International Journal of Tropical Insect Science

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 107–114 | Cite as

Nature of Resistance in Rice Varieties Against Leaffolder Cnaphalocrocis Medinalis (Guenée)

  • K. Dakshayani
  • J. S. Bentur
  • M. B. Kalode
Research Article


Nature of resistance against the rice leaffolder, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Guenée) was studied in 16 rice 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, oviposltion 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 die 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.

Key Words

Cnaphalocrocis medinalis resistance rice varieties antixenosis antibiosis meridic diet 


La nature de la résistance contre la chenille enrouleuse des feuilles, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Guenée) est étudiée sur 16 variétés de riz en conditions de serre. Les variétés résistantes constituant un groupe, étaient moins préférées pour l’alimentation par les larves en condition de libre choix sur une période de 10 jours. Des simulations portant sur la coupure des feuilles avec un choix limité apporte des différences sensibles entre les variétés dans l’établissement de la larve. La préférence 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 corrélée avec la densité des trichomes. Cependant, la préférence pour l’oviposition n’était ni distincte ni corrélée avec la résistance ou la morphologie foliaire. Un composant d’antibiosis dans les variétés testées, ARC 11128, Balam, Gorsa, ARC 7064 et Ptb 19, est distingue dans la réduction de la survie larvaire, la baisse de la pupaison et du poids des pupes, en comparaison avec des témoins. Les effets antibiotiques étakntplus prononcés sur des larves neonates élevées sur des milieux artificiels à base des feuillesdes variétés Darukasail, Balam et Ptb12 par rapportàcellesélevéessurdesmllleuxàbase de feuilles de la variété sensible TN1.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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
  2. 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 resistantsoybean genotypes. J. econ. Entomol. 81, 310–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Bentur J. S. and Kalode M. B. (1990) A feeding test to identify rice varieties resistant to the rice leaf folder, Cnaphalocrocismedinalis (Guenée). Proc. Ind. Acad. Sci. (Anim.Sci.) 99, 483–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Das N. M. and Nair M. R. G. K. (1974) Effect of rice varieties on the extent of leaf consumption by caterpillars of Cnaphalocrotis medinalis. Agric. Res. J. Kerala 12, 106–107.Google Scholar
  7. Dakshayani K., Bentur J. S. and Kalode M. B. (1988) A meridic dtetforrice leaf folder, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Guenée). Entomon 13, 309–311.Google Scholar
  8. Dhaliwal G. S., Shahi H. N., Gill P. S. and Maskina M. S. (1979) Field reaction of rice varieties to leaffolder at various nitrogen levels. Int.RiceRes.Newsl. 4, 7.Google Scholar
  9. Duncan D.B.(1951) Asignificanttestfor differences between ranked treatments in an analysis of variance. Va. J. Sci. 2, 71–189.Google Scholar
  10. Garg D. K. (1984) Field resistance to rice leaffolder. Int. Rice Res. Newsl. 9, 9–10.Google Scholar
  11. Hanifa A. M. and Subramanian T. R. (1973) Association of leaf roller resistance with certain plantcharactersinrice. Madrasagric. J. 60, 1805.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Islam Z. (1991) Rice yellow stem borer (YSB) egg deposition preferences. Int. Rice Res. Newsl. 16, 24–25.Google Scholar
  14. Khan Z. R. (1987) Artificial diet for rearing rice leaffolder. Int. Rice Res. Newsl. 12, 30–31.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Medina E. B. and Heinrichs E. A. (1986) Responseof thericeleaffolder (LF) to extractsof resistant rice varieties. Int. Rice Res. Newsl. 11, 20.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. Nadarajan L. and Skaria B. P. (1988) Leaffolder resurgence and species composition in Pattambi, Kerala. Int. Rice Res. Newsl. 13, 33–34.Google Scholar
  22. Panda N. (1979) Principles of Host-plant Resistance to Insect Pests. Hindustan Publishing Corporation Delhi, India, pp. 386.Google Scholar
  23. Panda S. K. and Shi N. (1989) Carbofuran induced rice leaffolder (LF) resurgence. Int. Rice Res. Newsl. 14, 30.Google Scholar
  24. Pandya H. V., Shah A. H. and Purohit M. S. (1987) Yield losses caused by leaffolder (LF) damage alone and combined with yellow stem borer (YSB) damage. Int. Rice Res. Newsl. 12, 28.Google Scholar
  25. Saxena R. C. and Khan Z. R. (1991) Electronic recording of feeding behaviourof Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) on resistant and susceptible rice cultivars. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 84, 316–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shrivastava S. K. (1989) Leaffolder (LF) damage and yieldloss on someof the selected rice varieties. Int. Rice Res. Newsl. 14, 10.Google Scholar
  27. Thompson J. N. and Pellmyr O. (1991) Evolution of oviposition behaviour and host preferences in Lepidoptera. Anna. Rev. Entomol. 36, 65–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Velusamy R. and Chelliah S. (1985) Field screening for resistance to leaffolder (LF). Int. Rice Res. Newsl. 10, 9.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Wilson R. L., Wiseman B. R. and Widstrom N. W. (1984) Growth response of corn earworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) larvae on meridic diets containing freshandlyophilisedcorn silk. J. econ. Entomol. 77, 1159–1162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. Wiseman B. R., Pitre H. N., Fales S. L. and Duncan R. R. (1986) Biological effects of developing sorghum panicles in a meridic diet on fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) development. J. econ. Entomol. 79, 1637–1640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ICIPE 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Dakshayani
    • 1
  • J. S. Bentur
    • 1
  • M. B. Kalode
    • 1
  1. 1.Directorate of Rice ResearchRajendranagar HyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations