Plant

| Peer-Reviewed |

Protective Effects of Resistant Beans on Maize Damage by Mythimna unipuncta and Sitotroga cerealella

Received: 14 June 2018    Accepted: 17 July 2018    Published: 17 August 2018
Views:       Downloads:

Share This Article

Abstract

Sitotroga cerealella is the main pest of maize grains and Mythimna unipuncta is a generalist defoliating pest that often attacks maize. Two Tepary bean (Phaseolus acutifolius) genotypes, Tepary pinto yellow (Yellow T) and Tepary pinto negro (Black T), repel pest attacks on beans and, since beans and maize have co-evolved in America, we hypothesized that they could also protect maize against the attack of similar pests. Yellow T showed antixenosis against larvae in young maize plants. Pinto Saltillo (P. Saltillo) (P. vulgaris) and Yellow T controlled the consumption of maize leaves. No significant differences were found between these two genotypes for Mythimna unipuncta growth in bioassays with artificial diets. We found significant differences for number of holes caused by Sitotroga cerealella attack in maize grains being lowest for Yellow T (43.3) and highest for PS-AZH-15 (P. vulgaris) (53.6). Number of adults was lowest for Yellow T and PS-AZH-15 and highest for Black T. Yellow T showed antixenoxis against Mythimna unipuncta and Sitotroga cerealella and can be used for partially controlling these maize pests. Furthermore, Yellow T was consistently superior to the control for both maize pests and could be used for future studies of maize protection; suggesting that there is a clear genetic regulation of this antixenotic effect. The protective mechanism has not insecticide properties; conversely, we believe that there could be substances that increase the hardness or reduce the palatability of tissues.

DOI 10.11648/j.plant.20180602.13
Published in Plant (Volume 6, Issue 2, June 2018)
Page(s) 38-42
Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

Copyright

Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Phaseolus Vulgaris, Phaseolus Acutifolius, Maize, Zea Mays, Mythimna Unipuncta, Sitotroga Cerealella, Antixenosis

References
[1] Perez-Hedo, M., et al., Processing of the maize Bt toxin in the gut of Mythimna unipuncta caterpillars. Entomologia Experimentalis Et Applicata, 2013. 148(1): p. 56-64.
[2] Ortega, A., Insectos nocivos del maíz: una guía para su identificación en el campo. 1987: Cimmyt.
[3] Adams, J., Weight loss caused by development of Sitophilus zeamais Motsch. in maize. Journal of Stored Products Research, 1976. 12(4): p. 269-272.
[4] Ahmad, M. and A. Ahmad, Storage of food grains. Farming Outlook, 2002. 1: p. 16-20.
[5] PAINTER, R. H., Insect Resistance in Crop Plants. Soil Science, 1951. 72(6): p. 481.
[6] Poerschmann, J., et al., Molecular Level Lignin Patterns of Genetically Modified Bt-Maize MON88017 and Three Conventional Varieties Using Tetramethylammonium Hydroxide (TMAH)-induced Thermochemolysis. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2008. 56(24): p. 11906-11913.
[7] Oerke, E.-C., Crop losses to pests. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 2006. 144(01): p. 31-43.
[8] Rausher, M. D., Co-evolution and plant resistance to natural enemies. Nature, 2001. 411(6839): p. 857-864.
[9] Jiménez, J. C., et al., Resistance categories to Acanthoscelides obtectus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) in tepary bean (Phaseolus acutifolius), new sources of resistance for dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) breeding. Crop Protection, 2017. 98: p. 255-266.
[10] Sanchez-Valdez, I., et al., Registration of 'Pinto saltillo' common bean. Crop Science, 2004. 44(5): p. 1865-1866.
[11] Osuna-Ceja, E. S., et al., Rendimiento de genotipos de frijol con diferentes métodos de siembra y riego-sequía en Aguascalientes. Revista mexicana de ciencias agrícolas, 2013. 4(8): p. 1209-1221.
[12] Rosales-Serna, R., et al., Rendimiento, preferencia y calidad de enlatado de variedades de frijol pinto producidas en Durango, México. Revista mexicana de ciencias agrícolas, 2014. 5(2): p. 309-315.
[13] Valdez-Ortiz, A., et al., Protein hydrolysates obtained from Azufrado (sulphur yellow) beans (Phaseolus vulgaris): Nutritional, ACE-inhibitory and antioxidative characterization. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 2012. 46(1): p. 91-96.
[14] Cantor, A., 1997. Extending SAS Survival Analysis Techniques for Medical Research. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Caroline.
[15] SAS Institute Inc., 2016. SAS 9.4 Guide to software updates. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
Author Information
  • Maize Genetics and Breeding, Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Pontevedra, Spain; Bean Genetics and Breeding, National Institute of Forestry, Agriculture and Livestock Research (INIFAP), Cuauhtemoc, Mexico

  • Maize Genetics and Breeding, Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Pontevedra, Spain

  • Maize Genetics and Breeding, Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Pontevedra, Spain

  • Maize Genetics and Breeding, Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Pontevedra, Spain

Cite This Article
  • APA Style

    José Cruz Jimenez-Galindo, Lorena Alvarez-Iglesias, Rosa Ana Malvar, Pedro Revilla. (2018). Protective Effects of Resistant Beans on Maize Damage by Mythimna unipuncta and Sitotroga cerealella. Plant, 6(2), 38-42. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.plant.20180602.13

    Copy | Download

    ACS Style

    José Cruz Jimenez-Galindo; Lorena Alvarez-Iglesias; Rosa Ana Malvar; Pedro Revilla. Protective Effects of Resistant Beans on Maize Damage by Mythimna unipuncta and Sitotroga cerealella. Plant. 2018, 6(2), 38-42. doi: 10.11648/j.plant.20180602.13

    Copy | Download

    AMA Style

    José Cruz Jimenez-Galindo, Lorena Alvarez-Iglesias, Rosa Ana Malvar, Pedro Revilla. Protective Effects of Resistant Beans on Maize Damage by Mythimna unipuncta and Sitotroga cerealella. Plant. 2018;6(2):38-42. doi: 10.11648/j.plant.20180602.13

    Copy | Download

  • @article{10.11648/j.plant.20180602.13,
      author = {José Cruz Jimenez-Galindo and Lorena Alvarez-Iglesias and Rosa Ana Malvar and Pedro Revilla},
      title = {Protective Effects of Resistant Beans on Maize Damage by Mythimna unipuncta and Sitotroga cerealella},
      journal = {Plant},
      volume = {6},
      number = {2},
      pages = {38-42},
      doi = {10.11648/j.plant.20180602.13},
      url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.plant.20180602.13},
      eprint = {https://download.sciencepg.com/pdf/10.11648.j.plant.20180602.13},
      abstract = {Sitotroga cerealella is the main pest of maize grains and Mythimna unipuncta is a generalist defoliating pest that often attacks maize. Two Tepary bean (Phaseolus acutifolius) genotypes, Tepary pinto yellow (Yellow T) and Tepary pinto negro (Black T), repel pest attacks on beans and, since beans and maize have co-evolved in America, we hypothesized that they could also protect maize against the attack of similar pests. Yellow T showed antixenosis against larvae in young maize plants. Pinto Saltillo (P. Saltillo) (P. vulgaris) and Yellow T controlled the consumption of maize leaves. No significant differences were found between these two genotypes for Mythimna unipuncta growth in bioassays with artificial diets. We found significant differences for number of holes caused by Sitotroga cerealella attack in maize grains being lowest for Yellow T (43.3) and highest for PS-AZH-15 (P. vulgaris) (53.6). Number of adults was lowest for Yellow T and PS-AZH-15 and highest for Black T. Yellow T showed antixenoxis against Mythimna unipuncta and Sitotroga cerealella and can be used for partially controlling these maize pests. Furthermore, Yellow T was consistently superior to the control for both maize pests and could be used for future studies of maize protection; suggesting that there is a clear genetic regulation of this antixenotic effect. The protective mechanism has not insecticide properties; conversely, we believe that there could be substances that increase the hardness or reduce the palatability of tissues.},
     year = {2018}
    }
    

    Copy | Download

  • TY  - JOUR
    T1  - Protective Effects of Resistant Beans on Maize Damage by Mythimna unipuncta and Sitotroga cerealella
    AU  - José Cruz Jimenez-Galindo
    AU  - Lorena Alvarez-Iglesias
    AU  - Rosa Ana Malvar
    AU  - Pedro Revilla
    Y1  - 2018/08/17
    PY  - 2018
    N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.plant.20180602.13
    DO  - 10.11648/j.plant.20180602.13
    T2  - Plant
    JF  - Plant
    JO  - Plant
    SP  - 38
    EP  - 42
    PB  - Science Publishing Group
    SN  - 2331-0677
    UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.plant.20180602.13
    AB  - Sitotroga cerealella is the main pest of maize grains and Mythimna unipuncta is a generalist defoliating pest that often attacks maize. Two Tepary bean (Phaseolus acutifolius) genotypes, Tepary pinto yellow (Yellow T) and Tepary pinto negro (Black T), repel pest attacks on beans and, since beans and maize have co-evolved in America, we hypothesized that they could also protect maize against the attack of similar pests. Yellow T showed antixenosis against larvae in young maize plants. Pinto Saltillo (P. Saltillo) (P. vulgaris) and Yellow T controlled the consumption of maize leaves. No significant differences were found between these two genotypes for Mythimna unipuncta growth in bioassays with artificial diets. We found significant differences for number of holes caused by Sitotroga cerealella attack in maize grains being lowest for Yellow T (43.3) and highest for PS-AZH-15 (P. vulgaris) (53.6). Number of adults was lowest for Yellow T and PS-AZH-15 and highest for Black T. Yellow T showed antixenoxis against Mythimna unipuncta and Sitotroga cerealella and can be used for partially controlling these maize pests. Furthermore, Yellow T was consistently superior to the control for both maize pests and could be used for future studies of maize protection; suggesting that there is a clear genetic regulation of this antixenotic effect. The protective mechanism has not insecticide properties; conversely, we believe that there could be substances that increase the hardness or reduce the palatability of tissues.
    VL  - 6
    IS  - 2
    ER  - 

    Copy | Download

  • Sections