Photosynthetic pigments in maize (Zea mays) vis-à-vis biological performance and host selection by Sesamia inferens


Abstract views: 167 / PDF downloads: 43

Authors

  • ASHOK K SAU ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India
  • MUKESH K DHILLON ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v92i3.122684

Keywords:

Maize, Photosynthetic pigments, Pink stem borer, Sesamia inferens, Zea mays

Abstract

In the present study, host selection behaviour and biological performance of Sesamia inferens on different maize (Zea mays L.) genotypes was investigated in 2018–19, and constitutive and insect damage-induced levels of various photosynthetic pigments were determined. There were significant differences in larval period, larval survival, larval weight, pupal period, pupal weight, adult emergence, and fecundity of S. inferens on the test maize genotypes. The S. inferens that fed on maize genotypes, viz. CPM 2, CPM 4, CPM 8, CPM 15 and CML 345 showed significant increase in developmental period, decrease in larval weight, and reduced larval survival, adult emergence and fecundity as compared to other test genotypes. The S. inferens larval recovery and preference were significantly lower, while the larvae took longer time to establish in the whorls of CPM 2, CPM 15 and CML 345 as compared to other test maize genotypes. The chlorophyll A, chlorophyll B and total chlorophyll content varied significantly in the seedlings of different maize genotypes, under healthy and S. inferens damaged conditions (except, chlorophyll B), while the genotype × treatment interactions were non-significant. The differences for total carotenoids were non-significant. The S. inferens infestation reduced these photosynthetic pigments in the seedlings of all test maize genotypes, except Basi Local, with lowest reduction in CPM 2. The study suggests that the maize genotypes, viz. CPM 2, CPM 4, CPM 8, CPM 15 and CML 345 have greater detrimental effects on the development, survival and fecundity of S. inferens, and can be used in maize improvement program.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

ASG. 2019. Agricultural Statistics at a Glance -2019. Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India, New Delhi.

Bhoi T K, Dhillon M K, Tanwar A K, Trivedi N and Kumar H. 2017. Developmental biology of Chilo partellus on different maize genotypes and their effects on larval establishment and adult behavior. Indian Journal of Plant Protection 45(4): 354–61.

Bhoi T K, Trivedi N, Kumar H, Tanwar A K and Dhillon M K. 2021. Biochemical defense in maize against Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) through activation of enzymatic and nonenzymatic antioxidants. Indian Journal of Experimental Biology 59(1): 54–63.

Dhillon M K, Kalia V K and Gujar G T. 2014. Insect pests and their management: Current status and future need of research in quality maize. Maize: Nutrition Dynamics and Novel Uses, pp. 95-103.

Choudhary D P, Kumar S and Langyan S (Eds). Springer, New York, USA.

Dhillon M K and Chaudhary D P. 2015. Biochemical interactions for antibiosis mechanism of resistance to Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) in different maize types. Arthropod-Plant Interactions 9(4): 373–82.

Dhillon M K and Gujar G T. 2013. Maize genotypes identified with resistance to spotted stem borer, Chilo partellus and favorable agronomic traits. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences 21(2): 224–28.

Goławska S, Krzyzanowski R and Lukasik I. 2010. Relationship between infestation and chlorophyll content in Fabaceae species. Acta Biologica Cracoviensia Series Botanica 52: 76–80.

Heng-Moss T M, Ni X, Macedo T, Markwell J P, Baxendale F P, Quisenberry S S and Tolmay V. 2003. Comparison of chlorophyll and carotenoid concentrations among Russian wheat aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae) infested wheat isolines. Journal of Economic Entomology 96: 475–81.

Huang T I, Reed D A, Perring T M and Palumbo J C. 2014. Feeding damage by Bagrada hilaris (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) and impact on growth and chlorophyll content of Brassicaceous plant species. Arthropod-Plant Interactions 8(2): 89–100.

Koch K G, Chapman K, Louis J, Heng-Moss T and Sarath G. 2016. Plant tolerance: A unique approach to control hemipteran pests. Frontiers in Plant Science 7: 1363.

Kumar R, Srinivas K, Boiroju N K and Gedam PC. 2014. Production performance of maize in India: approaching an inflection point. International Journal of Agricultural Statistics Science 10(1): 241–48.

Metwally S. 2015. ‘The relative susceptibility of certain maize (Zea Mays L.) cultivars to infestation with the pink stem borer Sesamia cretica (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)’. MSc Thesis, Department of Economic Entomology and Pesticides, Cairo University, Egypt.

Nabity P D, Zavala J A and Delucia E H. 2009. Indirect suppression of photosynthesis on individual leaves by arthropod herbivory. Annals of Botany 103: 655–63.

Nagaraj N, Reese J C, Kirkham M B, Kofoid K, Campbell L R and Loughin T M. 2002. Relationship between chlorophyll loss and photosynthetic rate in greenbug (Homoptera: Aphididae) damaged sorghum. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 75(2): 101–09.

Nayek S, Choudhury I H, Jaishee N and Suprakash R. 2014. Spectrophotometric analysis of chlorophylls and carotenoids from commonly grown fern species by using various extracting solvents. Journal of Chemical Sciences 4(9): 63–69.

Smith C M. 2005. Plant Resistance to Arthropods: Molecular and Conventional Approaches. Springer, New York, USA.

Velikova V, Salerno G, Frati F, Peri E, Conti E, Colazza S and Loreto F. 2010. Influence of feeding and oviposition by phytophagous pentatomids on photosynthesis of herbaceous plants. Journal of Chemical Ecology 36: 629–41.

Downloads

Submitted

2022-03-28

Published

2022-03-29

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

SAU, A. K., & DHILLON, M. K. (2022). Photosynthetic pigments in maize (Zea mays) vis-à-vis biological performance and host selection by Sesamia inferens. The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 92(3), 348-352. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v92i3.122684
Citation