Volume 6, Issue 2, June 2018, Page: 38-42
Protective Effects of Resistant Beans on Maize Damage by Mythimna unipuncta and Sitotroga cerealella
José Cruz Jimenez-Galindo, Maize Genetics and Breeding, Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Pontevedra, Spain; Bean Genetics and Breeding, National Institute of Forestry, Agriculture and Livestock Research (INIFAP), Cuauhtemoc, Mexico
Lorena Alvarez-Iglesias, Maize Genetics and Breeding, Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Pontevedra, Spain
Rosa Ana Malvar, Maize Genetics and Breeding, Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Pontevedra, Spain
Pedro Revilla, Maize Genetics and Breeding, Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Pontevedra, Spain
Received: Jun. 14, 2018;       Accepted: Jul. 17, 2018;       Published: Aug. 17, 2018
DOI: 10.11648/j.plant.20180602.13      View  441      Downloads  32
Abstract
Sitotroga cerealella is the main pest of maize grains and Mythimna unipuncta is a generalist defoliating pest that often attacks maize. Two Tepary bean (Phaseolus acutifolius) genotypes, Tepary pinto yellow (Yellow T) and Tepary pinto negro (Black T), repel pest attacks on beans and, since beans and maize have co-evolved in America, we hypothesized that they could also protect maize against the attack of similar pests. Yellow T showed antixenosis against larvae in young maize plants. Pinto Saltillo (P. Saltillo) (P. vulgaris) and Yellow T controlled the consumption of maize leaves. No significant differences were found between these two genotypes for Mythimna unipuncta growth in bioassays with artificial diets. We found significant differences for number of holes caused by Sitotroga cerealella attack in maize grains being lowest for Yellow T (43.3) and highest for PS-AZH-15 (P. vulgaris) (53.6). Number of adults was lowest for Yellow T and PS-AZH-15 and highest for Black T. Yellow T showed antixenoxis against Mythimna unipuncta and Sitotroga cerealella and can be used for partially controlling these maize pests. Furthermore, Yellow T was consistently superior to the control for both maize pests and could be used for future studies of maize protection; suggesting that there is a clear genetic regulation of this antixenotic effect. The protective mechanism has not insecticide properties; conversely, we believe that there could be substances that increase the hardness or reduce the palatability of tissues.
Keywords
Phaseolus Vulgaris, Phaseolus Acutifolius, Maize, Zea Mays, Mythimna Unipuncta, Sitotroga Cerealella, Antixenosis
To cite this article
José Cruz Jimenez-Galindo, Lorena Alvarez-Iglesias, Rosa Ana Malvar, Pedro Revilla, Protective Effects of Resistant Beans on Maize Damage by Mythimna unipuncta and Sitotroga cerealella, Plant. Vol. 6, No. 2, 2018, pp. 38-42. doi: 10.11648/j.plant.20180602.13
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reference
[1]
Perez-Hedo, M., et al., Processing of the maize Bt toxin in the gut of Mythimna unipuncta caterpillars. Entomologia Experimentalis Et Applicata, 2013. 148(1): p. 56-64.
[2]
Ortega, A., Insectos nocivos del maíz: una guía para su identificación en el campo. 1987: Cimmyt.
[3]
Adams, J., Weight loss caused by development of Sitophilus zeamais Motsch. in maize. Journal of Stored Products Research, 1976. 12(4): p. 269-272.
[4]
Ahmad, M. and A. Ahmad, Storage of food grains. Farming Outlook, 2002. 1: p. 16-20.
[5]
PAINTER, R. H., Insect Resistance in Crop Plants. Soil Science, 1951. 72(6): p. 481.
[6]
Poerschmann, J., et al., Molecular Level Lignin Patterns of Genetically Modified Bt-Maize MON88017 and Three Conventional Varieties Using Tetramethylammonium Hydroxide (TMAH)-induced Thermochemolysis. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2008. 56(24): p. 11906-11913.
[7]
Oerke, E.-C., Crop losses to pests. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 2006. 144(01): p. 31-43.
[8]
Rausher, M. D., Co-evolution and plant resistance to natural enemies. Nature, 2001. 411(6839): p. 857-864.
[9]
Jiménez, J. C., et al., Resistance categories to Acanthoscelides obtectus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) in tepary bean (Phaseolus acutifolius), new sources of resistance for dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) breeding. Crop Protection, 2017. 98: p. 255-266.
[10]
Sanchez-Valdez, I., et al., Registration of 'Pinto saltillo' common bean. Crop Science, 2004. 44(5): p. 1865-1866.
[11]
Osuna-Ceja, E. S., et al., Rendimiento de genotipos de frijol con diferentes métodos de siembra y riego-sequía en Aguascalientes. Revista mexicana de ciencias agrícolas, 2013. 4(8): p. 1209-1221.
[12]
Rosales-Serna, R., et al., Rendimiento, preferencia y calidad de enlatado de variedades de frijol pinto producidas en Durango, México. Revista mexicana de ciencias agrícolas, 2014. 5(2): p. 309-315.
[13]
Valdez-Ortiz, A., et al., Protein hydrolysates obtained from Azufrado (sulphur yellow) beans (Phaseolus vulgaris): Nutritional, ACE-inhibitory and antioxidative characterization. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 2012. 46(1): p. 91-96.
[14]
Cantor, A., 1997. Extending SAS Survival Analysis Techniques for Medical Research. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Caroline.
[15]
SAS Institute Inc., 2016. SAS 9.4 Guide to software updates. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
Browse journals by subject