Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.
Sci (2018) 7(11): 3138-3143
International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences
ISSN: 2319-7706 Volume 7 Number 11 (2018)
Journal homepage: http://www.ijcmas.com
Original Research Article https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2018.711.360
Screening of Selected Rice Genotypes for Their Resistance against Brown
Planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens (Stal)
M. Udayasree*, P. Rajanikanth, N.R.G. Varma and M. Sreedhar
Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University, Rajendranagar,
Hyderabad, Telangana, India
*Corresponding author
ABSTRACT
Keywords The development of biotypes and existence of variability in Brown planthopper population
always demands for the identification of new sources of resistance from time to time.
Rice genotypes, However, the presence of desirable quality and yield traits in the genotypes along with
Resistance, Brown
planthopper, Nilaparvata source of resistance to BPH will be an added advantage. Screening was carried out with
lugens (Stal) 39such promising rice genotypes and three checks following standard seed box technique.
Article Info The test revealed 17 genotypes to be moderately resistant with damage score ranging
between 3.6 -5.0. Among 17 genotypes, KNM 2305 and RNR 21571 recorded lowest
Accepted: damage score of 3.6. Further investigations on presence of other mechanisms of resistance
26 October 2018 such as antixenosis, antibiosis and tolerance needs to be studied to identity the best
Available Online: genotype among the 17 genotypes that could to be used for developing BPH resistant /
10 November 2018
tolerant variety with desirable yield and quality traits.
Introduction The brown planthopper, is a phloem-sap-
sucking insect pest of rice (Sogawa, 1982).
Rice is a major staple food grain as well as a Both nymphs and adults suck the sap from the
major source of carbohydrate and energy in lower portion of the plant, which results in
the daily diet of an average Indian and demand yellowing of leaves, reduction in tiller
for rice is likely to increase with an ever number, plant height, and finally results in
growing population of the country. More than unfilled grains. Feeding also causes reduction
90 per cent of the world’s rice is grown and in chlorophyll and protein content of leaves
consumed in Asia where 60 per cent of the followed by reduced rate of photosynthesis, in
global population lives. It is cultivated in case of severe attack, it causes extensive plant
about 154 million hectares annually which is mortality referred to as ‘hopper burn’
equivalent to 11 per cent of the world’s symptom. BPH also transmits rice grassy stunt
cultivated land. Rice is affected by more than virus (GSV) and ragged stunt virus (RSV) as a
two hundred insect pests of which about a vector (Khush and Brar, 1991). In recent
dozen are economically important (Grist and years, BPH infestations have increased across
Lever, 1969) and brown plant hopper is one Asia, causing heavy yield losses in rice. As the
among them. popular rice varieties are susceptible to
3138
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2018) 7(11): 3138-3143
planthoppers, farmers are forced to depend with BPH nymphs were covered with mylar
solely on chemical pesticides for controlling cages to prevent escape of the nymphs. The
this insect, which is expensive in terms of trays were rotated by 180˚ at frequent intervals
labour, cost and also pose environmental for attaining even reaction of plant response to
hazards. In addition, overuse of pesticides BPH infestation and to avoid the susceptible
destroys the natural predators and leads to the germplasm seedlings showing quick reaction
development of insecticidal resistance, which compared to resistant. All the test entries were
results in pest resurgence. The best alternative replicated thrice. A maximum of 20 entries
for managing the pest is to follow integrated with PTB-33 (resistant check) at the centre
pest management using two important and TN1 susceptible cultivar on either side of
components viz., first adoption of resistant or the tray was planted/tray. The position of 20
tolerant variety and second use of insecticides entries that were planted in each standard seed
with different modes of action from time to box were also randomized in three
time. replications. A total of six such standard seed
boxes were set up to evaluate the resistance
Materials and Methods response of 39 test entries.
A set of 39 elite rice genotypes (Table 1) The infested seedlings were monitored until
found promising during initial field screening the susceptible check (TN1) seedlings showed
trials conducted at Rice Research Centre, ARI, 90 per cent mortality. When more than 90 per
Rajendranagar having desirable yield traits cent plants of the susceptible check, TN1 were
were selected for screening studies along with killed, the scoring was done based on 0-9
resistant check (PTB33, BM-17) and scale using Standard Evaluation System (SES)
susceptible check (TN1). Screening of developed by the International Rice Research
selected rice entries was carried out in Institute (IRRI, 2014) as detailed in Table 2.
polyhouse by following Standard Seed box After scoring as per Standard Evaluation
Screening Technique (Heinrichs et al., 1985). System (SES) the SSST entries were
The seeds of selected cultures were soaked in categorized as described in the Table 3
water for 24 hours by placing them in petri (Jegadeeswaran et al., 2014).
plates containing optimum quantity of water.
The water was drained out after 24 hours and Results and Discussion
the soaked seeds were kept in the same petri
plate for another 24 hours to allow proper Perusal of data (Table 2) revealed that, among
germination. The pre-germinated seeds were 42 entries, two entries viz., PTB 33 and BM 71
planted in the plastic trays of size (45 x 35 x with damage score of 3.0 were found to be
10 cm) filled with fertilizer enriched puddled resistant (R), while 17 entries recorded
soil. The sown seeds were covered with thin damage score ranging from 3.6-4.9 showing
layer of soil and watered as and when moderately resistant reaction. Among the
required. moderately resistant entries, 2 entries viz.,
KNM 2305 and RNR 21571 registered
First and second instar nymphs of BPH were damage score of3.6 while MTU 1010 and
released on 12-13 day old seedlings of the test RNR 23079 showed 4.2 and 4.3 damage score,
entries by tapping heavily infested plants from respectively. Similarly, 3 entries viz., MTU
oviposition cages on the screening trays, 1001, RNR 11718 and KNM 2307 exhibited
ensuring that each test seedling was infested damage score of 4.4 followed by JGL 24423
with at least 6-8 nymphs. The screening trays (DS 4.5) (Table 4).
3139
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2018) 7(11): 3138-3143
Table.1 Selected rice genotypes for mass screening against BPH following Standard Seed box
Screening Technique (SSST)
S. Rice Parentage / Cross S. Rice Parentage / Cross
No. Genotypes No. Genotypes
1 BM 71 Vajram/ Darrington 22 KNM 1638 JGL 11727 × JGL 17004
2 PTB 33 Pure line selection from land 23 KNM 3457 JGL 18799 × NLR 34449
race from Pattambi
3 KNM 2305 JGL 11471 × Himalaya 741 24 RNR 26100 Akshayadhan × RNR 2458
4 RNR1571 MTU 1010 × JGL 25 RNR 26101 Akshayadhan × RNR 2458
3855/MTU//1010/NLR 34449
5 MTU 1010 Krishnaveni/IR 64 26 JGL 24332 MTU 1010 × NLR 34449
6 RNR 3079 CR 1009/NLR145 27 KNM 4058 JGL 11470 × GEB 35
7 MTU 1001 Vajram/MTU 7014 28 KPS 7558 BM 71 × NLR 34449
8 KNM 2307 JGL 11727 × JGL 17004 29 JGL 25153 JGL17653/RP 2421
9 RNR 1718 MTU 1010/NLR 34449 30 Sinnasivappu -
10 JGL 24423 MTU 1010 × NLR 31 Sabita -
34449/MTU/1010
11 RNR 5838 Sumathi × IR 79216 – 141 – 1 32 WGL 962 BPT 5204/GEB 24//PTB
–3–3 5204/Shathabdhi
12 RNR 0933 Sagar samba × BM 71 33 KPS 7988 Akshayadhan × BM 71
13 RNR 6111 MTU 1010 × Raasi 34 RNR 26121 RNR 17469 × BVM 1
14 RNR 993/2 2K3 – 339 – 7 – 5 – 1 – 3 × 35 KNM 4068 JGL 3844 × IR 8222-851/
JGL/1798 MTU/1075
15 RNR 5792 Bhadrakali × NSN 20894 36 KNM 733 MTU 1010 × JGL 11470
16 IET 23993 IR64/ Ady. Selection @ 37 RNR 23605 Pusa 1121 × BM 71
17 JGL 24527 JGL 11727 × RP 2421 38 RNR 23563 RNR 2458 × BM 71
18 KNM 4073 JGL 18047 × IR8222- 39 RNR 23593 Yamini × BM 71
851//MTU1075
19 RNR 3595 Yamini × BM 71 40 RNR 23646-2 WGL 14 × MTU 1081
20 RNR 3606 Pusa 1121 × BM 71 41 RNR 26120 RNR 17469 ×
Tellahamsa//MTU/1010
21 RNR 3646-1 WGL 14 × MTU 1081 42 TN1 Dee-Geo-Wu-Gen/Tsai-yuan-chu
Table.2 Standard Evaluation System (SES) describing the damage score of plant based on its
reaction to BPH incidence
Plant state Damage Score
No damage 0
Very slight damage 1
Lower leaf wilted with two green upper leaves 3
Two lower leaves wilted with one green upper leaf 5
All three leaves wilted but stem still green 7
Plant is dead 9
3140
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2018) 7(11): 3138-3143
Table.3 Categorization of levels of resistance based on damage score
S. No. Reaction Damage score range
1 Resistant (R) 1.0-3.0
2 Moderately Resistant (MR) 3.1-5.0
3 Moderately Susceptible (MS) 5.1-7.0
4 Susceptible (S) 7.1-8.9
5 Highly Susceptible (HS) 9.0
Table.4 Reaction of different rice cultures against BPH
S. Rice Mean Damage Reaction S. No. Rice Genotype Mean Damage Reaction
No. Genotype Score ± SE Score ± SE
1 BM 71 1.3 ±0.835 R 22 RNR 23606 6.0 ±0.200 MS
2 PTB 33 2.6 ±0.306 R 23 RNR 23646-1 6.0±0.200 MS
3 KNM 2305 3.6 ±0.400 MR 24 KNM 1638 6.1 ±0.067 MS
4 RNR 21571 3.6 ±0.400 MR 25 KNM 3457 6.6 ±0.133 MS
5 MTU 1010 4.2 ±0.033 MR 26 RNR 26100 6.7 ±0.067 MS
6 RNR 23079 4.3 ±0.291 MR 27 RNR 26101 6.8 ±0.000 MS
7 MTU 1001 4.4 ±0.200 MR 28 JGL 24332 6.8 ±0.000 MS
8 KNM 2307 4.4 ±0.333 MR 29 KNM 4058 6.8 ±0.067 MS
9 RNR 11718 4.4 ±0.333 MR 30 KPS 7558 7.4 ±0.067 S
10 JGL 24423 4.5 ±0.371 MR 31 JGL 25153 7.6 ±0.000 S
11 RNR 25838 4.6 ±0.200 MR 32 WGL 962 7.6 ±0.000 S
12 RNR 20933 4.6 ±0.231 MR 33 KPS 7988 8.3 ±0.467 S
13 RNR 26111 4.7 ±0.176 MR 34 RNR 26121 9.0 ±0.000 HS
14 SABITA 4.7 ±0.176 MR 35 KNM 4068 9.0 ±0.000 HS
15 RNR 25993/2 4.8 ±0.000 MR 36 KNM 733 9.0 ±0.000 HS
16 RNR 25792 4.8 ±0.067 MR 37 RNR 23605 9.0 ±0.000 HS
17 SinnaSivappu 4.8 ±0.067 MR 38 RNR 23563 9.0 ±0.000 HS
18 IET 23993 4.8 ±0.133 MR 39 RNR 23593 9.0 ± 0.000 HS
19 JGL 24527 5.0 ±0.000 MR 40 RNR 23646-2 9.0 ± 0.000 HS
20 KNM 4073 6.0 ±0.115 MS 41 RNR 26120 9.0 ± 0.000 HS
21 RNR 23595 6.0±0.115 MS 42 TN1 9.0 ± 0.000 HS
R - Resistant, MR - Moderately Resistant, MS - Moderately Susceptible, S - Susceptible, HS - Highly Susceptible
3141
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2018) 7(11): 3138-3143
Further, two entries viz., RNR 25838 and References
RNR 20933 (DS 4.6), two entries viz., RNR
26111 and Sabita (DS 4.7), four entries viz., Bhanu, K.V., Satyanarayana, P.V., Reddy,
RNR 25993/2, RNR 25792, Sinnasivappu and P.S and Reddy, A.V. 2014.MTU IJ 206-
IET 23993 (DS 4.8) and one entry viz., JGL 7-4-1 (BM 71), A new brown
24527 registered damage score 5.0. planthopper resistant donor with high
levels of antixenosis and antibiosis
Among the remaining 23 entries, 10 entries effects. International Journal of
were identified as moderately susceptible with Innovative and Applied Research. 2
damage score ranging from 5.1-7.0, while (12): 35- 41.
four entries were designated as susceptible Grist, D.H and Lever, R.J.A.W. 1969.Pests of
which registered damage score ranging from rice. Longmans, Green and Co.
7.1 to 8.9. The remaining 9 entries including Heinrichs, E.A., Medrano, F.D. and Rapusas,
TN1 were found highly susceptible recording H.R. 1985. Genetic Evaluation for
damage score of9.0. Several workers have Insect Resistance in rice. In: Heinrichs
reported PTB-33 as resistant to BPH which is E. A., Rapusas H and Medrano F. (eds)
being currently used as a resistant check in International Rice Research Institute,
the screening studies (PrakashRao et al., LosBanos, Philippines.1-356.
1976, Jegadeshwaran et al., 2014, Jena et al., International Rice Research Institute. 2014.
2014, Bhanu et al., 2014, Sarao et al., 2016 Standard evaluation system of rice
and Thamarai et al., 2017). Bhanu et al., 2014 (SES). 5th Edition. LosBanos;
reported BM 71 as highly resistant culture Phillipines.
against BPHwhich, in accordance with the Jegadeeswaran, M., Anandakumar, C.R and
results obtained in the present study. The Maheswaran, M. 2014. Phenotypic
present investigation has identified 17 screening of rice (Oryza sativa L.)
moderately resistant donors which could be varieties for brown planthopper
useful in breeding for developing resistant [Nilaparvata lugens (Stal.)] resistance.
varieties against BPH. However, further Trends in Bioscience. 7 (16): 2257-
investigations on presence of other 2266.
mechanisms of resistance such as antixenosis, Jena, M., Panda, R.S., Sahu, R.K., Mukherjee,
antibiosis and tolerance needs to be studied to A.K and Dhua, U. 2014. Evaluation of
identity the best genotype among the 17 rice genotypes for rice brown
genotypes that could to be used for planthopper resistance through
developing BPH resistant / tolerant variety phenotypic reaction and genotypic
with desirable yield and quality traits. analysis. Crop protection. 78: 119-126.
Khush, G.S and Brar, D.S. 1991. Genetics of
Acknowledgement resistance to insects in crop plants.
Advances in Agronomy. 45:223-
My first and earnest, acknowledgement must 274.Ltd., London. 520.
go to my guide, Dr. P. Rajanikanth and PrakashRao, P.S., Israel, P and Krishna, A.G.
members N.R.G. Varma, M. Sreedhar for 1976. Brown planthopper attack in East
their scholastic guidance, unceasing interest, Godavari. A.P., India. International
valuable knowledge, technical advice. I thank Rice Research Newsletter. 1:17.
all my teachers, friends and university for Sarao, P.S., Sahi, G.K., Neelum, K., Mangat,
their cooperation and help during the research G.S., Patra, B.C and Singh, K. 2016.
programme. Donors for Resistance to Brown
3142
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2018) 7(11): 3138-3143
Planthopper Nilaparvata lugens (Stal.) Thamarai, M and Soundararajan, R.P. 2017.
from Wild Rice Species. Rice Science. Reaction of Rice genotypes against
23 (4):1-6. specific population of brown
Sogawa, K. 1982. The rice brown planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens (Stal.).
planthopper: feeding physiology and Annals of Plant Protection Science. 25
host plant. Annual Review of (1): 74-77.
Entomology. 27 (1):49-73.
How to cite this article:
Udayasree, M., P. Rajanikanth, N.R.G. Varma and Sreedhar, M. 2018. Screening of Selected
Rice Genotypes for Their Resistance against Brown Planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens (Stal).
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci. 7(11): 3138-3143. doi: https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2018.711.360
3143
