role of hpr to insects in pest management in sorghum ... · role of hpr to insects in pest...
TRANSCRIPT
Role of HPR to Insects in Pest Management in Sorghum Role of HPR to Insects in Pest Management in Sorghum Current Status and Need for Future ResearchCurrent Status and Need for Future Research
HC Sharma, BL Agarwal, John Stenhouse, BVS Reddy, Ashok Kumar, P Srinivasa Rao, TG Hash SP Deshpande N Seetharama + Students + Staff + NARS ScientistsHash, SP Deshpande , N Seetharama + Students + Staff + NARS Scientists
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India. Email:
Insect Pest Problems in Sorghum and Pearl MilletInsect Pest Problems in Sorghum and Pearl Millet
Shoot fly – Atherigona soccata in sorghum and A. approximata in pearl millet. The larvae migrate to the growing point and
d d dh t
produces a deadheart.
Stem borers. Chilo partellus and Busseola fusca in sorghum and Ascigona ignefusalisin pearl millet Lar ae feed on lea es ca sein pearl millet. Larvae feed on leaves, cause deadheart and stem tunneling.
Midge – Stenodiplosis sorghicola in sorghum Larval feeding results in chaffysorghum. Larval feeding results in chaffy spikelets.
Head bugs – Calocoris angustatus and Eurystylus oldi result in tanning andEurystylus oldi result in tanning and shriveling of grain in sorghum.
Head miner, caterpillars, beetles –Heliocheilus albipunctella HelicoverpaHeliocheilus albipunctella, Helicoverpa armigera, and the chafer and blister beetles feed on rachis/grain.
Yield Loss Due to Insect Pests in ICRISAT Mandate Crops
3.0
2.0
2.5
1.5
US
$
1.0
0.0
0.5
S h P l ill t Chi k Pi G d tSorghum Pearl millet Chickpea Pigeonpea Groundnut
Abiotic factors Insects Diseases Weeds
HighHigh--yielding Cultivarsyielding CultivarsNeed a Pesticide Umbrella to Maximize Crop ProductionNeed a Pesticide Umbrella to Maximize Crop Production
• Pest resurgence and development of resistance to Pest resurgence and development of resistance to insecticides.
• Adverse effects on natural enemiesAdverse effects on natural enemies.• Health hazards, environmental contamination, and
harmful residues in food and food productsharmful residues in food and food products.
Insect Pest ManagementInsect Pest ManagementThe OptionsThe Options
Cultural Control
Biological control
Host plant resistanceWide hybridizationBiological control
Bio-pesticidesNat ral plant prod cts
TransgenicsMarker assisted selection
Wide hybridization
Natural plant products
Synthetic PesticidesSynthetic PesticidesMarker assisted selection
Synthetic PesticidesSynthetic Pesticides
Identification and Utilization of Resistance to InsectsU f I f t R d A tifi i l I f t tiUse of Infester Rows and Artificial Infestation
80
100 Natural infestation
20
40
60
80
Dam
age
(%)
0Extra early Early Medium Late
MaturityInterlard fishmeal technique
Sorghum shoot flyArtificial infestation: Stem borerPigeonpea resistance to Helicoverpa
• Adjust the sowing time and use hot spots.
• Use infester rows and sequential plantings.
• Group the material according to maturity.
• Infest the plants with artificially reared
Chilo partellus
insects.
Techniques to Screen for Resistance to Insects
Interlard: Shoot fly Cage: Shoot fly
Infester row: Midge Headcage: Infester row:Headcage:Infester row: Midge Headcage:Midge
Infester row:Head bugs
Headcage:Bugs
Identification and Utilization of Resistance to InsectsMeasurement of ResistanceMeasurement of Resistance
• Direct measurements– Insect damage: Root, stem, leaf, flower, fruit/grain Insect damage: Root, stem, leaf, flower, fruit/grain
damage.– Yield loss
T l Till d ti d fl h – Tolerance: Tiller production or second flush
• Indirect measurements– Oviposition and larval abundance– Oviposition and larval abundance– Feeding behavior, electroantennogram, etc.– Plant characteristics: Trichomes, leaf hairs, tissue
structure, etc.– Secondary metabolites such as organic acids,
flavonoids, protease inhibitors, etc. , p ,
Sources and Improved Cultivars of Sorghum with Resistance to Insect PestsInsect pest Sources of resistance Improved varieties
Insect Pests
Shoot fly M 35-1 (IS 1054), IS 1057, IS 2123, IS 2146, IS 4664, IS 2205, IS 5604, and IS 18551.
Swati* (SPV 504), CSV 8R*, Phule Yashoda*, ICSV 700, ICSV 705, ICSV 705, and ICSV 717
Stem borer IS 1055 (BP 53), IS 1044, IS 2123, IS 2195, IS 2205, IS
CSV 8R*, SPV 104, ICSV 700, ICSV 708, ICSV 714, and ICSV 93046.
2146, IS 5469, and IS 18551.
Midge IS 2579C, IS 12666C, TAM 2566 AF 28 DJ 6514 IS 10712
ICSV 197, ICSV 735, ICSV 745* (DSV 3) ICSV 88013 ICSV 758* 2566, AF 28, DJ 6514, IS 10712,
IS 7005, IS 8891, and IS 8721(DSV 3), ICSV 88013, ICSV 758*, and ICSV 88032 (SPV 1010)
Head bugs IS 17610 IS 17645 IS 21443 Malisor 84 7Head bugs IS 17610, IS 17645, IS 21443, and IS 17618, and IS 14332.
Malisor 84-7.
* Released for cultivation. Sharma et al. (1992, 2003) and Singh and Rana (1986, 1989).
Sources of Resistance to Insect Pests in Sorghum
IS 18551: Shoot fly
ICSV 197 CSH 1 CSM 388; Head bug
Sorghum midgeICSV 745ICSV 745
Components of Resistance to InsectsMorphological Traits: Sorghum Shoot Fly and Stem BorerMorphological Traits: Sorghum Shoot Fly and Stem Borer
Plumule pigmentationL f l i Li l h i Plumule pigmentationLeaf glossines Ligular hairs
Leaf wetness: Glossy
Leaf wetness: Non-glossy Panicle initiation and growth
Association of Physico-chemical Traits with Resistance to Association of Physico chemical Traits with Resistance to Sorghum Shoot Fly, Atherigona soccata
Trait Correlation coefficient
Leaf glossiness (X1) 0.96**
Plumule pigmentation (X2) 0.67**
Bottom leaf pigmentation (X3) 0.56*
Trichome (abaxial) (X4) ‐0.89**
Trichome (adaxial) (X5) ‐0.88**
Magnesium (X6) ‐0.69**
( ) **Fat (X7) 0.77**
Tannin (X8) ‐0.77**
Total sol ble s gars (X9) 0 72**Total soluble sugars (X9) 0.72**Deadhearts (%) = 83.87 + 1.75 X1 + 0.12 X2 - 0.15 X3 + 1.17 X4 - 0.47 X5 - 0.19 X6 + 0.04 X7 + 0.08 X8 - 0.24 X9.
Chemical Compounds Associated with Sorghum Resistance to Atherigona soccata
Compound Structure
Eicosane
Tridecane
Hexanal
Lonol 2
Undecane 5‐methyl
4, 4‐ dimethylcyclooctene
Decane 4‐methyl
Hexane 2, 4‐ dimethyl
Pentadecane 8‐ hexyl
Dodecane 2, 6, 11‐ trimethyl
Biochemical Constituents Associated with Resistance to Shoot Fly, Atherigona soccataAtherigona soccata
CompoundDeadhearts
(%)Eggs per 10
seedlingsCompound (%) seedlingsEicosane -0.36 -0.40Tridecane -0.26 -0.28Hexanal 0 03 0 04Hexanal -0.03 -0.04Lonol 2 0.38 0.44Undecane 5- methyl 0.54* 0.454 4 di th l l t 0 53* 0 59*4, 4- dimethylcyclooctene -0.53* -0.59*Decane 4- methyl 0.59* 0.52*Hexane 2, 4- dimethyl 0.56* 0.56*Pentadecane 8- hexyl 0.52* 0.57*Dodecane 2, 6, 11-trimethyl 0.89** 0.88**
*, ** Correlation coefficients significant at P < 0.05 and 0.01, respectively.
Effect of CMS on Expression of Resistance to InsectsSorghum Midge, Stenodiplosis sorghicola
b
70
Sorghum midge
30
40
50
60
amag
e (%
)
0
10
20
30M
idge
d
R S
MR
1 X
RM
R1
X S
MR
2 X
RM
R2
X S
MS1
X R
MS1
X S
MS2
X R
MS2
X S
Midge - MR1 = ICSA 88019, MR2 = ICSA 88020, MS1 = 296A, and MS2 = ICSA42).
Sharma et al. (1996)
Effect of CMS on Expression of Resistance to InsectsSorghum Shoot Fly Atherigona soccataSorghum Shoot Fly, Atherigona soccata
100
60
80
rts
(%)
20
40
60
eadh
ear
0
20De
R R R R A B A B
RA
x R
R
RA
x S
R
SA x
RR
SA x
S RA
RB SA S
Dhillon,Sharma, and Reddy (2005)
Relative Susceptibility of Wild Relatives of Sorghum to Sorghum Shoot Fly Atherigona soccataShoot Fly, Atherigona soccata
Section Species Accession Shoot fly Deadheards (%) Adult emergenceemergence
(%)Field conditions
No-choice conditions
Chaetosorghum Sorghum macrospormum
TRC 24112
6.7 61.5 -mac ospo mum
Heterosorghum Sorghum laxiflorum
IS 18958 0.0 7.4 6.2
Parasorghum Sorghum l
IS 18954 0.0 10.1 4.2australiense
Stiposorghum Sorghum angustum
TRC 243499
0.0 4.0 0.0
Sorghum Sorghum eithiopicum
IS 27584 88.9 - 99.5eithiopicumSorghum virgatum
IS 18808 92.2 - 89.0
Sorghum bicolor
CSH 1IS 18551
30.696.7 70.2 50.8bicolor IS 18551
LSD - - 5.8 19.6 18.9
Wild Relatives as Sources of Resistance to InsectsRelative Susceptibility of Wild Sorghums to Spotted Stem Borer, Chilo partellusp y g p , p
Section Species Accession Deadhearts (%) Larvae recovered
(%)Fi ld G h (%)Field conditions
Greenhouse conditions
Heterosorghum Sorghum laxiflorum
IS 18958 0.0 82.5 6
Parasorghum Sorghum australiense
IS 18954 0.0 10.5 0
Stiposorghum Sorghum TRC 243499 0 0 0 0 6Stiposorghum Sorghum angustum
TRC 243499 0.0 0.0 6
Sorghum virgatum
IS 18808 94.5 98.2 55
Sorghum bicolor
CSH 1IS 18551
95.558.0
98.496.8
9040
LSD 10 5 4 4LSD - - 10.5 4.4 -
Kamala, Sharma, and Bramel (2003)
Genetic Engineering for Insect ResistanceGenetic Engineering for Insect ResistanceTransgenic Sorghum with Transgenic Sorghum with cry1Ac cry1Ac Bt Gene for Resistance to Bt Gene for Resistance to Chilo partellusChilo partellus
Bt Cry1Ac
RT-PCR of uidASegregation of resistant and susceptible transgenics for herbicide resistance (after Basta spray test).
Girija Shankar, Sharma, Narsu, and Seetharama (2005)
Diversity Among Sorghum Lines Based on Phenotypic Traits and SSR Markers
Deadhearts Leaf surface wetness
Leaf glossiness Trichome density
Genetic Linkage Map of Sorghum with QTLs for Resistance to Sorghum Shoot Fly, Atherigona soccata
vigII
trup
trup
Shoot Fly, Atherigona soccata
dhI
shtI vigIIshtI
vigII
p
oviII
dhI
dhII tr
vigII
vigI
g dhI
vigI
gl
vigIIoviIdhI
glvigII
oviIdhI
dhII
gl
trtrup dhII
gl gl dhII
Marker assisted SelectionQTLs for Resistance to Spotted Stem Borer, Chilo partellus
LG A LG B LG C LG D LG E LG F LG G
Xtxp2480XIS103226Xtxp4610Xcup5326
XIS1033044
X 6062
Xcup640Xtxp9613Xtxp6315XIS1024523
Xtxp2544
Xtxp5060
Xtxp690XIS1032310Xcup1425Xcup3231Xtxp3446Xtxp18354Xtxp3860
Xcup480
Xcup0524
IS1023042
Xtxp3120
Xtxp15941
Xcup020
Xtxp1031XIS1031840
XIS103400
Xcup4927Xcup5034
Xcup6062Xtxp7569Xtxp27983
XIS10237103
Xt 32135
Xtxp5060
Xtxp5590Xcup7494Xtxp1999XIS10280109Xtxp298120
Xtxp3860
90
Xtxp31108Xtxp205113
Xtxp1286
Xcup20105Xcup28116
XIS10343135
XIS10365116XIS10344125
Xtxp25867Xtxp2080XIS1026388XIS1035996Xtxp331106Xtxp274120
XIS10307
Xtxp32135Xtxp43146Xtxp88158
178Xtxp357188
Xtxp1142Xtxp207152Xtxp296164Xtxp100171Xtxp7173XIS10259178XIS10200182XIS10334188
192
Xtxp218144XIS10254151Xtxp9158XIS10331166Xcup61183XIS10277191Xtxp228193
XIS10343135Xtxp177146Xtxp24152
Xtxp168142
XIS10228
XIS10074
Xtxp302268Xcup06276
Xcup11217 Xtxp27214
Xcup06276
Roelfs, Hash, and Sharma (Unpublished)
Research in progress on MAS for shoot fly stem borer in sorghum, and Helicoverpa in chickpea
Climate Variability and Climate ChangePossible Effects on Expression of Resistance to Insect PestsPossible Effects on Expression of Resistance to Insect Pests
Climate Change: Bjorn Lomborg’s Linear Model
gh
ratu
re (°
C)
1 5
2.0
2.5
eH
ig
res
in T
empe
r0.5
1.0
1.5
Tem
pera
tur
7°C increase within 50 years
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100
Dep
artu
r
-0.5
0.0
0000100001 000200002 00030000
TLo
w
Year1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100
Crowley (2000)
Thousands of years before the present050001000015000200002500030000
Climate Change Effects on Pest Spectrum in Sorghumg
• Many insect pests will extend their geographical range to temperate regions g g p g p gwith global warming and climate change.
• The activity of natural enemies of insects will decrease under high temperatures and dry conditions.
• Losses due to stem borers, aphids, and mites will increase under extended
fperiods of drought.
• Lower foliar nitrogen due to high CO2increases food consumption by insects.
• Expression of resistance to shoot fly, stem borers, midge, and aphids will decrease under high temperatures in d ght tdrought stress.
Expression of Resistance to Sorghum Midge, Stenodiplosis sorghicola Across Sowing Dates and Locations
60
70
80
90
%)
AF 28 ICSV 197 CSH 5 TAM 2566
Change in resistance i i
10
20
30
40
50
60
Mid
ge d
amag
e (% reaction across sowing
dates in India
0
10
Sowing date1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sept 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1 Jan
9
3
45
67
8
mag
e ra
ting
Change in resistance reaction across locations in I di d K
0
1
23D
am
AF 28
IS 8891
DJ 6514
ICSV 19
7
ICSV 5
63
ICSV 11
2
KAT 369
Serena
Seredo
Swarna
India and Kenya
Sharma et al. (1994, 1997)
IC IC IC K
Kenya India
Host Plant Resistance in Pest ManagementICPL 88039
ICPL 332WRHelicoverpa: ICPL 332 - R Helicoverpa: ICPL 88039 - MR
ICPL 332WR
As a principal component of pest control.As an adjunct to cultural, biological, and chemical control. As a check against the release of susceptible cultivars.As a check against the release of susceptible cultivars.
Sorghum Midge: ICSV 745 - RShoot fly: IS 18551 - R
Cultural and Mechanical ControlCultural and Mechanical ControlCultural and Mechanical ControlCultural and Mechanical Control
Ti l l iTimely planting.Synchronous maturity.Interculture and flooding.gHand picking of insect larvae.Crop diversification.Water and nutrient managementWater and nutrient management.Use of inter, strip and trap cropping.
Farmers will not follow them unless physically practical and economically viable.p y
Biological Control: Effectiveness and Limitations
354045
%)
15202530
rasi
tism
(%
05
10Par
Trichogramma Campoletis Carcelia illotaTrichogrammachilonis
Campoletischlorideae
Carcelia illota
Sorghum Pearl millet Groundnut Pigeonpea Chickpea
Host Plant Resistance to InsectsSynergism of HPR to Shoot Fly in With Insecticides Sorghum
100
708090
100
%)
405060
adhe
arts
(%
0102030D
ea
0CSH 1 M 35-1 ICSV 705
Treated (%DH) Non-treated (%DH)
Sharma (2002)
HPR in Integrated Pest Management
• Shoot fly-resistant varieties + seed treatment with seed t eat e t w tthaimethoxam + sprays of deltamethrin are very effective for shoot fly controleffective for shoot fly control.
• IPM resulted in yield increase by 3 – 5 times over the untreated control plots.
• This technology has been adopted on a large-scale in Maharashtra under HOPEMaharashtra under HOPE project funded by BMGF.
HPR to Insect in Sorghum IPMConclusionsConclusions
• HPR is, and will continue to be an important component of IPM for sustainable crop production.
• Both conventional and biotechnological approaches should be used to increase the levels and pyramid the resistance genes for insect pests and diseases.
• There is great potential to introgress insect resistance genes from wild relatives through wide hybridization and gene cloning.and gene cloning.
• Need to combine HPR with other components of pest management and assess their usefulness for sustainable management and assess their usefulness for sustainable crop production.