Choice of Grain Sorghum for Infesting, Laying Eggs and Damage Caused by the Sorghum Midge


Authors : Joseph Andrew Wandulu; Michael Otim; Herbert Talwana

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 12 - December


Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/3xaa7rvt

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/45m3bck6

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25dec839

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.


Abstract : Sorghum Sorghum bicolor has become a key food crop, animal forage, and a commercial raw material. Sorghum is a versatile crop, drought tolerant and modified to grow under rough environmental situations. Worldwide, the sorghum midge Stenodiplosis sorghicola, is a major pest of grain sorghum. Host plant resistance is the most important pest control measure in sorghum production. There is little information on the impact of sorghum midge pest on sorghum. This study assessed the sorghum midge preference for the host plant and its choice where to oviposit its eggs, and the damage caused to grain sorghum, under choice and no choice situations in the experimental field and in cages. A randomized complete block experimental design was used. Significantly (P < 0.05) fewer (1.67 – 3.27) adult female midge flies infested sorghum germplasm; AS21, AF28, GA08/103, IS8884, IESV94023SH, SEREDO, and SEKEDO compared to the midge susceptible GA010/010 and WAD checks. The same germplasm had less yield loss 14.91-58.79% and considered resistant to midge pest attack and damage. Germplasm GA010/010 was significantly (P < 0.05) most infested and damaged giving high yield loss of 60 – 99%, and more midge larvae presence of 46 – 66%, considered susceptible to midge. Sorghum midge mostly infested susceptible sorghum germplasm on which it laid eggs compared to resistant ones. High midge pest pressure caused more damage to grain sorghum, irrespective of host resistance status. Sorghum flower structural parts were found to effect resistance or susceptibility to sorghum midge flies. Midge resistant sorghum germplasm; AF28, AS21, GA07/84, SEREDO, and GA08/103 had significantly (P<0.05) shorter flower style lengths of 0.39 – 0.64mm, compared to the susceptible germplasm GA010/010 with 0.94mm. Midge resistant germplasm AF28, AS21, SEREDO, and IESV94023SH had significantly (P < 0.05) smaller exposed portion of the lower glume width ranging between 0.072 – 0.192mm, compared to that of GA010/010 (0.216mm) a midge susceptible germplasm. Unique sorghum floral morphological traits identified in promising sorghum genetic materials against sorghum midge are important in breeding for resistance against sorghum midge.

Keywords : Stenodiplosis Sorghicolar, Host-Resistance, Antixenosis, Antibiosis.

References :

  1. Agrawal B.L., Sharma H.C., and Leuschner K. (1987). Registration of ICSV 197 midge resistant sorghum cultivar. Crop Science 27:1312-1313.
  2. Aruna C. and Visarada K.B.R.S. (2018). Chapter 13. Sorghum grain in food and brewing industry. ICAR-Indian Institute of Millets Research, Hyderabad, India. In Breeding Sorghum for Diverse end uses. Woodland Publishing Series in Food Science Technology and Nutrition Pages 209 – 228.
  3. Franzmann B. A. (1996). Evaluation of a laboratory bioassay for determining resistance levels to   sorghum midge Contarinia sorghicola (Coquillett) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) in grain sorghum. Jour.  Aust. Ent. Soc. 35, 119-123.
  4. Franzmann, B. A. (1993) ‘Ovipositional antixenosis to Contarinia sorghicola (Coqquillett) (Diptera:Cecidomyiidae) in grain Sorghum.’, Journal of Australian Entomology Society, 32, pp. 59–64.
  5. Harris, K. M. (1976) The sorghum midge’, Annals of Applied Biology, pp. 114–118. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7348.1976.tb01738.x.
  6. Henzel R. G., Franzmann B. A., B. R. L. (1994) ‘Sorghum Midge Resistance Research in Australia’. doi: ISMN 35.
  7. Kuhlman, L. C. et al. (2010). Early-generation germplasm introgression from Sorghum macrospermum into sorghum ( S . bicolor )’, (May 2014). doi: 10.1139/g10-027.
  8. Kimber CT, Dahlberg JA, Kresovich S. (2013). The gene pool of Sorghum bicolor and its improvement. In: Paterson AH, editor. Genomics of the Saccharinae, plant genetics and genomics: crops and models. Vol. 11. New York: Springer; p. 23–41. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-5947-8_2.
  9. Knutson A.E. and Chronholm G. (2007).Economic injury levels for sorghum midge, Stenodiplosis sorghicolar, and corn earworm, Helicoverpa zea feeding on panicles of sorghum, Sorghum bicolor. Southwest. Entomology.32:75-85.
  10. Natarajan, K. and Chelliah, S. (1985) Studies on the sorghum grain midge, contarinia sorghicola coquillet, in relation to environmental influence’, Tropical Pest Management, 31(4), pp. 276–285. doi: 10.1080/09670878509371000.
  11. Nwanze, K. F. Seetharama N., Sharma H.C., Stenhouse J.W. (1995) Biotechnology in Pest management: Improving Resistance in sorghum to insects’, Africal Crop Science Journal, 3(2), pp. 2009–215.
  12. Olabimpe O.O., Allen k.C., Glover J.P., and Reddy G.V.P. (2021). Biology, ecology and management of key sorghum insect pests. Journal of Integrated Pest Management12(1):4;1-18 DOI:10.1093/jipm/pmaa027 OXFORD.
  13. Sharma HC. (2007).  Host plant resistance to insects: Mordern approaches and limitations. Indian Journal of plant protection. Vol 35. No. 2 (179-184). ICRISAT. Patancheru - 503 324, Andra Pradesh, India.
  14. Sharma, H. C. (2006). Integrated Pest Management Research at ICRISAT’. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), p. 48.
  15. Sharma, H. C. (1993). Host Plant Resistance to Insects in Sorghum and its role in IPM, Host-plant resistance to insects in sorghum and its role in integrated pest management. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0261-2194(93)90015-B.
  16. Sharma HC, and Vidyasagar P, (1994) Antixenosis component of resistance to sorghum midge Contarinia sorgicolar Coq. in Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench.
  17. Sharma, H. C, Vidyasagar, P and Subramanian, V. (1993a) Antibiosis component of resistance in sorghum to Sorghum midge, Annals of Applied Biology, 123, pp. 469–483.
  18. Sharma HC, Agrawal P, Vidyasagar CV Abraham and Nwanze K.F, (1993b). Identification and utilization of resistance to sorghum midge midge (C. sorghicola C). in India. Crop Prot 12:343-351.
  19. Sharma, H.C., Lueschner, K., Vidyasagar, P. (1990a) ‘Factors influencing oviposition behaviour of Smidge.pdf’, Annals of Applied Biology, 116, pp. 431–439.
  20. Sharma HC, Vidyasagar P, Leuschner K, (1990b) Components of resistance to sorghum midge Contarinia sorghicolar Annals of Applied Biology 116: 327-333.
  21. Sharma HC, Faujdar S, and Nwanze KF, (1997). Plant Resistance to Insects in Sorghum. Pantancheru 502,324, Andra Pradesh, India: ICRISAT. pp 216 ISBN 92-9066-382-0. Order code BOE 025
  22. Sharma, H.C., Taneja, S.L, Lueschner, K., Nwanze, K. F. (1992) ‘Techniques to screen sorghum for resistance to insect pests’, p. 48. ICRISAT
  23. Sharma HC, Taneja SL, Kameswara RN, Prasada RKE (2003). Evaluation of sorghum germplasm for resistance to insect pests. Info. Bull No. 63. ICRISAT
  24. Sharma, H. C. and Franzmann, B. A. (2001) Host-plant preference and oviposition responses of the sorghum midge, Stenodiplosis sorghicola (Coquillett.) (Dipt.,Cecidomyiidae) towards wild relatives of sorghum, J. Appl. Ent. 125,  (2001), 125, pp. 109–114.
  25. Sharma, H. C., Franzmann, B. A. and Henzell, R. G. (2002) ‘Mechanisms and diversity of resistance to sorghum midge, Stenodiplosis sorghicola in Sorghum bicolor, Euphytica, 124(1), pp. 1–12. doi: 10.1023/A:1015634211375.
  26. Sharma H.C, Mukuru S.Z, Manyasa E., and Were J.W. (1999). Breakdown of resistance to sorghum midge, Stenodiplosis sorghicola Euphytica 109:131-140, 1999. Kluwer Academuc publishers
  27. Sharma H.C, Mukuru S.Z, Prasad H.K.V., Manyasa E., and Pande S. (1998) Identification of stable sources of resistance in sorghum to midge and their reaction to leaf diseases. Crop Protection 18: 29-37. Elsevier.
  28. Sharma HC, Nwanze KF, and Subramanian (1997). Mechanisms of resistance to insects and their usefulness in sorghum improvement : In Plant Resistance to insects in Sorghum. ICRISAT
  29. Singh, B. U. (1987) ‘Varietal Resistance in Sorghum to Midge, contarinia sorghicola coquillett (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae)’, Insect science Application, 8(2), pp. 129–144.
  30. Slifer, E. H. and Sekhon, S. S. (1921) ‘Circumfila and Other Sense Organs on the Antenna of the Sorghum Midge ( Diptera , Cecidomyiidae )’.
  31. Teetes GL, (1985). Insect Resistant sorghums in pest management. Insect science and its application 6:443-451.
  32. Tenywa, M.M., Nyamwaro, S.O., Kalibwani, R., Mogabo, J., Buruchara, R. and Fatunbi, A.O. (2018). Innovation Opportunities in Sorghum Production in Uganda. FARA Research Reports Vol 2 (18): pp 20.
  33. Uganda Bureau of statistics (UBOS), M. of agriculture animal I. and F. (MAAIF) (2010) Uganda Census of Agriculture 2008/2009: Crop Area and Production Report.
  34. Waquil JM, Teetes GL, and Peterson GC, (1986). Comparison of immature sorghum midge (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) development on resistant and susceptible sorghum. Journal of Economic Entomology 79:833-837

Sorghum Sorghum bicolor has become a key food crop, animal forage, and a commercial raw material. Sorghum is a versatile crop, drought tolerant and modified to grow under rough environmental situations. Worldwide, the sorghum midge Stenodiplosis sorghicola, is a major pest of grain sorghum. Host plant resistance is the most important pest control measure in sorghum production. There is little information on the impact of sorghum midge pest on sorghum. This study assessed the sorghum midge preference for the host plant and its choice where to oviposit its eggs, and the damage caused to grain sorghum, under choice and no choice situations in the experimental field and in cages. A randomized complete block experimental design was used. Significantly (P < 0.05) fewer (1.67 – 3.27) adult female midge flies infested sorghum germplasm; AS21, AF28, GA08/103, IS8884, IESV94023SH, SEREDO, and SEKEDO compared to the midge susceptible GA010/010 and WAD checks. The same germplasm had less yield loss 14.91-58.79% and considered resistant to midge pest attack and damage. Germplasm GA010/010 was significantly (P < 0.05) most infested and damaged giving high yield loss of 60 – 99%, and more midge larvae presence of 46 – 66%, considered susceptible to midge. Sorghum midge mostly infested susceptible sorghum germplasm on which it laid eggs compared to resistant ones. High midge pest pressure caused more damage to grain sorghum, irrespective of host resistance status. Sorghum flower structural parts were found to effect resistance or susceptibility to sorghum midge flies. Midge resistant sorghum germplasm; AF28, AS21, GA07/84, SEREDO, and GA08/103 had significantly (P<0.05) shorter flower style lengths of 0.39 – 0.64mm, compared to the susceptible germplasm GA010/010 with 0.94mm. Midge resistant germplasm AF28, AS21, SEREDO, and IESV94023SH had significantly (P < 0.05) smaller exposed portion of the lower glume width ranging between 0.072 – 0.192mm, compared to that of GA010/010 (0.216mm) a midge susceptible germplasm. Unique sorghum floral morphological traits identified in promising sorghum genetic materials against sorghum midge are important in breeding for resistance against sorghum midge.

Keywords : Stenodiplosis Sorghicolar, Host-Resistance, Antixenosis, Antibiosis.

CALL FOR PAPERS


Paper Submission Last Date
31 - January - 2026

Video Explanation for Published paper

Never miss an update from Papermashup

Get notified about the latest tutorials and downloads.

Subscribe by Email

Get alerts directly into your inbox after each post and stay updated.
Subscribe
OR

Subscribe by RSS

Add our RSS to your feedreader to get regular updates from us.
Subscribe