International Journal of Agricultural

Science and Research (IJASR)

ISSN(P): 2250-0057; ISSN(E): 2321-0087
Vol. 6, Issue 5, Oct 2016, 233-242
TJPRC Pvt. Ltd

SCREENING OF MAIZE CULTIVAR FOR RESISTANCE TO

MAIZE STEM BORER, CHILO PARTELLUS
M. U. DINDOR, R. I. CHAUDHARY, R. J. PATEL & T. M. BHARPODA
Department of Entomology, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat, India
ABSTRACT
Screening of 10 varieties of kharif Maize for their resistance to the maize stem borer, Chilo partellus was
carried out at Anand on basis of per cent damaged plants and leaf injury scale. Maize varieties GM-3, Narmada Moti,
Amber, GAYMH-1 and GAWMH-2 were found moderately to highly resistant; GM-4 and Madhuri were susceptible to
moderately susceptible whereas, GM-2 was susceptible to highly susceptible. However, GM-6 and HQPM-1 were found
moderately susceptible based on leaf injury scale while they were moderately susceptible on the basis of per cent
damaged plants.
KEYWORDS: Maize, Screening, Chilo Partellus, Resistance, Kharif

INTRODUCTION
Maize (Zea mays Linnaeus) being the highest yielding cereal crop in the world is of significant
importance for countries like India, where rapidly increasing population already out stripped the available food
supplies.

Original Article

Received: Sep 01, 2016; Accepted: Sep 21, 2016; Published: Sep 26, 2016; Paper Id.: IJASROCT201628

Maize is attacked by about 140 species of insect pests causing varying degree of damage from sowing till
storage (Arabjafari and Jalali, 2007). However, only a few insect pests viz., stem borer [Chilo partellus (Swinhoe),
Diatraea spp. and Sesamia inferens (Walker.)], army worm [Mythimna separate (Walker.)], bark beetle
[Anthracophora crucifera (Olivier)], blister beetle [Cylindrothorax audouini (Hag-Rutenberg.)], grasshopper
[Epacromia dorsalis (Thunberg) and Hieroglyphus banian (Fabricius)], aphid [Rhopalosiphum maidis (Fitch)],
surface grasshopper [Chrotogonus sp.], white grub [Holotrichia consanguinea (Blanchard)], cob borer
[Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) Hardwick], leaf eating caterpillar [Spodoptera litura (Fabricius)] and white ants
[Odontotermes sp. and Microterms sp.] cause economic loss and are more common over the large area (Patel and
Patel, 1970 and Atwal and Dhaliwal, 2002).
Among these, maize stem borer, C. partellus (crambidae; lepidoptera) is one of the most important pest in
Asian and African countries (Arabjafari and Jalali, 2007). Larvae of C. partellus after hatching feed on soft surface
of the leaves and then enter in to the stem through whorl and feeding on pith of the stem. The growth of the plants
becomes stunted and results into dead hearts when attacked by C. partellus at their initial stages. The larvae also
enter in to the stem through lower nodes by making the holes. Yield losses of 24-75 per cent have been reported by
the attack of this pest alone (Khan, 1983). Sharma and Gautam (2010) reported that yield loss due to this pest is
about 28 per cent.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

234

M. U. Dindor, R. I. Chaudhary, R. J. Patel & T. M. Bharpoda

As chemicals are posing serious problems to health and environmental safety, there is an urgent need for
ecofriendly approaches of pest control as host plant resistance (HPR). Hence, the present study was taken up to identify the
sources of stem borer resistance in different maize varieties which can be utilized in the breeding programmes.

MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

To screen the relative susceptibility of different maize varieties (Table 2) to C. partellus under field condition, the
experiment was carried out in a Randomized block design during kharif season of 2014 at Agronomy farm, B. A. College
of Agriculture, AAU, Anand. Maize seeds were sown during 4th week of June, 2014 with the spacing 60 20 cm.
The gross and net plot size was 2.4 3.2 m and 1.2 2.8 m, respectively. Each treatment was replicated thrice.
The varieties were screened based on per cent damaged plants and leaf injury scale. From each plot, 10 plants
were selected randomly for recording the observations on number of damaged plants and leaf injury scale.
The above observations recorded at weekly interval starting from one week of germination to harvest. The leaf injury was
recorded following visual rating scale (1 to 9) as mentioned in Table 1.
Table 1: Rating Scale for Assessment of Leaf Damage by C. Partellus
Scale (1-9)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
(Tefera et al., 2013)

Description
No visible leaf feeding damage
Few pin holes on older leaves
Several shot-holes injury on a few leaves
Several shot-holes or small lesions injury common on several leaves
Elongated lesions (> 2 cm long) on a few leaves
Elongated lesions on several leaves
Several leaves with elongated lesions or tattering
Most leaves with elongated lesions or severe tattering
Plant dying as a result of foliar damage

Table 2: List of Different Maize Varieties Used Against C. Partellus

1
2
3
4
5

GM-2
GM-3
GM-4
GM-6
Narmada Moti

6
7
8
9
10

Amber
Madhuri
GAYMH-1
GAWMH-2
HQPM-1

The different maize varieties were also categorized into Highly Resistance (HR), Resistance (R), Moderately
Resistant (MR), Moderately Susceptible (MS), Susceptible (S) and Highly Susceptible (HS) as following statistical scale
given in Table 3. For the purpose,

X and SD were worked out.

Table 3: Scale for Categorization of Varieties for Resistance

Categories
Highly Resistant (HR)

< X - 2SD

Resistant (R)

X - 1SD to X - 2SD
X to X - 1SD

Moderately Resistant (MR)

Moderately Susceptible (MS)
Susceptible (S)
Impact Factor (JCC): 4.8136

Scale

X to X + 1SD
X + 1SD to X + 2SD
NAAS Rating: 3.53

Screening of Maize Cultivar for Resistance to Maize Stem Borer, Chilo Partellus

235

Table 3: Contd.,
Highly Susceptible (HS)

> X + 2SD

The effect of different maize varieties on per cent stem tunnelling and number of larvae and pupae after
harvesting was also studied. For purpose 10 plants per plot were selected randomly and total lengths (cm) of tunnel per 10
plants were measured.
The per cent tunnelling was worked out by the formula:
[100 total length of tunnel in 10 plants] / total length of 10 plants.
The number of larvae and pupae were also counted

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Susceptibility Based on Per Cent Damaged Plants

The periodical data on per cent damaged plants due to C. partellus are presented in table 4 and depicted in
figure 1. The per cent damaged plants ranged from 30.00 to 36.67 among different varieties. The highest (36.66 %) damage
was recorded in varieties GM-2, GM-4 and Madhuri whereas; it was lowest in Narmada Moti and GAWMH-2 (30.0 %).
The chronological order of maize varieties based on damaged plant per cent given in bracket after each varieties was:
Narmada Moti (30) = GAWMH-2 (30) > GM-3 (33.33) = GM-6 (33.33) = Amber (33.33) = GAYMH-1 (33.33) = HQPM1 (33.33) > GM-2 (36.67) = GM-4 (36.67) = Madhuri (36.67).
Different varieties of maize were also categorized for their susceptibility or resistance to C. partellus based on per
cent damaged plants (Table 5). None of the varieties were found highly resistant (HR) or highly susceptible. The varieties
Narmada Moti and GAWMH-2 recorded less than 28.75 per cent damaged plants and falls under resistant (R) category;
varieties GM-3, GM-6, Amber, GAYMH-1 and HQPM-1 recorded less than 33.67 but more than 31.21 per cent damaged
plants and falls under category Moderately Resistant (MR); and varieties GM-2, GM-4 and Madhuri recorded less than
38.59 per cent but more than 36.13 per cent damaged plants falls under category Susceptible (S).
Table 4: Damaged Plants (%) Caused by C. Partellus in Different Maize Varieties

Note: Max: Maximum per cent damaged plants

X =33.67
SD=2.46
www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

236

M. U. Dindor, R. I. Chaudhary, R. J. Patel & T. M. Bharpoda

Table 5: Categorization of Maize Varieties for Their Susceptibility

Against C. Partellus Based on Maximum Value of Damaged Plants
Category of resistance
Infestation due to C.
Partelus
Highly Resistant (HR)

X = 33.67

SD = 2.46

X < 28.75

Resistant (R)

X >28.75to 31.21
X >31.21 to 33.67

Narmada Moti and GAWMH 2

GM 3, GM 6, Amber, GAYMH 1
and HQPM 1

X >33.367 to 36.13

X >36.13 to 38.59

GM 2, GM 4 and Madhuri

X > 38.59

Moderately Resistant (MR)

Moderately
(MS)
Susceptible (S)

Susceptible

Highly Susceptible (HS)

Scale

Varieties

Susceptibility Based on Leaf Injury Scale

The periodical data on leaf injury (1-9 scale) caused by stem borer during 2014 are presented in table 6 and
depicted in figure 2. The leaf injury was remained to the tune of 2.37 to 4.83 in the tested varieties. The highest leaf injury
scale was recorded in GM-2 whereas, lowest (2.37) in GM-3. The chronological order of maize varieties based on leaf
injury scale given in bracket after each varieties was: GM-3 (2.37) > Narmada Moti (3.60) > Amber (3.77) > GAYMH-1
(3.80) > GAWMH-2 (3.97) > HQPM-1(4.40) > GM-6 (4.43) >Madhuri (4.50) > GM-4 (4.73) GM-2 (4.83).
The details on categorization of different maize varieties based on leaf injury scale are presented in table 7. None
of the varieties were found resistant or highly susceptible to C. partellus. Variety GM-3 recording leaf injury scale 2.6 was
found highly resistant (HR); Narmada Moti, Amber, GAWMH-2 and GAYMH-1 recording leaf injury scale less than 3.32
but more than 2.6 were moderately resistant (MR); HQPM-1, GM-6, Madhuri and GM-4 recording leaf injury scale less
than 4.76 but more than 4.04 were found moderately susceptible (MS); and variety GM-2 recording the leaf injury scale
less than 5.48 but more than 4.76 was found susceptible (S).
Table 6: Leaf Injury Caused by C. Partellusin different Maize Varieties
Sr.
Name of
No.
Varieties
1st
1
GM 2
1.07
2
GM 3
1.00
3
GM 4
1.10
4
GM 6
1.03
5
Narmada Moti 1.00
6
Amber
1.03
7
Madhuri
1.33
8
GAYMH 1
1.00
9
GAWMH 2
1.00
10 HQPM 1
1.37
Note: Max: Maximum scale

Leaf Injury (Scale: 1-9) Caused by C. Partellusrecorded at Weekly Interval

2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th 11th 12th
1.53 2.70 2.97 3.27 3.67 4.00 4.20 4.40 4.67 4.77 4.83
1.10 1.17 1.27 1.37 1.47 1.70 1.77 2.03 2.17 2.27 2.37
1.47 2.73 2.83 3.50 3.90 4.33 4.50 4.53 4.60 4.67 4.73
1.50 1.70 1.90 2.63 2.90 3.23 3.40 3.60 3.73 3.97 4.43
1.27 1.47 1.63 1.90 2.17 2.37 2.50 2.67 2.97 3.17 3.60
1.20 1.40 1.70 1.87 2.50 2.73 3.00 3.33 3.47 3.67 3.77
1.97 2.20 2.90 3.27 3.47 3.67 3.90 4.03 4.20 4.23 4.50
1.37 1.63 1.87 2.53 2.80 2.97 3.13 3.27 3.47 3.60 3.97
1.37 1.63 1.83 2.53 2.80 2.97 3.10 3.17 3.37 3.67 3.80
1.93 2.67 3.07 3.30 3.47 3.77 3.87 4.00 4.07 4.20 4.40

Max.
4.83
2.37
4.73
4.43
3.60
3.77
4.50
3.97
3.80
4.40

X = 4.04
SD = 0.72

Impact Factor (JCC): 4.8136

NAAS Rating: 3.53

Screening of Maize Cultivar for Resistance to Maize Stem Borer, Chilo Partellus

237

Table 7: Categorization of Maize Varieties for their Susceptibility

Against C. Partellus Based on Leaf Injury (Maximum Value)
Category of resistance
Infestation due to C. Partelus

Scale

X = 4.04

SD = 0.72

Varieties

Highly Resistant (HR)

X < 2.6

GM 3

Resistant (R)

X >2.6 to 3.32

Moderately Resistant (MR)

X >3.32 to 4.04

Moderately susceptible (MS)

X >4.04 to 4.76

Susceptible (S)

X >4.76 to 5.48

Narmada Moti, Amber, GAYMH

1 and GAWMH 2
GM 4, GM 6, Madhuri and
HQPM 1
GM 2

Highly Susceptible (HS)

X > 5.48

Effects of Maize Varieties on Stem Tunneling, Larva and Pupa:

To know the effect of maize varieties on the development of C. partellus in maize; stem tunnelling, number of
larvae and pupae were also recorded at the time of harvest and presented in table 8.
Stem Tunneling (%)
The stem tunnelling made by the larva (Table 8 and Figure 3) was the lowest (0.88 %) in variety GM-3 which also
registered as highly resistant on the basis of leaf injury. It was at par with Narmada Moti (1.03) and Amber (1.29). Among
the moderately resistant varieties on the basis of leaf injury, stem tunnelling it was maximum in GAYMH-1 (1.45) and was
at par with GM-6(1.78). The stem tunnelling was maximum in GM-4 (2.59) and it was at par with Madhuri (2.20) and
GM-2 (2.56).
Thus the higher per cent stem tunnelling was recorded in moderately susceptible and susceptible varieties
whereas, lower in highly resistant and moderately resistant varieties with lower leaf injury. It indicates that larva was not
able to make long tunnel in resistant varieties while it could easily make long tunnel length in susceptible varieties.
Number of Larvae
The data on average number of larvae/plant was also recorded at harvest and presented in table 8 and figure 4.
The lowest number of larva was observed in variety GM-3 (0.16/plant) which was found highly resistant even on
the basis of leaf injury scale. Among the moderately resistant varieties, it was maximum in GAYMH-1 and GAWMH-2
(0.43/plant) and it was at par with Narmada Moti (0.33/plant) and Amber (0.36/plant). While varieties GM-6, Madhuri,
HQPM and GM-2 were at par with each other by recorded 0.63 to 0.76 larva/plant. The highest (0.93) number of larva was
recorded in variety GM-4 which was also observed as moderately susceptible variety on the basis of leaf injury scale.
Thus, The number of larvae were more in moderately susceptible and susceptible varieties whereas, it was less in
highly resistant and moderately resistant varieties.
Table 8: Effect of Maize Varieties on Intensity of Infestation Due to C. Partellusat Harvest
Sr. No
1
2
3
www.tjprc.org

Varieties
GM 2
GM 3
GM 4

Length of Tunnel in Stem (%)

2.56
0.88
2.59

No. of Larva/ Plant

0.76
0.16
0.93

No. of Pupa/Plant
0.63
0.26
0.66
editor@tjprc.org

238

M. U. Dindor, R. I. Chaudhary, R. J. Patel & T. M. Bharpoda

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

GM 6
Narmada Moti
Amber
Madhuri
GAYMH 1
GAWMH 2
HQPM 1
S.Em
C.D at 5%
C.V.%

Table 8: Contd.,
1.78
1.03
1.29
2.20
1.45
1.35
1.99
0.14
0.41
14.10

0.63
0.33
0.36
0.66
0.43
0.43
0.66
0.05
0.15
16.60

0.53
0.43
0.43
0.53
0.53
0.46
0.63
0.04
0.12
13.23

Number of Pupae
The observations on number of pupae/plant was also recorded in tunnel made by larva in stem at harvest of the
crop (table 8 and figure 4).
The lowest number of pupa was observed in variety GM-3 (0.26/plants) which was also found highly resistant on
the basis of leaf injury scale. While the varieties Narmada Moti, Amber, GAWMH-2, GM-6, Madhuri and GAYMH-1
were at par with each other by recording 0.43 to 0.53 larva/plant. Among all the tested varieties, the highest number of
larvae was recorded in GM-4 (0.66) and it was at par with varieties GM-2 and HQPM-1 (0.63)
Thus, The higher number of pupae were recorded in moderately susceptible and susceptible varieties whereas, less
in highly resistant and moderately resistant varieties with lower leaf injury.
Overall, it can be concluded that on the basis of per cent damaged plants and leaf injury scale the maize varieties
GM-3, Narmada Moti, Amber, GAYMH-1 and GAWMH-2 were found moderately to highly resistant; GM-4 and Madhuri
were susceptible to moderately susceptible whereas, GM-2 was susceptible to highly susceptible. However, GM-6 and
HQPM-1 were found moderately susceptible based on leaf injury scale while they were moderately susceptible on the basis
of per cent damaged plants.
The susceptibility of maize varieties/genotypes to C. partellus was studied by many workers viz., Kundu (1985),
Siddiqui et al. (1986), Sajjan and Sekhon (1992), Kumar (1993 and 1995), Khan et al. (1999), Kanta and Kaur (2000),
Khan and Monobrullah (2003), Patel (2005a), Shahzad et al. (2006), Arabjafari and Jalali (2007), Afzal et al. (2009) and
Ngongwa (2011) at different places.
The leaf injury caused by C. partellus was more in highly susceptible, moderately susceptible and susceptible
varieties whereas, it was less in highly resistant, resistant and moderately resistant varieties. The present findings are in
accordance with Rajsekhar and Srivastav, (2013) who reported that dead heart formation and leaf injury were higher in
more susceptible genotypes than least susceptible genotypes.
The varieties studied for their susceptibility to C. partellus under field condition were different from the varieties
under present investigation and hence the present findings could not be compared except the finding of Patel (2005a) who
reported Narmada moti and GM-3 as resistant while, GM-4 as highly susceptible to C. partellus. In present investigation,
Narmada moti was found moderately resistant while, GM-3 as highly resistant category based on leaf injury scale. Further,
Narmada Moti was found resistant based on damaged plants per cent while, GM-3 as moderately resistant based on per
cent damaged plants. Present findings are in inconformity with Ngongwa (2011) who reported GM-4 as resistant to C.
partellus. While, varieties GM-3 and Narmada Moti were found moderately resistant. Ngongwa (2011) reported GM-2 as
Impact Factor (JCC): 4.8136

NAAS Rating: 3.53

Screening of Maize Cultivar for Resistance to Maize Stem Borer, Chilo Partellus

239

moderately resistant but under present study,GM-2 was found susceptible to C. partellus. It might be due to different
environmental condition of the locations.

CONCLUSIONS
The finding of Rajsekhar and Srivastav (2013) who reported that number of larvae and pupae and mean tunnel
length were higher in more susceptible genotypes than least susceptible genotypes tally with the present finding.
REFERENCES
1.

Afzal, M.; Nazir, Z.; Bashir, M. H. and Khan, B. S. (2009). Analysis of host plant resistance and some genotypes of maize
against Chilopartellus(Swinhoe) (Pyralidae: lepidoptera). Pak. J. Bot.,41(1): 421-428.

2.

Arabjafari, K. H. and Jalali, S. K. (2007). Identification and analysis of host plant resistance in leading maize genotypes
against spotted stem borer, Chilo partellus (Swinhoe). Pak J. Biol. Sci.,10(11): 1885-95.

3.

Atwal, A. S. and Dhaliwal, G. S. (2002). Agricultural Pesta of South Asia and Their Management. Kalyani Publishers, New
Delhi, pp. 189-192.

4.

*Kanta, U. and Kaur, R. (2000). Response of maize germplasms to maize stem borer under field condition. Insect Envir.,6(2):
91.

5.

*Khan, B. M. (1983). Studies on the biology and control of maize stem borer in Peshawar. Bull. Zool., 1: 51-56.

6.

Khan, M. S. and Monobrullah, M. (2003). Preliminary screening of maize germplasm against maize stem borer, C. partellusat
intermediate zone of Rajouri (J & K). Insect Environ., 9(1): 45-46.

7.

*Khan, N. A.; Ahmad, D.; Khan, M. A. and Anwar, M. (1999). Management of maize stem borer. Sarhad J. Agric.,15 (5): 467471.

8.

Kumar, H. (1993). Resistance in maize to Chilopartellus (Swinhoe) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in relation to crop phenology,
larval rearing medium and larval development stages. J. Econ. Ent.,86 (3): 886-890.

9.

*Kumar, H. (1995). Resistance in maize to Chilopartellus (Swinhoe) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in relation to mode of
infestation, larval growth and food utilization. Trop. Agric.,75 (2): 236-240.

10. Kundu, G. G. (1985). Evaluation of maize cultivars for resistance to stem borer. Indian J. Ent.,47(3): 325-327.
11. Ngongwa. V. (2011) Morphological and biochemical basis of resistance to stem borer, Chilo partellus Swinhoe (Lepidoptera:
Pyralidae) infesting forage maize Zea mays L. M.Sc thesis, submitted to AAU, Anand.
12. Patel, P. J. (2005a). Bio-ecolgy and management of stem borer, ChilopartellusSwinhoeinfesting maize. M.Sc thesis, submitted
to AAU, Anand.
13. Patel, H. K. and Patel J. R. (1970). Catalogue of Crop Pests of Gujarat State. Technical Bulletin, No. 6 : 4-5.
14. Rajsekhar, L. and Srivastav, C. P. (2013). Screening of maize genotypes against stem borer Chilo partellus L. in kharif
season. International J. Applied Boil &Pharma. Tech.,4(4): 394-403.
15. Sajjan, S. S. and Sekhon, S. S. (1992). Occurrence and tolerance mechanism of resistance in some maize varities to
Chilopartellus(Swinhoe) (Pyralidae: Lepidoptera). J. Ent. Res.,16 (3): 201-205.
16. Shahzad, M. A.; Shaheen, M. S., Khan,M. T. H. and Iqbal, B. (2006). Field screening of promising cultivars of maize against
shootflyAtherigonasoccata(Rond) and Chilopartellus(Swinhoe) during spring season. Pak. Entomol.,28(2): 15-17.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

240

M. U. Dindor, R. I. Chaudhary, R. J. Patel & T. M. Bharpoda

17. Sharma, P. N. and Gautam, P. (2010). Assessment of yield loss in maize due to attack by the maize borer, Chilo partellus
(Swinhioe). Nepal J. Sci. Tech., 11: 25-30.
18. Siddiqui, K. H.; Marwaha, K. K.; Sarup, P. and Singh, J. P. (1986). Search of sources for resistance amongst newly developed
early and medium maturing maize composites subjected to manual infestation of the stalk borer, Chilo partellus (Swinhoe). J.
Ent. Res.,10 (2): 15-160.
19. Tefera T.; Mugo S.; Tende R. and Likhayo P., 2013. Methods of screening maize for resistant to stem borer and post harvest
insect pests. CIMMYT. Nairobi, Kenya.

APPENDICIES

Figure 1: Damaged Plants (%) Caused by C. Partellus in Different Maize Varieties

Figure 2: Leaf Injury Caused by C. Partellus in Different Maize Varieties

Impact Factor (JCC): 4.8136

NAAS Rating: 3.53

Screening of Maize Cultivar for Resistance to Maize Stem Borer, Chilo Partellus

241

Figure 3: Effect of Different Maize Varieties on Stem Tunnelling by C. Partllus

Figure 4: Effect Different Maize Varieties on Number of Larvae and Pupae of C. Partellus

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org