Identification of rice genotypes for resistance against yellow stem borer in irrigated rice
Bạn đang xem bản rút gọn của tài liệu. Xem và tải ngay bản đầy đủ của tài liệu tại đây (1.01 MB, 17 trang )
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(5): 1627-1643
International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences
ISSN: 2319-7706 Volume 9 Number 5 (2020)
Journal homepage:
Original Research Article
/>
Identification of Rice Genotypes for Resistance against
Yellow Stem Borer in Irrigated Rice
D. Sudha Rani1*, Ch. Chiranjeevi2, T. Madhumathi2,
S. Krishnam Raju3 and Sk. Nafeez Umar4
1
Entomology, Agricultural Research Station, Garikapadu, Krishna District,
Andhra Pradesh, India
2
Department of Entomology, 4Department of Statistics and Mathematics, Agricultural
College, Bapatla, Guntur district, Andhra Pradesh, India
3
Department of Plant Pathology, Agricultural College, Rajamahendravarum, East Godavari
district, Andhra Pradesh, India
*Corresponding author
ABSTRACT
Keywords
Rice germplasm,
Yellow stem borer,
Augmented block
design, SES scale
Article Info
Accepted:
15 April 2020
Available Online:
10 May 2020
The relative resistance or susceptibility of nearly 215 rice genotypes supplied by Indian
Institute of Rice Research, Hyderabad was screened to identify the resistant genotype
against rice yellow stem borer. The trial was conducted following augmented block design
with two checks i.e., local check (BPT 5204) and susceptible check (TN1) for a period of
two successive kharif seasons (2016 & 2017). The per cent incidence of stem borer was
recorded at their peak infestation of dead hearts at tillering stage and white ears at
reproductive stage. The status of the screened genotypes was determined by following the
standard evaluation scale (SES) for stem borer as suggested by IRRI. The pooled results of
screening trial for two seasons inferred that, among 215 genotypes screened, no entry
exhibited resistance scale, 87 entries registered moderate resistant, 116 were found
moderately susceptible and 22 lines recorded the susceptible scale with respect to per cent
dead hearts infestation. Correspondingly, the pooled mean data relating to per cent white
ears indicated that, only 14 entries were resistant, while 101 entries had registered
moderate resistant, 82 entries were moderately susceptible, 17 entries recorded susceptible
status and only 1 entry had exhibited susceptible status. The rice entries which had
exhibited resistance at dead heart stage were found susceptible at white ears stage and vice
versa as both the factors were independent. Hence, upon clean examination only seven rice
entries with IC No. 381538, 450535, 463380, 464140, 464186, 574807 and 578388 were
found to exhibit resistance or moderate resistance against yellow stem borer at both
vegetative and reproductive stages of rice crop.
Introduction
In India rice crop is cultivated under wide
range of altitude and climatic conditions. Rice
cultivation extends from 8 to 35ºN latitude
and from sea level to as high as 3000 meters
in our country. In India, for the year 2018-19
rice was cultivated in an area of 43.79 million
1627
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(5): 1627-1643
hectares with 115.63 millon tones of annual
production accounting around 2.64 tonnes /ha
productivity (Agricultural Statistics at a
glance, 2018). The major production
constraint in rice cultivation includes weeds
infestation, pests and diseases attack. Even
though, nearly 300 insect pests known to
attack rice crop 23 insect species cause
remarkable damage (Pasalu and Katti, 2006).
Among various pests influencing the yield of
rice crop, yellow stem borer, Scirpophaga
incertuals was considered as major
destructive pest resulting in average yield loss
of 30 per cent (Krishnaiah and Varma, 2015).
In case of severe pest incidence of stem borer
especially in susceptible varieties the usage of
insecticides is inevitable. Many farmers are
adopting combination chemicals in order to
manage the stem borers and upon regular
usage of chemicals with same mode of action
and in compatible insecticidal combinations
may lead to pest resistance, resurgence and
residual effect. Hence, practicing integrated
pest management (IPM) tools against rice
stem borer plays a pivotal role. The prime and
major component to be adopted in IPM
strategies is host plant resistance as it is
compatible with other components of IPM. It
is noteworthy that at present no rice
germplasm had exhibited resistance against
both dead hearts at vegetative stage and white
ears at reproductive stage. Keeping in view
the ambiguity in resistance at dead hearts and
white ears stage caused by yellow stem borer
in rice, a screening trial was undertaken to
identify the resistance source of rice
genotypes against yellow stem borer for two
consecutive kharif seasons.
Materials and Methods
Screening trial was conducted following
augmented block design with 215 rice
germplasm sourced by Indian Institute of Rice
Research (IIRR), Rajendranagar, Hyderabad
at Agricultural Research Station, Garikapadu
for a period of two consecutive seasons i.e.,
kharif, 2016 and kharif, 2017 to assess the
resistance source against the rice yellow stem
borer. The Augmented Block Design ABD
was adopted for executing the trial in order to
identify the resistant source of rice germplasm
from 215 rice germplasm accessions along
with susceptible check (TN1) and local check
(BPT 5204) were transplanted after every
fifteen entries.
Each entry was transplanted with two
seedlings per hill in two rows of 20 hills with
5.0 m length was. The incidence of per cent
dead hearts (% DH) and per cent white ears
(%WE) were recorded on the rice entries and
check varieties at the peak infestation during
the vegetative stage and reproductive stage of
the rice crop, respectively. The observations
on % DH and % WE were recorded from ten
randomly selected hills per entry and the per
cent dead heart and white ear were calculated
as per the formulae here under.
Per cent dead hearts =
Total number of dead hearts in 10 hills X 100
Total number of tillers in 10 hills
Per cent White ears =
Total number of white ears in 10 hills X 100
Total number of tillers in 10 hills
Based on the damage rating (per cent DH and
per cent WE) and scale the reaction of rice
genotypes towards resistance or susceptibility
was determined by following the IRRI
Standard Evaluation System (SES) for rice
(IRRI, 2002) (Table 1 & 2).
Results and Discussion
During kharif 2016, the peak infestation of
yellow stem borer in terms of per cent dead
1628
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(5): 1627-1643
hearts (% DH) was recorded at 45 days after
transplantation (DAT) whereas, during kharif,
2017 at 55 DAT peak infestation of DH were
noticed. The maximum per cent white ear
(%WE) damage by yellow stem borer during
reproductive stage of the rice was recorded at
125 DAT during kharif, 2016 and at 130
DAT, during kharif, 2017.
Identification of rice genotypes against
yellow stem borer with respect to per cent
dead hearts during vegetative stage
kharif, 2016
For the season kharif, 2016 out of 215 rice
entries screened for their reaction towards
resistance or susceptibility against yellow
stem borer, 81 entries exhibited the scale ‘3’
with status of moderate resistance (MR) and
the per cent DH in these entries ranged from
10.5 (C-858) to 20.4 (C-27) . A sum of 107
entries of rice had registered moderatel
susceptible (MS) reaction with per cent DH
damage ranged between 20.5 (C-692) and
30.1 (C-1180) and rated with scale ‘5’. A total
of 27 rice entries exhibited susceptible (scale
7) reaction dead heart damage by stem borer
infesting rice and the corresponding values
ranged from 30.5 to 39.8. The per cent dead
hearts in check varieties was recorded as 42.2
per cent in TN1 and 32.8 per cent in BPT
5204 with scale 7 representing the susceptible
status (Table 3).
kharif 2017
Among 215 rice entries screened during
kharif, 2017, only one entry (C-599)
registered resistance (R) status with 10.3 per
cent dead heart damage. A sum of 93 entries
witnessed moderately resistant (10.6-20.4%
DH) and 99 germplasm entries were found
moderately susceptible (20.5-30.4% DH) to
rice yellow stem borer. A total of 22
germplasm lines were determined as
susceptible (S) entries with damage greater
than 31 per cent DH representing scale 7. In
check varieties the damage scale was found as
‘7’ in TN1 (35.1 % DH) exhibiting
susceptible (S) pest reaction and scale ‘5’ was
seen in BPT 5204 (26.9 % DH) check with
moderately susceptible (MS) pest reaction.
The summative mean of both kharif seasons
data in terms of per cent dead hearts indicated
that among 215 rice entries identified for
reaction towards resistance or susceptibility
against rice yellow stem borer, 87 entries
registered moderately resistant (11-20% DH),
106 were considered as moderately
susceptible (21-30% DH) and 22 lines
witnessed susceptible reaction with damage
ranged from 31-40 per cent dead hearts DH.
The lowest per cent dead hearts (11.0) were
recorded in C-858 and C-1372 rice entries as
against highest in C-358 and C-391 with 40.0
per cent DH, respectively (Table 3).
Identification of rice genotypes against
yellow stem borer with respect to per cent
white ears during reproductive stage
The rice entries (mostly) which expressed
resistance (R) or moderate resistance (MR)
against dead hearts during vegetative stage
were found moderately susceptible (MS)
susceptible (S) to white ears damage by
yellow stem borer at reproductive stage and
vice versa. The white ears damage due to rice
yellow stem borer incidence had ranged from
2.4 to 31.5 per cent during kharif, 2016 and
2.3 to 29.3 per cent during kharif, 2017.
kharif, 2016
During kharif, 2016 215 rice entries were
screened at field level to assess their reaction
towards resistance or susceptibility against
yellow stem borer and the results indicated
that, 12 lines expressed resistance status with
less than 5 per cent WE damage representing
scale 1. The lowest per cent WE damage was
1629
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(5): 1627-1643
noticed in rice entry C-1433 (2.4) followed by
C-1464 (3.6) rice entry as against highest
incidence recorded in C-490 (31.5 % WE
with scale 9 the attaining the status of highly
susceptible (HS). Whereas, 12 entries
registered pest status of resistance (scale 1),
95 entries were regarded as moderately
resistance (scale 3), 73 were identified as
moderately susceptible (scale 5), 34 were
categorized as susceptible with sacle7 and
only one rice entry witnessed highly
susceptible pest reaction with scale 9 (Table
4).
Kharif, 2017
The resultant resistance/ susceptible reactions
of 215 rice accessions field screened against
white ears damage caused by yellow stem
borer during kharif, 2017 revealed that 29
entries were identified as resistant (R), 105
entries were categorized moderately resistant
(MR), 58 entries were regarded as moderately
susceptible (MS), 22 were witnessed as
susceptible (S) and only one entry exhibited
highly susceptible (HS) reaction with a
damage range of 2.3-5.3, 5.6-10.4, 10.5-14.8,
15.6-21.8 and 29.3% white ears, respectively.
The lowest and highest per cent white ears
were recorded in C-1398 and C-490 with 2.3
and 29.3 per cent, respectively. The per cent
WE damage recorded in check varieties TN1
(susceptible) and BPT 5204 (susceptible/
moderately susceptible) were 17.6 and 14.6,
respectively (Table 4).
Table.1 Standard Evaluation System for rice yellow stem borer with respect to
per cent dead hearts
Damage (%)
Scale
Reaction/Status
0
1-10
11-20
21-30
31-60
61 & above
0
1
3
5
7
9
Highly Resistant (HR)
Resistant (R)
Moderately Resistant (MR)
Moderately Susceptible (MS)
Susceptible(S)
Highly Susceptible(HS)
Table.2 Standard Evaluation System for rice yellow stem borer with respect to
per cent white ears
Damage (%)
Scale
Reaction/ Status
0
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-25
26 & above
0
1
3
5
7
9
Highly Resistant (HR)
Resistant (R)
Moderately Resistant (MR)
Moderately Susceptible (MS)
Susceptible(S)
Highly Susceptible(HS)
1630
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(5): 1627-1643
Table.3 Field identification of rice genotypes against yellow stem borer, in terms of per cent
dead hearts
S. No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Entry
No.
C-08
C-17
C-27
C-30
C-37
C-53
C-55
C-58
C-64
C-86
C-115
C-124
C-133
C-140
C-141
C-144
C-152
C-170
C-171
C-178
C-202
C-207
C-221
C-228
C-237
C-240
C-250
C-269
C-270
C-273
C-275
C-280
C-288
C-306
C-319
C-321
C-324
C-328
C-330
C-342
Kharif,
2016
21.3
27.6
20.4
20.0
26.9
18.9
20.5
16.9
18.5
22.8
21.5
26.8
21.8
14.6
19.8
26.8
21.5
22.8
24.5
19.6
13.9
20.8
15.8
13.8
21.6
20.5
26.8
14.9
22.8
20.0
18.3
16.8
17.9
18.5
28.5
18.8
21.5
26.5
19.8
22.8
Scale
Status
5
5
3
3
5
3
5
3
3
5
5
5
5
3
3
5
5
5
5
3
3
5
3
3
5
5
5
3
5
3
3
3
3
3
5
3
5
5
3
5
MS
MS
MR
MR
MS
MR
MS
MR
MR
MS
MS
MS
MS
MR
MR
MS
MS
MS
MS
MR
MR
MS
MR
MR
MS
MS
MS
MR
MS
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MS
MR
MS
MS
MR
MS
Kharif
2017
28.3
21.4
18.3
23.8
27
16.3
22.5
14.6
23.4
29.8
31.4
26.9
19.6
13.8
20.8
16.3
20.4
28.1
16.3
22.4
18.3
22.6
18.4
22.8
21.0
19.3
16.8
22.8
16.9
18.0
22.0
18.3
14.3
18.0
20.0
22.8
16.5
28.5
16.5
11.8
1631
Scale
Status
Mean
Status
5
5
3
5
5
3
5
3
5
5
7
5
3
3
5
3
3
5
3
5
3
5
3
5
5
3
3
5
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
5
3
5
3
3
MS
MS
MR
MS
MS
MR
MS
MR
MS
MS
S
MS
MR
MR
MS
MR
MR
MS
MR
MS
MR
MS
MR
MS
MS
MR
MR
MS
MR
MR
MS
MR
MR
MR
MR
MS
MR
MS
MR
MR
25
25
19
22
27
18
22
16
21
26
26
27
21
14
20
22
21
25
20
21
16
22
17
18
21
20
22
19
20
19
20
18
16
18
24
21
19
28
18
17
MS
MS
MR
MS
MS
MR
MS
MR
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MR
MR
MS
MS
MS
MR
MS
MR
MS
MR
MR
MS
MR
MS
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MS
MS
MR
MS
MR
MR
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(5): 1627-1643
S. No
Entry No.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
C-343
C-346
C-349
C-350
C-352
C-354
C-358
C-361
C-362
C-364
C-365
C-368
C-369
C-372
C-373
C-374
C-377
C-378
C-380
C-384
C-386
C-388
C-390
C-391
C-393
C-394
C-396
C-400
C-401
C-404
C-407
C-417
C-437
C-441
C-448
C-455
C-464
C-470
C-473
C-474
C-475
C-479
C-481
Kharif,
2016
19.0
16.8
22.4
29.3
26.1
28.1
39.3
22.5
18.3
24.5
20.9
23.8
18.6
13.8
15.3
18.3
24.8
23.1
20.8
16.8
21.6
20.8
29.6
38.5
20.8
36.3
28.2
16.5
18.0
14.6
28.3
13.6
20.8
23.5
19.6
18.3
28.0
16.9
22.5
28.4
26.5
20.8
16.8
Scale
Status
3
3
5
5
5
5
7
5
3
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
7
5
7
5
3
3
3
5
3
5
5
3
3
5
3
5
5
5
5
3
MR
MR
MS
MS
MS
MS
S
MS
MR
MS
MS
MS
MR
MR
MR
MR
MS
MS
MS
MR
MS
MS
MS
S
MS
S
MS
MR
MR
MR
MS
MR
MS
MS
MR
MR
MS
MR
MS
MS
MS
MS
MR
Kharif,
2017
22.6
18.3
16.4
22.0
18.6
29.6
40.1
16.9
33.4
40.8
33.1
16.8
13.2
18.3
14.6
13.5
18.4
16.8
13.8
20.6
19.8
19.6
34.6
40.6
19.3
23.8
10.8
22.6
16.8
23.1
31.4
18.6
14.3
18.6
23.4
20.8
21.4
15
29.4
20.6
23.4
21.5
18.6
1632
Scale
Status
Mean
Status
5
3
3
5
3
5
7
3
7
7
7
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
3
5
7
7
3
5
3
5
3
5
7
3
3
3
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
3
MS
MR
MR
MS
MR
MS
S
MR
S
S
S
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MS
MR
MR
S
S
MR
MS
MR
MS
MR
MS
S
MR
MR
MR
MS
MS
MS
MR
MS
MS
MS
MS
MR
21
18
19
26
22
29
40
20
26
33
27
20
16
16
15
16
22
20
17
19
21
20
32
40
20
30
20
20
17
19
30
16
18
21
22
20
25
16
26
25
25
21
18
MS
MR
MR
MS
MS
MS
S
MR
MS
S
MS
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MS
MR
MR
MR
MS
MR
S
S
MR
MS
MR
MR
MR
MR
MS
MR
MR
MS
MS
MR
MS
MR
MS
MS
MS
MS
MR
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(5): 1627-1643
S. No
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
Entry
No.
C-490
C-492
C-497
C-498
C-499
C-502
C-504
C-514
C-515
C-517
C-518
C-519
C-536
C-537
C-538
C-540
C-550
C-551
C-554
C-556
C-557
C-559
C-560
C-561
C-566
C-575
C-593
C-597
C-599
C-600
C-602
C-603
C-608
C-610
C-621
C-637
C-649
C-651
C-682
C-684
C-685
C-689
C-692
Kharif,
2016
22.1
15.4
11.6
28.3
16.4
13.9
14.2
39.8
22.6
26.8
17.6
18.9
23.6
28.4
31.6
18.5
24.6
20.6
11.8
10.8
21.6
21.6
16.4
38.1
26.1
28.3
19.6
12.5
16.2
28.3
31.8
16.9
28.3
31.5
16.4
18.6
29.6
31.8
19.5
28.3
16.9
18.4
20.5
Scale
Status
5
3
3
5
3
3
3
7
5
5
3
3
5
5
7
3
5
5
3
3
5
5
3
7
5
5
3
3
3
5
7
3
5
7
3
3
5
7
3
5
3
3
5
MS
MR
MR
MS
MR
MR
MR
S
MS
MS
MR
MR
MS
MS
S
MR
MS
MS
MR
MR
MS
MS
MR
S
MS
MS
MR
MR
MR
MS
S
MR
MS
S
MR
MR
MS
S
MR
MS
MR
MR
MS
Kharif,
2017
29.4
16.3
14.3
21.5
20.8
22.5
15.8
29.8
21.8
24.3
18.3
21.8
29.4
22.5
38.4
19.3
28.6
26.5
16.3
13.4
28.6
29.1
14.2
29
20.5
23.1
16.8
16.1
10.3
29.1
30.4
18.5
20.4
32.8
18.2
19.0
30.1
32.0
16.4
23.5
11.4
13.5
16.4
1633
Scale
Status
Mean
Status
5
3
3
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
7
3
5
5
3
3
5
5
3
5
5
5
3
3
1
5
5
3
3
7
3
3
5
7
3
5
3
3
3
MS
MR
MR
MS
MS
MS
MR
MS
MS
MS
MR
MS
MS
MS
S
MR
MS
MS
MR
MR
MS
MS
MR
MS
MS
MS
MR
MR
R
MS
MS
MR
MR
S
MR
MR
MS
S
MR
MS
MR
MR
MR
26
16
13
25
19
18
15
35
22
26
18
20
27
25
35
19
27
24
14
12
25
25
15
34
23
26
18
14
13
29
31
18
24
32
17
19
30
32
18
26
14
16
18
MS
MR
MR
MS
MR
MR
MR
S
MS
MS
MR
MR
MS
MS
S
MR
MS
MS
MR
MR
MS
MS
MR
S
MS
MS
MR
MR
MR
MS
S
MR
MS
S
MR
MR
MS
S
MR
MS
MR
MR
MR
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(5): 1627-1643
S. No
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
Entry
No.
C-693
C-697
C-702
C-706
C-713
C-714
C-715
C-727
C-729
C-750
C-750
C-753
C-754
C-763
C-766
C-767
C-775
C-780
C-781
C-782
C-786
C-787
C-788
C-790
C-792
C-793
C-794
C-795
C-797
C-798
C-804
C-808
C-810
C-812
C-828
C-844
C-851
C-858
C-864
C-870
C-878
C-879
C-884
Kharif,
2016
28.1
16.3
26.1
28.8
31.4
31.6
30.8
21.8
28.5
21.8
23.8
14.5
28.6
16.5
38.4
21.8
28.3
25.5
26.8
22.1
19.6
31.8
26.8
33.9
31.8
29.6
31.2
22.8
19.3
20.8
31.5
24.3
28.5
34.8
18.6
31.6
22.9
10.5
18.3
26.8
34.9
18.4
14.9
Scale
Status
5
3
5
5
7
7
7
5
5
5
5
3
5
3
7
5
5
5
5
5
3
7
5
7
7
5
7
5
3
5
7
5
5
7
3
7
5
3
3
5
7
3
3
MS
MR
MS
MS
S
S
S
MS
MS
MS
MS
MR
MS
MR
S
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MR
S
MS
S
S
MS
S
MS
MR
MS
S
MS
MS
S
MR
S
MS
MR
MR
MS
S
MR
MR
Kharif,
2017
26.1
18.4
24.0
20.5
26.3
38.2
26.4
20.6
31.0
22.6
20.9
16.3
28.9
10.6
19.8
22.6
21.6
26.3
19.8
20.6
23.5
30.5
28.3
30.5
30.6
21.8
29.6
24.3
22.8
18.6
16.5
20.8
21.5
26.8
16.9
30.5
26.5
10.8
26.4
30.4
32.6
18.2
16.3
1634
Scale
Status
Mean
Status
5
3
5
5
5
7
5
5
7
5
5
3
5
3
3
5
5
5
3
5
5
7
5
7
7
5
5
5
5
3
3
5
5
5
3
7
5
3
5
5
7
3
3
MS
MR
MS
MS
MS
S
MS
MS
S
MS
MS
MR
MS
MR
MR
MS
MS
MS
MR
MS
MS
S
MS
S
S
MS
MS
MS
MS
MR
MR
MS
MS
MS
MR
S
MS
MR
MS
MS
S
MR
MR
27
17
25
25
29
35
29
21
30
22
22
15
29
14
29
22
25
26
23
21
22
31
28
32
31
26
30
24
21
20
24
23
25
31
18
31
25
11
22
29
34
18
16
MS
MR
MS
MS
MS
S
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MR
MS
MR
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
S
MS
S
S
MS
MS
MS
MS
MR
MS
MS
MS
S
MR
S
MS
MR
MS
MS
S
MR
MR
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(5): 1627-1643
S. No
Entry
No.
C-891
170
C-901
171
C-902
172
C-903
173
C-1165
174
C-1167
175
C-1170
176
C-1172
177
C-1175
178
C-1176
179
C-1179
180
C-1180
181
C-1181
182
C-1185
183
C-1199
184
C-1205
185
C-1226
186
C-1237
187
C-1241
188
C-1247
189
C-1248
190
C-1249
191
C-1257
192
C-1259
193
C-1289
194
C-1320
195
C-1328
196
C-1372
197
C-1378
198
C-1391
199
C-1394
200
C-1397
201
C-1398
202
C-1406
203
C-1430
204
C-1433
205
C-1436
206
C-1439
207
C-1448
208
C-1449
209
C-1453
210
C-1463
211
C-1464
212
C-1474
213
C-1475
214
C-1548
215
TN1
Checks
BPT 5204
Mean
Std. Dev.
Std. Error
CV (%)
Kharif,
2016
28.5
16.9
23.4
16.8
21.8
18.6
11.4
18.3
29.3
16.4
19.8
30.1
38.3
29.1
19.8
23.5
26.5
19.8
20.8
16.3
21.5
22.9
28.3
19.6
21.3
23.5
26.3
11.9
21.8
30.5
16.8
28.5
31.5
21.4
20.6
18.3
31.8
29.6
23.4
19.8
32.5
28.3
16.9
29.8
31.8
21.6
42.2
32.8
22.94
8.28
0.56
36.07
Scale
Status
5
3
5
3
5
3
3
3
5
3
3
5
7
5
3
5
5
3
5
3
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
3
5
7
3
5
7
5
5
3
7
5
5
3
7
5
3
5
7
5
7
7
-
MS
MR
MS
MR
MS
MR
MR
MR
MS
MR
MR
MS
S
MS
MR
MS
MS
MR
MS
MR
MS
MS
MS
MR
MS
MS
MS
MR
MS
S
MR
MS
S
MS
MS
MR
S
MS
MS
MR
S
MS
MR
MS
S
MS
S
S
-
Kharif
2017
29.0
13.4
19.3
13.4
26.8
19.3
20.6
11.5
26.9
20.6
22.0
26.3
21.8
30.5
20.1
26.3
16.8
16.4
16.9
13.2
20.8
18.3
16.3
20.4
21.6
20.4
26.3
10.8
19.9
41.5
21.8
16.9
29.8
25.8
30.0
16.9
33.4
30.8
24.6
20.5
29.9
21.9
16.4
20.3
29.6
20.0
35.1
26.9
22.39
9.61
0.65
42.88
1635
Scale
Status
Mean
Status
5
3
3
3
5
3
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
7
3
5
3
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
5
3
5
3
3
7
5
3
5
5
5
3
7
7
5
5
5
5
3
3
5
3
7
5
-
MS
MR
MR
MR
MS
MR
MS
MR
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
S
MR
MS
MR
MR
MR
MR
MS
MR
MR
MR
MS
MR
MS
MR
MR
S
MS
MR
MS
MS
MS
MR
S
S
MS
MS
MS
MS
MR
MR
MS
MR
S
MS
-
29
15
21
15
24
19
16
15
28
19
21
28
30
30
20
25
22
18
19
15
21
21
22
20
21
22
26
11
21
36
19
23
31
24
25
18
33
30
24
20
31
25
17
25
31
21
39
30
22.67
8.95
0.61
57.51
MS
MR
MS
MR
MS
MR
MR
MR
MS
MR
MS
MS
MS
MS
MR
MS
MS
MR
MR
MR
MS
MS
MS
MR
MS
MS
MS
MR
MS
S
MR
MS
S
MS
MS
MR
S
MS
MS
MR
S
MS
MR
MS
S
MS
S
MS
-
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(5): 1627-1643
Table.4 Field identification of rice genotypes against yellow stem borer, in terms
of per cent white ears
S.No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Entry
No.
C-08
C-17
C-27
C-30
C-37
C-53
C-55
C-58
C-64
C-86
C-115
C-124
C-133
C-140
C-141
C-144
C-152
C-170
C-171
C-178
C-202
C-207
C-221
C-228
C-237
C-240
C-250
C-269
C-270
C-273
C-275
C-280
C-288
C-306
C-319
C-321
C-324
Kharif,
2016
11.3
14.3
8.6
10.3
6.8
11.9
15.2
12.3
14.0
11.3
8.6
9.3
10.4
16.1
10.9
13.4
18.0
16.4
8.9
7.3
15.4
13.9
10.8
13.9
16.4
13.2
10.5
12.6
25.0
10.4
10.4
9.8
6.9
8.0
10.3
14.2
8.5
Scale
Status
5
5
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
7
5
5
7
7
3
3
5
5
5
5
7
5
5
5
7
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
3
MS
MS
MR
MR
MR
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MR
MR
MR
S
MS
MS
S
S
MR
MR
MS
MS
MS
MS
S
MS
MS
MS
S
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MS
MR
1636
Kharif,
2017
10.3
13.5
7.5
8.9
6.0
12.0
13.4
10.3
18.2
6.8
10.2
8.6
10.1
17.2
16.1
11.5
12.5
18.5
6.5
7.0
11.0
19.5
11.3
14.0
13.8
12.8
11.5
16.8
10.3
11.0
10.5
10.4
6.9
5.3
7.1
11.5
6.8
Scale
Status
Mean
Status
3
5
3
3
3
5
5
3
7
3
3
3
3
7
7
5
5
7
3
3
5
7
5
5
5
5
5
7
3
5
5
3
3
1
3
5
3
MR
MS
MR
MR
MR
MS
MS
MR
S
MR
MR
MR
MR
S
S
MS
MS
S
MR
MR
MS
S
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
S
MR
MS
MS
MR
MR
R
MR
MS
MR
11
14
8
10
6
12
14
11
16
9
9
9
10
17
14
12
15
17
8
7
13
17
11
14
15
13
11
15
18
11
10
10
7
7
9
13
8
MS
MS
MR
MR
MR
MS
MS
MS
S
MR
MR
MR
MR
S
MS
MS
MS
S
MR
MR
MS
S
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
S
MS
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MS
MR
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(5): 1627-1643
S.No.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
Entry
No.
C-328
C-330
C-342
C-343
C-346
C-349
C-350
C-352
C-354
C-358
C-361
C-362
C-364
C-365
C-368
C-369
C-372
C-373
C-374
C-377
C-378
C-380
C-384
C-386
C-388
C-390
C-391
C-393
C-394
C-396
C-400
C-401
C-404
C-407
C-417
C-437
C-441
C-448
C-455
C-464
C-470
C-473
Kharif,
2016
11.8
16.3
12.8
16.4
10.4
13.6
10.3
6.9
15.1
18.3
10.3
18.6
14.3
10.9
21.6
6.4
10.2
7.3
6.0
8.1
8.4
6.5
7.9
10.9
15.3
16.8
10.9
16.3
18.2
10.2
9.4
9.8
15.1
18.3
20.3
10.8
10.3
12.4
11.4
19.2
6.4
8.3
Scale
Status
5
7
5
7
3
5
3
3
5
7
3
7
5
5
7
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
7
5
7
7
3
3
3
5
7
7
5
3
5
5
7
3
3
MS
S
MS
S
MR
MS
MR
MR
MS
S
MR
S
MS
MS
S
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MS
MS
S
MS
S
S
MR
MR
MR
MS
S
S
MS
MR
MS
MS
S
MR
MR
1637
Kharif,
2017
12
14.3
10.9
10.8
11.6
14.8
16.3
5.6
14.3
12.6
11.9
19.3
16.2
9.8
16.3
5.3
3.9
6.4
5.1
6.1
9.3
6.0
9.9
9.3
11.0
17.3
16.2
14.3
16.3
10.8
8.6
9.0
14.2
10.3
16.9
9.8
6.4
8.4
9.9
14.3
6
9.2
Scale
Status
Mean
Status
5
5
5
5
5
5
7
3
5
5
5
7
7
3
7
1
1
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
5
7
7
5
7
5
3
3
5
3
7
3
3
3
3
5
3
3
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
S
MR
MS
MS
MS
S
S
MR
S
R
R
MR
R
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MS
S
S
MS
S
MS
MR
MR
MS
MR
S
MR
MR
MR
MR
MS
MR
MR
12
15
12
14
11
14
13
6
15
15
11
19
15
10
19
6
7
7
6
7
9
6
9
10
13
17
14
15
17
11
9
9
15
14
19
10
8
10
11
17
6
9
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MR
MS
MS
MS
S
MS
MR
S
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MS
S
MS
MS
S
MS
MR
MR
MS
MS
S
MR
MR
MR
MS
S
MR
MR
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(5): 1627-1643
S.No.
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
Entry
No.
C-474
C-475
C-479
C-481
C-490
C-492
C-497
C-498
C-499
C-502
C-504
C-514
C-515
C-517
C-518
C-519
C-536
C-537
C-538
C-540
C-550
C-551
C-554
C-556
C-557
C-559
C-560
C-561
C-566
C-575
C-593
C-597
C-599
C-600
C-602
C-603
C-608
C-610
C-621
C-637
C-649
C-651
Kharif,
2016
10.9
14.2
16.3
10.4
31.5
7.3
10.8
11.4
8.0
7.5
10.4
11.8
10.3
12.4
7.8
8.0
10.4
6.9
12.2
9.3
10.8
11.9
10.5
6.3
13.8
15.3
6.3
18.0
11.5
14.3
4.2
10.3
15.3
12.6
10.6
7.5
8.9
10.3
9.2
8.6
6.9
17.9
Scale
Status
5
5
7
3
9
3
5
5
3
3
3
5
3
5
3
3
3
3
5
3
5
5
5
3
5
5
3
7
5
5
1
3
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
7
MS
MS
S
MR
HS
MR
MS
MS
MR
MR
MR
MS
MR
MS
MR
MR
MR
MR
MS
MR
MS
MS
MS
MR
MS
MS
MR
S
MS
MS
R
MR
MS
MS
MS
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
S
1638
Kharif,
2017
11.4
12.1
14.3
9.8
29.3
4.2
10.1
12.8
6.3
6.0
10.0
12.0
9.6
6.8
8.3
8.5
11.5
6.8
10.4
13.5
11.5
10.9
11.5
4.8
10.3
11.4
8.4
16.8
12.8
9.6
9.0
9.3
11.8
10.3
9.8
8.4
9.3
9.6
8.9
7.3
4.9
16.3
Scale
Status
Mean
Status
5
5
5
3
9
1
3
5
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
5
3
3
5
5
5
5
1
3
5
3
7
5
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
7
MS
MS
MS
MR
HS
R
MR
MS
MR
MR
MR
MS
MR
MR
MR
MR
MS
MR
MR
MS
MS
MS
MS
R
MR
MS
MR
S
MS
MR
MR
MR
MS
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
R
S
11
13
15
10
30
6
10
12
7
7
10
12
10
10
8
8
11
7
11
11
11
11
11
6
12
13
7
17
12
12
7
10
14
11
10
8
9
10
9
8
6
17
MS
MS
MS
MR
HS
MR
MR
MS
MR
MR
MR
MS
MR
MR
MR
MR
MS
MR
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MR
MS
MS
MR
S
MS
MS
MR
MR
MS
MS
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
S
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(5): 1627-1643
S.No.
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
Entry
No.
C-682
C-684
C-685
C-689
C-692
C-693
C-697
C-702
C-706
C-713
C-714
C-715
C-727
C-729
C-750
C-750
C-753
C-754
C-763
C-766
C-767
C-775
C-780
C-781
C-782
C-786
C-787
C-788
C-790
C-792
C-793
C-794
C-795
C-797
C-798
C-804
C-808
C-810
C-812
C-828
C-844
C-851
Kharif,
2016
10.4
13.8
6.5
10.3
15.8
10.3
6.4
5.0
16.4
19.3
18.6
10.9
18.3
10.4
10.4
13.4
6.3
10.8
7.3
8.9
10.6
10.3
11.4
10.1
8.3
9.3
9.4
16.5
19.2
18.3
10.6
9.8
11.6
13.8
14.1
10.8
11.5
16.8
18.3
9.8
11.9
13.8
Scale
Status
3
5
3
3
7
3
3
1
7
7
7
5
7
3
3
5
3
5
3
3
5
3
5
3
3
3
3
7
7
7
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
7
7
3
5
5
MR
MS
MR
MR
S
MR
MR
R
S
S
S
MS
S
MR
MR
MS
MR
MS
MR
MR
MS
MR
MS
MR
MR
MR
MR
S
S
S
MS
MR
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
S
S
MR
MS
MS
1639
Kharif,
2017
5.6
11.4
3.5
6.0
8.1
9.3
5.0
6.3
10.4
11.6
14.2
9.9
21.8
9.5
9.3
14.0
6.9
11.3
8.0
7.3
11.8
12.5
10.8
9.5
6.9
8.2
15.6
19.2
10.3
10.8
8.8
9.0
12.4
10.6
6.8
3.9
8.4
3.9
6.4
5.3
9.1
16.2
Scale
Status
Mean
Status
3
5
1
3
3
3
1
3
3
5
5
3
7
3
3
5
3
5
3
3
5
5
5
3
3
3
7
7
3
5
3
3
5
5
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
7
MR
MS
R
MR
MR
MR
R
MR
MR
MS
MS
MR
S
MR
MR
MS
MR
MS
MR
MR
MS
MS
MS
MR
MR
MR
S
S
MR
MS
MR
MR
MS
MS
MR
R
MR
R
MR
R
MR
S
8
13
5
8
12
10
6
6
13
15
16
10
20
10
10
14
7
11
8
8
11
11
11
10
8
9
13
18
15
15
10
9
12
12
10
7
10
10
12
8
11
15
MR
MS
R
MR
MS
MR
MR
MR
MS
MS
S
MR
S
MR
MR
MS
MR
MS
MR
MR
MS
MS
MS
MR
MR
MR
MS
S
MS
MS
MR
MR
MS
MS
MR
MR
MR
MR
MS
MR
MS
MS
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(5): 1627-1643
S.No.
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
Entry
No.
C-858
C-864
C-870
C-878
C-879
C-884
C-891
C-901
C-902
C-903
C-1165
C-1167
C-1170
C-1172
C-1175
C-1176
C-1179
C-1180
C-1181
C-1185
C-1199
C-1205
C-1226
C-1237
C-1241
C-1247
C-1248
C-1249
C-1257
C-1259
C-1289
C-1320
C-1328
C-1372
C-1378
C-1391
C-1394
C-1397
C-1398
C-1406
C-1430
C-1433
Kharif,
2016
4.3
10.2
13.9
16.3
10.9
8.4
9.8
5.6
6.8
4.3
10.4
6.3
4.4
6
10.4
4.3
4.9
10.8
13.9
10.4
9.2
11.8
10.2
6.8
4.3
6.1
10.4
9.8
6.3
9
9.8
10.3
11.8
4
6.9
18.2
10.5
6.2
4.9
11.8
19.3
2.4
Scale
Status
1
3
5
7
5
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
1
3
3
1
1
5
5
3
3
5
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
1
3
7
5
3
1
5
7
1
R
MR
MS
S
MS
MR
MR
MR
MR
R
MR
MR
R
MR
MR
R
R
MS
MS
MR
MR
MS
MR
MR
R
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MS
R
MR
S
MS
MR
R
MS
S
R
1640
Kharif,
2017
2.9
3.3
10
9.8
11.2
8.0
11.4
5.0
4.8
4.0
6.8
6.3
10.3
7.5
10.3
4.3
2.8
10.3
14.2
16.8
10.2
10.9
6.4
2.8
4.0
4.1
3.9
6.8
9.4
9.3
6.9
11.2
10.0
3.2
3.5
4.8
6.8
6.0
2.3
6.9
11.5
3.5
Scale
Status
Mean
Status
1
1
3
3
5
3
5
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
5
7
3
5
3
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
5
3
1
1
1
3
3
1
3
5
1
R
R
MR
MR
MS
MR
MS
R
R
R
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
R
R
MR
MS
S
MR
MS
MR
R
R
R
R
MR
MR
MR
MR
MS
MR
R
R
R
MR
MR
R
MR
MS
R
4
7
12
13
11
8
11
5
6
4
9
6
7
7
10
4
4
11
14
14
10
11
8
5
4
5
7
8
8
9
8
11
11
4
5
12
9
6
4
9
15
3
R
MR
MS
MS
MS
MR
MS
R
MR
R
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
R
R
MS
MS
MS
MR
MS
MR
R
R
R
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MS
MS
R
R
MS
MR
MR
R
MR
MS
R
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(5): 1627-1643
C-1436
C-1439
C-1448
C-1449
C-1453
C-1463
C-1464
C-1474
C-1475
C-1548
TN1
Local
Mean
Std. Dev.
Std. Error
CV(%)
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
Checks
18.6
7.4
10.6
10.5
10.3
10.9
3.6
16.8
10.4
11.0
22.7
17.0
11.47
7.26
0.49
63.30
7
3
5
5
3
5
1
7
3
5
7
7
-
S
MR
MS
MS
MR
MS
R
S
MR
MS
S
S
-
21.0
8.3
10.0
6.8
8.3
6.8
2.5
8.6
7.3
8.6
17.6
14.6
9.98
7.58
0.51
75.86
7
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
7
5
-
S
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
R
MR
MR
MR
S
MS
-
20
8
10
9
9
9
3
13
9
10
20
16
10.73
7.42
0.50
69.58
S
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
R
MS
MR
MR
S
S
-
Table.5 The promising rice genotypes identified against rice yellow stem borer
S.No IC No.
Dead hearts
kharif 2016
kharif 2017
%
DH
Status
%
DH
Status
White ears
Mean
kharif 2016
kharif 2017
% Status
DH
%
WE
Status
%
WE
Status
Mean
% Status
WE
1
381538
11.6
MR
14.3
MR
13
MR
10.8
MS
10.1
MR
10
MR
2
450535
16.9
MR
11.4
MR
14
MR
6.5
MR
3.5
R
5
R
3
463380
10.5
MR
10.8
MR
11
MR
4.3
R
2.9
R
4
R
4
464140
16.9
MR
13.4
MR
15
MR
5.6
MR
5.0
R
5
R
5
464186
16.8
MR
13.4
MR
15
MR
4.3
R
4.0
R
4
R
6
574807
16.3
MR
13.2
MR
15
MR
6.1
MR
4.1
R
5
R
7
578388
11.9
MR
10.8
MR
11
MR
4.0
R
3.2
R
4
R
MR : Moderately Resistant; R
: Resistant
Identification of resistant entries of rice
genotypes against yellow stem borer
(pooled mean of two seasons)
The cumulative mean of per cent white ear
damage by yellow stem borer for two
consecutive kharif seasons inferred that out of
215 rice genotypes screened at field level, 14
entries registered stem borer incidence less
than 5.0 per cent and categorized as resistant
entries (R). A sum of 101, 82 and 17 entries
were rated as moderately resistant (MR),
moderately susceptible (MS) and susceptible
(S) with per cent white ears damage ranged
from 6-10, 11-15 and 16-20 per cent,
respectively. One entry (C-490) had exhibited
highly susceptible (HS) status with 30 per
1641
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(5): 1627-1643
cent WE as against the lowest in C-1433 and
C-1464 entries with only 3.0 per cent white
ears damage.
Considering the influence of damage by
yellow stem borer at vegetative stage and
reproductive stage in terms of dead hearts and
white ears, respectively and their impact on
yield only seven genotypes were identified as
resistance/ moderately resistant entries out of
215 entries screened, that had exhibited
lowest pest damage and considered as
promising entries to be utilized for further
biochemical
analysis
and
breeding
programmes. The selected seven promising
genotypes of rice with indigenous collection
number (IC no) were 381538, 450535,
463380, 464140, 464186, 574807 and
578388, respectively (Table 5).
From the present investigation trial, it was
clearly witnessed that, most of the rice
genotypes which were resistance/ moderately
resistant to the dead hearts damage by yellow
stem borer at vegetative stage had exhibited
moderately susceptible or susceptible reaction
to white ears damage at reproductive stage
and vice versa. The result was in agreement
with the findings of Pathak et al., (1971) who
inferred that the rice varieties exhibiting
resistance at dead heart stage were found
susceptible at white ear stage demonstrating
the resistance at both stages as independent
factors.
The screening studies by Pandey and
Choubey (2011) also supported the present
results stating that resistance reaction by rice
varieties against yellow stem borer differed
among the seasons. They have screened 60
rice germplasm against rice stem borer for
two successive kharif seasons (2003 & 2004)
and notified that among 60 rice entries 35, 29
and 6 entries were rated as resistant,
moderately
resistant
and
susceptible
respectively. Whereas 31, 21 and 8
germplasm were rated as resistant, moderately
resistant and susceptible entries, respectively
during kharif, 2004.
The above reports indicated variation in
performance of rice varieties among seasons
and were further supported by findings of
Justin and Preetha (2014) who screened 77
genotypes during kharif, 2011 & 2012 and 57
genotypes during rabi 2011 & 2012 for their
reaction to rice YSB. During kharif 2011, the
genotypes TP 08079, TP 10015, TP 10019,
TP 10029 and TP 10031 were promising with
meager incidence and rated as highly
resistant. While, the genotypes TP 10006, TP
10007, TP 10008, TP 10009, TP 10010,
TP10011 and TP 10012 were highly resistant
with scale ‘0’ at both vegetative and
reproductive stages of kharif, 2012. Out of 57
genotypes screened for the year, rabi 2011,
TP 10007 recorded nil incidence and rated as
highly resistant while at rabi 2012, 15
genotypes recorded nil incidence of stem
borer. The genotype TP 10052 & TP 08033
and T P 09119 were rated as resistant during
kharif and rabi seasons, respectively.
Similar screening trials in rice by Mohan et
al., (2003) stated that W1263 and TKM 6 had
exhibited significantly low damage of YSB
infesting rice at both vegetative (% DH) and
reproductive stages (% WE) of crop growth.
Prasad et al., (2015) evaluated 55 promising
rice genotypes against yellow stemborer along
with susceptible check variety (TN1) and
resistant check (variety Suraksha) and
inferred that genotypes RP-Bio-Patho-02,
BPT-5204 and R-DRR-02 were promising
and highly resistant with 0.67, 0.78 and 1.22
per cent mean stem borer infestation in
comparison to susceptible check and resistant
check with 20.69 and 5.22 per cent mean
YSB infestation, respectively. Field screening
trails by Rishikesh et al., (2018) for 73 rice
genotypes during kharif 2016 and 2017
against rice yellow stem borer witnessed that
lowest white ears damage was recorded in IR
36, R 1700-302-1-156-1, Shyamla and IR 64
1642
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(5): 1627-1643
with 0.0, 0.17, 0.17 & 0.1 per cent white ears
per plant on each genotypes, respectively
In conclusions, field screening trials revealed
seven promising rice genotypes (IC No.
381538, 450535, 463380, 464140, 464186,
574807 and 578388) exhibiting moderate
resistance/ resistance to yellow stem borer
both in terms of per cent dead hearts and
white ears. The selected promising rice
germplasm against yellow stem borer from
the present investigations can be further
studied for bio chemical analysis. The
molecular characterization and identification
of QTLs for resistance against stem borers
through molecular markers may be utilized
for introgression of resistant genes in the
breeding programmes of rice cultures.
Acknowledgements
The authors express our heartfelt thanks to
Dr. L.V. Subba Rao, Principal Scientist,
Indian Institute of Rice Research, Hyderabad
towards sparing the rice accessions necessary
for the above research.
References
Agricultural Statistics at a glance (2016)
Government of India Ministry of
Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department
of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers
Welfare Directorate of Economics and
Statistic. .
Justin, C and Preetha, G. 2014. Screening of rice
cultures/ genotypes for their reaction to
yellow stem borer, Scirpophaga incertulas
Walker. Research Journal of Agriculture
and Environmental Management. 3 (12):
646-652.
Mohan, K.S., Thiruvengadam, V., Samiayyan K
and
Shanmugasundaram,
P.
2003.
Generation and screening of recombinant
inbred lines of rice for yellow stem borer
resistance. Indian Journal of Experimental
Biology. 41: 346-351.
Pandey, S and Choubey, M.N. 2011. Screening of
different rice germplasm for resistance to
yellow stem borer, Scirpophaga incertulas
(Walker). Agricultural Science Digest. 31
(2):140-143.
Pasalu, I.C and Katti, G. 2006. Advances in
ecofriendly approaches in rice IPM.
Journal of Rice Research. 1 (1): 83-90.
Pathak, M.D., Andres, F., Galacajac, N and
Romas, R. 1971. Resistance of rice varieties
to striped stem borer. International Rice
Research institute. Technical Bulletin. 11:
69.
Prasad S.S., Gupta P.K., Singh R.V and Mishra
J.P. 2015. Identification of rice donors
resistant against yellow stem borer,
Scirpophaga incertulas (Walker). Scholars
Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary
Sciences. 2 (1A): 24-26.
Prasad, S.S., Gupta, P.K and Kanaujia, B.L. 2007.
Simulation study on yield loss due to
Scirpophaga incertulas on semi deep water
rice. Annuals of Plant Protection Sciences.
15: 491-492.
Rishikesh Mandloi, A., Shukla, T., Venkatesan,
A.K., Bhowmick and SK Singh. 2018.
Screening of rice (Oryza sativa L.) varieties
and genotypes against Scirpophaga
incertulas (Walker). Journal of Entomology
and Zoology Studies. 6 (3): 1195-1199.
How to cite this article:
Sudha Rani, D., Ch. Chiranjeevi, T. Madhumathi, S. Krishnam Raju and Nafeez Umar, Sk.
2020. Identification of Rice Genotypes for Resistance against Yellow Stem Borer in Irrigated
Rice. Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci. 9(05): 1627-1643.
doi: />
1643
