, Volume 193, Issue 3, pp 293–302 | Cite as

Evaluation of open pollinated varieties of maize for resistance to the maize weevil in a controlled temperature and humidity laboratory in Zimbabwe

  • R. T. Masasa
  • P. S. Setimela
  • Z. A. Chiteka


Maize weevil (Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky) is one of the major maize storage pests among smallholder farmers in eastern and southern Africa (ESA), thereby, reducing total on-farm maize harvests. Experiments were conducted in a controlled temperature and humidity (CTH) laboratory at CIMMYT-Zimbabwe to compare the resistance of new maize open pollinated varieties (OPVs) from regional trials undertaken in ESA to maize weevils. Twenty maize OPVs were shelled and cleaned before being placed in a deep freezer at −20 °C to kill any pests and eggs in the grain from the field. Fifty grams of grain from each OPV was measured after 3 weeks and placed in the CTH lab for conditioning. The samples were placed in 250-mL jars with brass-screened lids and then infested with 32 maize weevils aged between 10 and 14 days. Data were collected for kernel hardness prior to weevil infestation, as kernel hardness to confer resistance to weevils. The components of maize weevil resistance considered were: median development period, Dobie index of susceptibility, weevil emergence, weevil mortality, weevil fecundity, grain weight loss, kernel damage and germination. There were highly significant differences in maize kernel characteristics and median development period (P < 0.001) among the maize OPVs. There were significant differences in the number of damaged kernels, grain weight loss (P < 0.01), weevil mortality and germination (P < 0.05) among the maize OPVs. There were no significant differences found for weevil progeny emergence (F1), Dobie index of susceptibility and weevil fecundity, the last of which was positively and significantly correlated with kernel damage (P < 0.001). The DIS was positively and significantly correlated with weight loss and F1 (P < 0.001). The maize OPVs 07WEEVIL, Chitedze6, Strigoff126, Strigoff128 and ZM625 were found to be resistant; on the other hand, Strigoff140, Strigoff125, Strigoff133, VP05199 and VP074 varieties were highly susceptible.


Controlled temperature and humidity laboratory Kernel hardness Open pollinated varieties Sitophilus zeamais Zea mays (L.) 



Controlled temperature and humidity


Dobie index of susceptibility


Open pollinated varieties


Eastern and southern Africa


  1. Arnarson JT, Gale J, Conilh De Beyssac B, Sen A, Miller SS, Mihm J (1992) Role of phenolics in resistance of grain to stored insects, Prostephanus truncatus. Horn. and Sitophilus zeamais Motsch. J Stored Prod Res 28:119–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnarson JT, Lambert JDH, Gale J, Mihm J, Bjarnarson M, Jewill D, Serratos JA, Fregeau-Reid L, Pietrzark L (1994) Is quality protein maize more susceptible than normal cultivars to attack by the maize weevil [Sitophilus zeamais (Motsch.)]? Postharvest Biol Technol 2:349–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Classen D, Arnason JT, Serratos JA, Lambert JDH, Nozzolillo C, Philogene BJR (1990) Correlation of phenolic acid content of maize to resistance to Sitophilus zeamais, the maize weevil, in CIMMYT’s collections. J Chem Ecol 16:301–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Correa CE, Shaver RD, Pereira MN, Lauer JG (2002) Relationship between corn vitreousness and ruminal in situ starch degradability. J Dairy Sci 85:3008–3012PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dari S, Pixley KV, Setimela P (2010) Resistance of early generation maize inbred lines and their hybrids to maize weevil [Sitophilus zeamais (Motschulsky)]. Crop Sci 50:1310–1317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Derera J, Pixley KV, Giga DP (1999). Inheritance of maize weevil resistance in maize hybrids among lines from Southern Africa, Mexico, and CIMMYT–Zimbabwe. In: CIMMYT and EARO (ed.) Maize production technology for the future: challenges and opportunities; Proceedings of eastern and southern Africa Regional Maize Conference, 6th, CIMMYT: EARO, Addis Ababa, 21–25 Sept 1998, pp 24–27Google Scholar
  7. Derera J, Pixley KV, Giga DP (2000) Resistance of maize to the maize weevil: 1 Antibiosis. Afr Crop Sci J 9:431–440Google Scholar
  8. Dhliwayo T, Pixley KV (2000) Combining ability for resistance to maize weevil among 14 Southern African maize. Crop Sci Soc Am 45(2):662–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dhliwayo T, Pixley KV (2003) Divergent selection for resistance to maize weevil in six maize populations. Crop Sci 43:2043–2049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dhliwayo T, Pixley KV, Kazembe V (2005) Combining ability for resistance to maize weevil among 14 southern African maize inbred lines. Crop Sci 45:662–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dobie P (1977) The contributions of the tropical stored products centre to the study of insect resistance in maize. Trop Stored Prod Info 34:7–22Google Scholar
  12. Duvick DN (1961) Protein granules of maize endosperm cells. Cereal Chem 38:374–385Google Scholar
  13. García-Lara S, Arnason TJ, Díaz-Pontones D, Gonzalezc E, Bergvinson DJ (2007) Soluble peroxidase activity in maize endosperm associated with maize weevil resistance. Crop Sci 47(3):1125–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. García-Lara S, Hairallah MM, Vargas M, Bergvinson DJ (2009) Mapping of QTL associated with maize weevil resistance in tropical maize. Crop Sci 49(1):139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giga DP, Mutemererwa S, Moyo G, Neeley D (1991) Assessment and control of losses caused by insect pests in small farmers’ stores in Zimbabwe. Crop Prot 10:287–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Golob P (1984). Preliminary field and laboratory trial to control Prostephanus truncatus (Horn) infestation on maize. In: Proceedings of the GASGA workshop on larger grain borer, P. truncatus, Slough-ODNRI. GTZ Publication, Eschborn, Feb 24–25, 1984, pp 32–48Google Scholar
  17. Hood EE, Hood KK, Fritz SE (1991) Hydroxyproline—rich glycoproteins in the cell walls of the pericarp from maize. Plant Sci 79:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Institute SAS (1985) SAS user’s guide: statistics. Cary, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  19. McCain FS, Eden WC, Singh DN (1964) A technique for selecting rice weevil resistance in corn in the laboratory. Crop Sci 4:109–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mvumi B, Giga D, Chiuswa D (1995) The maize (Zea mays L.) post-production practices of smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe: findings from surveys. JASSA, J Appl Sci South Afr 1(2):115–130Google Scholar
  21. Perez-Mendoza J (1999) Survey of insecticide resistance in Mexican populations of maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais. Motsch. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J Stored Prod Res 34:107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Prasanna BM, Vasal SK, Kassahun B, Singh NM (2001) Quality protein maize. Curr Sci 81:1308–1319Google Scholar
  23. Rouanet G (1992) Maize. The tropical agriculturalist. CTA, Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Serratos JA, Anarson JT, Nozzolillo C, Lambert JDH, Philogene BJR, Fulcher G, Davidson K, Peacock L, Atkinson J, Morand P (1987) Factors contributing to resistance of exotic maize populations to maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais. J Chem Ecol 13:751–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Setimela P, Chitalu Z, Jonazi J, Mambo A, Hodson D, Bänziger M (2005) Environmental classification of maize testing sites in the SADC region and its implication for collaborative maize breeding strategies in the subcontinent. Euphytica 145:123–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. van Emden HF, (1989). New studies in biology. Pest control, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Wongo L (1996) Review of Kenyan Agricultural Research vol 11. Post-Harvest Technology. Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, KenyaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. T. Masasa
    • 1
  • P. S. Setimela
    • 2
  • Z. A. Chiteka
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Agriculture and Natural ResourcesAfrica UniversityMutareZimbabwe
  2. 2.International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT)HarareZimbabwe

Personalised recommendations