Printer Friendly

Screening of maize inbred lines for resistance to stem borer, Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) under natural infestation.

Maize (Zea mays L.), commonly known as 'Queen of Cereals' is an important cereal and fodder crop grown all over the world. Being the highest yielding cereal crop in the world, maize is of significant importance for countries like India, where rapidly increasing population and poultry industry have already out stripped the available food and grain supplies (Lella and Srivastav, 2013). In India, among cereals, maize ranks third in acreage and production. Maize crop possesses great genetic diversity and hence can be grown under varied agro ecological zone. The area under maize crop in the country is 8.49 million hectare with annual production of 21.28 MT (FAOSTAT, 2013), contributing nearly nine per cent in the national food basket. Cultivation of this crop is, however, handicapped by a number of insect pests which take heavy toll of its production annually.

About 200 species of insects have been reported infesting maize, globally and amongst them, the spotted stem borer, Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) is the most destructive one (Abdalla and Raguraman, 2014). C. partellus attacks maize plants from two weeks after germination until crop harvest. At the seedling stage of the crop, the young larvae feed on the green leaves while the older larvae leave the leaf whorl and bore into the stem where they damage the growing point and cause a characteristic "dead heart" symptom. In older plants, the larvae feed inside the stem causing extensive tunneling, which may cause lodging and interfere with the nutrient supply to the developing grains. In case of heavy infestation, the insect damages up to 50 per cent of the maize crop, which is liable to secondary attack by other pathogens (Panwar et al2001).

Insecticide application for stem borer control is considered to be uneconomical under subsistence farming and is largely beyond means of resource poor farmers. This is because once the pest enters the plant tissue; it becomes difficult for most of the insecticides to reach the target (Kumar et al., 2006). Apart from this, extensive use of chemical insecticides is often associated with environmental hazards, development of resistance in the target species, destruction of natural enemies and outbreak of minor pests. Therefore, host plant resistance (HPR) assumes a pivotal role in controlling stem borer damage either alone or in combination with other methods of control.

Amongst the identified sources, a number of mechanisms contribute to maize resistance to the stem borer, including non-preference for oviposition, reduced feeding by the first instars on the young leaves, low dead heart formation, reduced tunneling, tolerance to leaf damage and stem tunneling (Woodhead and Taneja, 1987; Sharma and Nwanze, 1997, Kumar et al., 2006). Knowledge of the resistance mechanisms and associated factors is essential for effective utilization of resistant sources in crop improvement programs. However, because of large genotype X environment interactions, it becomes difficult to quantify different mechanisms of resistance under field conditions. Hence an attempt has been made to screen different inbred genotypes of maize under field conditions, in order to identify sources of resistance against C. partellus.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred maize germplasms (inbred lines) were screened along with Basi local (susceptible check) and CM500 (resistant check) for resistance to C. partellus under natural infestation during kharif season of 2012-14 at the Agriculture Research Farm, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi. The experiment was conducted in Randomized Block Design with three replications. Each inbred line was sown in a single row of 2.5 meter length, with a plant to plant spacing of 20 cm. The recommended cultural practices were followed as and when required. The entire crop was grown free from pesticide application.

Observations regarding mean plant height (cm), leaf injury rating, mean tunnel length (cm), dead heart per cent were recorded by selecting ten plants randomly per row from all the maize genotypes. In order to determine the leaf injury rating (LIR), the foliar damage was visually recorded at 50 days after sowing of the crop on a scale of 1 to 9, as given by Tefera et al., 2011, where 1 = no visible leaf damage and 9 = plants dying as a result of leaf damage. On the basis of leaf injury score, the genotypes were then placed into different categories viz., highly resistant (score: 1-2), resistant (score: 2-3), moderately resistant (score: 3-5) and susceptible (score: 6-9). The LIR value was also correlated with other damage parameters observed. Significance of simple correlation was estimated by using t-test (Saxena and Ujagir 2007).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In the present study, one hundred inbred lines of maize were screened under natural unprotected conditions for their resistance to C. partellus along with two checks, CM 500 (Resistant check) and BASI LOCAL (Susceptible check) during kharif seasons of 2012-14. The performance of different inbred lines was determined on the basis of leaf injury rating. The leaf injury rating value was also correlated with other damage parameters like mean tunnel length and per cent dead heart and a growth parameter i.e. plant height.

The pooled data in Table 1 revealed that average plant height varied significantly from 93.0 cm to 146.2 cm. Among the different genotypes screened, maximum plant height was recorded in HUZM - 81 (146.2 cm) and minimum (100.8 cm) in HUZM-582-2-1 as compared to the stem borer resistant check variety, CM500 (145.3 cm) and stem borer resistant susceptible check variety, BASI LOCAL (93.0 cm). Similarly, when foliar damage was taken into consideration, the minimum foliar damage was recorded in HUZQPM-8 (LIR value = 1.2) followed by HUZQPM -5 and HUZQPM-8 (LIR value = 1.3), while the maximum foliar damage was recorded in susceptible check, BASI LOCAL (LIR value = 7.7) followed by HUZM - 5 (LIR value = 7.5).

Apart from this, ten other inbred lines namely HUZM-47, HUZM-58-2, HUZM-152-2, HUZM-265, HUZM-343-1, HUZM-350-1, HUZM488, HUZM-628-3, HUZM-229 and HUZM-391-2 also exhibited high foliar damage due to C. partellus with LIR value--6.0, 6.5, 6.8, 6.2, 6.0, 6.8, 6.5, 6.3, 6.2 and 6.5 respectively as compared to the resistant check, CM 500 (LIR value = 2.3) (Table 1). A significant variation in LIR value was also recorded during both the years. The results are in agreement with Abdalla and Raguraman (2014) who evaluated thirty four maize genotypes on the basis of LIR value for resistance to C. partellus and found four genotypes highly resistant against C. partellus.

The mean tunnel length also varied significantly from lowest of 0.5 cm on HUZQPM-6 to highest of 12.5 cm on HUZM-5 among the genotypes tested, as compared to 2.3 cm and 12.3 cm on checks CM500 and BASI LOCAL, respectively. There were also significant differences in per cent dead heart among the genotypes and check and it ranged from minimum (0 per cent) on 11 inbred lines (HUZM-65-1, HUZM-175-2, HUZM-211-1,CM-211*-2-1-1, POP34-C8-1, HUZM-366, HUZM-390-2, HUZM-1, HUZQPM-5, HUZQPM-6 and HUZQPM-8) to maximum 58.3 per cent in susceptible check, BASI LOCAL (Table 1).

Results in Table 2 show that the 14 genotypes HUZM-67, HUZM-70-1, HUZM-211-1, CM-211*-2-1-1, POP-34-C8-1, HUZM-597-2, HUZM-366, HUZM-714, HUZM-390-2, HUZQPM4, HUZQPM-5, HUZQPM-6, HUZQPM-7 AND HUZQPM-8, were highly resistant (d" 2.0 rating on LIR scale) with score of 1.8, 2.0, 1.7, 1.5, 1.5, 1.8, 1.7, 1.5, 1.8, 1.7, 1.3, 1.7, 1.3 and 1.2 respectively. Thirty four genotypes were found to be resistant with LIR score ranging between 2 and 3, including the resistant check CM-500, while the score of thirty two genotype ranged from 3.2, to 4.8 and grouped as moderately resistant. Susceptible check BASI LOCAL showed highest foliar damage rating score of 7.7. Abdalla and Raghuraman (2014) also reported that susceptible check BASI LOCAL exhibited highest foliar damage rating score of 7.00. The remaining twenty genotypes also recorded LIR score ranging between 5.2 to 7.5 and were grouped as susceptible. Chavan, et al., (2007) tested 77 genotypes and found that the least susceptible germplasm (d" 3.0 rating including CM 500.

Correlation coefficient was worked between leaf injury rating value and other parameters like mean tunnel length, per cent dead heart and mean plant height of maize genotypes along with the resistant check CM 500 and susceptible check BASI LOCAL (Table 3). Significant and positive correlation was observed between leaf injury rating and mean tunnel length (r =0.920**) and per cent dead heart (r=0.957**) where as a significant and a negative correlation was found with plant height (r = - 0.411**). Thus it can be concluded that those genotypes which were having higher foliar damage also exhibited higher mean tunnel length and higher per cent dead heart. But these genotypes with lower damage by C. partellus exhibited higher plant height.

Dhillon and Gujar (2013) have evaluated 18 diverse maize inbred lines against maize stem borer and found that maize genotypes CPM 1, CPM 2, CPM4, CPM 8, CPM 15, and CPM 18 were resistant to C. partellus and these genotypes also possessed desired agronomic traits. Several other workers also reported differential levels of resistance/ susceptibility of maize lines derived from CIMMYT (Bergvinson, et al., 2002. Panwar, et al., 2001 and Sekhar, et al., 2004) Panwar et al., 2000, Awan and Khaliq, 2003, Khan and Monobrullah, 2003, Chavan, et al., 2007, Afjal, et al., 2009 and Dillon et al., 2013 have also reported significant differences in infestation level of C. partellus.

Various scientists (Kanta and Shekhon, 1994, Rai and Sharma, 1998; Kanta and Kaur, 2000 and Chand and Kumar, 2004) have screened different maize germplasm and identified promising cultivars in different agro-climatic condition.

REFERENCES

(1.) Abdalla, L.A.M., Raguraman, S. Screening Maize Genotypes for Resistance to Stem Borer Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae). Trends in Biosciences., 2014; 7 (16): 2212-16.

(2.) Afzal, M., Nasir, Z., Bashir, M.H., Khan, B.S. Analysis of List Plant resistance in some genotypes of maize against Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) (Pyralidae: Lepidoptera). Pakistan J. Botany., 2009; 41:421-428.

(3.) Anonymous, FAOSTAT, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2013.

(4.) Awan, N. A., Khaliq, A. Tassel infestation and dead hearts formation due to maize stem borer (Chilo partellus) attack in maize varieties. Pak. J. Biol. Sci, 2003; 6(3): 191-194.

(5.) Bergvinson, D.J., Vasal, S.K., Singh, N.N., Panwar, V.P.S., Sekhar, J.C. Advances in conventional breeding for insect resistance in Tropical maize. Proceedings of the 8th Asian Regional Workshop, Bangkok, Thailand. 2002.; pp 325-38.

(6.) Chand, T., Kumar A. Screening of some maize varieties for resistance against maize stem borer, Chilo partellus. Indian J. App. Ent., 2004; 18(1): 5.

(7.) Chavan, B.P., Khot, R.B. Harer, P.N. Reaction of maize germplasm to maize stem borer, Chilo partellus (Swinhoej J. ent. Res., 2007; 31: 187-190.

(8.) Dhillon, M.K., Gujar, G.T. Maize genotypes identified with resistance to spotted stem borer, Chilo partellus and favorable agronomic traits. Ann. Pl. Protec. Sci., 2013; 21(2): 224-228.

(9.) Kanta, U., Kaur, R. Response of maize germ plasms to maize stem borer under field conditions, Insect Environment., 2000; 6(2): 91.

(10.) Kanta, U., Sekhon, S.S. Location of sources of resistance amongst different maize varieties and inbred to Chilo partellus (Swinhoe). J. Ent. Res., 1994; 18: 157-162.

(11.) Khan, M.S., Monobrullah, M. Preliminary screening of maize germplasm against stem borer Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) at intermediate zone Rajouri (J&K). Insect Environ., 2003; 9(1): 45-46.

(12.) Kumar,V.K., Sharma, H.C., Reddy K.D. Antibiosis mechanism of resistance to spotted stem borer, Chilo partellus in sorghum, Crop Prot, 2006; 25: 66-72.

(13.) Lella, R., Srivastav, C. P. Screening of maize genotypes against stem borer Chilo partellus L. In kharif season. International Journal of Applied Biology and Pharmaceutical Technology., 2013; 4(4): 394-403.

(14.) Panwar, V.P.S., Mukherjee, B.K., Ahuja, V.P Maize inbred tolerant to tissue borers, Chilo partellus and Atherigona spp. Ind. J. Genet. Pl. Breed., 2000; 60(1): 71-75.

(15.) Panwar, V.PS., Singh, N.N., Vasal, S.K., Bergvinson, D. Resistance of exotic germplasm to the Asian stalk borer Chilo partellus (Swinhoe). Ind. J. Genet. Pl. Breed., 2001; 61: 356-357.

(16.) Rai, M.K., Sharma, V.K. Relative susceptibility of some maize genotypes to stem borer, Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) Shashpa, 1998; 5(1): 107-108.

(17.) Saxena, V, Ujagir, R. Effect of temperature and relative humidity on pod borer in pigeonpea. J Food Legumes., 2007. 20(1): 121-123.

(18.) Sharma, H.C., Nwanze, K.F. Mechanisms of resistance to insects in sorghum and their usefulness in crop improvement. Information Bulletin No. 45. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India, 1997; 56pp.

(19.) Sekhar J.C., Bergvinson, D., Venkatesh, S., Sharma, R.K., Reddy, L.K. Singh, N.N. Reaction of exotic maize germplasm to pink borer Sesamia inferens Walker. Indian J. Entomol. 2004; 66: 261-263.

(20.) Tefera, T., Mugo, S., Tende, R., Likhayo, P Methods of Screening Maize for resistance to Stem Borers and Post-harvest Insect Pets. CIMMYT, Nairobi, Kenya., 2011.

(21.) Woodhead, S., Taneja, S.L. The importance of the behaviour of young larvae in sorghum resistance to Chilo partellus. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 2013; 45(1): 47-54.

Sitanshu [1] *, C. P Srivastava [1] and J.P Shahi [2], Shiv Bahadur [1] and Rajani [1]

[1] Department of Entomology and Agricultural Zoology, department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi--221 005, India.

(Received: 17 January 2016; accepted: 09 February 2016)

* To whom all correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: sitanshu.bhu11@gmail.com
Table 1. Screening of inbred genotypes of maize against C.
partellus during kharif, 2012-14

                         Mean plant        Leaf Injury Rating at
                         height (cm)       50 Days after sowing

Geno-             2012    2013    Pooled   2012   2013    Pooled
types              -13     -14     Mean    -13     -14     Mean

HUZM-36           108.3   115.0   111.7    5.3     5.7     5.5
HUZM-46           122.0   118.0   120.0    4.0     4.3     4.2
HUZM-47           110.0   117.3   113.7    6.0     6.0     6.0
HUZM-53           127.7   120.7   124.2    5.3     4.3     4.8
HUZM-55           132.3   127.0   129.7    3.3     3.0     3.2
HUZM-58-2         138.3   132.7   135.5    6.3     6.7     6.5
HUZM-59-1         99.0    106.7   102.8    4.0     4.3     4.2
HUZM-60           143.3   137.3   140.3    3.3     4.0     3.7
HUZM-63           123.3   125.0   124.2    2.7     3.0     2.8
HUZM-65-1         135.0   120.7   127.8    2.7     2.0     2.3
HUZM-67           137.7   147.3   142.5    2.0     1.7     1.8
HUZM-70-1         136.3   135.0   135.8    1.7     2.3     2.0
HUZM-71           127.3   121.0   124.2    2.7     1.7     2.2
HUZM-77           137.0   138.0   137.5    3.7     4.3     4.0
HUZM-78-2         141.0   140.7   140.8    2.3     2.3     2.3
HUZM-79           102.7   103.7   103.2    6.3     7.3     6.8
HUZM-80-1         113.0   118.7   115.8    3.0     2.7     2.8
HUZM-81           144.7   147.7   146.2    2.0     2.3     2.2
HUZM-81-1         139.0   138.3   138.7    2.7     2.3     2.5
HUZM-85-1         120.0   123.0   121.5    3.3     3.0     3.2
HUZM-88           132.0   139.0   135.5    2.7     2.3     2.5
HUZM-90           121.0   125.7   123.3    3.7     4.7     4.2
HUZM-91-1         136.7   138.7   137.7    3.3     3.0     3.2
HUZM-97           128.0   126.3   127.2    3.3     2.7     3.0
HUZM-97-1-2       127.7   129.3   128.5    2.3     3.0     2.7
HUZM-107-1        127.0   134.0   130.5    3.0     3.3     3.2
HUZM-107-2        110.7   108.0   109.3    2.3     3.0     2.7
HUZM-121-2        114.7   114.7   114.7    2.7     2.3     2.5
HUZM-147          108.3   114.7   111.5    4.3     4.7     4.5
HUZM-148-2        116.0   117.3   116.7    2.3     2.0     2.2
HUZM-175-1-2      103.3   106.7   105.0    3.3     3.0     3.2
HUZM-175-2        120.3   108.3   114.3    2.7     2.3     2.5
HUZM-184-3        119.3   123.7   121.5    2.3     2.7     2.5
HUZM-211-1        139.0   121.7   130.3    2.0     1.3     1.7
HUZM-221          119.0   108.7   113.8    2.7     2.7     2.7
HUZM-242          109.0   111.3   110.2    5.3     6.0     5.7
HUZM-246          114.7   111.0   112.8    4.0     3.7     3.8
HUZM-152-2        122.0   115.7   118.8    7.0     6.7     6.8
HUZM-265          111.3   115.7   113.5    6.3     6.0     6.2
HUZM-281          102.3   107.7   105.0    3.7     4.3     4.0
HUZM-320          115.0   116.0   115.5    3.3     3.0     3.2
HUZM-329          114.3   118.0   116.2    2.3     2.7     2.5
HUZM-343-1        99.3    104.7   102.0    5.7     6.3     6.0
HUZM-345          113.7   117.7   115.7    3.3     3.7     3.5
HUZM-350-1        148.3   133.0   140.7    7.3     6.3     6.8
HUZM-352-1        128.0   130.0   129.0    3.0     3.3     3.2
HUZM-355-2        114.0   104.7   109.7    4.3     3.3     3.8
HUZM-356          110.0   105.0   107.5    5.7     6.0     5.8
HUZM-358          118.0   103.0   110.5    3.3     3.7     3.5
HUZM-363          121.3   117.0   119.2    3.3     3.7     3.5
HUZM-379          107.3   103.7   105.5    3.7     3.3     3.5
HUZM-384          129.0   124.3   126.7    2.7     2.3     2.5
HUZM-386-1        110.0   99.3    104.7    5.7     5.0     5.3
HUZM-427          108.0   104.7   106.3    3.7     3.3     3.5
HUZM-432          121.3   118.0   119.7    3.7     3.0     3.3
HUZM-446          124.0   121.7   122.8    3.0     2.7     2.8
HUZM-454          104.7   114.7   109.7    4.0     3.7     3.8
HUZM-457          117.0   123.7   120.3    3.3     3.0     3.2
HUZM-461-1        107.7   102.3   105.0    3.3     3.7     3.5
HUZM-478          120.7   115.0   117.8    3.0     2.3     2.7
HUZM-488          105.3   111.0   108.2    6.7     6.3     6.5
HUZM-509          103.3   110.3   106.8    2.7     2.3     2.5
HUZM-513-1        98.0    106.7   102.3    5.0     5.3     5.2
CM-211*-2-1-1     118.3   108.7   113.5    1.7     1.3     1.5
POP-34-C8-1       101.3   110.7   106.0    1.3     1.7     1.5
POP-34-C8-3       112.3   108.0   110.2    2.7     2.3     2.5
HUZM-561          127.0   121.7   124.3    3.7     3.0     3.3
CML-163-1-1       118.7   114.3   116.5    4.3     4.0     4.2
HUZM-582-2        115.0   110.0   112.5    2.7     2.3     2.5
HUZM-582-2-1      98.3    103.3   100.8    3.3     4.0     3.7
HUZM-597-1        114.3   109.0   111.7    3.3     3.0     3.2
HUZM-597-2        108.3   112.7   110.5    2.3     1.3     1.8
HUZM-628-3        137.3   127.7   132.5    6.0     6.7     6.3
HUZM-655-2        114.7   109.0   111.8    2.0     2.3     2.2
193-1             119.3   121.7   120.5    6.7     6.0     6.3
488-3             108.3   107.0   107.7    3.7     3.0     3.3
PG NLB-3-1-2      109.7   115.0   112.3    2.7     3.3     3.0
POOL 15 C 7       121.3   113.7   117.5    3.3     2.7     3.0
HUZM-253          109.3   119.7   114.5    2.3     3.3     2.8
HUZM-229          122.7   113.3   118.0    6.3     6.0     6.2
HUZM-343          126.7   125.0   125.8    2.3     2.3     2.3
HUZM-366          128.7   118.0   123.3    1.7     1.7     1.7
HUZM-708          112.3   120.7   116.5    2.3     3.3     2.8
HUZM-713          127.3   118.0   122.7    2.7     2.3     2.5
HUZM-714          116.3   119.7   118.0    1.3     1.7     1.5
HUZM-536          110.3   103.7   107.0    2.7     3.0     2.8
HUZM-391-2        112.0   107.7   109.8    6.3     6.7     6.5
HUZM-390-2        109.3   114.3   111.8    2.0     1.7     1.8
HUZM-38-2         107.3   107.3   107.3    3.7     3.7     3.7
HUZM-53           113.0   119.7   116.3    2.0     2.3     2.2
HUZM-1            113.0   118.3   115.7    2.3     2.0     2.2
HUZM-5            105.0   101.0   103.0    7.3     7.7     7.5
HUZM-6            112.7   115.0   113.8    5.7     4.7     5.2
HUZQPM-1          111.7   105.7   108.7    5.0     6.3     5.7
HUZQPM-2          128.3   117.0   122.7    2.3     2.7     2.5
HUZQPM-4          116.0   122.7   119.3    2.0     1.3     1.7
HUZQPM-5          126.3   121.0   123.7    1.7     1.0     1.3
HUZQPM-6          137.0   131.7   134.3    1.7     1.7     1.7
HUZQPM-7          135.3   132.7   134.0    1.0     1.7     1.3
HUZQPM-8          127.7   123.0   125.3    1.0     1.3     1.2
CM 500 (R)        144.3   146.3   145.3    2.3     2.3     2.3
BASI LOCAL (S)    93.3    92.7     93.0    7.0     8.3     7.7
SEM [+ or -]       8.9     7.2     7.6     0.5     0.7     0.4
CD 5%             24.7    20.1     21.1    1.4     2.1     1.1

                       Mean tunnel          Mean percent
                       length (cm)           dead heart

Geno-             2012   2013   Pooled   2012   2013   Pooled
types             -13    -14     Mean    -13    -14     Mean

HUZM-36           9.0    8.2     8.6     26.7   20.0    21.7
HUZM-46           4.1    5.1     4.6     16.7   13.3    15.0
HUZM-47           11.0   8.7     9.8     30.0   26.7    28.3
HUZM-53           2.8    1.5     2.2     13.3   10.0    11.7
HUZM-55           4.5    1.8     3.2     10.0   3.3     6.7
HUZM-58-2         8.7    7.3     8.0     43.3   30.0    36.7
HUZM-59-1         4.0    6.3     5.2     10.0   13.3    11.7
HUZM-60           0.3    4.3     2.3     6.7    3.3     5.0
HUZM-63           3.0    5.7     4.3     10.0   3.3     6.7
HUZM-65-1         0.0    2.3     1.2     0.0    0.0     0.0
HUZM-67           0.0    1.3     0.7     3.3    0.0     1.7
HUZM-70-1         0.7    1.7     1.2     0.0    3.3     1.7
HUZM-71           4.3    1.3     2.8     6.7    0.0     3.3
HUZM-77           3.7    3.4     3.5     10.0   10.0    10.0
HUZM-78-2         2.0    4.0     3.0     23.3   3.3     13.3
HUZM-79           9.3    9.7     9.5     36.7   46.7    41.7
HUZM-80-1         4.3    3.3     3.8     6.7    6.7     6.7
HUZM-81           1.3    1.6     1.5     3.3    3.3     3.3
HUZM-81-1         4.3    3.7     4.0     6.7    6.7     6.7
HUZM-85-1         3.3    2.7     3.0     6.7    6.7     6.7
HUZM-88           1.0    1.3     1.2     0.0    3.3     1.7
HUZM-90           3.0    4.0     3.5     13.3   16.7    15.0
HUZM-91-1         3.0    2.3     2.7     13.3   3.3     8.3
HUZM-97           3.0    2.3     2.7     10.0   0.0     5.0
HUZM-97-1-2       3.3    3.1     3.2     6.7    6.7     6.7
HUZM-107-1        4.2    2.7     3.4     13.3   10.0    11.7
HUZM-107-2        3.3    2.3     2.8     6.7    6.7     6.7
HUZM-121-2        3.0    2.5     2.8     6.7    3.3     5.0
HUZM-147          3.0    5.0     4.0     23.3   23.3    23.3
HUZM-148-2        3.0    3.3     3.2     3.3    0.0     1.7
HUZM-175-1-2      2.7    2.7     2.7     10.0   6.7     8.3
HUZM-175-2        2.3    2.3     2.3     0.0    0.0     0.0
HUZM-184-3        3.7    3.3     3.5     10.0   3.3     6.7
HUZM-211-1        1.2    0.7     0.9     0.0    0.0     0.0
HUZM-221          4.7    2.7     3.7     3.3    3.3     3.3
HUZM-242          10.7   9.0     9.8     26.7   36.7    31.7
HUZM-246          5.7    2.7     4.2     20.0   6.7     13.3
HUZM-152-2        11.2   11.7    11.4    43.3   40.0    41.7
HUZM-265          8.3    8.7     8.5     26.7   36.7    31.7
HUZM-281          3.7    3.7     3.7     20.0   13.3    16.7
HUZM-320          3.2    3.0     3.1     3.3    6.7     5.0
HUZM-329          3.0    2.7     2.8     6.7    0.0     3.3
HUZM-343-1        10.0   10.3    10.2    33.3   43.3    38.3
HUZM-345          3.8    4.5     4.2     13.3   6.7     10.0
HUZM-350-1        11.0   10.3    10.7    56.7   43.3    50.0
HUZM-352-1        3.8    3.0     3.4     6.7    10.0    8.3
HUZM-355-2        5.7    4.3     5.0     20.0   0.0     10.0
HUZM-356          8.3    11.0    9.7     33.3   33.3    33.3
HUZM-358          3.5    3.3     3.4     13.3   13.3    13.3
HUZM-363          3.6    4.0     3.8     16.7   10.0    13.3
HUZM-379          3.8    3.7     3.8     16.7   6.7     11.7
HUZM-384          3.7    3.0     3.3     6.7    0.0     3.3
HUZM-386-1        8.7    10.7    9.7     30.0   26.7    28.3
HUZM-427          3.8    3.3     3.6     10.0   3.3     6.7
HUZM-432          4.3    5.7     5.0     13.3   10.0    11.7
HUZM-446          3.3    4.0     3.7     13.3   0.0     6.7
HUZM-454          3.3    4.3     3.8     10.0   10.0    10.0
HUZM-457          4.3    3.3     3.8     13.3   6.7     10.0
HUZM-461-1        4.3    3.8     4.1     6.7    10.0    8.3
HUZM-478          4.3    4.7     4.5     10.0   3.3     6.7
HUZM-488          10.7   11.0    10.8    40.0   43.3    41.7
HUZM-509          3.2    3.7     3.4     10.0   0.0     5.0
HUZM-513-1        11.3   10.0    10.7    36.7   26.7    31.7
CM-211*-2-1-1     0.7    1.3     1.0     0.0    0.0     0.0
POP-34-C8-1       1.3    1.0     1.2     0.0    0.0     0.0
POP-34-C8-3       3.3    3.5     3.4     6.7    6.7     6.7
HUZM-561          3.0    2.7     2.8     10.0   16.7    13.3
CML-163-1-1       4.3    4.0     4.2     13.3   20.0    16.7
HUZM-582-2        5.3    6.3     5.8     3.3    0.0     1.7
HUZM-582-2-1      4.7    5.0     4.8     10.0   30.0    20.0
HUZM-597-1        3.0    4.3     3.7     10.0   6.7     8.3
HUZM-597-2        0.7    2.4     1.6     0.0    0.0     0.0
HUZM-628-3        10.3   10.0    10.2    43.3   50.0    46.7
HUZM-655-2        3.0    1.8     2.4     0.0    3.3     1.7
193-1             7.3    10.3    8.8     40.0   46.7    43.3
488-3             2.7    4.0     3.3     10.0   3.3     6.7
PG NLB-3-1-2      4.0    2.2     3.1     3.3    10.0    6.7
POOL 15 C 7       2.7    1.3     2.0     10.0   0.0     5.0
HUZM-253          4.0    4.0     4.0     6.7    6.7     6.7
HUZM-229          10.7   9.0     9.8     36.7   43.3    38.3
HUZM-343          3.9    3.0     3.5     3.3    0.0     1.7
HUZM-366          4.2    2.7     3.4     0.0    0.0     0.0
HUZM-708          1.5    1.8     1.7     0.0    16.7    8.3
HUZM-713          0.3    4.7     2.5     6.7    6.7     6.7
HUZM-714          5.0    0.3     2.7     10.0   0.0     5.0
HUZM-536          3.0    2.7     2.8     3.3    16.7    10.0
HUZM-391-2        10.3   10.0    10.2    40.0   60.0    50.0
HUZM-390-2        1.7    3.1     2.4     0.0    0.0     0.0
HUZM-38-2         3.3    3.0     3.2     10.0   13.3    11.7
HUZM-53           3.3    3.2     3.3     0.0    3.3     1.7
HUZM-1            2.8    3.7     3.3     0.0    0.0     0.0
HUZM-5            11.7   13.3    12.5    46.7   63.3    55.0
HUZM-6            10.3   7.3     8.8     30.0   26.7    26.7
HUZQPM-1          8.7    9.3     9.0     36.7   40.0    38.3
HUZQPM-2          5.3    4.3     4.8     3.3    6.7     5.0
HUZQPM-4          0.7    5.0     2.8     6.7    0.0     3.3
HUZQPM-5          1.0    3.7     2.3     0.0    0.0     0.0
HUZQPM-6          0.7    0.3     0.5     0.0    0.0     0.0
HUZQPM-7          2.7    1.0     1.8     0.0    3.3     1.7
HUZQPM-8          1.7    1.0     1.3     0.0    0.0     0.0
CM 500 (R)        3.7    1.0     2.3     6.7    13.3    8.3
BASI LOCAL (S)    13.3   11.3    12.3    50.0   66.7    58.3
SEM [+ or -]      1.6    1.4     1.2     4.9    5.8     3.7
CD 5%             4.6    4.1     3.3     13.7   16.1    10.3

R = Resistant check, S = Susceptible check

Table 2. Category of different maize genotypes against
C. partellus during kharif, 2012-14

Highly             Resistant
Resistant

HUZM-67,           HUZM-63, HUZM-65-1, HUZM-71,
HUZM-70-1,         HUZM-78-2, HUZM- 80-1, HUZM-
HUZM-211-1,        81, HUZM-81-1, HUZM-88, HUZM-
CM-21l*-2-l-l,     97, HUZM-97-1-2, HUZM-107-2,
POP-34-C8-1,       HUZM-121-2, HUZM-148-2,
HUZM-597-2,        HUZM-175-2, HUZM-184-2, HUZM-
HUZM-366,          221, HUZM-329, HUZM-384,
HUZM-714,          HUZM-446, HUZM-478, HUZM-509,
HUZM-390-2,        POP-34-C8-3, HUZM-582-2,
HUZQPM-4,          HUZM-665-2, PG NLB-3-1-2, POOL
HUZQPM-5,          15 C 7, HUZM-253, HUZM-343,
HUZQPM-6,          HUZM-708, HUZM-713, HUZM-536,
HUZQPM-7,          HUZM-53, HUZM-1, HUZQPM-2,
HUZQPM-8,          CM 500(Resistance check)

Moderately resistant                  Susceptible

HUZM-46, HUZM-53, HUZM-55,            HUZM-36, HUZM-47, HUZM-58-2,
HUZM-59-1, HUZM-60, HUZM-77,          HUZM-79, HUZM-242, HUZM-152-
HUZM-85-1, HUZM-90, HUZM-91-1,        2, HUZM-265, HUZM-343-1,
HUZM-107-1, HUZM-147, HUZM-175-       HUZM-350-1, HUZM-356, HUZM-
1-2, HUZM-246, HUZM-281, HUZM-        386-1, HUZM-488, HUZM-513-1,
320, HUZM-345, HUZM-350-1,            HUZM-628-3, 193-1, HUZM-229,
HUZM-355-2, HUAM-358, HUZM-363,       HUZM-391-2, HUZM-5, HUZM-6,
HUZM -379, HUZM-427, HUZM-432,        HUZQPM-1,
HUZM-454, HUZM-457, HUZM-461-1,       BASI LOCAL (Susceptible check)
HUZM-561, CML-163-1-1, HUZM-582-
2-1, HUZM-597-1, 488-3, HUZM-38-2,

Table 3. Simple correlation coefficient between
Leaf Injury Rating (LIR) of different maize
genotypes and other damage parameters under
field conditions

Parameter taken into       Leaf Injury Rating
consideration              (LIR value)

Mean tunnel length (cm)    0.920 **
Per cent dead heart        0.957 **
Mean plant height (cm)     -0.411 **

** Significant at 1%
COPYRIGHT 2016 Oriental Scientific Publishing Company
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2016 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Sitanshu; Srivastava, C.P.; Shahi, J.P.; Bahadur, Shiv; Rajani
Publication:Journal of Pure and Applied Microbiology
Article Type:Report
Date:Jun 1, 2016
Words:5253
Previous Article:Biochemical changes in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) infected by stem and pod rot disease caused by Sclerotium rolfsii sacc.
Next Article:Screening of bovine tuberculosis cattle using the tuberculin skin test in Barsana.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters