5-7 5-1371 September 1981 Maize Weevil: A Search for Resistance in Converted Exotic Sorghum Kernels Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Neville P. Clarke, Director, The Texas A&M University SystertyCollege Station, Texas [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] MAIZE WEEVIL: A SEARCH FOR RESISTANCE IN CONVERTED EXOTIC SORGHUM KERNELS G. L. Teetes, W. Chantrasorn, J. W. Johnson, T. A. Granovsky and L. W. Rooney* This research was supported in part by grant AID/DSAN/XII/G+O1h9 from the Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C. 20523. TAES Project No. H-6216 *Respectively, professor, graduate research assistant, professor (TAES, Lubbock), and assistant professor, Department of Entomology, and professor, Department of Soil and Crop Science. KEYWORDS: Maize weevillsorghum/resistance/screening techniquesl Sitophilus zeamais. CONTENTS SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..i INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l METHODS AND MATERIALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..5 Maintenance of Cultures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..5 Initial Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..6 Free-choice test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..6 No—choice test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..7 Selected Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........8 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..8 Initial Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..8 Free—choice test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..8 No—choice test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..lO Selected Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l2 Free—choice test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l2 No—choice test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l4 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l5 LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l6 SUMMARY Kernels of 169 converted exotic lines of sorghum, Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench, were screened for resistance to the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais Motsch., utilizing free—choice and no—choice screening tech- niques. The criteria used for initial evaluation of samples of each line were attractiveness to maize weevil adults and the number of emerged progeny obtained. Despite considerable variability, results of this initial screening indicated that several entries possessed significant levels of resistance to maize weevil. Further tests were conducted with 25 entries, 18 of which appeared to be resistant in the initial screening. Results of this selected screening trial using several different methods to evaluate weevil resistance showed that there was congruity among different tests in identification of five converted exotic lines as exceptionally promising sources of resistance to the maize weevil. These lines were SCO226, SCO233, SCO309, SCO3ll, and SCO331. Additional lines which should be further investigated as sources of resistant germplasm are SCOI99, SC0224, SCO227, SCO230, SCO289, and SCO333. LABORATORY EVALUATION OF KERNELS OF CONVERTED EXOTIC SORGHUMS FOR RESISTANCE TO THE MAIZE WEEVIL* G. L. Teetes, W. Chantrasorn, J. W. Johnson, T. A. Granovsky and L. W. Rooney Perhaps one of the least exploited means of increasing available world grain supplies is to reduce post—harvest losses to insects, rodents, and other stored grain pests. Damage by insects to grain in storage by insects is a major problem, especially in the developing world. Estimates of postharvest losses of the world's grain supply due to insect damage range from 5 to 35 percent. Such losses are greater in certain tropical and subtropical countries, where estimates are as high as 30 to 40 percent (Munro l966). However, even in the United States, where weather conditions are less favorable for insect infestation over much of the northern half of the country (Davidson and Lyon 1979) and more adequate storage facilities exist, losses are estimated to be between 300 and 600 million dollars annually (Wilbur and Mills 1978). *Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Mention ofi a trademark or a proprietary product does not constitute a guarantee or a warranty of the product by The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and does not imply its approval to the exclusion of other products that also may be suitable. All programs and information of The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station are available to everyone without regard to race, ethnic origin, religion, sex, or age. I" ‘ ‘s; At the present time, mechanical, physical, and/or chemical control measures are the predominant methods used to protect stored grain from insects. Insect infestation frequently occurs after the grain is placed in storage. Consequently, control programs stress the use of clean, insect—free, and weatherproof storage facilities and the elimination of nearby sources of insect infestation. Fumigation is frequently required to control stored—grain insects. Modern technology has also encouraged conditioned-air storage, air—tight storage, and diverse drying methods, all of which can be effective in reducing insect development and damage to stored grain. Unfortunately, such control tactics are unavailable or are not used in many areas of the world, particularly in developing countries. Chemical control of stored product pests, though widely practiced, also has serious limitations. The recent upsurge of interest in alternatives to unilateral dependence on chemical control in production agriculture is due in part to the failure or adverse side effects of some chemical pesticides, including intolerable risks to human health and the environment. Increases in pest resistance are also limiting the effectiveness of many pesticides. Worldwide, there are presently at least 305 species of insects, mites and ticks that possess strains resistant to one or more chemical pesticides (Georghiou and Taylor 1977). The increasing cost of pesticides, exacerbated by the current petroleum shortage, also encourage consideration of alternative control measures. One such alternative which has proven its usefulness as an insect control measure in production agriculture is plant resistance to insects resulting from heritable characteristics. Plants or varieties that are inherently less injured or infested by insects than other plant varieties of the same species under comparable environmental conditions are considered resistant (Painter l95l). Resistance of grain to insects can be divided into two components, non—preference for oviposition or feeding, and antibiosis as reflected by an adverse effect on the biology of the insect. Tolerance is unlikely because grain does not have the ability to compensate for the damage done by the insects. Over l00 cultivars resistant to field insects are grown in the United States (Schmeltz 1971), but there has been less emphasis on breeding for grains resistant to stored—product insects. Particularly in countries where storage facilities are inadequate, the utilization of such resistant varieties might be used either alone or in conjunction with chemical insecticides or other control tactics to reduce or eliminate insect damage. The susceptibility of stored sorghum and other cereals to insect attack has been studied by many workers. Samuel and Chaterji (1953) tested 25 sorghum varieties against six species of stored-grain insect pests and reported that the variety JS 20 was resistant to most of the pests. They postulated that the combination of seed hardness, endosperm texture and the presence of glumes was responsible for low levels of insect damage. After screening more than 1500 sorghum varieties from the World Collection, Rogers and Mills (l974b) recorded 50 varieties which were resistant to the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais Motsch. Lange(l973). selected 16 cultivars which Rogers (1970) found most resistant to the maize weevil and reported that only Redlan, CM 796, CM 2520, and CM 208 had low weevil emergence percentages. Mannechoti(l974) reported that Shallu MP—lO was the most resistant of 92 cultivars to Sitophilus oryzae, §. zeamais, Rhizopertha dominica, and E. casteneum. White (1975) found similar results using §3 Eeamais and_§._d2miEi5a as test insects. This work was with the maize weevil since it is one of the most destructive and widely distributed of the primary stored grain pests. It occurs in greatest abundance in the warmer, humid regions of the world, such as the southern United States. This species prefers sorghum, oats, wheat, barley, and corn. Sorghum and corn were reported to be the most frequently infested (Morrison 1963). Although several species of beetles infest grain and grain products in Texas, the maize weevil is the most prevalent within the state (Morrison 1963). The adult maize weevil female chews a cavity in the sorghum kernel, deposits an egg and then seals the cavity with a gelatinous plug. One female can lay a total of 300 to 400 eggs. There are four larval stages which are completed in about 23 days. Morrison 1963 reported that the maize weevil completed six generations per year with an average of 39 days required for each generation. The maize weevil is a good flier (Cotton 1963), and ranks as a primary pest because of its ability to infest whole, undamaged grain. Weight loss of stored grain is caused by both adult and larval feeding, with the major damage being done by the developing larva inside the kernel. Besides grain weight loss, grain quality is reduced through contamination of the grain with insect fragments and excreta. Maize weevil damage also may result in attack by secondary grain pests that normally cannot attack whole, undamaged kernels. When this study was undertaken, kernels of more than 150 lines not previously screened for resistance to the maize weevil were available from the Texas Sorghum Conversion Project, a joint research effort sponsored by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station (TAES) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in Puerto Rico and Texas. In this program, exotic sorghum races and subraces were converted from photoperiod sensitive, tall genotypes, to insensitive, shorter genotypes with better adapted agronomic characters which can be used in temperate areas (Stephens et al. 1967). These converted sorghums provide diverse germplasm that can be tested for desired characters such as yield or insect resistance. The objective of the research reported here was to screen kernels of available converted sorghum lines for maize weevil resistance. MATERIALS AND METHODS Maintenance of Cultures The maize weevils used in this study were obtained locally (College Station) in 1976 and reared on either heterowaxy (AT x 378 x NSA 965, ATx 374 x NSA 954) or a comercial sorghum hybrid in an incubator. One pint, wide mouth Mason® jars with caps fitted with brass screens were used to hold the grain on which weevil cultures were maintained. Approximately 200 gm of sorghum grain in jars were moisture-equilibrated in an incubator for seven days before infesting with 150 unsexed weevils. To obtain test insects of a known age, these weevils were allowed to oviposit for seven days, after which they were removed from the grain using a No. 10 U.S. Standard Sieve and discarded. The infested grain was maintained in the incubator,and the emerging adults were removed beginning 32 days post—oviposition. For the next seven days, all newly emerged adults were removed and placed in separate jars with cultured grain. The adult weevils reared and collected by this method were approximately 10 :_3.5 days old. Initial Screening A total of 169 converted exotic sorghum lines chosen for the study were received from plant breeders at the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station at Lubbock. Entries were identified by their sorghum conversion (SC) number. Corresponding world collection (IS) numbers for these varieties have been published by Schuering and Miller (1978). Shallu MP—l0 and Kafir 60, two lines previously reported as resistant and susceptible, respectively, to the maize weevil by both Lange (1973) and Mannechoti (1974), were obtained from Kansas State University. They were used as standard checks in both free—choice and no—choice tests. Free—choice test. This method was used to determine the preference of maize weevil to kernels of l69 different sorghum lines. Plastic strips 5.2 cm wide were used to rim each of eight plywood circular trays 34 cm in diameter. Each tray had 25 separate seed compartments 2.6 cm in diameter which were equidistant from the tray center. Each compartment was also equidistant from adjacent ones. A 25—kernel sample of each of 22 randomly selected sorghum lines was placed in each compartment. Resistant (Shallu MP—l0) and susceptible (Kafir 60) varieties, as well as the variety used as the rearing medium for the maize weevil cultures, served as controls in each chamber. Test seeds were equilibrated for two weeks at 27°C and 60 :_3 percent RH. A groupcfl?225 unsexed weevils 10j:3.5 days old were then placed in the center of the tray and allowed to move freely to the seeds confined in different compartments. Each tray was covered with fine mesh cloth to confine the weevils and maintained in the incubator for seven days, after which the number of weevils present in each compartment was recorded. The experiment was replicated four times. No—choice test. Fifty undamaged kernels of each line were placed in small vials (2.2 cm in diameter and 2.5 cm in height) and equilibrated in the test chamber for two weeks. Maize weevils were sexed using snout characteristics described by Reddy (1951), after which six female and three male weevils 10 :_3.5 days old were added to each vial. Vials were then covered with fine mesh cloth and maintained in the test chamber for a seven—day oviposition period, after which the adult weevils were removed. The vials remained in the test chamber for the next 55 days, during which time the number of emerging progeny was recorded. This experiment was replicated six times. Two replications of these trials were conducted in one incubator, in which the relative humidity ranged from 40-80 percent at 27°C. Four replications were conducted in an environmental chamber at 60 :_3 percent RH and 27°C. Initially, two chambers were used to determine relative humidity effects. Data from the free—choice and no-choice tests were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance procedures to determine significant differendes among tested lines in the number of adults present and the number of emerged progeny. Duncan's multiple range test (DMRT) was used to test for statistical differences between individual means at the .05 probability level. Correlation analysis was also performed to determine I whether a relationship existed between the two methods. Selected Screening Eighteen of the most resistant lines identified in the above tests were then compared to seven susceptible lines in a selected screening test. The former were lines in which the fewest adults had been found in the free-choice test and from which the fewest weevil progeny had emerged in the no—choice test. In the selected screening test, the same methods (free-choice and no—choice tests) were used to evaluate the selected lines, but in both tests additional evaluation criteria were used. In the free-choice test, data were collected not only on the number of adults present in each sample but also on the number of kernels damaged, egg plugs, and emerged progeny for each sample. In the no—choice test, in addition to the number of emerged progeny obtained, parent mortality after a seven—day oviposition period was also recorded. All tests were conducted in an environmental chamber set at 27°C and 70 :_3 percent RH. Data were transformed using the square root transformation procedures previously described. RESULTS AND DISCUSS ION Initial Screening Free—choice test. Numbers of adult maize weevils recovered from kernels of each sorghum line in a free-choice test after a seven—day exposure period are presented in Table 1. Data were transformed using the square root transformation procedure prior to statistical analysis to generate a normal distribution. Analysis of variance showed significant differences in the number of adults present among lines. The F-test value of 2.75 (significant at the .05 level) indicated that the difference among sorghum lines in the number of adults present was slightly greater than the difference in adult numbers among replications of the same line. Duncan's multiple range test revealed overlapping groups. SCO289, SCOI86, SCO528, SCO427, and SCOl65 were among the most susceptible entries. SCO254, SCO2l5, SCO303, SCO079, and SCO33l were among the most resistant entries based upon the number of adults in the free—choice test. Standard checks (Shallu MP—l0 and Kafir 60) which were used as resistant and susceptible lines, respectively, could not be separated as resistant or susceptible in the free-choicetest. Mannechoti (1974) and Lange (1973) reported these as resistant and susceptible, respectively, based on the number of progeny obtained. Number of adults present inia free-choice test is one measurement of sorghum resistance to the maize weevil and is a convenient method of eliminating obviously susceptible entries. Its chief advantage over the no—choice test is that it eliminates the time—consuming task of sexing the weevils when a large number of varieties are to be evaluated. Lines selected from this preliminary screening trial were subjected to the Selected Screening test described in succeeding paragraphs. The additional test was conducted to further study the weevil's behavior (oviposition, etc.), the extent of feeding on the grain, and the extent of progeny production. No—choice test. Data from the no—choice test, based on the number of emerged progeny from kernels of each sorghum line, are given in Table 2. Data were transformed using the square root transformation procedure prior tostatistical analysis. Analysis of variance showed significant differences among sorghum lines in the number of progeny which emerged. A greater F—test value was obtained in this test (9.25) in comparison to that obtained in the free—choice test (2.75), indicating that more variation was detected among the test lines by comparing numbers of progeny numbers. Comparisons of the mean number of progeny obtained from different lines using DMRT indicated several overlapping groups of sorghum lines, particularly the intermediate lines. Significantly greater numbers of weevils (32 weevils/replicate) were obtained from the most susceptible line, SCOl65, in comparison to the most resistant lines, SCO226, SCO230, and SCO233, which averaged only 0.17 weevils/replicate. When seed quantity is limited, comparison of the number of emerged progeny obtained from different lines is considered a reliable method for determining weevil resistance in cereals, especially corn, wheat, rice, and sorghum (Davey 1965, Stevens and Mills 1973). Russell (1962) and Mills (1976) found that there was no significant difference among the sorghum lines they tested in regard to developmental period from egg to adult, or progeny weights. Windstromet al. (1972) studied six methods (grain loss, number of emerged progeny per sample, percent damaged kernels, percent progeny mortality, and progeny weight) in corn kernels resistant to maize weevil and concluded that the total number of emerged progeny per sample was a better indicator of resistance than the other five methods. The no—choice test is a suitable measurement for selecting resistant lines because it simulates conditions in a grain bin. However, Mills (1976) reported that Shallu MP—10 was apparently more resistant to the maize weevil when tested in small quantities than when samples of 50 grams or more were tested. Correlation analysis of the number of adults present in the free- choice test and the number of emerged progeny in the no—choice test showed significant positive correlation (r=O.324) at the .05 level. The results indicated that the number of adults present in the free-choice test had some value in the identification of the obviously susceptible lines. McCain et al. (1964) developed the "cafeteria method" for selecting for rice weevil resistance in corn and reported a high correlation (r = 0.65) between this method and a progeny test in the ranking of 10 corn hybrids. Stevens and Mills (1972) conducted similar studies in which they modified the free-choice test by separating it into a random distribution and a uniform distribution test. They found that when sorghum varieties were ranked according to resistance to the rice weevil, the results of all three types of test were nearly equal. In our study, however, relatively small correlation coefficients were obtained, indicating that neither of the distribution tests was as reliable as the no—choice test in detecting resistance of sorghums to the maize weevil. Our results were probably due to the fact that each line in the initial free-choice test was not tested against all other lines in the same test tray, since each tray could accommodate a maximum of only 25 lines. The no—choice test showed that the response of some converted sorghum lines to maize weevil infestation was influenced by relative humidityfih Although highly susceptible lines consistently produced relatively large numbers of progeny throughout the range of humidity occurring in this %tudy, the resistance of some other lines to maize weevil was reduced when exposed to higher relative humidity. Selected Screening Free—choice test. Analysis of variance showed significant differences among the different entries in the numbers of adults present (Table 3). Of the converted lines tested, SCOl93, SCO006, SCO331, SCO215, SCO224, SCO228, and SCO233 attracted fewer adult weevils‘ (3.5—5.75/replicate) than did SCO366, SCO278, SCO333, SCOl65, SCO227, SCOl86, and SCO425 (10-23.5/replicate). Weevils were most numerous in the SCO425 and the SCOl86 samples. The acid fuchsin staining method (Frankenfeld 1948) was used to facilitate counting of egg plugs. The acid fuchsin stained the gelatinous plug a deep cherry red and the feeding punctures a light pink color. The number of egg plugs varied from one to more than six per kernel. The oviposition site was frequently found in the endosperm close to the base of the kernel. Results of the staining procedure indicated that SCO425 was the most susceptible to oviposition (53.50 plugs/ replicate), whereas SCO233 was the most resistant (4.25 plugs/replicate) (Table 4). The number of kernels damaged by the adult weevils was determined using a biocular microscope to observe feeding damage. Kernels in which weevils had oviposited were separated before damaged kernels were counted. The number of damaged kernels ranged from 2.75/replicate in SCOl93 to 12.25/replicate in SCOl86 (Table 4). The number of emerged progenygobtained from different lines in the test ranged from 2.5/ replicate for SC0233 to 20.5/replicate for SCO425. Some progeny died following emergence from kernels of SC0233 or SCO331. Correlation analysis among variables measured in the free-choice test showed that in general, the numbers of adults present were positively correlated with the number of egg plugs and number of emerged progeny; that is, as the number of adults attracted to each line increased, the number of egg plugs and emerged progeny also increased. However, an exception to this typical result occurred in the case of Kafir 60, the susceptible check. Although only 3.25 weevils/replicate were recovered from this line after the seven—day exposure period, an average of 31.75 egg plugs and 12.5 progeny per replicate were recorded. One explanation for such an exception might be the observation by Cogburn (1974) who stated that some lines either apparently attract more females than males, or females move to other lines after oviposition. The highest correlation coefficient (0.84) was found between the number of egg plugs and the number of emerged progeny, indicating that the probability of progeny survival to the adult stage after hatch was good. However, normally only one adult developed from a kernel in which two or more eggs had been laid. Sharifi and Mills (1971) found that small larvae were killed by larger ones. Such cannibalism occurred during several stadia but was most prevalent during the second. Schoonhoven et al. (1975) made a similar observation while screening 10 corn varieties against the maize weevil, concluding that resistance was primarily expressed as a reduction in oviposition. If an egg was laid in a kernel of either a resistant or a susceptible line, probability of progeny survival to the adult stage after hatch was good. However, Dobie (l97h) 1L"? experimented with 25 maize varieties from Malawi and found that there was no evidence of a relationship between the number of eggs laid and susceptibility. lHe concluded that the susceptibility of these varieties was determined by post—oviposition factors. In our study, there was no high correlation between the number of adults present and the number of damaged kernels. No—choice test. Percent parental mortality was determined after weevils had been confined to seeds of each sorghum line for seven days. Such mortality ranged from 0-100 percent and was highest in SCO226, SC0233, SCO311, SC0309, and SC0227. Parental mortality did not occur in the checks and was low for SC0l65 and SCO425. Rogers and Mills (l974a) found that the resistant variety "Double Dwarf Early Shallu" exhibited an antibiotic effect at 43 percent relative humidity causing an average of 85 percent parental mortality after a five-day oviposition period. Duncan's multiple range test revealed distinctive groups of sorghum lines based on the number of emerged progeny (Table 4). The most resistant group consisted of SC0233, SC0226, and SC03ll. These three lines averaged less than one progeny/replicate. The most susceptible lines — SC0l65, SCOI86, SCOl03, SCO278, and SC0425 — averaged more than 25 weevils/replicate. Correlation analysis between the number of progeny and percent parental mortality was negatively correlated (r=-0.89) and highly significant at the .05 level. In other words, the higher the parental mortality, the smaller the number of progeny obtained. Windstrom et al. (1972) concluded that the ranking of 25 selected lines in relation to maize weevil resistance was nearly the same when either percent parental mortality or number of emerged progeny was used as the criterion. Correlation between the number of emerged progeny in the no—choice and the free—choice test was positive (r=O.89) and significant at the .05 level. The ranking of lines in order of resistance was similar for both tests. Sorghum lines such as SCOOO6, SCOl93, SCO233, SCO3ll, and SCO33l were identified as resistant; of these, SCO233 and SCO3ll were the most resistant. Kernels of these two lines consistently received less oviposition and yielded fewer emerged progeny in free—choice and the no—choice tests. CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of this study, the following conclusions may be drawn: l. Preliminary screening of 169 converted exotic sorghum lines for resistance to the maize weevil using free-choice and no-choice methods revealed significant differences among lines in weevil aggregation tendencies and numbers of emerged progeny, thus indicating that some of the lines tested were resistant to the pest. 2. Results of selected screening trials indicated that there was congruity among different criteria used to detect resistance to maize weevil in converted.exotic lines. Based onthe results of this more detailed screening of 25 selected converted lines, five lines consistently displayed exceptional promise as sources of germplasm resistant to the maize weevil. These were SCO22b, SC0233, SCO309, SCO3ll, and SCO33l. Additional lines which should be further investigated as possible sources of resistant germplasm are sco1?9, sc0224, sco227, sco230, sco289, and sco333. LITERATURE CITED Cogburn, R. R. 1974. Domestic rice varieties apparent resistance to rice weevil, lesser grain borers, and angoumois grain moths. Environ. Entomol. 3: 681-5. Cotton, R. T. 1963. Pests of stored grain and grain products. Burgess Publishing Co. 318 pp. Davey, R. T. 1965. The susceptibility of sorghum to attack by the weevil, Sitophilus oryzae L. Bull. Ent. Rea. 56: 287-97. Davidson, R. H. and W. F. Lyon. 1979. Pests of sotred products and household goods, pp. 489-520. £2; Insects Pests of Farm, Garden and Orchard. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 596 pp. Dobie, P. 1974. The laboratory assessment of the inherent susceptibility of maize varieties to post harvest infestation by Sitophilus zeamais Motsch. (Coleptera, Curculionidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 10: 183-97. Frankenfeld, J. C. 1948. Staining method for detecting weevil infestation in grain. U.S. Dept. Agri. Bur. oi Entomol. and Plant Quar. ET-256, 4 pp. Georghiou, G.P., and C. E. Taylor. 1977. Pesticide resistance as an evolutionary phenomena. Proc. 15th Int. Congs. Entomol., Washington, D.C. 759—85. Lenge, S. 1973. Laboratory studies of varietal sorghum grain resistance to the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais Motsch. (Col., Curculioniae). Ph.D. Dissertation. Kansas State University, Manhattan. 127 pp. Mannechoti, P. 1974. Studies of resistance of 92 sorghum and 38 maize cultivars to 4 species of stored—product inserts. M.S. Thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan, 165 pp. Mills, R. B. 1976. Host resistance to stored—product insects II. Proc. Joint U.S.—Japan Seminar on Stored-Produce Insects. Manhattan, Kansas, 77-87. Morrison, E. O. 1963. Effect of environmental factors on population dynamics of the rice weevil, Sitophilus zeamais Motsch. Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, 154 pp. Munro, J. W. 1966. ,Pests of stored products. Hutchinson & Co. 234 pp. Murty, B. R., V. Arunachalam, and M. B. L. Saxena. 1967. Classification and catalogue of world collection of Sorghum. Indian J. Genetics Plant Breeding. 27 (spe. no.): 1-312. Painter, R. H. 1951. Insect resistance in crop plants. Macmillan Co. 520 pp. Reddy, D. B. 1951. Determination of sex in adult rice and granary weevils (Coleoptera, Qurculionidae). Pan. Pacific Entomologist. 25: 13-6. Rogers, R. R., and R. R. Mills. 1974a. Reaction of sorghum varieties to maize weevil infestation under three relative humidities. J. Econ. Entomol. 67: 692. Rogers, R. R., and R. R. Mills. 1974b. Evaluation of a world sorghum collection for resistance to the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais Motsch. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 47: 37+41. Russell, M. P. 1962. Effects of sorghum varieties on the lesser rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae L. I. Oviposition immature mortality and size of the adults. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 55: 678-85. Samuel, C. K., and S. Chatterji. 1965. Studies on the varietal, resistance and susceptibility of "Jowae" (Andropogen sorghum) to storage pests in India. Indian J. Ento. 15: 225-39. Schmeltz, I. 1971. Nicotine and other tobacco alkaloids. ‘Ln. Jacobson, M., and D. G. Crosby (eds.). Naturally occurring insecti- cides, M. Dekkeo Inc., 99-136. Schoohoven, A. V., E. Horber, R. B. Mills, and C. E. Wassom. 1975. Selection for resistance to the maize weevil in kernels of maize. Euphytica 24: 639-44. Schuering, J. F. and F. R. Miller. 1978. Fertility restorers and sterility maintainers to the milo—kafir genetic cytoplasmic male sterility system in the sorghum world collection. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. MP—1367: pp. 47. Sharifi, S., and R. B. Mills. 1971. Radiographic studies of Sitophilus zeamais Motsch in wheat kernels. J. Stored Prod. Res. 7: 195-206. Stephens, J. C., F. R. Miller, and D. T. Rosenow. 1967. Conversion of alien sorghum to early combine genotypes. Crop Sci. 7: 396. Stevens, R. A., and R. B. Mills. 1973. Comparison of techniques for screening sorghum grain varieties for resistance to rice weevil. J. Econ. Entomol. 66: 1222-3. White, S. C. 1975. Laboratory studies of levels and causes of insect resistance in varieties of stored sorghum. M.S. Thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan. 70 pp. Windstrom, N. W., L. W. Redlinger, and W. J. Wiser. 1972. Appraisal of methods for measuring corn kernel resistance to Sitophilus zeamais T Motsch. J. Econ. Entomol. 65: 790-2. Wilbur, D. A., and R. B. Mills. 1978. Stored grain insects, pp. 573-603. 123 Pfadt, R. E. (ed.) iFundamenta1s of Applied Entomology. Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. 798 pp. Table l. Number of adults present among kernels of 169 converted exotic sorghums, standard checks and culture medium after a seven—day exposure period in free—choice test No. of adults present/replicate Entry** 5 Mean DMRTa 1 2 3 4 sc0289* 44 22 19 14 24.75 6 sc0186* 34 16 13 15 19.50 66 SC0528 17 32 13 l0 18.00 a-c s00427 36 13 13 10 18 00 6-6 sc0165* 30 16 13 10 17.25 6-6 sc0126 22 22 8 12 16.00 6-f sc0425 8 12 19 24 15.75 a—g sc0344 24 p 7 16 15 15.50‘ 6-6 8001038 10 23 A 17 10 15.00 6-1 sc0055 19 17 22 4 15.500 6-j sc0368 26 10 23 4 15.75 a-k sc0144 8 27 15 10 15 00 6-1 sc0354 28 8 13 11 15.00 6-1 sc0402 25 13 9 11 14.50 b—m sc0291 27 21 8 5 15.25 6-6 sc0362 19 18 12 7 14.00 6-6 800380 22 15 11 8 14.00 6-6 sc0048 39 11 5 7 15.50 6-6 sc0337 1 19 13 6 16 13.50 b—q SCO278 13 12 12 . 15 13.00 b—q Table 1. (Continfied) No. of adults present/replicate Entry** Mean DMRTa 1 2 3 4 sc03s9 16 16 12 8 13.00 b—r sc0417 12 19 6 16 13.25 b—r sc0285 33 9 11 4 14.25 6-S sc0398 25 55 14 s 13.00 6-t sc0367 17 9 11 11 12.00 b-6 sc0063 13 14 7 14 12.00 b-v sc0399 13 12 7 16 12 00 b—v Culture medium 5 6 265 14 12.75 b—w sc0358 15 18 10 5 12.00 b-X sc0356 10 11 8 17 11.50 b-y sc0396 10 19 5 13 11.75 b—y sc0370 6 15 15 10 11.50 b—y sc0120 23 11 3 12 12.25 b-y sc0267 17 11 7 10 11.25 b—y sc02s2 8 16 9 10 10.75 b—y sc0329 17 5 10 11 10.75 b—y sc0353 6 17 13 7 10.75 b—y sc0271 10 12 12 9 10.75 b—y sc0293 9 6 9 12 15 10.50 b—y sc0394 16 1s 9 2 11.25 b-y sc0335 15 20 5 4 11.00 6-Z sc0315 12 6 9 13 10.00 6-Z Table 1. (Continued) No. of adults present/replicate Entry** ___ Mean DMRTa 1 2 3 4 SC0296 18 5 12 15 10.50 C-Z sco2 9s 9 6 12 15 10.50 c-z Kafir 60 9 8 13 9 9.75 c-z SC0372 14 13 13 2 10.50 c—z SCO228* 7 5 23 7 10.50 c-z SCO053 6 7 11 14 9.50 c—z SCO450 11 11 4 12 9.50 c-z SCO188 9 9 3 18 9.75 c-z SCO050 3 8 12 16 9.75 C-z SCOZ29 11 17 6 4 9.50 C-z dscoaos. 14 3 10 10 9.25 d—a' SCO426 12 15 4 6 9.25 d—a' Culture medium 11 12 4 9 9.00 d—a' SC0387 7 7 11 10 8.75 d—a' SCO299 8 24 4 4 10.00 d—a' Kaflr 60 6 8 8 13 8.75 d—a' Culture medium 6 8 8 13 8.75 d—a' SC0256 10 12 11 3 9.00 d—a' SC0408 10 7 4 15 9.00 d—a' scosvs 5 9 7 14 8.75 e-b' scoz 05 5 5 11 14 s. 75 £-¢' SC0064 7 7 6 14 8.50 f-6' Table 1. (Continued) No. of adults péesent/replicate .Entry** Mean DMRTa 1 2 3 4 Culture medium 3 7 12 13 8.75 f-c' SC0284 6 9 10 8 8.25 f-c' SCO226* 6 3 ll 14 8.50 f-c' SC0l08 5 6 10 ll 8.00 f-c' Kafir 60 6 9 2 18 8.75 f-c' SCO369 4 ll 8 9 8.00 f-c' SCO534 4 15 9 5 8.25 f-c' SC0309* 7 10 8 6 7.75 f-c' SC0257 8 3 ll 10 ‘8.00 f-c' SC0405 3 10 _ 11 8 8.00 f-c' SCOI73 12 5 7 '7 7.75 f-C' 800418 20 4 5 5 8.50 f-c' sc0407 3 9 9 10 7.759 g-d' SC0216 7 10 ll 3 7.75 g-d' SCO230* 1 12 ll 9 8.25 g-d' sc0112 2 8 14 8 8.00 g—d' SCO374 8 6 10 9 8.00 hfe' SC0239 7 ll 7 5 7.50 h"e' SC0ll8 6 11 5 8 7.50 h-e' SC0036 6 6 12 6 7.50 h-e' SC0029 6 4 8 12 7.50 h-e' SC0097 3 ll 8 8 7.50 h-e' Q Table 1. (Continued) No. of adults present/replicate Entry** Mean DMRTa 1 2 3 4 1 SCO549 6 10 6 7 7.25 i-f' SCO424 6 9 9 5 7.25 1-f' SCOZZO 4 4 3 23 8.50 1-f' SCO308 8 12 8 2 7.59 i-f' sc0261 9 8 5 6 7.00 j—f‘ Kafir 60 %4 9 3 14 7.50 j—f' sc026s 5 3 10 11 7.25 k-g' sc0290 5 5 11 7 7.00 k-g' sc0221 9 10 3 6 7.00 1-g' SCOIZ4 5 9 1 16 7.75 m-g' SCOQ66 10 8 1 10 7.25 m—g' SCO333* 5 5 9 ll 7.50 n-g' SCO24l ll 7 3 6 6.75 n-g' SCO058 4 2 9 13 7.00 0-g' Shallu MPé10 7 4 13 3 6.75 0-g' Kafir 60 2 6 7 12 6.50 0-g' SCO563 5 6 8 6 6.25 p-g' Culture medium , 3 7 5 11 6.50 p-g' SCO39Z 5 13 7 2 6.75 p-g' sc0250 4 3 11" 6 6.50 p-g' sc0212; 3 4 3 19 7.25 p-g' sc0056 1 8 12 6 6.75 p-g‘ Table 1. (Continued) No. of adults present/replicate Entry** Mean DMRTa l 2 3 4 SCO258 9 8 5 3 6.25 p—g' Culture medium 6 7 5 6 6.00 p€g' sc0388 7 7 5 5 6.00 q—g' sco414 13 6 5 2 6.50 q—g' sco272 6 4 7 7 6.00 q—g' SCOl99* 4 8 5 7 6.00 q—g' Culture medium 2 9 5 9 6.25 r—g' Culture medium 5 5 10 4 6.00 r—g' SCO50l 8 4 3 9 6.00 r—g' sco031 1 s 8 8 6.25 S-g‘ SCOO57 5 5 8 5 5.75 s—g' SCOl93* 5 7 4 7 53.75 s-g' SCO166 4 4 8 8 6.00 s-g' Shallu MP—1O 4 5 5 9 5.75 s—g' SCO489 5 4 3 12 6.00 s-g' Shallu MP—l0 9 3 6 5 5.75 s-h' Kafir 60 10 4 3 6 5.75 t—h' SCO2l4 1 4 7 13 6.25 t—h' SCO265 4 4 4 11 5.75 t-i’ sc0317 3 7 5 7 5.50 6-1' SCO504 4 3 7 8 5.50 t-i‘ Kaflr 60 5 5 3 9 5.50 t—i' W‘, Table 1. (Continued) No. of adults present/replicate Entry** Mean DMRTa 1 2 3 4 0818888 medium 5 5 . i 9 3 5.50 8-1' )1 s00319 3 3 5 12 5.75 1-5' sc0110 8 5 7 2 5.50 8-5' sc0588 2 5 8 7 5.50 8-5' sc0348 7 4 4 8 5.25 8-5' sc0052 L 4 4 8 5 5.25 8-3' sc0307 4 5 8 4 5.25 0-5' 800202 8 3 4 8 5.25 v—j' sc0281 8 3 2 9 5.50 v—j' sc0493 5 8 8 2 5.25 w—j' Shallu MP—1O 9 5 1 7 5.50 w-j' 800499 9 8 4 1 5.50 8~j' sc0208 8 9 2 4 5.25 w—j' s00530 2 4 9 8 5.25 X-5' sc0182 4 0 11 9 8.00 X-3' sc0209 4 5 10 2 5.25 X"j' 800203 5 3 14 8 5.00 X-5' sc0253 9 4 4 3 5.00 y—j' sc0208 5 8 3 2 11 5.25 y—j' 1 Sha1lu\MP—l0 7 2 3 8 5.00 Z'j' sc0271¥ 5 5 4 8 4.75 Z-5' 8002338 8 4 3 8 4.75 Z-5' Tab le 1. (Continued) Entry** SC0l95 SCO243 SCO224* SCOO93 Culture Culture SCO34O Culture SCO4l1 SCO311* SCO292 Culture SCOII4 SCOO9O medium medium medium medium Shallu MP-10 SCO237 SCOO17 S§O322 Challu MP—l0 SCOIO9 SCO24O SCO223 . of adults present/replicate Mean .75 ;75 .75 .50 .50 .50 .50 .50 .50 .25 .50 .25 .50 .25 .25 .25 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .25 DMRTa Table 1. (Continued) No. of adults present/replicate Entry** Mean DMRTa 2 3 4 SC0227* 5 4 4 3.75 a'—j' SCO366* 3 5 5 3.75 a'-j' SCO423 5 3 5 3.75 a'—j' SCOO78 4 3 6 3.75 a'—j' SCO283 3 5 5 3.75 a'-j' SCO006* 5 5 5 3.75 a'—j' SC0459 4 5 5 3.75 a'—j' Kafir 60 1 ,4 6 3.75 a'—j' Culture medium 6 3 2 3.50 a'-j' SC0252 2 6 4 3.50 a'-j' SCO044 1 3 9 3.75 a'—j' scons 5 6 2 3.50 a'-j' Culture mediu 3 3 5 3.25 a'—j' SCO431 1 5 5 3.25 b'—J' SCO2l7 1 4 6 3.25 b'-_]' SCO248 5 2 3 3.00 c'—j' SCOZ44 1 1 5 2’. 75 d'-_]' 500207 4 7 0 3.00 <1'-J' SCO457 3 2 6 2.75 d'-_]' Shallu MP-10 5 1 1 2.50 e'—j' SCO0l9 3 0 7 2.75 f'-j' sco331* 0 2 4 2.50 f'-j' SC0079 3 2 4 2.25 g’-3' LU Table 1. (Continued) No. of adults present/replicate Entry** Mean DMRT3 l 2 3 4 SCO303 1 1 2 2 s 1.50 h'—J' SCO2l5* O 3 0 3 1.50 1'—j' SCO2l54 0 0 0 4 1.00 j‘ 3 Means followed by a comon letter are not significanlty different at the ;05 level according to Duncan's multiple range test (DMRT). * Selected for further testing. ** IS numbers of entries can be obtained from TAES MP—1367, 1978. fi Table 2. Number of emerged progeny from kernels of 169 converted exotic sorghums, 2 standard checks and culture medium 55 days post oviposition in no—choice test. No. of progeny/replicate Entry** 3 Mean DMRTC ‘Y 1a ga 3b 4b 5b 6b sc0165* 34 50 28 22 32 26 32.00 6 sc0186 45 47 24 27 12 37 32.00 66 Kafir 60* 42 47 19 20 32 26 31.00 6-6 sc0050 292 40 3 - 36 42 30.00 6-8 sc0278* 20 47 20 15 21 40 27.17 6-6 sc0103 29 48 5 22 30 32 27.67 6-1 SC0501 29 42 13 17 31 26 26.33 a-g sc0108 31 46 18 15 26 20 26.00 a-g sc0267 25 40 20 15 36 18 25.67 a-g . 800056 14 43 13 21 31 33 25.83 6-6 sc0118 36 41 12 15 24 326 25.67 a—h sc0578 35 47 17 20 25 11 25.83 6-6 sc0528 35 22 12 12 40 31 25.33 6-1 sc0126 24 25 17 18 35 27 24.17 6-j sc0389 19 36 9 32 21 30 24.50 a—k sc0388 24 38 11 18 25 24 23.33 6-1 sc0402 23 25 15 .16 24 35 23.00 6-m “A sc0048; 8 47 11 13 34 31 24.00 6-6 sc0405 A 12 43 7 23 25 30 23.33 6-6 Table 2. (Continued) N0. of progeny/replicate Entry** Mean DMRTC 13 23 3b 4b Sb 6b SCO530 35 46 3 14 19 28 24.17 a—o SC0315 22 38 19 14 20 19 22.00 a—o SCO387 28 32 15 15 19 22 21.83 a-p sc0120 26 40 16 10 24 18 22.33 a-p sco052 5 41 21 23 23 25 22.67 a-q SC0398 30 38 13 11 16 25 22.17 a—r SCO344 27 33 18 4 24 29 22.50 a—s SC0358 22 27 9 22 28 21 21.50 a—s SCO329 26 20 12 27 13 30 21.33 a-t SC0282 25 41 7 15 24 20 22.00 a—t SC0258 14 34 14 18 26 20 21.00 a—u SC0399 12 36 17 19 25 17 21.00 a-V SCO112 13 43 14 14 23 21 21.33 a—v SC0293 18 39 13 11 24 20 20.83 a-V SC0250 9 39 10 18 25 Q6 21.17 4 a—v SC0093 28 45 12 4 23 19 21.83 , a-V SC0173 32 30 7 13 18 23 20.50 a-W ,sco166 31 45 25 3 22 7 22.17 a-w ‘SCO253 13 38 ‘ 16 13 14 26 20.00 a-w SCO418 34 44 1 ,3 33 25 23.33 a—w SCO319 29 39 10 10 - 12 22 20.33 a—w Table 2. (Continued) av N0. of progeny/replicate Entry** Mean DMRT¢ 1a 2a 3b 4b 5b 6b SC0403 20 39 4 18 23 18 20.33 a—w SCO499 17 30 10 17 23 18 19.17 a—X Sha11u MP—10 28 47 10 12 8 17 20.50 a-x SCO427 15 17 19 11 22 27 18.50 a-x sc0396 27 40 a ‘ 13 29 5 20.00 8"'X SCOO63 _ 21 41 5 6 24 18 19.17 a-x SC0057 26 45 0 13 20 19 20.50 a-x SCO504 25 34 10 17 8 15 18.17 a-x SCO450 5 27 18 12 23 21 17.67 a-x SC0110 22 44 17 4 12 12 18.50 a-x SCO257 16 36 6 6 19 26 18.17 a-x SCO291 2 26 12 23 22 21 17.67 b—y SCO175 19 46 6 11 2‘ 31 19.17 b—y SCO354 11 20 12 19 18 17 16.17 b—y SC0372 9 26 13 13 19 18 16.33 c-z SCO353 17 32 7 14 9 18 16.17 d—a' SC0417 31 29 11 19 11 2 17.17 d—a' SCO356 29 31 6 7 10 17 16.67 d—a' SCO368 9 37 13 11 16 11 16.17 d—a' SCO114 20 46 5 10 13 8 17.00 d—a' SC0237 30 37 7 3 13 10 16.67 d—a' Table 2. (Continued) N0. of progeny/replicate Entry** Mean DMRTC 1a 2a 3b 4b 5b 6b sc0563 14 19 15 9 10 21 14.17 6-6' 800109 25 40 14 1 17 4 16.83 6-8'0 800292 24 40 2 0 13 23 17.00 8-6' 800090 8 25 10 8 10 20 13.50 d;a' sc0044 0 24 17 15 11 21 14.67 e—b' Culture medium 27 29 6 9 8 5 14.17 e—b' 800394 23 18 3 4 21 315 14.00 6-6' sc0424 26 29 0 13 11 10 3 14.83 6-6' sc0566 4 32 9 11 13 12 13.50 g-c' SCO261 20 23 9 ,0 22 12 14.33 g—c' 800144 20 32 6 6 12 4 13.33 6-8' 800369 21 37 2 7 8 7 13.67 1-6‘ sc0207 24 33 4 1 9 11 13.67 1-6' sc0493 7 34 2 14 7 14 13.00 j—f' sc0337 23 10 9 7 10 11 11.67 j—f' 800411 16 24 2 14 7 9 12.00 k—g' 800265 15 31 8 1 9 11 12.50 1-g‘ 800392 11 29 5 0 19 14 13.00 ’1—g' 800053 0 21 1 - 22 28 14.40 1-6' SCO209 u; 18 26 6 8 12 1 11.83 1—h' 800457 13 12 34 0 6 8 16 12.67 m-h' 1 Table 2. (Continued) No. of progeny/replicate Entry** _ Mean DMRT¢ 1a ga 3b 4b 5b 6b SC0549 22 15 3 2 12 14 11.33 n—h' SC0459 30 33 1 0 14 5 13.83 n+h' SCO284 20 1 42 0 0 7 17 14.33 n—h' SCO426 35 24 0 1 15 6 13.50 n—h' SCO296 12 24 3 0 19 12 11.67 0—i' $00214 1e 34 0 7 11 4 12.00 p-j’ SCO124 18 22 7 4 6 5 10.33 q-k' SCO335 19 15 9 9 4 4 10.00 r—k' SCO097 15 22 0 - 13 6 11.20 r—1' SC0346 5 24 6 11 8 6 10.00 s-1' SCO340 13 33 0 5 3 17 11.83 t-1' SC0380 14 15 11 7 14 0 10.17 u—1' sco272 13 30 9 4 a 13 11.00 v-1' SCO182 10 20 0 1 14 17 10.33 w-m' SCO017 14 21 3 5 0 14 9.50 X-n' sco362 20 7 0 4 15 7 8.83 y-Q’ SC0205 24 12 1 2 6 6 8.50 y-p' SCO239 20 21 2 2 3 3 8.50 y-q' SC0244 1 37 0 3 6 10 9.50 y—r' sco079 12 17 2 o 7 s 7.67 Y's’ SC0283 20 32 0 0 0 10 10.33 y-t' Table 2. (Continued) No. of progeny/replicate Entry** Mean DMRTC la ga 3b ' 4b 5b 5b _-_~__. sc0221 9 11 0 0 21 8 8.17 y—t' sc0066 15 2 5 11 2 6 76.83 y—t'. sc0256 17 14 0 2 9 3 7.50 Z“U' $00078 4 25 0 4 12 2 7.83 Z-v‘ SCO208 24 . 18 V0 O 3 6 8.50 a'-v' sc0220 10 13 6 0 5 6 6.67 6'-V’ sc0031 14 21 0 9 2 1 7.83 a'—v' s00212 1 13 8 5 4 6 6.17 a'—v' sc0489 7 24 0 2 2 9 7.33 a'—w' sco243 6 25 0 3 7 2 7.17 6'-X‘ sc0420 5 16 0 0 6 14 6.83 b'—y' sc0408 4 9 4 5 6 3 5.17 b'-y' sc0055 2 4 0 3 16 11 6.00 b'-y' sc0423 8 24 1 0 0 9 7.00 b'-y' sc0285 20 10 0 1 9 0 6.67 b'-y' sc029s 19 7 4 1 1 2 5.67 b'-y' sc0425* 12 22 3 1 0 1 6.50 b'—y' sc0254 7 23 0 0 0 12 7.00 b'—y' sc0019 5 27 1 1 2 2 6.33 b'—y' sc0281 1 9 20 0 0 2 4 5.83 b'—y'7 sc0414 “ 12 3 0 6 4 0 4.67 b'—y' Table 2. (Continued) No. of progeny/replicate Entry** Mean DMRT¢ 1a 2a 3b 4b 5b 6b sc0534 20 3 1 0 1 9 5.67 b'—y' sc0036 5 31 0 0 0 6 7.00 b'¢y' SCO37O 15 4 O 2 3 5 4.83 c‘-z‘ SCO248 10 16 O 0 3 3 5.33 c'—z' SCO217 5 6 0 6 1 6 4.00 d'—z' sco252 1 33 0 0 0 7 6.83 d'—z' SCO223 14 16 O O O 3 5.50 d'—z' sco188 3 4 1 1 4 10 3.83 d'—z' sc0240 19 1 0 1 2 6 4.83 e'-z' SCO203 7 4 1 1 3 5 3.50 f'-z' sco374 5 10 1 4 1 1 3.67 f'-z' SCO367 1 11 O 6 2 3 3.83 g'—z' SCO431 7 15 0 O 2 2 4.33 g‘-z‘ sc0290 3 11 0 1 4 3 3.67 g'—z' SCO308 7 2 2 5 3 O 3.17 h'—z' SCOO64 O 3 O O 1 29 5.50 h'—z' sc0058 4 10 2 1 2 0 3.17 h'—z' sc0407 16 5 0 0 0 2 3.83 1'—z' SCO322 3 3 2 4 1 1 3.22 i‘-z‘ sc0029 10 6 0 0 0 3 3.17 j‘-Z‘ SC0303 2 19 O O 9 2 3.83 k'-z' JKJ Table 2. (Continued) N0. of progeny/replicate Entry** Mean DMRTC 18 2a 3b ab sb ab I SC0195 17 2 0 0 0 2 3.50 1'-Z' SC0299 4 5 0 5 1 0 2.50 1'-2' SC0241 8 9 0 1 0 0 3.00 1'-Z' SCO216 >1 3 0 0 2 9 2.50 1'-2' SCO268 10 6 0 1 0 0 2.83 1'-Z' SCO202 1 17 0 0 0 2 3.33 1'-Z' SC0006* 1 1 1 2 0 7 2.00 m'-z' SC0289* 0 3 1 2 2 2 1.67 m'"Z' SC0206 2 6 0 0 1 1 1.67 n'-Z' SC0333* 0 11 1 .0 1 0 2.17 0'-Z‘ SC0331* 0 12 2 0 0 0 2.33 0'-z' SC0311* 3 9 0 0 0 0 2.00 0'—z' sc0317 2 6 0 1 0 0 1.50 p'-Z‘ SCO307 1 5 O O 1 1 1.33 p'-2' SC0228* 2 6 0 0 0 0 1.33 q'-Z' SC0215* 3 4 0 0 0 0 1.17 t'-Z‘ SC0224* 1 4 0 1 0 0 1.00 r'—z' »SC0229 1 2 0 0 0 2 0.83 \ 8'-Z' SC0271* 0 5 0 0 0 1 1.00 t'-Z' SC0227* 3 2 0 0 0 0 0.83 u'-z' SC0193* 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.67 V'-Z' Table 2. (Continued) No. of progeny/replicate Entry** Mean DMRTQ la 28 3b 4b Sb 6b sc0199* 0 2 0 0 0 1 0.50 w'-z' sc0366* 3 0 0 0 0 0 a 0.50 x'—z' sc0309* 0 1 0 0 1 0 0.33 y'—z' sc0226* 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 z' sc0230* 0 1 0 0 '0 0 0.17 2' sc0233* a 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.17 z' 3 Samples maintained in an incubator at 27°C and 40-80% RH. b Samples maintained in an environmental chamber at 27°C and 60 i_ 3% RH. C Means followed by a common letter are not significantly different at the .05 level according to Duncan's multiple range test (DMRT). * Selected for further testing. ** IS numbers of entries can be obtained from TAES MP—l367, 1978. . x .ummH mwcwm mfiawufinz m.cwuc:o ou wcwwuooum ~w>m~ mo. mnu um ucwuwmwww mfiucwuwwwcwmm uoc mum umuuwfi GOEEOU m mm wmaoflflom mcmmz m ~¢¢.@~ ~¢¢.¢ @|u¢m.~H ¢|wm~.m @|@m~.Hm wm~.@ aw HMMQM m|um~.- m¢Q.o ~@m~.@ m|pm~.@ @=¢m.mH wm~.m ¢~|m= =HHw£w M-@m~.HH @¢o.¢m @|¢¢m.w ;m~.~ @@m~.¢H wQm.m mmflauw M~¢m.w @@@m.mm @~m~.~ n-@o¢.m M=m~.¢~ wm~.m @o¢¢um wm~.~ u~@.@@ Hm~.~ m|@¢Q.~ x@n~.~ w¢¢.¢ Hmmaum mw¢¢.HH @u@m.mm @|~m~.@ £w¢¢.¢ ~-@¢¢.¢m wm¢m.¢ mH~¢um ~@H.@ u@o.@@ @-um~.@ @|~om.@ @wm~.m~ ww¢m.¢ ¢-oQw ~|pm@.~H @@m.Hm w|um~.~H m|@¢¢.w @|~m~.H~ w»~¢m.m w-¢uw £¢o.¢ mo¢.¢QH H¢m.~ m|w¢m.~ xm~.¢ w|wm~.m mm~Qum @m~.¢~ @u~H.¢m nwm~.@H @|~¢¢.¢ @m~.¢¢ w|@Q¢.@ mw~QQm @|@ww.- @¢Q.¢m @|@¢m.¢H M|w¢¢.w @¢¢¢.~H w|@¢¢.@ Hhwoum =w¢m.¢ -~.~@ H|x¢m.< £|um~.m @|wm~.~H w|@o¢.@ Hflmavw M|@¢Q.~H @umm.mm @|wm~.w m|moQ.w @H¢m.¢~ w|@¢m.@ mmfloom =¢¢.o m¢¢.o¢H @@¢m.~ ~|wm~.~ @£¢m.mH ~|@om.~ @-¢Qw wm_.m nmm¢.¢¢ M|um~.~H M-@m~.w H=¢m.@H @|u¢¢.@ @¢mQQw ~o¢.w~ m@om.~H M|@m~.m~ ~|w¢¢.¢ w-u¢m.w~ w|uom.¢ mofloum w|n~@.~H @@~.Hm @|wom.¢~ w|@m~.@ ~|u¢m.@~ m|um~.¢ ¢m~¢uw u@ww.@H @mm._m @=~Qm.mH w=@m~.@ @|pm~.~m @Q¢¢.¢H Qwmaom mm@.Hm m@@m.m u-@oQ.@H nwm~.oH w|@¢o.m~ Qn¢m.~H @-¢uw @|@o¢.- @u~H.¢m ~|~om.¢H £|@m~.m upm~.mm u@m~.~H mmmauw ~@_.~m m@@@.H @-m¢m.m~ ~-~¢Q.w %~|p¢m.om @m~.¢H mwflaow www.~ n¢m.mw @-~¢¢.¢H u-@om.@ @H¢¢.~H nm~.mH -~Qum ~mH.- ~@w.mH @|um~.HH ~m~.~H ;|m~.- @¢¢.H~ owfiauw @¢m.~m ~@m.m ~¢m.¢~ s|QQm.m m¢m.mm m¢m.- m~¢¢Qm mcmwoum mumfiwuuoe >=@w¢~@ m~wcumx mw=H@ ucwmwua umwumem mo .oz ucmuma ucwuumm wmwuwew mo .oz wwwmfimw mo .oz wwm mo .oz muflzwm mo .oz muucm MUUMOSUIOZ mmuwonu mwum 3v mummu muwosunoc cm >=~w¢~@ wmwumém mo umnibc ucw >u@~wuuoE ucmuma ucmuuma wcw.1mummu wuwosunmmuw cw >=@wo~@ nmwuwem van .m~mcumx umwwfimv .mw:~m mwwm .ucmmmum mu~:vm mo umnibc cam! .m w~nwH [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] Mention of a trademark or a proprietary product does not constitute a guarantee or a warranty of the product by The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and docs not imply its approval to the exclusion of other products that also may be suitable. All programs and information of The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station are available to everyone without regard to race, ethnicorigin, religion, sex, or age. a 2M-9-8l