceptible and resistant maize genotypes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

Harish Kumar  and
K. N. Saxena
Harish Kumar
Affiliation:
The International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), P.O. Box 30772, Nairobi, Kenya
K. N. Saxena
Affiliation:
The International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), P.O. Box 30772, Nairobi, Kenya
Get access

Abstract

The ovipositional responses of the stem-borer, Chilo partellus, to the susceptible maize genotype, inbred A, are higher than to the resistant genotype, ICZ1-CM. These responses are elicited by certain characters of the plants that are perceivable prior to the moths' arrival on the plants (distance-perceivable) as well as those perceivable after arrival on the plant (contact-perceivable). Distance-perceivable characters were not found to be responsible for the differences in the oviposition on the two genotypes tested.

The contact-perceivable characters of the two genotypes differ markedly in eliciting oviposition by moths. Contact with the resistant ICZ1-CM elicits much less oviposition than with the other genotype.

Résumé

Les réactions d'oviposition du rongeur de tige, Chilo partellus, au génotype du mais susceptible, inbred A, sont plus importantes que celles du génotype résistant, ICZ1-CM. Ces réactions sont provoquées par certaines charactéristiques des plantes qui sont perceptibles avant l'arrivée des insectes sur les plantes (perceptiblité à distance) ainsi que ceux qui sont perceptibles après l'arrivée sur la plante (perceptibilité après contact). Il a été observe que les charactéristiques perceptibles à distance ne sont pas responsables des differences dans l'oviposition sur les 2 génotypes testés. Les charactéristiques perceptibles après contact des deux génotypes diffèrent considérablement quant à la provocation de l'oviposition par les insectes. Le contact avec le résistant ICZ1-CM provoque beaucoup moins d'oviposition qui avec l'antre génotype.

Keywords

Maize stem-borerChilo partellusresistanceovipositionRongeur de tige du maisChilo partellusresistanceoviposition
Type
Section III: Insect behaviour and host plant resistance
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 6 , Special Issue 3: Host Plant Resistance and its Significance in Pest Management , June 1985 , pp. 331 - 335
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1985

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

Ampofo, J. K. O. (1985) Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) oviposition on susceptible and resistant maize genotypes. Insect Sci. Applic. 6, 323–330.Google Scholar
Kumar, H. and Saxena, K. N. (1985) Oviposition by Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) in relation to its mating, diurnal cycle and certain non-plant surfaces. Appl. ent. Zool. In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marwaha, K. K., Siddiqui, K. H., Panwar, V. P. S. and Sarup, P. (1980) Screening of ‘introduction nursery’ to identify sources of resistance to the maize stalk borer, Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) under artificial infestation. J. ent. Res. 4, 91–96.Google Scholar
Ochieng, R. S., Onyango, F. O. and Bungu, M. D. O. (1985) Improvement of techniques for mass culture of Chilo partellus (Swinhoe). Insect Sci. Applic. 6, 425–428.Google Scholar
Omolo, E. O. (1983) Screening of local and exotic maize lines for stem borer resistance with special reference to Chilo partellus (Swinhoe). Insect Sci. Applic. 4, 105–108.Google Scholar
Painter, R. H. (1951) Insect Resistance in Crop Plants. Macmillan, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Painter, R. H. (1958) Resistance of plants to insects. A. Rev. Ent. 3, 267–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarup, P., Siddiqui, K. H., Panwar, V. P. S. and Marwah, K. K. (1983) Response of diverse maize germplasms to artificial infestation of the stalk-borer, Chilo partellus (Swinhoe). J. ent. Res. 5, 70–75.Google Scholar
Saxena, K. N. and Saxena, R. C. (1974) Patterns of relationships between certain leafhoppers and plants. Part II. Role of sensory stimuli in orientation and feeding. Entomologia exp. appl. 17, 493–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saxena, K. N. and Saxena, R. C. (1975a) Patterns of relationships between certain leafhoppers and plants. Part III. Range and interaction of sensory stimuli. Entomologia exp. appl. 18, 194–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saxena, K. N. and Saxena, R. C. (1975b) Patterns of relationships between certain leafhoppers and plants. Part IV. Sequence of stimuli determining arrival on a plant. Entomologia exp. appl. 18, 207–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saxena, K. N., Seshu Reddy, K. V. and Kumar, H. (1985) Measurement of ovipositional responses of moths to distance-and contact-perceivable characters of plants in the fields. J. econ. Ent. In press.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. (1970) Statistical Methods. The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar