Content uploaded by Berhanu Hiruy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Berhanu Hiruy on Feb 28, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Berhanu Hiruy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Berhanu Hiruy on Feb 26, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Screening of some Maize Varieties for Resistance against the Maize weevils, Sitophilus zeamais (Motsch.)
IJEN
Screening of some Maize Varieties for Resistance
against the Maize weevils, Sitophilus zeamais (Motsch.)
*Berhanu Hiruy1,2 and Emana Getu2
1Department of Biology, College of Natural Sciences, Arba Minch University , Ethiopia
2Department of Zoological sciences, College of Natural Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia
Twenty one maize varieties that were collected from Bako Agricultural Research Center, Western
Ethiopia were screened for resistance against maize weevils in insect science laboratory of Addis
Ababa University. The varieties included sixteen hybrids (BH-660, BH-540, BH-543, BHQPY-545,
BH-661, BH-546, BH-547, SPRH-1, AMH-760Q, AMH-851, AMH-853, AMH-854, MH-138Q, OHL HUV,
Shone and Limu) and five open pollinated varieties (Melkasa-2, Melkasa-4, Melkasa-6Q, Gibe-2
and Morka). The parameter measured for screening were parental adult’s weevil’s mortality, F1
progeny emergence, percent protection, percent grain damage and weight loss, weight of
damaged and undamaged grains, Dobie index of susceptibility and selection index. Based on
Dobie index of susceptibility, 6 varieties (Melkasa-6Q, MH-138Q, SPRH, BHQPY-545, AMH-760Q
and AMH-851) respectively were categorized as resistant varieties, whereas the rest 15 (Melkasa-
2, BH-540, BH-661, AMH-853, OHL HUV, Melkasa-4, BH-543, BH-546, BH-547, Morka, AMH-854,
Gibe-2, Limu, BH-660 and Shone) were rated as moderately susceptible varieties. However, based
on selection index, 6 (Melkasa-6Q, MH-138Q, SPRH, BHQPY-545, AMH-760Q and AMH-851) were
rated as resistant, 5 (Melkasa-2, BH-540, BH-661, AMH-853 and OHL HUV) were rated as
moderately resistant, 8 (Melkasa-4, BH-543, BH-546, BH-547, Morka, AMH-854, Gibe-2 and Limu)
were rated as moderately susceptible and 2 (BH-660 and Shone) were rated as susceptible
varieties. Therefore, the aforementioned 6 resistant varieties could be stored relatively for longer
period (≥ 2 months) under farmer’s storage conditions. Hence, these resistance varieties could
be implemented as a cheap, ecologically sound and effective management method to reduce loss
caused by S. zeamais under storage conditions at national level.
Key words: Sitophilus zeamais, maize varieties, resistance varieties, storage insect pests
INTRODUCTION
Maize (Zea mays L.) is one of the most important cereals
crop in the world agricultural economy (Nand, 2015).
Besides, among cereals, it is the most important food
staple, providing food and income to millions of resource-
poor smallholders in Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA)
region (Tefera et al., 2011). In Ethiopia too, it is one of the
major cereal crops grown for its food, feed, firewood and
construction values according to Sori, (2014). Of the cereal
crops, it ranks second to teff in area coverage and first in
total production nationally. Currently, it also ranks first in
total production and productivity among all cereals grown
in southern Ethiopia (Gemu et al., 2013). However, in
Ethiopia among other things, food security has been
greatly threatened by excessive post-harvest losses of
grains like maize caused by storage insect pests
predominantly caused by the maize weevil and Angoumois
grain moth (Worku et al., 2012). Accordingly, insect pests
have been reported to be responsible for loss ranging from
30 to 90 % in Ethiopia (Getu, 1993). Thus, several
management strategies such as synthetic insecticides,
botanicals and cultural practices
*Corresponding author: Berhanu Hiruy, Department of
Zoological sciences, College of Natural Sciences, Addis
Ababa University, Ethiopia. Email:
berhanu.hiruy@gmail.com
International Journal of Entomology and Nematology
Vol. 4(1), pp. 077-084, February, 2018. © www.premierpublishers.org. ISSN: XXXX-XXXX
Research Article
Screening of some Maize Varieties for Resistance against the Maize weevils, Sitophilus zeamais (Motsch.)
Hiruy and Getu 078
have been used to control weevil in particular and storage
pests in general. Among these strategies, synthetic
chemical insecticides have been most commonly used one
by resource poor farmers who lack technical knowledge in
the safe handling and use of them in many parts Africa
including Ethiopia (Mvumi et al., 1995; Mvumi and
Stathers, 2003). But, environmental pollution, high cost of
application, direct toxicity to users, adverse effects on
beneficial and non-target organisms and increased risk to
workers safety (Ofuya and Longe, 2009) have been
associated as the negative attributes related to their
repeated use. This has directed to the search and
development of alternative management strategies such
as the use of resistant varieties against S. zeamais.
The use of resistant varieties is the cheapest, effective and
ecologically safe method of protecting grains such as
maize against insect pests in Africa, since there is no
special technology which has to be adopted by the farmer
(Helbig, 1997). Their use also requires little or no scientific
knowledge by the farmers (Ahmed and Yusuf, 2007).
Because of these and the aforementioned several
reasons, it is very crucial to screen currently available
maize varieties in Ethiopia for resistance against storage
insect pest’s of stored grains in general and maize weevil
stored maize in particular. The present study, therefore,
was designed with the following objectives: 1) to evaluate
currently available varieties of maize in Ethiopia against
the most economically important insect pest of stored
maize, S. zeamais under laboratory condition, 2) to
determine the possibility of use of the resistant varieties in
the management of storage insect pests, particularly S.
zeamais as benign component of IPM (integrated pest
management) under substance farmers conditions in
Ethiopia and elsewhere with similar pest problem and 3) to
determine the possibility of use of the resistant varieties as
source of resistance in breeding programs so as to
diversify the basis of resistance against maize weevils.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Mass rearing of the test Insect’s
S. zeamais adults were collected from maize grains stored
in various farmers traditional storage facilities of major
maize producing localities Shashogo and Sankura districts
of southern Ethiopia and brought to the laboratory of Addis
Ababa University, Faculty of Life Science, insect science
insectary of Zoological Science Department of Ethiopia.
These test insects were cultured at 27 ± 30C and 55-70%
RH (Jembere et al., 1995; Kidane and Jembere, 2010).
Shone variety of maize grains were also obtained from
farmer’s storages of the aforementioned districts. It was
the most commonly grown hybrid in the region and
considered to be susceptible to insect infestation. The
grains were kept at -20 ± 20C for 2 weeks to kill any
infesting insects, cleared of broken kernels and debris and
then graded manually according to size, and similar sized
grains were selected and used for the experiment
(Gemechu et al., 2013). Following the methods by Kidane
and Jembere (2010) fifteen pairs of the adult of the S.
zeamais were placed in 12, 1- liter glass jars containing
250 g disinfested seeds. The jars were then covered with
nylon mesh and held in a place with rubber bands to allow
ventilation and to prevent the escape of the experimental
insects. The parent of the test insects were sieved out after
an oviposition time of 13 days. Then, the jars were kept
under laboratory condition until F1 progeny emergence.
The F1 progeny, which emerged after 30 days, were
sieved out and used for the experiment.
Collection of maize varieties
A total of twenty-one currently available maize varieties
including sixteen hybrids (BH-660, BH-540, BH-543,
BHQPY-545, BH-661, BH-546, BH-547, SPRH-1, AMH-
760Q, AMH-851(Jibat), AMH-853, AMH-854, MH-138Q,
OHL HUV, Shone and Limu) and five open pollinated
varieties (Melkasa-2, Melkasa-4, Melkasa-6Q, Gibe-2 and
Morka), were collected from Bako Agricultural Research
Center, Western Ethiopia. They were used for screening
of resistance varieties against the experimental insects
(maize weevils) in insect science laboratory of the Addis
Ababa University.
All of the aforementioned varieties used for the experiment
were F2 because they represent the generation that was
stored by farmers and vulnerable to S. zeamais. The
varieties are currently under production in different parts of
Ethiopia. As described by earlier researchers; Abebe et al.
(2009), Keba and Sori (2013) and Demissie et al. (2015)
seeds of each variety were procured, cleaned and
disinfested by keeping them in a deep freezer at -20 ± 2°C
for two weeks to avoid any field infestation by insect pests.
Then, they were also conditioned, equilibrated, and
acclimatized for additional two weeks to the laboratory
conditions prior to starting the experiment. The moisture
content of the seeds was adjusted to 12 - 13% through sun
drying.
Evaluation of maize varieties for resistance against
maize weevils
About 100 g seeds, from each of the maize varieties were
placed in a 1 L glass jar. No choice test method in which
predetermined maize weevils were introduced in each jar
was used for this study as adopted by Abebe et al. (2009).
Thirty newly emerged unsexed adult S. zeamais were
introduced to the jars to infest the 100 g seeds of each
variety and were kept to fourteen days for oviposition
(Derera et al., 2001). Seeds of each variety without
experimental insects were kept under similar conditions
and served as a control. The jars were then covered with
nylon mesh and held in a place with rubber bands to allow
ventilation and to prevent the escape of the experimental
Screening of some Maize Varieties for Resistance against the Maize weevils, Sitophilus zeamais (Motsch.)
Int. J. Entomol. Nematol. 079
insects. All the treatments were arranged in a completely
randomized block design with three replications and
conducted in a laboratory at 25-30°C and 65-70% RH. This
has helped in maintaining uniform grain temperature and
moisture content among all samples, and to enhance
oviposition following similar procedures by Abebe et al.
(2009), Tefera et al. (2013) and Demissie et al. (2015).
Mortality was assessed thirteen days after introduction of
weevils.
Data collection
Following similar procedures by Abebe et al. (2009),
Tefera et al. (2013), Keba and Sori (2013) and Demissie
et al. (2015), data were recorded on the number of parental
insects alive and parental insects dead (parental insects
mortality), taken after 13 days the oviposition period. The
numbers of test insects that emerged from each variety
were counted every two days, starting from the onset the
first F1 emergence until no new F1 insects will emerge for
about 56 days. The total numbers of F1 insect’s progenies
that emerged per genotype were obtained by summing-up
each of the tested insects recorded per genotype. The
median development period (MDP) of the test insects
determined for each genotype were calculated as the time
(days) from the middle of the oviposition period to the
emergence of 50% of the F1 weevil progenies (Dobie,
1974; 1977). Sixty-eight days after introduction of the
insects, 30 seeds were randomly taken from each jar after
carefully mixing them in each jar. The number of seeds
damaged by experimental insects feeding were assessed.
Seed damage was expressed as a proportion of the total
number of seeds sampled. Grains weight loss was
determined using the count and weight method as adopted
by Gwinner et al. (1996) as:
% Loss in weight = UNd - DNu X 100
U (Nd + Nu)
Where U = weight of undamaged grain,
D = weight of damaged grain,
Nd = number of damaged grain and
Nu = number of undamaged grain.
Dobie’s index of susceptibility (DIS)
This was calculated using the method of Dobie (1974).
This involves the number of F1 progeny and the length of
median developmental time.
DIS = 100x [(Natural log F1) / (MDT)]
Where DIS =Dobie’s index of susceptibility, F1 = the total
number of first generation emerging adults and MDT = the
median developmental period in days. The Dobie Index of
susceptibility, ranging from 0 to 11, was used to classify
the maize varieties into susceptibility groups (Dobie,
1974): where 0 to 4 were classified as resistant; 4.1 to 7.0
were classified as moderately resistant; 7.1 to 10.0 were
classified as susceptible and >10 were classified as highly
susceptible.
Selection index (SI)
In addition to DIS, the varieties were also categorized into
resistant and susceptible categories based on the
selection indices adapted from the method of Tefera et al.
(2011) and Mwololo (2013) with slight modification, to see
whether the response classes of the tested varieties vary
from those that were categorized by Dobie index of
susceptibility. In selection index the susceptibility
parameters (parent mortality, F1 progeny emerged, weight
of undamaged grain, weight of damaged grains, percent
grain damage and percent weight loss) were integrated
and thus, a selection index was calculated by summing the
ratios between values, and overall mean and dividing by 5
(number of parameters) as described by Tefera et al.
(2011). Varieties with selection index <0.8 were classified
as resistant, those in between 0.8-1.00 were classified as
moderately resistant, those in between 1.00-1.39 were
classified as moderately susceptible and those with >1.40
were classified as susceptible as adopted by pervious
researcher, Mwololo (2013).
Data analysis
Data entry and analysis was done using Microsoft Excel
2013and SPSS Version 16, respectively. Data’s were not
transformed science both homogeneity as well as
uniformity were satisfied. To observe the response of
different varieties on % mortality, % number of F1 progeny
emergence and % weight loss of maize weevils infestation,
appropriate statistics, one way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) were used. Significant differences between
means were separated using Tukey's studentized (HSD)
test at 5% probability. Standard errors (±se) are given
following means in Tables. Correlation between the
treatments and the efficacy measuring parameters like
weight loss and others were determined using Pearson’s
correlation of SPSS program of version 16.
RESULTS
Response of different varieties of maize (hybrids and
open pollinated varieties) to maize weevil infestation
Statistically significant differences (P ≤ 0.05) were
observed among both hybrids and open pollinated
varieties of maize in a number of F1 progeny emerged,
median developmental time, percentage grain damage,
percentage weight loss, and index of susceptibility as well
as selection index as shown in Tables 1 and 2.
Parental adult’s weevil’s mortality was not significantly (P
≥0.05) different among most of the maize varieties infested
or tested in comparison to the rest parameters of
Screening of some Maize Varieties for Resistance against the Maize weevils, Sitophilus zeamais (Motsch.)
Hiruy and Getu 080
susceptibility measured. However, adult weevils that feed
on 6 out 21 varieties; Melkasa-6Q, MH-138Q, SPRH,
BHQPY-545, AMH-760Q and Jibat (AMH-851),
respectively, followed by 5 out of 21; Melkasa-2, BH-540,
BH-661, AMH-853 and OHL HUV, respectively suffered
higher mortality (that ranges from 13.67 to 16.33%), as
compared with the rest of 10 varieties; Melkasa-4, BH-543,
BH-546, BH-547, Morka (imp. USB), AMH-854, Gibe-2,
Limu, BH-660 and Shone which had lower mortality (<
13.67%). Besides, significantly (P ≤ 0.05) lower maize
weevils progenies emergence were recorded in 6 out 21
varieties; Melkasa-6Q, MH-138Q, SPRH, BH QPY-545,
AMH-760Q and Jibat (AMH-851), respectively, followed by
5 out of 21; Melkasa-2, BH-540, BH-661, AMH-853 and
OHL HUV, respectively. However, significantly (P ≤ 0.05)
higher weevils progenies emergence were occurred in the
rest of varieties, of which the maximum was in the BH-660
and the minimum was in BH-661 (Table 1).
In similar manner, both grain damage and weight loss were
found to be significantly (P ≤ 0.05) lower in the 6 varieties;
Melkasa-6Q, MH-138Q, SPRH, BH QPY-545, AMH-760Q
and Jibat (AMH-851) followed by the 5 varieties; Melkasa-
2, BH-540, BH-661, AMH-853 and OHL HUV, respectively
in comparison to the rest 10 varieties; Melkasa-4, BH-543,
BH-546, BH-547, Morka (imp. USB), AMH-854, Gibe-2,
Limu, BH-660 and Shone, of maize in which they were
relatively higher. In addition, relatively longer median
developmental time ranging from 44.33-53.67 were
required by weevils reared in the 6 varieties; Melkasa-6Q,
MH-138Q, SPRH, BH QPY-545, AMH-760Q and Jibat
(AMH-851), followed by the 5 varieties; Melkasa-2, BH-
540, BH-661, AMH-853 and OHL HUV, respectively in
comparison to the rest of varieties in which relatively
shorter median developmental time were required (<
44.33). Furthermore, the index of susceptibility was also
found to be lower (in the rage between 2.50-3.21) in the 6
varieties; Melkasa-6Q, MH-138Q, SPRH, BH QPY-545,
AMH-760Q and Jibat (AMH-851), followed by the 5
varieties; Melkasa-2, BH-540, BH-661, AMH-853 and OHL
HUV, respectively as compared to the rest, in which it was
relatively higher (in the rage of 4.06-5.10) (Table 1).
Thus, based on susceptibility index, out of 21 tested
varieties, 6 varieties including Melkasa-6Q, MH-138Q,
SPRH, BH-QPY 545, AMH-760Q and Jibat (AMH-851)
were categorized as resistant varieties, whereas the rest
15 varieties (Melkasa-2, BH-540, BH-661, AMH-853, OHL
HUV, Melkasa-4, BH-543, BH-546, BH-547, Morka (imp.
USB), AMH-854, Gibe-2, Limu, BH-660 and Shone) were
rated as moderately susceptible varieties (Table 1).
However, the same varieties were rated as resistant,
moderately resistant, moderately susceptible and highly
susceptible categories on the base of selection index
adapted from method of earlier scientists, as indicated in
materials and methods. This selection index was derived
from F1 progeny emerged, weight of undamaged, weight
of damaged grains percentage grain damage and weight
loss. Based on it, 6 (Melkasa-6Q, MH-138Q, SPRH,
BHQPY- 545, AMH-760Q and Jibat (AMH-851)) were
rated as resistant, 5 (Melkasa-2, BH-540, BH-661, AMH-
853 and OHL HUV) were rated as moderately resistant
varieties, 8 (Melkasa-4, BH-543, BH-546, BH-547, Morka
(imp. USB), AMH-854, Jibe-2 and Limu) were rated as
moderately susceptible and 2 (BH-660 and Shone) were
rated as susceptible varieties (Table 2).
The correlations among the susceptibility parameters of
different maize varieties were highly significant (Tables 3
and 4). Index of susceptibility had strong positive
association with susceptibility parameters like the number
of F1 progeny emerged, percentage grain damage and
weight loss. However, it had strong negative relationship
with percentage parental adult weevil’s mortality and
median developmental time. Besides, the correlations
were strongly positive between the total number of F1
progeny emerged, and the percentage grain damage and
weight loss, while they were strongly negative between the
median development time, and percentage grain damage
and weight loss. Furthermore, they were also strongly
positive between the parental adult mortality and the
median development time, while they were strangely
negative between the parental adult mortality and the
percentage grain damage and weight loss (Table 3).
Similarly, selection index had strong positive association
with parameters like weight of damaged grains, the
number of F1 progeny emerged, percent grain damage
and weight loss, while it had strong negative relationship
with weight of undamaged grains. Besides, the
correlations were strongly positive between the total
number of F1 progeny emerged and the percentage grain
damage and weight loss, while they were strongly negative
between the F1 progeny emerged and weight of
undamaged grain (Table 4).
Screening of some Maize Varieties for Resistance against the Maize weevils, Sitophilus zeamais (Motsch.)
Int. J. Entomol. Nematol. 081
Table 1 Response of different varieties of maize to infestation by maize weevils based DIS in about 2 months period
Variety
Parental
adults
mortality
F1 progeny
emerged
Median
development
time
Grain damage
% weight loss
SI (Index of
susceptibility)
Resistance
category
Melkasa-2 (OP)
13.67±0.33ab
64.33±0.33cd
44.67±0.33abc
8.33±0.24cdef
5.99±0.24cdef
4.05±0.04d
MR
Melkasa-4 (OP)
12.33±0.33abc
68.33±0.33def
43.33±0.33ab
9.67±0.24efgh
6.95±0.24efgh
4.23±0.04def
MR
Melkasa-6Q (OP)
16.33±0.33e
22.00±0.58a
55.67±0.88gd
3.67±0.24a
2.64±0.24a
2.46±0.16a
R
BH-540 (H)
11.67±0.33a
66.67±0.33cde
43.00±0.58ab
12.33±0.41hij
6.47±0.41defg
4.21±0.13def
MR
BH-543 (H)
11.33±0.33a
75.33±0.33gh
42.33±0.33ab
9.00±0.24defg
8.86±0.24ghij
4.43±0.03def
MR
BHQPY-545 (H)
14.67±0.33ab
26.67±0.33ab
48.33±0.33abcd
12.33±0.24hij
4.79±0.24bcd
2.95±0.06bc
R
BH-546 (H)
12.00±0.58ab
73.00±0.58fgh
42.33±0.88ab
6.67±0.24bcd
8.86±0.241hij
4.40±0.09def
MR
BH-547 (H)
11.67±0.33ab
77.67±0.33hi
43.00±0.58ab
13.67±0.24hijk
9.82±0.24ijk
4.39±0.06def
MR
BH-660 (H)
11.00±0.58a
128.67±0.33k
41.33±0.33a
21.33±0.41l
15.33±0.96l
5.10±0.04g
MR
BH-661 (H)
13.67±0.33ab
63.00±0.58c
44.00 ±0.33abc
4.67±0.24ab
5.27±0.24bcde
4.10±0.06d
MR
MH-138Q (H)
15.33±0.33b
25.00±0.58ab
51.00±0.33cd
7.33±0.24bcde
3.35±0.24ab
2.78±0.21ab
R
Morka (imp. USB) (OP)
11.67±0.33ab
80.67±0.33ij
42.00±0.58a
15.00±0.24ij
10.78±0.41jk
4.54±0.06ef
MR
AMH-851 (Jibat) (H)
13.67±0.33ab
29.67±0.88b
45.67±0.33abc
6.67±0.24bcd
4.79±0.24bcd
3.22±0.05b
R
AMH-853 (H)
12.67±1.20ab
64.33±0.88cd
44.00±0.58abc
8.33±0.96cdef
5.98±0.63cdef
4.11±0.05de
MR
AMH-854 (H)
11.67±0.33a
74.33±0.33gh
42.33±0.33ab
11.67±0.24ghi
8.38±0.24ghi
4.42±0.03def
MR
AMH-760Q (H)
13.67±1.20ab
28.33±0.88b
46.67±0.58de
4.67±0.24ab
4.07±0.24abc
3.11±0.08bc
R
SPRH (H)
15.00±0.58b
26.33±0.33ab
49.67±0.33abcd
5.67±0.33abc
3.35±0.24ab
2.86±0.02abc
R
OHL HUV (H)
13.33±0.33ab
63.33±0.33c
44.00±0.58abc
8.33±0.33cdef
5.99±0.24cdef
4.10±0.05d
MR
Gibe-2 (OP)
12.33±0.33abc
68.67±0.33def
43.00±0.58ab
10.33±0.33fgh
7.42±0.24fgh
4.27±0.06def
MR
Limu (P3812W) (H)
11.67±0.33ab
71.00±0.58efg
42.67±0.33ab
11.00±0.58fghe
7.9±0.41fghi
4.34±0.04def
MR
Shone (PHB-30) (H)
11.67±0.33ab
82.67±0.33j
42.00±0.58a
16.00±0.33j
11.5±0.41k
4.57±0.06e
MR
Means followed by the same letter within the column are not significantly different at P ≤ 0.01.
MR= moderately resistant; R = resistant; S = susceptible; OP=open pollinated varieties; H=hybrids.
Table 2 Response of different varieties of maize to infestation by maize weevils based on SI in about 2 months period
Variety
Weight of
undamaged
Weight of
damaged
Percent grain
damage
Percent
weight loss
F1
emerged
Selection
index
Resistance
category
Melkasa-2 (OP)
3.68
0.13
8.33
5.03
65.33
0.94
MR
Melkasa-4 (OP)
3.61
0.17
9.67
5.40
66.67
1.0
MS
Melkasa-6Q (OP)
3.85
0.04
3.67
2.70
22
0.52
R
BH-540 (H)
3.64
0.13
9.00
5.80
68.33
0.98
MR
BH-543 (H)
3.51
0.22
12.33
6.80
75.33
1.21
MS
BHQPY-545 (H)
3.73
0.14
6.67
3.12
27.67
0.72
R
BH-546 (H)
3.51
0.22
12.33
6.93
73
1.20
MS
BH-547 (H)
3.45
0.26
13.67
7.10
77.67
1.30
MS
BH-660 (H)
3.15
0.52
21.33
8.33
128.67
1.93
S
BH-661 (H)
3.71
0.11
7.33
4.60
63
0.87
MR
MH-138Q (H)
3.81
0.07
4.67
2.87
25
0.59
R
Morka (imp. USB) (OP)
3.40
0.32
15.00
7.10
80.67
1.39
MS
AMH-851 (Jibat) (H)
3.73
0.13
6.67
3.37
29.67
0.73
R
AMH-853 (H)
3.67
0.14
8.33
4.93
64.33
0.93
MR
AMH-854 (H)
3.5332
0.20
11.67
6.80
74.33
1.16
MS
AMH-760Q (H)
3.77
0.0976
5.67
3.23
28.33
0.66
R
SPRH (H)
3.81
0.0704
4.67
2.91
26.33
0.60
R
OHL HUV (H)
3.67
0.1492
8.33
4.60
63.33
0.93
MR
Gibe-2 (OP)
3.59
0.1904
10.33
5.57
68.67
1.10
MS
Limu (P3812W) (H)
3.56
0.204
11.00
5.90
71
1.12
MS
Shone (PHB-30) (H)
3.36
0.344
16.00
7.40
82.67
1.45
S
Means followed by the same letter within the column are not significantly different at P ≤ 0.01.
MR= moderately resistant; R = resistant; S = susceptible; OP=open pollinated varieties; H=hybrids.
Screening of some Maize Varieties for Resistance against the Maize weevils, Sitophilus zeamais (Motsch.)
Hiruy and Getu 082
Table 3 Correlation among susceptibility parameters of different maize varieties of DIS
Susceptibility Parameters
SI
PAM
F1
MDT
GD
WL
SI
1
PAM
-.804**
1
F1
.948**
-.696**
1
MDT
-.881**
.610**
-.726**
1
GD
.853**
-.694**
.918**
-.674**
1
WL
.908**
-.786**
.893**
-.768**
.886**
1
Correlation coefficients with two asterisks (**) represent highly significant association at P values <0.01 and those without
asterisk are non-significant. SI= selection index, PAM=parental adults mortality, MDT= median developmental time, GD =
percent grain damage and WL = weight loss
Table 4 Correlation among susceptibility parameters of different maize varieties of SI
Susceptibility Parameters
SI
U
D
F1
GD
WL
SI
1
U
-.992**
1
D
.955**
-.971**
1
F1
.951**
-.922**
.842**
1
GD
.982**
-.977**
.936**
.918**
1
WL
.925**
-.904**
.816**
.893**
.886**
1
Correlation coefficients with two asterisks (**) represent highly significant association at P values <0.01 and those without
asterisk are non-significant. U = weight of damaged grain, D = weight of undamaged grain, F1 progeny emerged, GD =
percent grain damage and WL = weight loss
DISCUSSION
The current study has indicated the existence of
considerable variation among the tested maize varieties
(open pollinated and hybrids) with respect to F1 progeny,
median developmental time, seed damage, seed weight
loss, the susceptibility index and the selection index.
These variations in turn suggests the presence heritable
variation among different varieties tested in terms of
possessions of resistant factors (qualities) that conifer
resistance to them against weevils attack. Similarly,
resistance of maize grain to its post-harvest insect pests
has been reported to be a genetic trait, which manifests
itself as antibiosis, antixenosis, and tolerance (Kumar et
al., 2006; Tefera et al., 2011). In similar manner, different
types of resistance factors to insect pests attack have been
reported and indicated as they include both morphological
and biochemical traits that work individually or collectively
(Wanja et al., 2015).
In the current study out of 21 varieties tested against
weevils, only 6 were resistant and the reaming were
moderately resistant, moderately susceptible and
susceptible varieties. Among the resistant’s, most (4 out of
6) were quality protein maize varieties. The fact that these
4 varieties were resistant against maize weevil might
probably be due to the effect of protein constituents such
as tryptophan and lysine content (biochemical effect)
which probably might adversely affect their feeding or
preference as a host or growth and development. In line
with this finding, different types of resistance factors to
insect pests attack have been also reported and indicated
as they include both morphological and biochemical traits,
and work individually or collectively (Wanja et al., 2015).
Similarly, Arnason et al. (2004) also indicated that protein
content was negatively correlated with the susceptibility of
maize cultivars to S. zeamais.
In the present study, the parental adult’s weevil’s mortality
was not as such significantly different among most of the
varieties infested in comparison to the rest of the
susceptibility parameters measured. This finding suggests
that adult mortality was not as such good parameter for
screening resistant varieties in comparison all the others
tested. This might be probably because this parameter has
been measured after the short duration of oviposition. In
line with this finding, Tadesse (1991) also suggested as
this parameter might not be a good indicator of
susceptibility, since adult weevils were found to survive
without food for more than ten days in a laboratory test. It
was also indicated that the overall rate of mortality of adult
maize weevils on different maize varieties was generally
low and concluded that there was no evidence for a
variation among the varieties in their effects upon the
mortality of S. zeamais (Dobie, 1974). Similar finding was
also reported by Abebe et al. (2009) and Tefera et al.
(2013).
The current study also indicated that almost all of the 5
parameters measured (F1 progeny, median
developmental time, grain damage, grain weight loss and
the susceptibility index measured were significantly varied
Screening of some Maize Varieties for Resistance against the Maize weevils, Sitophilus zeamais (Motsch.)
Int. J. Entomol. Nematol. 083
among tested varieties in contrast to parental weevil’s
mortality. Besides, it has revealed that as they were
strongly correlated. Furthermore, it has also shown that
selection index which had integrated many parameters
were better than Dobie’s Index of susceptibility in which
only two parameters were considered. All these results
suggests that as all of the aforementioned parameters
were relatively better parameters for screening of resistant
verities of grains in general and maize in particular. This
finding is in accordance with report of Tefera et al. (2011)
and finding of Mwololo (2013) in which F1 progeny,
percentage grain damage, percentage weight loss and
flour weight were shown as they can be integrated to
calculate a susceptibility index.
In the present study, significantly lower numbers of F1
progeny emergence, lower percent grain damage and
weight loss, as well as requirement of longer
developmental time of F1 progeny were also observed in
six of resistant varieties, followed by 5 moderately resistant
varieties in contrast to the rest 10 varieties (moderately
susceptible and susceptible varieties) in which the inverse
were true. This result agrees with finding of Tadesse
(1991) who indicated that the extent of damage during
storage depend on the number of F1 progeny emerged in
each generation and the duration required for each
generation, and grains allowing more rapid and higher
levels F1 progeny emergence will be more seriously
damaged.
CONCLUSION
Six verities (Melkasa-6Q, MH-138Q, SPRH, BH-QPY 545,
AMH-760Q and Jibat (AMH-851)) out of 21 maize varieties
tested in the present study possess traits for resistance
against maize weevils. These varieties could be stored
relatively for longer periods of time in subsistence farmer’s
storage conditions. Hence, these resistance varieties
could be implemented and adopted as a cheap,
ecologically sound and effective management method to
reduce loss by S. zeamais under subsistence storage
conditions in the study area in particular, as well as at
national level in general. Besides, the resistant variety
screened in the current study could be also used as a
source of resistance in breeding programs so as to
diversify the basis of resistance against maize weevils.
However, these resistance varieties should be exploited
after repeated and refined tests to screen out the best
material(s) or factors that conifer resistance to them for
practical application in breeding programs to develop
resistant varieties.
From the present study, it is also possible to conclude all
tested parameters tested rather than parental adults’
mortality were relatively better methods for screening of
maize and other grains against storage insect pests. Thus,
they can be integrated to calculate a susceptibility index
(selection index), based on which varieties were well
categorized in to various response classes than
susceptibility index by Dobie’s which consider only two
parameters.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We sincerely like to thanks Arba Minch University and
Zoology Department of Addis Ababa University for
providing us with financial support to conduct the study.
REFERENCES
Abebe F, Tefera T, Mugo S, Beyene Y, Vidal, S (2009).
Resistance of maize varieties to the maize weevil
Sitophilus zeamais (Motsch.) (Coleoptera:
Curculionidae). Afr. J. Biotechnol. 8: 5937-5943.
Ahmed BI, Yusuf AU (2007). Host–plant resistance: a
viable non-chemical and environmentally friendly
strategy of controlling stored products pests-a review.
Emir. J. Food Agri. 19: 1-12.
Arnason JT, Baum B, Gale J, Lambert JDH, Bergvinson D,
Philogene BJR, Serratos JA, Mihm J, Jewell, DC
(2004). Variation in resistance of Mexican landraces of
maize to maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais, in relation
to taxonomic and biochemical parameters. Euphyt. 74:
227-336.
Demissie G, Swaminathan R, Ameta O P, Jain, HK,
Saharan V (2015). Biochemical basis of resistance in
different varieties of maize for their relative
susceptibility to Sitotroga cerealella (Olivier)
(Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). J. St. Prod. & Posthar. Res.
6: 1-12.
Derera J, Pixley KV, Giga DP (2001). Resistance of maize
to maize weevil: I-Antibiosis. Afr. Crop Sci. 9: 431-440.
Dobie P (1974). The laboratory assessment of the inherent
susceptibility of maize varieties to post harvest
infestation by Sitophilus zeamais, Motsch. (Coleoptera:
Curculionidea) infesting field corn. J. Entom. Sci. 21:
367-375.
Dobie P (1977). The contribution of tropical stored
products center to the study to insect resistance in
stored maize. Trop. St. Prod. Infor. 99: 34:7-21.
Gemechu F, Santiago DR, Sori W (2013). Laboratory
evaluation of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and
Ethiopian Mustard (Brassica cariata) seed oils as grain
protectants against maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais
M. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Afric. J. Agri. Res. 8:
4374-4379.
Gemu M, Getu E, Yosuf, A, Tadess T (2013). Management
of Sitophilus zeamais Motshulsky (Coleoptera:
Ciurculionidae) and Sitotroga cerealella (Olivier)
(Lepidoptera: Gelechidae) using locally available inert
materials in southern Ethiopia. Greener J. Agri. Sci. 3:
508-515.
Screening of some Maize Varieties for Resistance against the Maize weevils, Sitophilus zeamais (Motsch.)
Hiruy and Getu 084
Getu E, Gebre-Amlak A. Response of some maize
varieties to Angoumois grain moth, Sitotroga cerealella
(Olivier). In: Eshetu B, Abdurahman A, Aynekulu Y
(Eds.). Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of
the Crop Protection Society of Ethiopia, 1995, pp. 18-
19.
Gwinner J, Harnisch R, Muck O (1996). Manual on the
prevention of post-harvest seed losses, post-harvest
project, GTZ, D-2000, Hamburg, FRG. pp. 294.
Helbig J (1997). Host plant resistance to storage insect
pests. In: Anonymous (Ed.) Integrating biological
control and host plant resistance. Proceedings of
CTA/IAR/IIBC Seminar. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 1995.
pp. 66-72.
Jembere B, Obeng-Ofori D, Hassanali A (1995). Products
derived from the leaves of Ocimum kilimandsharicum
(Labiate) as post-harvest grain protectants against the
infestation of three major stored product insect pests.
Bull. Entom. Res. 85: 361-367.
Keba T, Sori W (2013). Differential resistance of maize
varieties to maize weevil (Sitophilus zeamais
Motschulsky) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) under
laboratory conditions. J. Entom. 10: 1-12.
Kidane ZK, Jembere B (2010). Evaluation of orange peel
citrus sinensis (L) as a source of repellent, toxicant and
protectant against Zabrotes subfasciatus (Coleoptera:
bruchidae). Mekelle Univ. J. Sci. 2: 61-75.
Kumar VK, Sharma HC, Reddy, KD (2006). Antibiosis
mechanism of resistance to spotted stem borer,
Chilopartellus in sorghum, Sorghum bioclor. Crop Prot.
25: 66-72.
Mvumi BM, Giga DP, Chiusw DV (1995). The maize (Zea
mays L.) post-production practices of smallholder
farmers in Zimbabwe: findings from surveys. J. App.
Sci. for South Afr. 4: 115-130.
Mvumi BM, Stathers TE. Challenges of grain protection in
sub-Saharan Africa: the case of diatomaceous earths.
Food Africa internet based Forum, 31 March- 11 April
2003, 2003, retrieved from http://www.dfid.gov.uk/R4D/
pdf/ outputs/ r8179 challenges of grain protection
proceedings.pdf.
Mwololo JK (2013). Resistance in tropical maize to the
maize weevil and larger grain borer. PhD thesis,
Makerere University, Uganda, 151 pp.
Nand V (2015). Effect of spacing and fertility levels on
protein content and yield of hybrid and composite maize
(Zea mays L.) grown in rabi season. IOSR J. Agri. &
Vet. Sci. 8: 26-31.
Ofuya TI, Longe OO (2009).Investigation into fumigant
effect of Eugenia aromatica dust against
Callosobrunchus maculatus (Fabricius). Int. J. Crop
Sci. 1: 44-49.
Sori W (2014). Effect of selected botanicals and local seed
storage practices on maize insect pests and health of
maize seeds in Jimma Zone. Singapore J. Scient. Res.
4: 19-28.
Tadesse T (1991). The Biology, significance and control of
the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky
(Coleoptera: curculionidae) in maize. M.Sc. Thesis,
Alemaya University of Agriculture, Ethiopia, 250 pp.
Tefera T (2011). Post-harvest losses in African maize in
the face of increasing food shortage. Food. Sec. 4: 267-
277. DOI 10.1007/s12571-012-0182-3.
Tefera T, Demissie G, Mugo S, Beyene Y (2013). Yield
and agronomic performance of maize hybrids resistant
to the maize weevil Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky
(Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Crop Prot. 46: 94-99.
Tefera T, Mugo S, Tende R, Likhayo P (2011). Methods of
screening maize for resistance to stem borers and post-
harvest insect pests. International Maize and Wheat
Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Nairobi, Kenya, pp.44.
Wanja MS, Stephen MN, Kyalo MJ (2015). Mechanisms
and levels of resistance in hybrids, open pollinated
varieties and landraces to Chilopartellus maize stem
borers. Int. Res. J. Agr. Sci. and Soi. Sci. 5: 81-90.
Worku M, Twumasi-Afriyie S, Wolde L, Tadesse B,
Demisie G, Bogale G, Wegary D, Prasanna BM, eds.
Meeting the challenges of global climate change and
food security through innovative maize research.
Proceedings of the third national maize work shop of
Ethiopia, Addis Ababa; 2012.
Accepted 28 January 2018
Citation: Hiruy B and Getu E (2018). Screening of some
Maize Varieties for Resistance against the Maize weevils,
Sitophilus zeamais (Motsch.). International Journal of
Entomology and Nematology, 4(1): 077-084.
Copyright: © 2018 Hiruy and Getu. This is an open-
access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author and source are cited.
