Antixenosis Component of Resistance to Corn Planthopper, Peregrinus Maidis (Ashmead) in Sorghum

  • B. M. Chandra Shekar
  • K. D. Reddy
  • B. U. Singh
  • D. D. R. Reddy
Research Article


Antixenosis component of resistance to corn planthopper, Peregrinus maidis (Ashm.) was investigated in 10 selected sorghum genotypes at three plant growth stages (30, 45 and 60 DAG) under laboratory and field (rainy and postralny seasons) conditions. In a free-choice test, the orientational and settling responses of nymphs and brachypterous adults on ail genotypes although influenced by the olfactory and visual responses, their feeding was not sustained due to gustatory stimuli indicating their significant role in determining the degree of antixenosis. The genotypes IS 18676, IS 19349 and IS 18677 showed a high degree of antixenosis in settling fewer nymphs and adults consistently at 30, 45 and 60 DAG. This finding was supported with low colonization of nymphs, and brachypterous and macropterous adults under field conditions. In addition, high degree of antixenosis for oviposition in both laboratory and field tests was evidenced on IS 18676 and IS 19349 at 30, 45 and 60 DAG, but on SPV 472 and SPV 475 only at specific plant growth stages. The variability in the rate of adult colonization together with suitability of plant growth stages for oviposition has contributed to variable degrees of antixenosis for oviposition.

Key Words

Antixenosis corn planthopper orientational response oviposition Peregrinus maidis sorghum 


L’antixenosis, composante dans la résistance du maïs vis à vis de la cicadelle, Peregrinus maïdis est évaluée sur 10 génotypes de sorgho sélectionées, à trois stades de développement de la plante (30, 45 et 60 jours après levée) en conditions de laboratoire et de champs (saisons pluvieuse et sèche). Dans les tests de libre choix, les réponses dans l’orientation et l’établissement des nymphes et adultes ailés sur les plantes, peuvent être influencée par les réponses olfactive et visuelle; cependant la prise de nourriture n’était pas soutenue par des stimuli gustatifs indiquant un rôle significatif dans les dégrés d’antixenosis. Les génotypes IS 18676, IS 19349, IS 18677 ont montré des degrés élevés d’antixenosis dans l’établissement de très peu de nymphes et d’adultes à 30, 45 et 60 jours après levée. Ces résulats sont en harmonie avec la faible colonisation des nymphes, des brachyptères et macroptères en condition naturelle. En plus, un degré élevé d’antixenosis pour la ponte en conditions naturelle et de laboratoire est établi sur les variétés IS 18676 et IS 19349 à 30, 45 et 60 jours après levée, mais à des stades spécifiques de développement sur SPV 472 et SPV 475. La variabilité dans le taux de colonisation combinée avec la convenance de certains stades de développement pour la ponte ont contribué à des dégrés variables d’antixenosis pour l’oviposition.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agarwal R. K., Verma R. S. and Bharaj G. S. (1978) Screening of sorghum lines for resistance against shoot bug, Peregrinus maidis Ashmead (Homoptera: Delphacidae). JNKVV Res. J. 12, 116.Google Scholar
  2. Backus E. A. (1985) Anatomical and sensory mechanisms of leafhopper and planthopper feeding behaviour. In The Leetfhoppers and Planthoppers (Edited by Nault L. R. and Rodriguez J. G.), pp. 163–194. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  3. D’Arcy C. J. and Nault L. R. (1982) Insect transmission of plant viruses and mycoplasma-like, rickettsia-like organisms. Plant Disease 66, 99–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Duncan D. B. (1955) Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 11, 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fisk J. (1978) Resistance of Sorghum bicolor to Rhopalosiphum maidis and Peregrinus moidis as affected by differences in the growth of the host. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 23, 227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gunathilagaraj K. and Chelliah S. (1985) Components of resistance to the whitebacked planthopper, Sogatella furcifera (Horváth) in some rice varieties. Trop. Pest Manage. 31, 38–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kennedy J. S. (1950a) Aphid migration and the spread of plant viruses. Nature (Lond.) 135, 1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kennedy J. S. (1950b) Host finding and host alternation in aphids. Trans. 8th Int. Congr. Ent., Stockholm, 1948. pp. 423–426.Google Scholar
  9. Khan M.Q. and Rao A.S.(1956) The influenceof the black ant, Componotus compressus F. on die incidence of two homopterous crop pests. Indian J. Entomol. 18, 199–200.Google Scholar
  10. Khan Z. R. and Saxena R. C. (1985) Behavioural and physiological responses of Sogatella furcifera (Homoptera: Delphacidae) to selected resistant and susceptible rice cultivars. J. econ. Entomol. 78, 1280–1286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Miles P.W. (1958) Contact chemoreception in some heteroptera including chemoreception internal to die stylet food canal. J. Insect Physiol. 2, 338–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Miyake T. (1966) Studies on the bionomics of three species of planthoppers: Laodelphax striatellus Fallen, Sogata furcifera Horvárth, and Nilaparvata lugens Stal. specially on their diapause. Bull. Hiroshima Agric. Exp. Stn. 24, 1–53.Google Scholar
  13. Miyake T. and Fujiwara A. (1961) Studies on the diapause and host plant preference in the white backed planthopper, Sogata furcifera Horváth. Jap. J. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 5, 174–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Miyake T. and Fujiwara A. (1962) Studies on the hibernation and diapause on the whitebacked planthopper, Sogata furcifera (Horvath) and the brown planthopper Nilaparvata lugens Stal. Bull. Hiroshima Agric. Exp. Stn. 13, 1–73.Google Scholar
  15. Moericke V. (1955) Uber die labenzgewohnheiten der geflugetten blattlause (Aphidina) unter besondererBerucksichtigunz des Verhaltens beim landen. Z. angew. Entomol. 37, 29–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Muller H. J. (1958) The behaviour of Aphis fabae in selecting its host plants, especially different varieties of Vicia faba. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1, 66–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nuorteva P. (1962) Studies on the causes of the phytopathogenicity of Calligynopona pellucida (F.) (Homoptera: Araeopidae). Ann. Zool. Soc. Bot. Fenn. Vanamo 23, 1–58.Google Scholar
  18. Pablo S. J. (1977) Resistance to the whitebacked planthopper, Sogatella fur cifera (Horváth) in rice varieties. Ph.D. Thesis, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, India.Google Scholar
  19. Pathak M. D. and Saxena R. C. (1980) Breeding approaches in rice. In Breeding Plants Resistant to Insects (Edited by Maxwell F. G. and Jennings P. R.), pp. 421–455. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  20. Pospisil J. (1972) Olfactory orientation of certain phytophagous insects in Cuba. Acta Entomol. Bohemoslov. 69, 7–17.Google Scholar
  21. Prabhakar B., Rao P. K. and Rao B. H. K. M. (1981) Noteon hemipterous species complex on sorghum at Hyderabad. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 51, 818–819.Google Scholar
  22. Rajasekhar P. (1989) Studies on the population dynamics of major pests of sorghum and bioecology and crop loss assessment due to die shoot bug, Peregrinus maidis (Ashmead). Ph.D. Thesis, Andhra Pradesh Agric. Univ., Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, India.Google Scholar
  23. Rawat R. R. and Saxena D. K. (1967) Studies on the bionomics of Peregrinus maidis (Ashmead) (Homoptera: Araeopidae). JNKVV Res. J. 1, 64–67.Google Scholar
  24. Rodriguez-Rivera R. (1972) Resistance to the whitebacked planmopper, Sogatellafurcifera in rice varieties. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. Philippines, Los Baños, Philippines.Google Scholar
  25. Singh B. U. and Rana B. S. (1992) Stability of resistance to corn planthopper, Peregrinus maidis (Ashmead), in sorghum germplasm. Insect Sci. Applic. 13, 251–263.Google Scholar
  26. Vaidya G. R. and Kalode M. B. (1981) Studies on biology and varietal resistance of whitebacked planthopper, Sogatella furcifera (Horváth). Indian J. Plant Prot. 10, 3–12.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ICIPE 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. M. Chandra Shekar
    • 1
  • K. D. Reddy
    • 1
  • B. U. Singh
    • 1
  • D. D. R. Reddy
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EntomologyCollege of Agriculture Andhra Pradesh Agricultural UniversityIndia

Personalised recommendations