Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Morphophysiological and biochemical attributes influence intra-genotypic preference of shoot fly [Atherigona soccata (Rondani)] among sorghum genotypes

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Protoplasma Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Shoot fly [Atherigona soccata (Rondani)] is a destructive pest of sorghum at the seedling stage and causes huge losses to grain yield and green fodder. The host-plant resistance mechanism is the best approach to reduce the attack of insects in plants. The damage parameters, morphophysiological traits, and biochemical metabolites had been investigated in the leaves and stem of contrasting sorghum genotypes, viz., resistant (IS18551, ICSV705, ICSV700), moderately resistant (PSC-4), and susceptible (SWARNA and SL-44) at 15 and 21 days after emergence (DAE) against shoot fly infestation. The resistant genotypes recorded lowest shoot fly oviposition and incidence (0.3–0.7 eggs plant−1 and 10–15%) than the susceptible genotypes (2.4–3.0 eggs plant−1 and 70–80%), respectively. The susceptible genotype SWARNA recorded 50% and 80% higher deadheart formation than the resistant genotype IS18551 at 15 and 21 DAE, respectively. Resistant genotypes exhibited higher trichome density at adaxial and abaxial part of leaf (118–145 and 106–131) with pink colored leaf sheath (scale 1.50–3.25), glossy leaves (scale1.00–1.25), and lower leaf surface wetness (scale1.25–2.00) compared with susceptible genotype with 49.3–73.3 and 25.3–64.0, scale 2.50–4.00, scale 2.75–3.50, and scale 3.25–4.25 for the respective parameters. Another defense response of sorghum toward the insect attack was modulation of plant metabolism. The infested genotypes responded to insect attack by upregulation of total soluble sugar, total phenol, prussic acid, and chlorophyll content by 1.2–2.1-fold, 1.5–2.0-fold, 1.2–1.3-fold, and 1.2–3.9-fold with more induction in susceptible genotypes at 21 DAE. On the whole, the present study indicates that morphophysiological and biochemical attributes contribute toward the resistance mechanism in sorghum against shoot fly infestation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abinaya ML, Kumaravadivel N, Varanavasiappan S, Kavithamani D (2019) Screening the genotypes of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) BC1 F3 generation of the cross CO (S) 28 x IS18551 for shoot fly (Atherigona soccata (Rond.) resistance). Electron J Plant Breed 10(3):1133–1139

    Google Scholar 

  • AICRP-(2018) Annual Report 2017–18, All India Coordinated Research Project on sorghum

  • AICRP (2019) Annual report 2018–19, All India Coordinated Research Project on sorghum

  • Balikai RA, Bhagwat VR (2009) Evaluation of integrated pest management components for the management of shoot fly, shoot bug and aphid in rabi sorghum. Karnataka J Agric Sci 22(3):532–534

    Google Scholar 

  • Bangar MS, Patel CC, Kher HR, Parmar HP (2012) Biochemical basis of resistance in forage sorghum to shoot fly Atherigona soccata (RONDANI). Ind J Entomol 74(2):125–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes JD, Balaguer L, Manrique E, Elvira S, Davison AW (1992) A reappraisal of the use of DMSO for the extraction and determination of chlorophyll a and b in lichens and higher plants. Environ Exp Bot 32:85–100

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Belete T (2018) Defense Mechanisms of Plants to Insect Pests: From Morphological to Biochemical Approach. Trends Tech Sci Res 2(2):TTSR.MS.ID.555584

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhonwong A, Stout MJ, Attajarusit J, Tantasawat P (2009) Defensive role of tomato polyphenol oxidases against cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera) and beet armyworm (Spodoptera exigua). J Chem Ecol 35:28–38

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chamarthi SK, Sharma HC, Sahrawat KL, Narasu LM, Dhillon MK (2010) Physico-chemical mechanisms of resistance to shoot fly, Atherigona soccata in sorghum, Sorghum bicolor. J Appl Entomol 135:446–455

    Google Scholar 

  • Chavan MH, Phadnawis BN, Hudge VS, Salunkhe MR (1990) Biochemical basis of shoot fly tolerant sorghum genotypes. Annals Plant Physiol 4:215–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Cipollini D, Walters D, Voelckel C (2014) Costs of resistance in plants: from theory to evidence. Annual Plant Rev 47:263–307

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dhillon MK, Sharma HC, Reddy BVS, Singh R, Naresh JS, Kai Z (2005) Relative susceptibility of different male-sterile cytoplasms in sorghum to shoot fly. Atherigona Soccata Euphytica 144:275–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois M, Gilles KA, Hamilton JK, Rebers PA, Smith F (1956) Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Anal Chem 28(3):350–356

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer LA, Philbin CS, Ochsenrider KM, Richards LR, Massad TJ, Smilanich AM, Forister ML, Parchman TL, Galland L, Hurtado PJ, Espeset AE, Glassmire AE, Harrison JG, Mo C, Yoon S, Pardikes NA, Muchoney ND, Jahner JP, Slinn HL, Shelef O, Dodson CD, Kato MJ, Yamaguchi LF, Jeffrey CS (2018) Modern approaches for studies of chemical ecology with a focus on plant insect interactions. Nat Rev Chem 2:50–64

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ehab SAA, Kumaravadivel N, Mohankumar S, Muthukrishana N (2020) Correlarion study of traits associated with shoot fly resistance in recombinant inbred lines (RILs) population of sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]. Electronic Journal of Plant Breeding 11(1):110–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman BC, Beattie GA (2008) An overview of plant defenses against pathogens and herbivores. The Plant Health Instructor. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHI-I-2008-0226-01

  • Gorthy S, Narasu L, Gaddameedi A, Sharma HC, Kotla A, Deshpande SP, Are AK (2017) Introgression of shoot Fly (Atherigona soccata L. Moench) resistance QTLs into elite post-rainy season Sorghum varieties using marker assisted backcrossing (MABC). Front Plant Sci 8:1494

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Helmi A, Mohamed HI (2016) Biochemical and ultrastructural changes of some tomato cultivars after infestation with Aphis gossypii glover (Hemiptera: Aphididae) at Qalyubiyah, Egypt. Gesunde Pflanzen 68:41–50

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hogg PG, Ahlgren HL (1942) A rapid method of determination of HCN content of single plants of Sudan grass. J American Society Agron 34:199–200

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jotwani MG,Teetes GL, Young WR (1980) “Elements of integrated control of sorghum pests,“in FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper. Rome: FAO

  • Kahate NS, Raut SM, Ulemale PH, Bhogave AF (2014) Management of sorghum shoot fly. Popular Kheti 2:72–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaur R, Gupta AK, Taggar GK (2014) Role of catalase, H2O2 and phenolics in resistance if pigeonpea toward Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). Acta Physiol Plant 36:1513–1527

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kaur H, Salh PK, Singh B (2017) Role of defense enzymes and phenolics in resistance of wheat crop (Triticum aestivum L.) towards aphid complex. J Plant Interact 12(1):304–311

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kerchev PI, Fenton B, Foyer HC, Hancock RD (2012) Plant responses to insect herbivory: interaction between photosynthesis reactive oxygen species and hormonal signaling pathways. Plant, Cell and Environ 35:441–453

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Khattab H (2007) The defense mechanism of cabbage plant against phloem-sucking aphid (Brevicoryne brassicae L.). Aust J Basic Appl Sci 1:56–62

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kiranmayee KNSU, Hash CT, Deshpande SP, Kavikishor PB (2015) Biotechnological approaches to evolve sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) for drought stress tolerance and shoot fly resistance. Curr Trends Biotechnol Pharm 9:257–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Kortbeek RWJ, van der Gragt M, Bleeker MP (2019) Endogenous plant metabolites against insects. Eur J Plant Pathol 154:67–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Kovalikova Z, Kubes J, Skalicky M, Kuchtickova N, Maskova L, Tuma J, Vachova P, Hejnak V (2019) Hanges in content of polyphenols and ascorbic acid in leaves of white cabbage after Pest infestation. Molecules 24(14):2622

    CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar AA, Reddy BVS, Sharma HC, Ramaiah B (2008) Shoot fly (Atherigona soccata) resistance in improved grain sorghum hybrids. E J SAT Agric Res 6:1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowry OH, Rosebrough NJ, Farr AL, Randal RJ (1951) Protein measurement with folin phenol reagent. J Biol Chem 198:265–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Maiti RK, Bidinger FR (1979) A simple aproach to the identification of shoot fly tolerance in sorghum. Ind J Plant Protect 7:135–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohammadi M, Kazemi H (2002) Changes in peroxidase and polyphenol oxidase activities in susceptible and resistant wheat heads inoculated with Fusarium graminearum and induced resistance. Plant Sci 162:491–498

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mohammed R, Munghate RS, Are AK, Polavarapu KKB, Reddy BVS, Sharma HC (2015) Components of resistance to sorghum shoot fly, Atherigona soccata. Euphytica 207:419–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-015-1566-1

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mohammed R, Are AK, Munghate RS, Bhavanasi R, Polavarapu BKK, Sharma HC (2016) Inheritance of resistance to sorghum shoot fly, Atherigona soccata in sorghum, Sorghum bicolor (L.). Moench. Front Plant Sci 7:543

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mohammed R, Are AK, Rajendra S, Munghate, Gaddameedi A, Kavi Kishor Polavarapu KKB, Sharma HC (2018) Pattern of genetic inheritance of morphological and agronomic traits of sorghum associated with resistance to sorghum shoot fly, Atherigona soccata. Euphytica 214:32

    Google Scholar 

  • Morkunas J, Ratajczak L (2014) The role of sugar signaling in plant defense response against fungal pathogens. Acta Physiol Plant 36:1607–1619

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nagrare VS, Sheeba JA, Bhoyar P, Naikwadi B, Satija U (2017) Biochemical changes in cotton plants due to infestation by cotton mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). J Appl and Nat Sci (1):382–388

  • Padmaja PG, Woodcock CM, Bruce TJA (2010) Electrophysiological and behavioral responses of Sorghum shoot Fly, Atherigona soccata, to Sorghum volatiles. J Chem Ecol 36:1346–1353

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Padmaja PG, Shwetha BL, Swetha G, Patil JV (2014) Oxidative enzyme changes in sorghum infested by shoot Fly. J Insect Sci 14:1–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Palial S, Kumar S, Sharma S (2018) Biochemical changes in the Brassica-juncea-fruticulosa introgression line after Lipaphis erysimi (Kaltenbach). Phytoparasitica 46:499–509

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Papadopoulou GV, Dam NMV (2017) Mechanisms and ecological implications of plantmediated interactions between belowground and aboveground insect herbivores. Ecol Res 32:13–26

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Patel HV, Kalaria RK, Patel RM, Bhanderi GR (2015) Biochemical changes associated in different Sorghum genotypes against shoot Fly, Atherigona soccata (Rondani) resistant. Trends in Biosci 8(11):2867–2871

    Google Scholar 

  • Patil SP, Bagde AS (2017) Physio-chemical Resistance Mechanism of Sorghum Genotypes against Shoot Fly (Atherigona soccata) (Rondani). Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci 6(9):2742–2746

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma HC (1993) Host-plant resistance to insects in sorghum and its role in integrated pest management. Crop Prot 12:11–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma HC, Nwanze KF (1997) Mechanisms of resistance to insects and their usefulness in sorghum improvement. Information bulletin no.: 55. International crops research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, 51 pp.

  • Singh BU, Padmaja PG, Seetharama N (2004) Stability of biochemical constituents and their relationships with resistance to shoot fly, Atherigona soccata (Rondani) in seedling sorghum. Euphytica 136:279–289

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Soto PE (1974) Ovipositional preference and antibiosis in relation to resistance to sorghum shoot fly. J Econ Entomol 67:265–267

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Swain T, Hillis WE (1959) Phenolic constituents of Prunus domestica. The qualitative analysis of phenolic constituents. J Sci Food Agric 10:63–68

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tanase C, Cosarca S, Lucia Muntean D (2019) A critical review of phenolic compounds extracted from the bark of woody vascular plants and their potential biological activity. Molecules 24:1182

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • War AR, Paulraj MG, Ahmad T, Buhroo AA, Hussain B, Ignacimuthu S, Sharma HC (2012) Mechanisms of plant defense against insect herbivores. Plant Signal & Behav 7(10):1306–1320

    Google Scholar 

  • War AR, Taggar GK Hussain B, Taggar MS, Nair MR, Sharma HC (2018) SPECIAL ISSUE: using non-model systems to explore plant-pollinator and plant-herbivore interactions. AoB PLANTS https://academic.oup.com/aobpla

  • Zagrobelny M, Bak S, Rasmussen AV, Jørgensen B, Naumann CM, Møller BL (2004) Cyanogenic glucosides and plant–insect interactions. Phytochem 65:293–306

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to the International Crop Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Patancheru, Telangana, and Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, for providing study material.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biochemistry, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, 141004, India

    Archana Kumari

  2. Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, 141004, India

    Meenakshi Goyal & R. S. Sohu

  3. Department of vegetable Crops, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, 141004, India

    Ravinder Kumar

Authors
  1. Archana Kumari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Meenakshi Goyal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ravinder Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. S. Sohu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.K. conducted the experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper, and critically revised the manuscript; M.G conceived and designed the experiments, supervised the work with data evaluation, and critically revised the manuscript; R.S.S provided the germplasm; and R.K supervised the experiment design in the field.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Archana Kumari.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Handling Editor: Peter Nick

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kumari, A., Goyal, M., Kumar, R. et al. Morphophysiological and biochemical attributes influence intra-genotypic preference of shoot fly [Atherigona soccata (Rondani)] among sorghum genotypes. Protoplasma 258, 87–102 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00709-020-01554-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00709-020-01554-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation