Evaluation of rice genotypes for resistance to the stalk-eyed fly (Diopsis longicornis) in rice in U by Dr. A. H. Kabir

Int. J. Agri. Agri. R.

International Journal of Agronomy and Agricultural Research (IJAAR) ISSN: 2223-7054 (Print) 2225-3610 (Online) http://www.innspub.net Vol. 9, No. 2, p. 9-21, 2016 OPEN ACCESS

RESEARCH PAPER

Evaluation of rice genotypes for resistance to the stalk-eyed fly (Diopsis longicornis) in rice in Uganda Charles Ganteh Weelar1, Michael Hilary Otim2, Jimmy Lamo2, Bruno Awio1, Mildred Ochwo-Ssemakula1* School of Agricultural Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda

National Crops Resources Research Institute, Kampala, Uganda

Article published on August 14, 2016 Key words: Improved rice genotypes, Stem borers, Infestations, Deadhearts. Abstract Globally, rice production is limited by abiotic and biotic factors. Of the insect pests attacking rice, the stalk-eyed fly is the most abundant. Major rice growing districts in Uganda are affected, and varieties grown by farmers are susceptible. The objective of this study was to identify sources of resistance to stalk-eyed flies among improved rice genotypes in Uganda. Fifty genotypes from the Africa Rice Centre, IRRI, South Korea and the National Crops Resources Research Institute (NaCRRI) in Uganda were screened under cage and field conditions at NaCRRI. Trials were laid out in an alpha lattice design, with 3 replications, for both experiments. Natural infestation (D. longicornis or D. apicalis) was used in the field while cage trials utilized artificial infestation with D. longicornis. Data on deadhearts were collected from seedling to tillering stages, at 7, 14, 21 and 28 days. Analyses of variance were performed using restricted maximum likelihood. Infestation levels for 31 (62%) rice genotypes were the same under both field and cage conditions, 4 (8%) genotypes showed higher susceptibility in the cage than in the field and 15 (30%) were more resistant in the cage than in the field. Genotypes NERICA 4, TXD306, NM7-22-11B-P-1-1 and K85 were identified as the most resistant varieties. F3 genotypes (GSR IR1- 5-S14-S2-Y1 x K85, Gigante x NERICA4, NERICA4 x Gigante, NERICA1x NERICA4, NERICA4 x NERICA6, and NERICA4 x SUPA) were also found resistant. These genotypes were recommended for release and further advancement, respectively. * Corresponding

Weelar et al.

Author: Mildred Ochwo-Ssemakula ď&#x20AC;Ş mknossemakula@caes.mak.ac.ug

Page

Int. J. Agri. Agri. R. Introduction

Among the biotic stresses, stem borers are considered

Rice is an important staple food for more than half of

as major insect pests of rice in Sub-Sahara Africa

the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s population (Javed et al., 2015). Global

(Nacro et al., 1996, Nwilene et al., 2008a). Estimates

production for 2014 was estimated at 740.2 million

of yield losses due to insects in Africa range from 10%

tons (Mt) with China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam,

to 15% (Nwilene

Thailand and Bangladesh being the major producers

(Diopsis longicornis and Diopsis apicalis) are among

(FAO, 2015). In East Africa, rice is the second most

the stem borers which are widely-distributed and

important staple food, after maize. By 2014, annual

devastating pests of rice (Heinrichs and Barrion,

consumption had reached 1.8 million metric tons.

2004).

et al., 2013). Stalk-eyed flies

Production, however, stood at 1.25 million metric tons (FAO, 2014). In Uganda, rice was introduced by

In Uganda, between 2010 and 2013, stalk-eyed flies

Indian traders as early as 1904 but did not spread

were among the major pests reported on rice (Fujiie

widely nor gain popularity until the late 1940s

et al., unpublished). Of the two species of stalk-eyed

(Odogola, unpublished). However, the production of

flies observed, Diopsis longicornis has been reported

rice remained low until 1974, when rice farmers

as the most abundant and most important on rice in

appealed to the Government of Uganda for assistance. Today, rice is grown by smallholder farmers throughout the country, with a few large scale farmers in some areas (Ugen, unpublished). The area under rice cultivation was estimated at 80,000 hectares in 2002, almost doubling to 150,000 hectares by 2011.

Uganda (Fujiie et al., unpublished). Damage from stalk-eyed fly larvae usually affects the central meristem of the plant, which is bored, resulting in a condition known as deadheart (Togola et al., 2011). Stalk-eyed fly damage significantly reduces the following: tiller density, number of panicles, grain weight and numbers of mature panicles (Togola et al.,

Production followed a similar trend, increasing from

2011). In West Africa, farmers use pesticides,

120,000 Mt in 2002 to 164,000 Mt in 2009 and

biological and cultural control strategies to manage

220,000 Mt in 2013 (MAAIF, 2012). Consumption

stalk-eyed flies. These control methods are, however,

was estimated at 299,800 Mt in 2012, with a 19%

not effective due to the high level of reproduction of

production deficit forecasted (Ahmed, 2012; MAAIF,

the stalk-eyed flies. Host plant resistance is,

2012).

therefore, the most reliable and cost-effective means of controlling rice stalk-eyed flies (Nwilene et al.,

As is the case of many developing countries, rice yield per unit area in Uganda is still very low, averaging 1.8t/ha for both lowland and upland rice, compared to a yield potential of 8 t/ha and 5 t/ha for lowland and upland rice, respectively, in developed nations (Karugia

al.,

unpublished).

constrained by several factors:

Production

technological, bio-

2008b; Togola et al., 2011). The objective of this study

was

contribute

towards

improved

understanding of the response of rice genotypes to the stalk-eyed fly damage and identify sources of resistance to stalk-eyed flies among improved rice genotypes. Materials and methods

physical, socioeconomic, institutional and financial.

Planting materials and field experiment

Of these constraints, biotic and abiotic factors are the

Fifty (50) rice genotypes from four sources: (i)

most important (Hadush, 2015). Abiotic stresses

Interspecific crosses with NERICA varieties and

include: variable rainfall, with drought and flooding

others breeding lines from Africa Rice Center, (ii)

occurring in the same season; poorly-drained soils of

Released and advanced breeding lines from NaCRRI,

the coastal lowlands, and alkalinity in dry areas.

(iii) Breeding lines from IRRI and (iv) South Korean

Biotic stresses include: weeds, insect pests (stem

lines were screened for resistance to stalk-eyed flies

borers such as stalk eyed flies, African rice gall midge

(Table1). The genotypes WITA-9 and NERICA-6 were

and rice bugs), diseases (blast, brown spot, and viral diseases), rats and birds (Hadush, 2015).

Weelar et al.

used as checks since their adaptability and response to rice diseases are known.

Page

Int. J. Agri. Agri. R. The genotypes were screened under cage and field

Data collection and analyses

conditions at the National Crops Resources Research

Data

Institute in Central Uganda. The field was laid out in

international

an alpha lattice design, with three replications.

resistance to biotic and abiotic factors (Visalakshmi et

Seedlings were raised in the nursery using plastic

al 2014). The data collected included: pest infestation

cups filled with top soil. Seedlings were transplanted at 15 days after emergence and established in the field in 10 x 5 rows. Each row contained 5 plots with the dimension of 1m2, with plants spaced at 20cm x 20cm. One plant was established per hill, generating six hills per row and five rows per plot. The inter-plot and -block measurements were 40cm and 60 cm,

collection

followed

standard

for

guidelines

the

evaluation

rice

or damage, plant agronomic and yield traits. Pest infestation and damage for stem borers in rice were evaluated on the basis of the proportion of deadhearts (Sarwar, 2012; Visalakshmi et al., 2014). In this study, deadheart data were collected at seedling and tillering stages, which are considered critical periods

respectively. The field experiment was conducted

for damage by the stalk-eyed fly in rice ( Togola et al.,

under flooded conditions with a 2.5cm level of water

2011). Stalk-eyed fly damage was collected at 7, 14, 21

maintained for larval survival. Natural infestation of

and 28 days after transplanting, under field and cage

the stalk-eyed fly was used.

conditions. Ten hills were selected randomly from the middle of each plot for scoring. The number of

Caged experiment A caged experiment was established in order to restrict species infestation of the stalk eyed fly to Diopsis longicornis, which is the most abundant and most important species that feeds only on rice.

affected plants from each hill was counted out of the total number of tillers observed per hill and the average was taken for computing the percentage of deadhearts.

Although Diopsis apicalis occurred in the field, it was less abundant and considered a polyphagous species (Heinrichs and Barron, 2004). The caged experiment was set up using an alpha lattice design, with three replications. Each replicate comprised of a wooden box of dimensions 4m x 2.23m, filled with top soil and covered with a nylon mesh of 0.5mm gauge. The 50 genotypes were planted in 10 x 5 rows in each

Days to flowering were recorded at maximum flowering stage (70 to 75 days after sowing, at 50% heading), where ten hills were sampled randomly

cage, as in the field. Genotypes were directly planted

from the middle of each plot. Panicle length was

in each plot, which contained 5 rows. Three seeds

recorded as the distance (cm) from the last node of

were planted per hill using the dibbling method

the rachis to tip of the main panicle for each hill

within a plant spacing of 10cm x 5cm. After

sampled. Number of effective panicles (tillers with

germination, seedlings were thinned leaving one

panicles) was counted for ten (hills) per plot selected

plant per hill and four hills per row. Interblock and

and sampled. Plant height was recorded at the

interplot spacings of 30cm and 20cm were used,

ripening stage where ten hills per plot were randomly

respectively. Adult stalk-eyed flies of the Diopsis

selected from the middle of the each plot and

longicornis species were collected from paddy rice

sampled. In order to determine the 1000-grain

fields at NaCRRI using a sweep net (Fujiie et al., unpublished). The collected insects were sorted within a cage in a closed room in order to avoid the introduction of unwanted insects. Infestation was done in accordance with the method of Togola et al. (2011), where 25 individuals were released in the

weight, a thousand clean sun-dried grains were counted from the total grain weight of ten hills per plot, after which the grains were weighed (g) and the average was taken at 14% seed moisture content. The 1000 grains were then floated for about 3 to 4

center of each screening cage to give a critical density

minutes and the filled grain was separated from the

of 50 individuals per square meter.

empty grain and weights were then taken.

Weelar et al.

Page

Int. J. Agri. Agri. R. The rice genotypes were placed into different

To determine the relationship between infestation

resistance categories based on the pest damage rating

and agronomic traits, correlation analysis was

scale (Elanchezhyan and Arumugachamy, 2015)

performed using the Genstat computer program

(Table.2).

(Payne et al., 2009).

The analyses of variance (ANOVA) were performed

Results and discussion

using Restricted maximum likelihood (ReML). Where

Summary of rice genotype reaction under field and

incomplete block within replication effects were

cage conditions

found not effective, the traits were re-analyzed as a

The reaction of different rice genotypes under field

randomized complete block design (RCBD).

and cage condition is presented in Table 3.

Table 1. Origin, status and type of rice genotypes screened for resistance to the stalk-eyed fly (Diopsis longicornis). No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Genotypes 1027SUPALINE 1052SUPALINE GSR IR1- 5-S14-S2-Y1 x K85 (F3) GSR IR1- 3-S13-Y1-S1 x SR33686-HB3326-8 (F3) GSR IR1- 4-D3-Y1-Y1 x NERICA4 (F3) GIGANTE x NERICA4 (F3) NAMCHE1 NAMCHE1 x 1052SUPALINE (F3) NAMCHE2 NAMCHE3 NERICA 6 x IRO9A-136(F3) NERICA 6 x Pakistan(F3) NERICA 6 x WAC-117(F3) NERICA-L-20 x NERICA-13(F3) NERICA 4 x NAMCHE-1(F3) NERICA 4 x NERICA-6(F3) NERICA 4 x SUPA(F3) NERICA1 x Gigante(F3) NERICA1 x NERICA-4(F3) NERICA4 x Gigante(F3)

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

NAMCHE4 NAMCHE5 NAMCHE6 GSR -I-0057 IRO9A-136 Jaribu IR77454-22-B-20-2-2-B-TGR1 IR77454-22-B-20-2-2-B-TGR2 IR77454-22-B-20-2-2-B-TGR3 Gigante KYABUKOOLI Moroberekan Sindano SUPARICA TXD 306 WITA12 WITA4 WITA 9 (check) NM7-22-11-B-P-1-1 NERICA 6 (check) NERICA13 NERICA4 NERICA1 K85 Pakistan SR34462-HB3370-61 SR34461-HB3369-65 SR33686-HB3326-30 SR33701-HB3330-71 SR33686-HB3326-2

Weelar et al.

Origin

NaCRRI

Africa Center

IRRI Korea

Rice

Status Land race Land race Not released Not released Not released Not released Released Not released Released Released Not released Not released Not released Not released Not released Not released Not released Not released Not released Not released

Type Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland Upland Lowland Upland Upland Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland

Released Released Released Released Released Released Released Released Released Released Released Released Released Released Released Released Released Released Released Released Released Released Released Released Released Released Released Released Released Released

Upland Upland Upland Upland Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland Lowland

Page

Int. J. Agri. Agri. R. The results obtained from field and cage experiments

than in the field and 15 genotypes (30%) appeared

revealed similar response of the rice genotypes to

more resistant in the cage than in the field Table 3.

stalk-eyed fly infestation for 31 genotypes (62%). Four

Seventeen genotypes were moderately resistant, ten

genotypes (8%) were more susceptibility in the cage

resistant and four susceptible under both conditions.

Table 2. Standard Evaluation System for screening resistance to rice stems borer. Scale code 0 1 3 5 7 9

% Dead hearts No visible damage 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-60% >60%

Level of resistance Highly Resistant Resistant Moderate resistant Moderate susceptible Susceptible Highly susceptible

Source: (IRRI, 1996, Marwat et. al. 1985). Table 3. Summary of rice genotype resistance levels under field and cage conditions. Genotypes

Gigante SR34461-HB3369-65 SR33686-HB3326-30 SR33701-HB3330-71 Kyabukooli NAMCHE1 NAMCHE4 NAMCHE5 NERICA1 X Gigante F3 NERICA13 NERICA4 x NAMCHE1F 3 NERICA6 x IRO9A-136F3 NERICA6 x PakistanF3 Sindano SUPARICA WITA12 WITA4 GSR IR1- 5-S14-S2-Y1 x K85 F3 Gigante X NERICA4 F3 K-85 NERICA 4 x Gigante F3 NERICA1 x NERICA4 F3 NERICA4 NERICA4 X NERICA6F3 NERICA4 X SUPA F3 NM7-22-11-B-P-1-1 TXD306 NAMCHE2 NERICA1 NERICA6 Pakistan WITA9 GSR IR1- 4-D3-Y1-Y1 x NERICA4 F3 IRO9A-136 Jaribu GSR -I-0057 Moroberekan NAMCHE1 x 1052SUPALINEF3 NAMCHE3 NERICA6 x WAC117 F3 IR77454-22-B-20-2-2-B-TGR1 IR77454-22-B-20-2-2-B-TGR2 IR77454-22-B-20-2-2-B-TGR3 1027SUPALINE 1052SUPALINE GSR IR1- 3-S13-Y1-S1 x SR33686-HB3326-8F3 SR34462-HB3370-61 SR33686-HB3326-2 NAMCHE6 NERICA-L-20 X NERICA13F3

Field

Cage

Average %DH

Status

12.57 19.12 16.71 19.41 13.56 17.33 20.26 13.03 14.02 16.01 11.61 18.92 15.52 19.38 16.45 14.6 12.46 8.40 8.33 5.50 8.03 8.26 6.04 8.88 8.76 5.44 5.57 34.38 38.16 35.11 34.39 19.23 8.66 9.44 10.24 10.46 15.02 11.97 14.89 13.34 25.71 21.55 23.75 20.55 28.98 23.43 22.93 24.03 23.73 21.07

MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR R R R R R R R R

Average %DH 12.01 11.62 10.7 14.36 12.72 10.98 11.02 10.97 11.89 11.27 11.77 13.15 11.26 16.68 15.00 17.94 18.31 6.71 6.95 5.48 6.76 8.52 4.44 5.87 5.99 R R S S S S MR R R R MR MR MR MR MR MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS

Comparison of cage reactions

with field

Status MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR R R R R R R R R 5.31 5.79 34.88 34.46 38.25 35.4 23.47 11.12 10.63 11.58 9.25 9.38 9.48 9.55 9.53 16.34 14.45 16.15 14.77 17.07 12.54 12.93 15.97 12.98 11.86

Same reaction Same reaction Same reaction Same reaction Same reaction Same reaction Same reaction Same reaction Same reaction Same reaction Same reaction Same reaction Same reaction Same reaction Same reaction Same reaction Same reaction Same reaction Same reaction Same reaction Same reaction Same reaction Same reaction Same reaction Same reaction R R S S S S MS MR MR MR R R R R R MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR

Same reaction Same reaction Same reaction Same reaction Same reaction Same reaction Lower Lower Lower Lower Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher

R= resistant, MR = moderately resistant& S = susceptible and %DH= percent deadheart.

Weelar et al.

Page

Int. J. Agri. Agri. R. One genotype reacted as moderately resistant in the

resistance

field and susceptible under cage conditions and other

susceptible in the field (Table 3). The differential

the

cage

and

were

moderately

three were resistant in the field and moderately

response of rice genotypes to biotic stress, such as

resistant in the cage Table 3. The reverse was also

stem borers, is often related to materials having

observed in the cage, where five genotypes were

different genetic backgrounds and environmental

resistant in the cage and moderately resistant in the

factors (Nwilene et al., 2002; Togola et al., 2011;

field and another 10 genotypes displayed moderate

Sarwar, 2012).

Table 4. Analysis of variance for percentage deadheart of fifty rice genotypes screened under field and cage conditions. Mean squares under field

Mean squares under cage

Source of variation

7DAT

14DAT

21DAT

28DAT

7DAI

14DAI

21DAI

28DAI

Replication

16.461

4.23

26.083

1.114

3.786

21.32

16.02

0.02

Rep.Block

17.38

0.627

14.46

6.61

Genotype

128.89***

436.10***

556.65***

97.747***

105.17***

311.54***

236.28***

198.81***

Residual

8.541

11.86

5.31

0.626

4.418

10.32

5.53

1.877

LEE (Lattice effective

12.921

0.619

11.14

5.77

error)

DF = Degree of freedom, DAT= Days after transplanting, DAI= days after infestation, ns= not significant,

Significant, *** highly significant. Table 5. Resistance categories of rice genotypes on different dates after planting under field and cage conditions. Categories

Number of genotypes under cage conditions

7DAT

14DAT

21DAT

28DAT

7DAI

14DAI 21DAI

28DAI

Resistant

Moderate resistant

Moderate susceptible

Susceptible

none

DAT= Days after transplanting, DAI = Days after infestation. In support of this, variations in the levels of

however, the recommended approach for evaluation

infestation with stem borers in rice have been

of reaction of rice genotypes to stem borers as it is

observed to differ with the environment (Ogah, 2013).

more realistic for fast screening (Togola et al., 2011).

Screening under both field and cage conditions is,

Table 6. Analysis of variance for tiller number of the fifty rice genotypes screened under field and cage conditions. Mean square Tiller number under field

Mean square Tiller number under cage

Source of variance

7DAT

14DAT

21 DAT

28 DAT

7DAI

14 DAI

21 DAI

28 DAI

Replications

0.35ns

2.32*

65.33***

154.82***

0.10*

0.06ns

0.04ns

2.56*

Rep.Block

0.20ns

0.85ns

4.60ns

6.88*

0.32ns

0.25*

0.95*

Genotype

2.66***

9.34***

54.40***

58.76***

0.04*

0.53**

0.67***

3.38***

Residual

0.19

0.7

4.58

4.34

0.03

0.24

0.16

0.56

(Lattice 79

0.19

0.73

4.58

4.8

0.26

0.18

0.63

LEE

effective error)

DF= degree of freedom, DAT = days after transplanting DAI= days after infestation tiller number, ns = not significant, * = significant, ** = highly significant, *** highly significant.

Weelar et al.

Page

Int. J. Agri. Agri. R. In general, there were no differences in symptom type

While enhanced response under cage conditions

or expression between the two species of stalk eyed

could be attributed to lower levels of infestation due

flies that occurred in the field. In addition, the rice

to the presence of only one species (D. longicornis),

genotypes exhibited higher resistance levels under

available data could not be used to support this

cage conditions.

argument.

Table 7. The mean number of tillers for the fifty rice genotypes under field and cage conditions. Genotypes

Mean under field

Genotypes

Mean under cage

Moroberekan

5.55

NAMCHE2

2.30

NERICA4 x NERICA6 F3

5.79

NERICA4 x SUPA

2.51

NERICA1 x NERICA4 F3

5.87

SUPARICA

2.55

NAMCHE6

6.09

SR33701-HB3330-71

2.56

NERICA13

6.26

Gigante

2.63

NAMCHE1

6.41

NERICA4 x NERICA6 F3

2.64

Pakistan

6.82

NERICA1 x NERICA4 F3

2.66

NAMCHE4

6.88

NERICA1

2.72

NAMCHE1 x 1052SUPALINE F3

6.91

SR34462-HB3370-61

2.72

NAMCHE2

7.21

NAMCHE5

2.73

GINGANTE x NERICA4F 3

7.38

NERICA6 x IRO9A-136 F3

2.74

NAMCHE5

7.52

Moroberekan

2.75

NERICA4 x NAMCHE1F 3

7.53

SR33686-HB3326-2

2.76

NERICA-6 x Pakistan F3

7.63

1052SUPALINE

2.77

NM7-22-11-B-P-1-1

7.65

NAMCHE6

2.78

NERICA1 x Gigante3

7.75

SR34461-HB3369-65

2.78

Sindano

7.80

NAMCHE1

2.83

NERICA4

7.91

NERICA4

2.83

NAMCHE3

7.99

NM7-22-11-B-P-1-1

2.83

NERICA-L20 x NERICA13F3

7.99

NERICA1 x Gigante3

2.84

NERICA6

8.02

NERICA13

2.85

NERICA1

8.22

1027SUPALINE

2.89

SR34462-HB3370-61

8.25

NERICA6

2.89

SUPARICA

8.26

NAMCHE3

2.91

1052SUPALINE

9.01

GINGANTE x NERICA4F3

2.92

1027SUPALINE

9.05

NERICA 4 x Gigante3

2.92

NERICA4 x SUPA

9.18

NAMCHE4

2.95

SR33686-HB3326-2

9.25

NERICA-L20 x NERICA13F3

3.04

Gigante

9.81

NERICA4 x NAMCHE1F3

3.06

SR33686-HB3326-30

9.88

SR33686-HB3326-30

3.07

GSR IR1- 5-S14-S2-Y1 x K85 F3

10.63

Sindano

3.08

GSR IR1- 3-S13-Y1-S1 x SR33686-HB3326-8F3

10.79

NAMCHE1 x 1052SUPALINE F3

3.14

GSR IR1- 4-D3-Y1-Y1 x NERICA4F3

10.79

GSR IR1- 3-S13-Y1-S1 x SR33686-HB3326-8F3

3.18

SR33701-HB3330-71

11.45

Pakistan

3.18

NERICA6 x IRO9A-136 F3

11.57

GSR IR1- 4-D3-Y1-Y1 x NERICA4F3

3.20

NERICA 4 x Gigante3

11.74

WITA9

3.24

SR34461-HB3369-65

11.76

TXD-306

3.26

WITA12

11.90

GSR IR1- 5-S14-S2-Y1 x K85 F3

3.27

NERICA6 x WAC-117 F3

12.31

IR77454-22-B-20-2-2-B-TGR1

3.27

IRO9A-136

12.59

NERICA-6 x Pakistan F3

3.27

JARIBU

12.59

IRO9A-136

3.37

K85

12.60

IR77454-22-B-20-2-2-B-TGR2

3.45

IR77454-22-B-20-2-2-B-TGR3

13.15

GSR -I-0057

3.50

TXD-306

13.21

Kyabukooli

3.62

GSR -I-0057

13.30

IR77454-22-B-20-2-2-B-TGR3

3.63

Kyabukooli

13.43

NERICA6 x WAC-117 F3

3.69

IR77454-22-B-20-2-2-B-TGR1

13.69

K85

3.84

WITA4

13.69

JARIBU

3.97

WITA9

14.18

WITA12

4.14

IR77454-22-B-20-2-2-B-TGR2

14.53

WITA4

4.43

Weelar et al.

Page

Int. J. Agri. Agri. R. Unfortunately, studies done on rice reaction to stem

The summary of rice genotypes resistance categories

borers in Benin and Nigeria used either under field or

in respect to time of data collections are presented in

cage conditions making it difficult to compare the

Table 5. The overall genotypic response under cage and field conditions in resistant (at 28 DAT) and

results from both situations (Nwilene et al., 2002;

moderately susceptible (from 7 to 28 DAT) categories

Togola et al., 2011; Ogah et al., 2012). The percentage of

deadhearts

differed

significantly

seemed to be similar by numbers. Levels of

(P<0.001)

susceptibility were also higher under field conditions

between rice genotypes under both field and cage

at 14 and 21 DAT. This period corresponds to the 10-

conditions on all sampling dates (i.e. at 7, 14, 21 and

20 day period within which the stalk eyed fly is

28 days) Table 4.

reported to have its most devastating effects (Togola et al., 2011).

Table 8. Analysis of variance for agronomic and yield traits of the fifty rice genotypes under field and cage conditions. Mean squares for Agronomic traits Source of variance DF Replications 2

PH(cm)

under field

P.NO

Mean squares for Agronomic traits under cage

1000

FGW

EGW

(cm)

GW(g)

(g)

(cm)

P.NO

1000

FGW

EGW

(cm)

GW(g)

(g)

1783.15** 329.42ns

1.68ns 40.34* 1.89ns

1.85ns

0.00ns

438.96*

7.33ns

1.18ns

56.27*

0.42ns

1.53ns

0.45ns

Rep.Block 26

203.22**

337.98ns

1.71ns

15.38ns 1.72*

1.29ns

0.16ns

96.62*

1.17ns

11.51ns

2.24ns

2.44ns

Genotype 49

136.59ns

34.65ns

2.32*

19.60* 2.87*** 2.23*** 0.66***

507.12***

323.05*** 5.56***

42.63*** 1.94ns

1.88ns

0.61ns

Residual 72

86.24

37.4

1.3

11.34

1.03

0.95

0.1

11.6

1.1

8.9

1.57

2.05

0.49

LEE (Lattice 79

101.2

48.1

1.4

12.18

1.15

1.02

0.1

1.1

9.5

1.7

2.13

effective error)

DF= Degree of freedom, PH (cm) =Plant height, DF= Day to flowering, P.NO = panicle number, PL (cm) =panicle length, 1000 GW (g) = A thousand grain weight, FGW (g) = Filled grain weight, EGW (g) = Empty grain weight, ns=not significant,*significant, and *** highly significant. Table 9. Mean performance of the fifty rice genotypes in agronomic and yield traits, under field conditions. Genotype IR77454-22-B-20-2-2-B-TGR1 IR77454-22-B-20-2-2-B-TGR2 IR77454-22-B-20-2-2-B-TGR3 1027SUPALINE 1052SUPALINE GSR IR1- 5-S14-S2-Y1 x K85(F3) GSR IR1- 3-S13-Y1-S1 x SR33686-HB3326-8 F3 GSR IR1- 4-D3-Y1-Y1 x NERICA4 F3 Gigante Gigante x NERICA4 F3 GSR -I-0057 IRO9A-136 Jaribu K85 SR34462-HB3370-61 SR34461-HB3369-65 SR33686-HB3326-30 SR33701-HB3330-71 SR33686-HB3326-2 KYABUKOOLI Moroberekan NAMCHE1 NAMCHE1 x 1052SUPALINE F3 NAMCHE2 NAMCHE3 NAMCHE4 NAMCHE5 NAMCHE6 NERICA 4 x Gigante F3 NERICA1 NERICA1 x Gigante F3

Weelar et al.

Agronomic traits PH (cm) DF 89.92 86.18 92.74 83.42 90.44 88.84 93.61 94.34 105.23 88.05 98.63 92.45 83.49 87.06 89.96 85.32 79.63 85.81 89.99 88.81 92.67 84.89 85.81 87.82 83.41 91.86 87.34 79.57 94.75 86.07 85.65 87.65 85.41 84.95 92.19 90.87 91.83 84.45 98.11 88.66 81.55 86.9 94.55 87.69 96.87 92.54 94.21 88.27 82.82 92.04 101.45 85.89 90.17 83.94 89.06 84.97 93.99 86.27 85.65 90.59 104.88 90.97

P.NO 5.09 5.64 5.98 6.17 6.05 5.66 5.07 5.16 5.02 6.01 5.69 5.68 4.64 6.02 6.69 7.07 5.58 6.62 5.97 6.94 6.99 5.64 5.15 6.28 6.88 6.05 7.33 5.71 7.31 5.48 6.18

Yield traits PL (cm) 23.84 22.93 24.37 23.58 24.43 24.58 19.04 30.28 19.43 20.49 22.06 22.23 21.92 21.38 23.59 23.43 21.23 23.51 21.43 24.99 17.05 23.05 22.37 23.04 19.36 23.83 22.06 23.23 22.21 21.56 24.87

1000 GW(g) 21.08 21.06 20.72 21.32 18.28 20.07 21.01 21.82 20.24 20.32 21.25 18.73 20.08 21.02 20.58 20.04 20.97 20.07 18.13 20.89 20.04 19.99 19.79 18.37 19.26 20.88 19.82 21.25 20.09 20.15 20.27

FGW (g) 18.65 17.09 17.07 18.07 15.95 18.09 18.52 17.75 17.91 18.03 18.53 15.90 17.73 18.74 18.33 17.72 18.86 17.69 16.64 18.3 17.44 17.67 17.84 16.88 17.14 19.07 17.67 19.21 17.67 18.02 17.88

EGW (g) 2.41 3.12 3.02 2.63 2.21 2.59 2.46 4.01 2.39 2.02 2.76 2.82 2.31 2.26 2.03 2.65 2.13 2.34 1.58 2.65 2.58 2.33 1.89 1.49 2.13 1.71 2.05 2.01 2.52 1.91 2.29

Page

Int. J. Agri. Agri. R. NERICA1 x NERICA4 F 3 NERICA13 NERICA4 NERICA4 x NAMCHE1F 3 NERICA4 x NERICA6 F 3 NERICA4 x SUPA F3 NERICA6 NERICA6 x IRO9A-136 F3 NERICA6 x PARKISTAN F3 NERICA6 x WAC117 F3 NERICA-L-20 X NERICA13 F3 NM7-22-11-B-P-1-1 Pakistan Sindano SUPARICA TXD306 WITA12 WITA4 WITA9 Mean P.V LSD( 0.05) CV (%)

75.57 99.41 95.06 103.38 89.66 94.71 85.82 80.64 95.54 89.22 88.53 92.01 98.79 95.09 98.22 94.52 99.08 79.48 88.45 91.4 0.117 16.35 11.01

90.13 88.58 86.85 82.09 87.58 93.88 88.06 90.01 88.42 88.79 81.29 87.06 91.52 86.23 90.32 84.28 85.27 88.78 78.09 87.5 0.886 11.29 7.93

6.33 6.33 4.61 6.38 7.31 7.04 8.14 5.96 5.06 6.34 5.96 4.65 4.35 6.45 6.45 8.05 7.57 6.03 5.32 6.14 <0.025 1.93 19.41

19.15 23.26 25.35 22.26 19.09 25.95 19.47 18.07 23.05 22.68 22.26 22.38 21.03 21.81 21.96 22.62 25.26 31.06 23.77 22.69 <0.029 5.67 15.38

20.01 21.04 20.38 20.01 18.11 20.23 20.55 20.09 22.22 19.43 21.05 21.23 18.87 18.39 21.23 20.31 19.41 18.15 20.24 20.19 0.001 1.74 5.31

17.75 18.87 17.85 18.01 15.83 18.06 18.05 17.97 19.25 17.71 18.65 19.46 15.88 16.68 18.58 18.33 17.9 16.59 17.33 17.87 <0.001 1.64 5.65

2.42 2.14 2.52 2.19 2.37 2.21 2.54 2.24 2.89 1.82 2.38 1.83 3.04 1.82 2.54 2.00 1.48 1.52 2.82 2.33 <0.001 0.62 16.06

PH (cm) = Plant height, DF= Day to flowering, P.NO= panicle number, PL (cm) = panicle length, 1000 GW (g) = A 1000 grain weight, FGW (g) = Filled grain weight, EGW= Empty grain weight (g),

PV= probability values,

LSD= Least significant different. Growth and yield parameters

cage conditions at all dates assessed (7, 14, 21 and 28

The results for agronomic and yield traits at different

days) as presented in Table 6, while the mean

levels of significance for the fifty rice genotypes

summary is presented in Table 7. Of the 50 genotypes

screened under both field and cage conditions are

screened for resistance to the stalk-eyed fly, the

presented in Tables 6-10. The number of tiller counts

overall mean number of tillers per genotype under

differed significantly among the 50 genotypes

field ranged from 5.55 to 14.53 while tillers counts

screened for resistance to the stalk-eyed fly under

general mean per genotype under cage ranged from

field and

2.3 to 4.4 (Table 7).

Table 10. Mean performance of the fifty rice genotypes in agronomic and yield traits, under cage conditions. Genotype IR77454-22-B-20-2-2-B-TGR1 IR77454-22-B-20-2-2-B-TGR2 IR77454-22-B-20-2-2-B-TGR3

Agronomic traits PH DF (cm) 95.09 110.67 93.80 114.00 92.53 112.00

P.NO 10.15 10.15 9.62

Yield Traits PL (g) 20.80 22.53 22.61

1000 GW(g) 17.96 18.16 19.00

FGW (g) 14.79 15.48 16.18

EGW (g) 3.17 2.80 2.77

1027SUPALINE 1052SUPALINE GSR IR1- 5-S14-S2-Y1 x K85 F3 GSR IR1- 3-S13-Y1-S1 x SR33686-HB3326-8 F3

110.70 97.31 89.99 69.36

87.67 86.67 86.33 85.33

4.21 5.26 4.38 4.42

21.92 26.08 24.19 20.64

17.92 18.40 18.10 17.94

14.62 15.21 14.43 14.73

3.37 3.17 3.57 3.23

GSR IR1- 4-D3-Y1-Y1 x NERICA4 F3 Gigante Gigante x NERICA4 F3 GSR -I-0057 IRO9A-136 Jaribu K85 SR34462-HB3370-61 SR34461-HB3369-65 SR33686-HB3326-30 SR33701-HB3330-71 SR33686-HB3326-2 Kyabukooli Moroberekan NAMCHE1 NAMCHE1 x 1052SUPALINE (F3) NAMCHE2 NAMCHE3 NAMCHE4 NAMCHE5

93.61 57.69 97.86 98.66 78.46 78.07 89.20 85.62 81.56 70.53 62.01 67.67 106.35 109.36 97.53 70.87 96.23 91.11 84.14 94.73

83.33 95.00 81.00 91.67 87.33 94.33 86.33 72.33 72.33 76.00 75.00 74.67 91.33 113.00 90.00 88.33 87.00 88.33 87.33 90.33

4.73 4.43 5.61 4.32 4.27 4.94 4.92 5.40 4.36 4.38 4.52 6.10 4.98 4.24 5.72 4.89 4.33 5.12 5.21 5.16

21.87 16.61 24.56 25.40 22.17 21.72 22.95 20.69 12.04 14.19 20.79 18.34 22.63 25.99 15.96 22.46 26.24 23.11 25.34 26.68

16.59 18.13 18.95 18.06 17.98 17.92 19.70 17.60 19.22 17.58 17.21 19.66 17.57 18.61 17.72 17.42 17.05 17.50 19.12 18.99

13.29 15.23 15.35 14.60 14.39 14.09 15.95 14.60 16.15 13.63 13.54 16.24 13.62 14.99 14.31 14.26 13.57 13.67 15.35 15.68

3.33 2.80 3.67 3.60 3.57 3.87 3.73 2.97 3.13 4.00 3.70 3.40 4.00 3.60 3.37 3.13 3.43 3.73 3.70 3.33

Weelar et al.

Page

Int. J. Agri. Agri. R. NAMCHE6 NERICA 4 x Gigante (F3) NERICA1 NERICA1 x Gigante F3 NERICA1 x NERICA4 F3 NERICA13 NERICA4 NERICA4 x NAMCHE1F 3 NERICA4 x NERICA6 F3 NERICA4 x SUPA (F3) NERICA6 NERICA6 x IRO9A-136 F3 NERICA6 x Pakistan F3 NERICA6 x WAC-117 F3 NERICA-L-20 X NERICA13F3 NM7-22-11-B-P-1-1 Pakistan Sindano SUPARICA TXD306 WITA12 WITA4 WITA9 Mean

83.79 70.19 86.51 97.01 89.20 96.90 93.13 70.55 66.89 77.45 90.29 91.14 98.87 94.71 96.56 84.50 96.05 108.91 88.41 60.90 84.19 82.73 79.78 86.97

90.00 75.00 80.33 87.33 79.33 80.00 80.67 79.67 77.33 82.00 81.33 81.67 84.67 89.00 81.00 86.33 90.33 117.67 84.33 88.33 89.33 86.33 91.67 87.43

4.27 3.58 4.44 4.90 4.63 5.07 4.68 4.17 4.35 4.41 4.99 4.67 5.04 4.73 4.82 4.85 5.39 4.59 5.24 6.87 5.70 5.17 3.95 5.13

25.48 17.00 26.10 26.34 25.04 34.57 25.25 24.27 23.73 18.02 23.20 26.62 26.26 21.18 25.04 26.31 22.21 22.60 21.00 25.16 21.31 20.86 24.19 22.81

18.31 16.95 19.04 18.73 17.72 17.90 18.70 18.57 17.42 18.39 17.36 19.12 18.66 19.51 19.54 18.55 18.86 17.19 18.13 19.36 17.48 18.72 19.75 18.28

14.03 13.99 14.84 15.63 14.62 14.63 14.92 15.59 14.10 14.31 14.35 15.34 15.48 15.28 15.73 15.29 15.86 14.81 15.81 15.70 13.90 14.63 15.70 14.85

4.30 3.00 4.23 3.13 3.03 3.33 3.90 3.03 3.23 4.03 3.07 3.90 3.20 4.17 3.70 3.33 2.90 2.47 2.30 3.67 3.53 4.07 3.93 3.43

P.V LSD( 0.05)

<0.001 13.42

<0.001 5.52

<0.001 1.69

<0.001 5

<0.302 2.12

<0.686 2.38

<0.183 1.14

CV (%)

9.49

3.9

20.26

13.49

7.13

9.83

20.48

PH (cm) =Plant height, DF= Day to flowering,

P.NO= panicle number, PL (cm) =panicle length, 1000 GW (g) =

A 1000 grain weight, FGW (g) = Filled grain weight, EGW= Empty grain weight (g),

PV= probability values,

LSD= Least significant different, CV%= coefficient of variance. In the field, panicle length differed significantly

Tillering ability has also been related to resistance to

(P<0.05) among the rice genotypes screened for

stalk eyed flies, with plants that exhibit high tillering

resistance to the stalk-eyed fly (Table 8) with an

ability compensating with growth of new tillers

average of 22.69 (Table: 9) while panicle length differed

significantly

<0.001)

among

rice

genotypes in the cage, averaging 22.81cm (Table 10).

(Togola et al., 2011). The analysis of variance showed that 1000 grain weight (g) was highly significant (P<0.001) among

Panicle number was significant in both locations with

the 50 genotypes of rice screened under field

an average under field ranged from 4.35 to 8.14 and

conditions, with an overall mean of 20.19 g (Table 9).

under cage ranged from 3.58 to 10.15 (Table 9 and

On the other hand, 1000 grain weight was not

10). Plant height was significant in the cage with the

significant (P>0.05) among the 50 genotypes under

average between 57.69 and 109.36 (Table 10). In general, plant height averaged at 86.97cm under cage conditions (Table 10). Days to flowering did not differ

cage conditions (Table 8). However, the general mean recorded was 18.28g while the mean range was between 18.11 - 22.22g (Table 10). Filled grain weight was highly significant at (P<0.001) under field

in the field but significantly differed in the cage with

conditions (Table 8), with an overall mean of 17.87g

the average ranged from 72.3 to 117.7 days with an

(Table 9). On the other hand, filled grain weight was

overall mean of 87.43 days (Table 10). These

not significantly different (P>0.05) among the 50

significant

genotypes of rice screened for resistance to the stalk-

variations

observed

among

the

genotypes with respect to agronomic traits could be attributed to differences in genetic background (Javed et

al.,

2015)

and

response

environmental

eyed fly under cage conditions (Table 8). Analysis of variance revealed significant differences (P<0.001) in empty grain weight among the rice genotypes screened under field conditions, with general mean of

conditions (Ogah et al., 2013). Agronomic traits like

2.33 g (Table 8 and 9) while empty grain weight was

tillering have been reported to be influenced by plant

not significantly different (P>0.05) among genotypes

spacing and water availability (Rubia, 1994).

under cage condition (Table 8).

Weelar et al.

Page

Int. J. Agri. Agri. R. These differences in the levels of significant could

The effect of stalk eyed flies on yield attributes

have been attributed to differences in genetic

cannot, however, be refuted since Alghali and

potential of the materials evaluated as has been

Osisanya (1984) reported such negative effects on unfilled spikelet and grain weights. Similarly, Feijen

observed for similar studies on rice (Javed et al.,

(1979) and Rao et al. (1987) reported lower tiller

2015).

numbers

with

higher

infestation

levels.

Table 11. Correlation for growth parameters, yield traits, and stalk-eyed fly damage under field conditions. 1000 GW 14DH 14DTNO 21DH 21DTNO 28DH

-0.21 0.11 -0.19 0.24 -0.08

-0.73*** 0.70*** -0.87*** 0.65***

-0.71*** 0.73*** -0.81*** -0.38* 0.45***

-0.48*** -

28DTNO 0.24 7DH -0.15

-0.86*** 0.78***

0.71*** -0.82*** -0.61*** 0.48***

0.98*** -0.48*** -0.78*** 0.59*** -0.78*** -

7DTNO DF FGW PH

-0.01 -0.13 0.83*** 0.03

-0.53*** -0.15 0.02 0.04

0.59 0.01 -0.02 -0.02

0.52*** 0.06 -0.02 -0.10

PL PNO

0.07 -0.21 1000g

0.12 0.35 * 14DDH

-0.05 -0.01 -0.29* 0.09 14DTNO 21DDH

-0.50*** -0.08 -0.05 0.11

-0.28* -0.29* 0.01 -0.01

0.54*** 0.08 -0.04 -0.10

0.05 0.36* -0.29* 0.17 21DTNO 28DDH

-0.58*** -0.11 0.06 0.01

0.07 -0.05 0.04

0.04 0.11 -0.27 0.23 28DTNO 7DDH

-0.14 0.04

-0.13 0.01 0.09 -0.03 7DTNO DF

0.05

-0.01

0.00 -0.09 FGW

0.44** -0.14 LR

0.37* 0.06 PH

-0.10 PL

*= significant (P<0.05), ** = significant (P<0.01), and *** highly significant (P<0.001), those values without star are not significant,1000 GW(g) = A thousand grain weight(g), 14DTNO = 14 days tiller number; 14DH = 14days % deadhearts, 21DTNO = 21days tiller number, 21DH= 21days % deadhearts, 28DH = 28days % deadhearts , 28DTNO= 28 days tiller number,7DTNO=7 days

tiller number, 7 DH=7 days % deadhearts,

DF= Day to

flowering days, FGW= filled grain weight(g), PH= plant height P.NO= panicle number; PL (cm) =panicle length, PL = panicle length and PNO = panicle number Table 12. Correlation for growth parameters, yield traits, and stalk-eyed fly damage under cage conditions. 1000GW 14DH 14DTNO 21DH

0.28 -0.21 0.23

-0.71*** 0.86***

-0.67***

21DTNO -0.17 28DH 0.22 28DTNO -0.12

-0.63*** 0.79*** -0.71***

0.63*** -0.56*** 0.75***

-0.59*** 0.81*** -0.67***

-0.51*** 0.59***

-0.51***

7DH 7DTNO

0.18 -0.08

0.76*** -0.01

-0.68*** 0.06

0.72*** -0.18

-0.50*** 0.13

0.83*** 0.01

-0.62*** -0.04

0.05

DF FGW PH PL PNO

-0.00 0.83*** 0.01 0.15 0.12

-0.16 0.10 -0.24 0.07 -0.24

0.23 -0.06 0.04 -0.28** 0.41*

-0.16 0.07 -0.19 0.17 -0.09

0.36* 0.02 0.04 -0.15 0.49***

0.09 0.19 -0.07 -0.01 -0.00

0.31* -0.05 0.15 -0.13 0.52***

0.00 0.14 -0.08 0.08 -0.14

0.17 0.05 0.09 -0.17 -0.06

0.13 0.41** 0.11 0.54***

0.05 0.10 0.29*

0.08 -0.09 0.11

0.39*** 0.12

-0.02

1000GW

14D%DH

14DTNO

21D%DH

21DTNO

28D%DH

28DTNO

7D%DH

7DTNO

FGW

*= significant (P<0.05), ** = significant (P<0.01), and *** highly significant (P<0.001), those values without star are not significant,1000 GW(g) = A thousand grain weight(g), 14DTNO = 14 days tiller number; 14DH = 14days deadhearts, 21DTNO = 21days tiller number, 21DH= 21days deadhearts, 28DH = 28days % deadhearts , 28DTNO= 28 days tiller number, 7DTNO=7 days

tiller number, 7DH=7 days % deadhearts,

DF= Day to

flowering days, FGW= filled grain weight(g), PH= plant height P.NO= panicle number; PL (cm) =panicle length, PL = panicle. Relationship

between

damage

and

agronomic

deadhearts on different dates, panicle length and

variables

percentage deadhearts at 28 DAT, leaf ratio and

Correlation between field collected data is presented

panicle length; panicle length and plant height, and

in Table 11. The results demonstrated positive and

panicle number and percentage deadhearts at 14 DAT

significant

(Table11).

correlations

under

field

conditions

between 1000g weight and filled grain weight,

Weelar et al.

Page

Int. J. Agri. Agri. R. On the other hand, negative correlations were

References

observed between tiller number and the percentage of

Ahmed M. 2012. Analysis of incentives and

deadhearts on all dates, percentage of deadhearts at

disincentives for rice in Uganda. Technical notes

28 DAT and days to flowering; and panicle number

series, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, 1-

with tiller number. Under cage conditions, positive

28.

correlations were observed between 1000 g weight and filled grain weight, dead hearts on different dates, panicle number and percentage deadheart at 14, 21 and 28 DAI, panicle length and plant height, panicle number and days to flowering and days to flowering with tiller number at 21 and 28 DAI (Table 12). Negative correlations were observed between panicle length and tiller number at 14 DAT, tiller number and

FAO. (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2015. Production. In: The FAO Rice Market Monitor 18(4), 1-33. Feijen HR. 1979. Economic importance of rice stem borer

(Diopsis

macrophthalma)

Malawi.

Experimental Agriculture 15(2), 177 - 186.

percentage 7, 14 and 28 DAI (Table12). Positive correlations were recorded among yield attributes,

Hadush H. 2015. Factors Affecting Adoption of

such as 1000 grain weight and filled grain weight as

Upland

well as agronomic traits such as panicle length, leaf

Innovation: The Case of Tselemti District, North

ratio, and plant height and panicle number when

Western Zone of Tigray, Ethiopia. M.Sc. thesis,

compared with dead heart occurrence at different

Haramaya University, Ethiopia, 30-35.

Rice

and

Its

Implication

System

days. These relationships implied that pest damage increased early in the vegetative stage and genotypes

Heinrichs EA, Barrion AT. 2004. Rice-feeding

with good yield and growth traits may have had the

insects and selected natural enemies in West Africa:

opportunity to compensate in later stages of growth

biology, ecology, identification. Hettel GP, Ed. CĂ´te

(Ogah, 2013). Nevertheless, the level and time of

dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Ivoire: International Rice Research Institute, 27-33.

attack, as well as general growing conditions such as soil quality, hills spacing, and variety influenced recovery (Feijen, 1979). Under normal conditions, the influence of feeding larvae was positive or neutral and only became negative when poor growing conditions were combined with a late and heavy attack (Heinrichs and Barrion, 2004).

Javed A, Shah HA, Abbasi MF, Ali Khan S, Ahmad H. 2015. Evaluation of Agronomic Traits for Yield and Yield Components in Advance Breeding Lines

Rice.

American-Eurasian

Journal

Agricultural and Environmental Science 15(3), 437446.

Conclusion

MAAIF

In conclusion, the performance of the 50 genotypes

Industry and Fisheries, Uganda). 2012. Uganda

(Ministry

Agriculture,

Animal

differed due to their diverse genetic background. The

National Rice Development Strategy (NRDS) 2008-

present study has provided evidence of the existence

2018. Uganda: Ministry of Agriculture, Animal

of stalk-eyed fly resistant rice genotypes. Based on the

Industry and Fisheries, 8-12.

agronomic traits, yield performance and the reaction to the stalk-eyed fly damage, NERICA 4, TXD306,

Marwat NK, UK, Baloch UK, Latif A. 1985.

NM7-22-11-B-P-1-1 and K85 were identified as the

Resistance of some new rice cultivars against the

best performance varieties. Therefore, these varieties

attack of Tryporyza spp. stem borers. Pakistan

can be adopted and grown by farmer in stalk-eyed fly

Journal of Zoology 17(4), 357-361.

prone area in Uganda.

Furthermore, six F 3

genotypes developed at NaCRRI (GSR IR1- 5-S14-S2-

Nacro S, Heinrichs EA,

Y1 x K85, Gigante x NERICA4, NERICA4 x Gigante,

Estimation of rice yield losses due to the African rice

NERICA1x NERICA4, NERICA4 x NERICA6, and

gall midge, Orseolia oryzivora Harris and Gagne.,

NERICA4 x SUPA) were found resistant to stalk eyed

International Journal of Pest Management 42(4),

fly

331-334.

infestation

and

are

recommended

for

Dakouo D. 1996.

advancement.

Weelar et al.

Page

Int. J. Agri. Agri. R. Nwilene FE, Nwanze KF, Youdeowei A. 2008a.

Payne RW, Harding SA, Murray DA, Soutar

Impact of IPM on food and horticultural crops in

DM, Baird DB, Glaser AI, Channing IC,

Africa- a review. Entomologia Experimentalist et

Welham

Applicata 128(3), 355–363.

Togola A, Kehinde A, Ukwungwu MN, Kamara Hamadoun

AR, Thompson R,

Webster R. 2009. GenStat Twelfth Edition. Hemel

Nwilene FE, Jones MP, Brar DS, Youm O, SI,

SJ, Gilmour

2008b.

Integrated

pest

Hempstead, UK: VSN International. Rao AV, Mahajan RK, Prasad AS. 1987.

management (IPM) strategies for NERICA varieties.

Distribution of productive tillers and yield loss due to

In: Africa Rice Center (WARDA), FAO and SAA (eds)

stem borer infestation of rice. Indian Journal of

NERICA®:

Agricultural Sciences 57(11), 850-852.

The

New

Rice

for

Africa

–

compendium. Somado EA, Guei RG, Keya SO, Eds. Cotonou, Benin: Africa Rice Center,

Rome, Italy:

Rubia EG. 1994.The pest status and management of

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

white stem borer, Scirpophaga innotata (Walker)

Nations, Tokyo, Japan: Sasakawa Africa Association, 83–94. Nwilene FE, Williams CT, Ukwungwu MN,

(Pyralidae: Lepidoptera) in West Java, Indonesia. PhD

Dissertation,

University

Queensland,

Brisbane, Australia, 221.

Dakouo D, Nacro S, Hamadoun A, Kamara SI, Okhidievbie O, Abamu FJ, Adam A. 2002.

Sarwar M. 2012. Management of rice stem borers

Reactions of differential rice genotypes to African rice

(Lepidoptera:

gall midge in West Africa. International Journal of

resistance in early, medium and late plantings of rice

Pest Management 48(3), 195-201.

(Oryza sativa) . Journal of Cereals and Oil seeds 3

Nwilene FE, Souleymane MT, Philippe M, Elvis AH, Abdoulaye H, Dona D, Cyrille A, Abou T. 2013. Managing Insect Pests of Rice in Africa. In: Wopereis MCS, Ed. Realizing Africa’s Rice Promise, UK: CAB International, 229 -240.

Pyralidae)

through

host

plant

(1), 10-14. Togola A, Nwilene FE, Agbaka A, Degila F, Tolulope A, Chougourou D. 2011. Screening Upland Varieties of NERICA and its Parents for Resistance to Stalk-eyed Fly, Diopsis sp.(Diptera,

Ogah EO, Odebiyi JA, Omoloye AA, Nwilene

Diopsidae) in Benin. Journal of Applied Sciences 11,

FE. 2012. Evaluation of some rice genotypes on the

145-150.

incidence of African rice gall midge (Orseolia oryzivora, Harris and Gagne.) and its parasitoid

Visalakshmi V, Hari Satyanarayna N, Jyothula

(Platygater diplosisae). African Crop Science Journal

DPB, Raju MRB,

20(2), 137-147.

Screening of rice germplasm for resistance to yellow

Ogah EO. 2013. Evaluating the Impact of New Rice for Africa (Nerica) in the Management of Rice Stem Borers. Science International 1(5), 160-166.

Weelar et al.

stem

borer

Ramana Murth KV. 2014.

scirpophaga

incertulas

walker.

International Journal of Plant, Animal and Environmental Sceicies 4(1), 129–133.

Page