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 Research HC Sharma, BL Agarwal,

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:

[email protected]

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 ,

Genotypic Resistance to Sorghum Shoot Fly

Maintainer lines

Restorer lines Restorer lines

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

Screening for Resistance to Sugarcane Aphid, Melanaaphis saccharip

Mechanisms and Inheritance of Resistance

Mechanisms of Resistance to Insects

Antixenosis

Antibiosis

ToleranceAntixenosis Tolerance

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)

Wide Hybridization

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 EngineeringGenetic Engineering

Cotton

Non-transgenic Transgenic

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)

Marker-assisted Selection

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.

+