Recurrent Selection for Resistance to European Corn Borer in a Corn Synthetic and Correlated Effects on Agronomic Traits¹

Abstract

The European corn borer (ECB) [Ostrinia nubilalis (Hübner)] is the most damaging corn (Zea mays L.) insect pest in the USA. Utilization of corn hybrids with reduced susceptibility to ECB is the most economical method of control. Iowa normally has two generations of ECB each season that coincide with two growth stages of the plant. Sources of resistance to both generations in one genotype are rare and additional sources are needed. Resistance to ECB is conditioned by several genes and is primarily additive in gene action. For these reasons, a 10‐line synthetic, designated BS9, was developed specifically to be used in a recurrent selection program. Four cycles of S1 recurrent selection were conducted for resistance to both first and second generation ECB, and these cycles were then evaluated to determine the extent to which resistance for the whole life of the plant could be improved. The four cycles of selection decreased ratings in BS9 from 3.6 to 2.7 for first generation ECB damage and from 6.4 to 4.4 for second generation ECB damage on a 1 to 9 scale, and cavity counts (one cavity = 2.5 cm) decreased from 8.9 to 3.1. High artificial infestations of first, second, and both generations of ECB resulted in average grain yield reductions of 5.7, 22.0, and 21.1%, respectively. An increase in resistance in advanced cycles of BS9 decreased yield reductions caused by artificial infestations of ECB. Yielding ability also decreased, however, resulting in no yield advantage of the more resistant material under high infestation levels. Yield reductions were not different between testcrosses of testers that varied in ECB resistance, which resulted in nonsignificant correlations between ECB damage ratings and yield. Tolerance may be the key factor in this response.

Comparison of two methods of reciprocal recurrent selection in maize (Zea mays L.)

“…However when traits related to insect resistance, such as tunnel length or damage ratings, were the selection criteria, other authors have reported a decrease in grain yield (Klenke et al 1986;Nyhus et al 1989;Russell et al 1979;Sandoya et al 2008). The relationship between yield and resistance is poorly understood and our data indicate that both selection programs have managed yield genes independent of stalk resistance genes.…”

Comparison of selection indices to identify sorghum genotypes resistant to the spotted stemborer Chilo partellus (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

“…However, the effect of stemborer damage on grain yield is a complex interaction between the insect and the host plant, and expression of resistance varies depending on time of infestation (Alghali, 1985(Alghali, , 1987Jarvis et al, 1986;Klenke et al, 1986;Taneja and Nwanze, 1989;MacFarlane, 1990;Thome et al, 1994); interplant variation (Harris, 1962); recovery resistance; ability to withstand stemborer damage (Flattery, 1982); compensation in grain yield (Heinrich et al, 1983;van den Berg et al, 1990), or a combination of two or more of these parameters.…”

Yield performance of the European Union Maize Landrace Core Collection under multiple corn borer infestations

“…Selecting for yield under infestation would increase resistance and/or tolerance, depending on the mechanism working against corn borer attack. In addition, it would eliminate the risk of loosing yielding ability after selecting for insect resistance as some authors have reported (Russell et al, 1979;Klenke et al, 1986 andKlenke et al, 1988;Butrón et al, 2000 andButrón et al, 2002). This paper complements the information published on the differences among the European maize landraces of the EUMLCC for plant resistance measured as tunnel length in the stem and damage on the grain nonagrioides is the most abundant corn borer in Pontevedra, while European corn borer is predominant in Zaragoza (Malvar et al, 1993;Cordero et al, 1998).…”