Resistance of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cultivars to Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

  • Lígia Alves de Paiva Independiente
  • Wanessa de Carvalho Resende Independiente
  • Cinthia Luzia Teixeira Silva Independiente
  • André Cirilo de Sousa Almeida Independiente
  • Paulo Cesar Ribeiro da Cunha Instituto Federal Goiano
  • Flávio Gonçalves de Jesus Instituto Federal Goiano

Resumen

Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) damages bean crops, resulting in decreased leaf area and destruction of reproductive structures. This study aimed to evaluate the types and levels of resistance of bean cultivars to S. frugiperda. The bean cultivars evaluated were: BRS Ametista, Pérola, BRS Notável, BRS Realce, Jalo Precoce, BRS Campeiro, BRS Agreste, BRS Cometa, BRS Executivo and BRS Pitanga, in the Laboratory of Agricultural Entomology of the Goiano Federal Institute, Urutaí Campus, Brazil. Tests to identify levels of antixenosis, in free-choice and no-choice tests, and antibiosis were performed in the laboratory (25 ± 2 °C, 70 ± 10 % R. H. and photophase of 14 h). The cultivars BRS Pitanga, BRS Executivo, BRS Notável and BRS Campeiro presented antixenosis and BRS Realce antibiosis to S. frugiperda. However, it is not known whether the levels of resistance exhibited in the laboratory are sufficiently high to be of any economic value to agriculture. Therefore, the next step is to evaluate, under field conditions, the cultivars showing the most resistance in laboratory tests. If field evaluations indicate sufficient levels of resistance to be of practical value, these cultivars may be used as donor sources in the breeding program or may be used directly by farmers.

##plugins.generic.usageStats.downloads##

##plugins.generic.usageStats.noStats##
Publicado
2018-08-05
Como citar
ALVES DE PAIVA, Lígia et al. Resistance of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cultivars to Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Revista Colombiana de Entomología, [S.l.], v. 44, n. 1, p. 12-18, ago. 2018. ISSN 0120-0488. Disponible en: <http://nexus.univalle.edu.co/index.php/SOCOLEN/article/view/6531>. Fecha de acceso: 15 oct. 2018 doi: https://doi.org/10.25100/socolen.v44i1.6531.
Sección
Sección Agrícola / Artículos de investigación

Palabras clave

Fall armyworm, antibiosis, antixenosis, host plant resistance

Introduction

The common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) has a high economic and social importance in Brazil, because of its nutritional properties and the labor employed in its cultivation (Pedrosa et al. 2015). However, pest insects attacks cause losses in crop productivity (Jesus et al. 2010a, b; Janini et al. 2011). Among the insect pests attacking common bean, the fall armyworm - Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith, 1797) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) is of major importance because the feeding damage results in leaf area reduction and destruction of the reproductive structures.

Spraying of insecticides is the most common means of controlling S. frugiperda. However, this practice contributes to unbalanced agroecosystems(Bernardi et al. 2012) and the selection of insect resistant populations (Cruz et al. 2010). The use of alternative pest control methods, such as plant resistance to insects, is an important component in an integrated pest management (IPM) approach(Jesus et al. 2010a, 2010b; Janini et al. 2011; Silva et al. 2016).

Plant resistance to insects (PRI) is considered an efficient method of pest control. PRI maintains the pest population below the level of economic damage, does not cause adverse effect on the environment, does not incur additional cost and may be compatible with other control methods (Lara 1991; Smith 2005;War et al. 2012;Seifi et al. 2013).

Plant resistance mechanisms are classified as antixenosis, antibiosis and tolerance. Antixenosis occurs when there is a deterrence ofthe plant for feeding, oviposition or shelter. Antibiosisis characterized by detrimental effects on insectbiology and toleranceis the plant capacity to endure or recover from insect caused damage, through the production of new vegetative or reproductive structures (Gatehouse 2002; Cunningham 2012;War et al. 2012;Seifi et al. 2013).

Several studies to select bean genotypes resistant to stored grain pests have been conducted. However, few studies have examined insects that attack bean plantsin the field. Considering the importance of bean crops for food security in Brazil, and the damage caused by defoliating caterpillars that injure reproductive structures, the selection of resistant genotypes is an important IPM strategy (Maldonado et al. 1996;Bottega et al. 2011;Boiça Júnior et al. 2015).

In previous studies the bean genotypes IAC Jabola, Arcelina 1, IAC Boreal, Flor de Mayo and IAC Formoso have been reported to present antixenosis to oviposition, and Arcelina 4, BRS Horizonte, Pérola, H96A102-1-1-1-52, IAC Boreal, IAC Harmonia and IAC Formoso present edantixenosis to feeding by Chrysodeixis includes (Walker, 1858) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) (Morando et al. 2015).Our study was conducted to identify resistance in common bean cultivars to S. frugiperda. In this preliminary study, leaves of the common bean were evaluated for antixenosis and antibiosis in the laboratory. Further field evaluations will be based on the results of this study.

Materials and methods

The experiments were conducted in a climate-controlled room (25 ± 1°C, 70 ± 10 % RH and a 12-h photophase) at the Laboratory of Agricultural Entomology of the Goiano Federal Institute, Urutaí Campus, Brazil. The test varieties were obtained from the germplasm bank of the National Center of Research Rice and Beans -EMBRAPA Rice and Beans, Santo Antonio de Goiás, Goiás, Brazil. The following common bean cultivars were evaluated: BRS Ametista, Pérola, BRS Notável, BRS Realce, Jalo Precoce, BRS Campeiro, BRS Agreste, BRS Cometa, BRS Executivo and BRS Pitanga. These varieties were selected because common bean producers in Brazil currently cultivate them.

To rear S. frugiperda, adults collected in the field were placed in cages of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) tubes (10 cm in diameter and 21.5 cm high) covered internally with white paper sheets, which served as oviposition sites (Campos et al. 2012; Jesus et al. 2014). The newly hatched larvae were placed on artificial diet for rearing (Greene et al. 1976). The common bean cultivars were sown in 5 L plastic pots containing soil, manure and sand (2:1:1) mixture as substrate. Following germination, plants were thinned to one plant per pot, and grown in a greenhouse until 30 days after emergence (DAE).

Antixenosis

Attractiveness of the cultivars in a free-choice test was determined by releasing 20 third instar S. frugiperda larvae per cultivar. Bean leaves were collected from plants at 30 DAE, washed with distilled water, cut into 2.5 cm2 leaf disks, and distributed in a circular manner, over moistened filter paper, in a Petri dish (14 cm diameter). A randomized block design, with ten replicates, was used for this bioassay.

The attractiveness in a no-choice testwas performed by offering the same cultivars individually. The leaves were collected and prepared as described for the previous test. One leaf disk was placed on moistened filter paper Petri dish (6 cm diameter) and one third instar larvawas placed in each petri dish. A completely randomized experimental design was used with 15 replicates.

For both teststhe attractiveness of S. frugiperda was evaluated at 3, 5, 10, 15 and 30 minutes, as well asat 1, 3, 6 and 12 hours following caterpillar release by counting the number of insects attracted to the leaf disk of each cultivarat each time period. The tests were completed at 12 hours following caterpillar release.

Antibiosis

Newly hatched S. frugiperda larvae were placed in Petri dishes (6 cm in diameter) containing moistened filter paper and sealed with polyethylene film. The larvae were fed with a trifoliate leaf collected from the plant apex which were replaced daily or after consumption. Larvae were kept in the Petri dishes until the pupal stage when the leaf supply was terminated. Adults (moths) were not fed.

The following biological parameters were recorded: 13-day-old larva weight (mg), larval and pupal stage duration (days), pupal weight (mg), adult longevity (days), larval and pupal viability (percent that completed the larval and pupal stage respectively), and total life cycle (days). A completely randomized experimental design was used with 25 replicates.

Statistical analysis

The data were subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA)and the means were compared using the Tukey’s test at 5 % probability in Sisvar 5.3 (Ferreira 2011). A principal component analysis and a cluster analysis test were performed, and dissimilarity was measured using Euclidean distances to identify groups of common bean cultivars with different degrees of resistance(StatSoft 2004).

Results and discussion

The free-choice attractiveness test revealed differencesamong the common bean cultivars tested to S. frugiperda at 5 and 30 minutes, as well asat 3,6 and 12 hours (Table 1). At 5 min larvae of S. frugiperda were not attracted by cultivars BRS Ametista, Pérola, BRS Notável, BRS Agreste, BRS Cometa and BRS Pitanga. BRS Realce and Jalo Precoce were the most attractiveat 5 min. At 30 min Pérola, BRS Executivo and BRS Pitanga were not infested and Jalo Precoce and BRS Campeiro were the most attractive cultivars to S. frugiperda. At 3 h all genotypes were not infested by S. frugiperda except BRS Agreste and BRS Campeiro. At 3 h the cultivar BRS Campeiro showed the most attractiveness to S. frugiperda. Overall, the cultivars BRS Pitanga and BRS Executivo were the least attractive to S. frugiperda. BRS Campeiro was the most attractive.

Table 1:
Number (± SEM) of third instar Spodoptera frugiperda larvae on leaves of different common beans cultivars at a given time in a free-choice test.
Cultivars Time in minutes
5 10 15 30
BRS Ametista 0.00 ± 0.00 b 0.00 ± 0.00 0.20 ± 0.13 0.10 ± 0.10 ab
Pérola 0.00 ± 0.00 b 0.10 ± 0.10 0.10 ± 0.10 0.00 ± 0.00 b
BRS Notável 0.00 ± 0.00 b 0.20 ± 0.13 0.10 ± 0.10 0.20 ± 0.13 ab
BRS Realce 0.50± 0.22 a 0.10 ± 0.10 0.30 ± 0.21 0.30 ± 0.15 ab
Jalo Precoce 0.50 ± 0.22 a 0.20 ± 0.13 0.60 ± 0.22 0.70 ± 0.21 a
BRS Campeiro 0.30 ± 0.15 ab 0.10 ± 0.10 0.30 ± 0.21 0.70 ± 0.26 a
BRS Agreste 0.00 ± 0.00 b 0.20 ± 0.13 0.10 ± 0.00 0.10 ± 0.10 ab
BRS Cometa 0.00 ± 0.00 b 0.10 ± 0.10 0.00 ± 0.10 0.10 ± 0.10 ab
BRS Executivo 0.10 ± 0.10 ab 0.10 ± 0.10 0.10 ± 0.10 0.00 ± 0.00 b
BRS Pitanga 0.00 ± 0.00 b 0.00 ± 0.00 0.10 ± 0.10 0.00 ± 0.00 b
F (trat.) 3.14 * 0.57 NS 1.39 NS 4.03 *
C.V (%) 23.34 20.77 27.70 25.12
Cultivars Time in hours
1 3 6 12
BRS Ametista 0.10 ± 0.10 0.00 ± 0.00 b 0.20 ± 0.13 ab 0.20 ± 0.26 ab
Pérola 0.00 ± 0.00 0.00 ± 0.00 b 0.30 ± 0.15 ab 0.30 ± 0.15 ab
BRS Notável 0.00 ± 0.00 0.00 ± 0.00 b 0.70 ± 0.21 ab 0.70 ± 0.29 ab
BRS Realce 0.20 ± 0.13 0.00 ± 0.00 b 0.10 ± 0.10 ab 0.10 ± 0.10 ab
Jalo Precoce 0.30 ± 0.15 0.00 ± 0.00 b 0.20 ± 0.13 ab 0.20 ± 0.00 ab
BRS Campeiro 0.80 ± 0.51 0.80 ± 0.13 a 0.80 ± 0.33 a 0.80 ± 0.27 a
BRS Agreste 0.20 ± 0.13 0.20 ± 0.13 ab 0.40 ± 0.22 ab 0.40 ± 0.22 ab
BRS Cometa 0.00 ± 0.00 0.00 ± 0.00 b 0.30 ± 0.15 ab 0.30 ± 0.15 ab
BRS Executivo 0.00 ± 0.00 0.00 ± 0.00 b 0.10 ± 0.10 ab 0.10 ± 0.10 ab
BRS Pitanga 0.10 ± 0.10 0.00 ± 0.00 b 0.00 ± 0.00 b 0.00 ± 0.00 b
F (trat.) 1.77 NS 16.31 * 2.30* 3.38 *
C.V. (%) 29.06 13.56 29.91 29.51
Means followed by the same letter are not different by Tukey’s test at the 5 % probability level. Data were transformed to (x + 0.5)1/2) for analysis purposes. * Significant at 5 % probability. NS Non-significant.

The no-choice attractiveness test revealed significant differences between the cultivars at 5, 15 and 30 min. At 5 min BRS Notável, BRS Campeiro, BRS Executivo were not infested and BRS Agreste was the most attractive to S. frugiperda. At 15 min Pérola, BRS Notável, BRS Realce, Jalo Precoce, BRS Campeiro and BRS Pitanga were not infested and BRS Agreste was the most attractive and 30 min Pérola had low larval numbers and BRS Agreste again was the most attractive cultivar to S. frugiperda. Generally, BRS Notável, BRS Campeiro, BRS Executivo and BRS Pitanga cultivars were the least attractive to S. frugiperda and BRS Agreste was the most attractive.

BRS Pitanga, BRS Executivo and BRS Campeiro cultivars showed antixenosis to S. frugiperda (Tables 1 and 2). This indicates the presence of chemical compounds and/or morphological leaf characteristics in these cultivars that are repellent to S. frugiperda (Cunningham 2012). Few studies have characterized the types of resistance present in common bean cultivars upon defoliating insects. Morando et al. (2015) reported antixenosis to C. includens in H96A102-1-1-1-52, Flor de Mayo and Arcelina 4 genotypes. Boiça Junior et al. (2015) observed antixenosisin IAC Una, IAC Uirapuru, IAC Diplomata and IAC Onixcultivars and tolerancein IAC Onix and IAC Una upon Diabrotica speciosa (Germar, 1924) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae).

Table 2:
Number of third instar Spodoptera frugiperda larvae (± SEM) on leaves of different common beans cultivars in a no-choice test.
Cultivars Time in minutes 1
5 10 15 30
BRS Ametista 0.26 ± 0.14 ab 0.20 ± 0.13 0.26 ± 0.14 ab 0.20 ± 0.13 ab
Pérola 0.20 ± 0.13 ab 0.13 ± 0.11 0.06 ± 0.08 b 0.00 ± 0.00 b
BRS Notável 0.06 ± 0.08 b 0.20 ± 0.13 0.13 ± 0.11 b 0.20 ± 0.13 ab
BRS Realce 0.20 ± 0.13 ab 0.13 ± 0.11 0.13 ± 0.11 b 0.13 ± 0.11 ab
Jalo Precoce 0.33 ± 0.15 ab 0.33 ± 0.15 0.13 ± 0.11 b 0.20 ± 0.13 ab
BRS Campeiro 0.06 ± 0.08 b 0.20 ± 0.13 0.06 ± 0.08 b 0.33 ± 0.15 ab
BRS Agreste 0.60 ± 0.16 a 0.53 ± 0.16 0.60 ± 0.16 a 0.53 ± 0.16 a
BRS Cometa 0.33 ± 0.15 ab 0.20 ± 0.13 0.46 ± 0.16 ab 0.33 ± 0.15 ab
BRS Executivo 0.06 ± 0.08 b 0.13 ± 0.11 0.33 ± 0.15 ab 0.46 ± 0.16 ab
BRS Pitanga 0.06 ± 0.08 b 0.06 ± 0.08 0.06 ± 0.08 b 0.13 ± 0.11 ab
F (trat.) 2.86 * 1.61 NS 3.38 * 2.24 *
C.V. (%) 24.84 25.55 24.66 25.99
Cultivars Time in hours
1 3 6 12
BRS Ametista 0.13 ± 0.11 0.46 ± 0.16 0.60 ± 0.16 0.73 ± 0.14
Pérola 0.06 ± 0.08 0.26 ± 0.14 0.66 ± 0.15 0.60 ± 0.16
BRS Notável 0.33 ± 0.15 0.26 ± 0.14 0.40 ± 0.16 0.86 ± 0.11
BRS Realce 0.26 ± 0.14 0.13 ± 0.11 0.40 ± 0.16 0.46 ± 0.16
Jalo Precoce 0.26 ± 0.14 0.20 ± 0.13 0.60 ± 0.16 0.80 ± 0.13
BRS Campeiro 0.26 ± 0.14 0.26 ± 0.14 0.46 ± 0.16 0.86 ± 0.11
BRS Agreste 0.33 ± 0.15 0.40 ± 0.16 0.60 ± 0.16 0.73 ± 0.14
BRS Cometa 0.40 ± 0.16 0.26 ± 0.14 0.46 ± 0.16 0.60 ± 0.16
BRS Executivo 0.13 ± 0.11 0.53 ± 0.16 0.86 ± 0.11 0.86 ± 0.11
BRS Pitanga 0.00 ± 0.00 0.26 ± 0.14 0.66 ± 0.15 0.80 ± 0.13
F (trat.) 1.50 NS 1.05 NS 1.29 NS 1.47 NS
C.V. (%) 25.81 27.61 25.36 20.84

1 Means followed by the same letter are not different by Tukey’s test at the 5 % probability level. Data were transformed to ((x + 0.5)1/2) for analysis purposes. * Significant at 5 % probability. NS Non-significant.

The hierarchical cluster analysis performed for both attractiveness and antixenosis resistance againstthe third-instar larvae of S. frugiperda that were evaluated atdifferent time periods in free-choice and no-choice tests revealed significant differences between the tested cultivars, separating them into groups according to their degree of similarity (Fig. 1). BRS Pitanga, Perola, BRS Ametista and BRS Executivoat Euclidean distance 3.3, 3.5 and 4.7, respectively, were grouped indicating similarity among these cultivars (Fig. 1). The second group was formed by BRS Cometa and BRS Notável at Euclidean distance 4.7, and the third group included Jalo Precoce and BRS Realce at Euclidean distance 4.9. Finally, all the cultivars were grouped at 7.4 (Fig. 1).

based on attractiveness of third instar Spodoptera frugiperda in free and non-choice tests by common bean. The hierarchical cluster analysis was carried out using the Ward’s method with the Euclidean distance as dissimilarity measure. The arrow indicates the Euclidean distance used for the separation of groups (phenon line).

Figure 1.Dendrogram: based on attractiveness of third instar Spodoptera frugiperda in free and non-choice tests by common bean. The hierarchical cluster analysis was carried out using the Ward’s method with the Euclidean distance as dissimilarity measure. The arrow indicates the Euclidean distance used for the separation of groups (phenon line).

Considering a Euclidean distance of 5.0 as the criterion for group division, the tested cultivars were separated according to the level of antixenosis resistance as follows: moderately resistant - BRS Campeiro and BRS Agreste; susceptible - Jalo Precoce, BRS Realce, BRS Cometa and BRS Notável; and highlysusceptible - BRS Executivo, BRS Pitanga, Pérola and BRS Ametista.

Comparing the results of the hierarchical cluster analysis with those of the free choice and no-choice attractiveness tests, BRS Campeiro was found to be one of the most attractive cultivarto S. frugiperda in free-choice test, despite its inclusion in the moderately resistant group (Table 1 and Fig. 1).

The common bean cultivars presented a significant effect on the biological parameters of S. frugiperda (Table 3). The larvae fed on cultivar BRS Realce presented a longer larval stage compared to the remaining cultivars, exceptfor BRS Ametista. The larval phase prolongation in S. frugiperda caused by BRS Realce is characteristic of antibiosis (Smith 2005;Seifi et al. 2013). This data is in agreement with those ofJesus et al. (2014) that found antibiosis on cotton cultivar Nuopal to S. frugiperda that completed the larval stage in 23.3 days. Paiva et al. (2016) observed that S. frugiperda completed the same stage in BX 1293 YG antibiosis resistant corn in 31.85 days. Larvae of S. frugiperda fed on artificial diet had their larval stage completed in 16 days (Silva et al. 2016).

Table 3:
Larval and pupal period (days) and larval and pupal weight (mg)of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) fed on common bean cultivars.
Cultivars Larval period Larval weight Pupal period Pupal weight
BRS Ametista 23.6 ± 2.84 ab 0.156 ± 0.03 9.1 ± 0.39 ab 156.0 ± 0.01
Pérola 19.1 ± 0.62 b 0.172 ± 0.04 9.3 ± 0.48 ab 153.0 ± 0.01
BRS Notável 18.7 ± 0.47 b 0.276 ± 0.04 10.3 ± 0.29 ab 163.0 ± 0.01
BRS Realce 27.2 ± 1.24 a 0.104 ± 0.02 14.5 ± 6.26 a 161.0 ± 0.02
Jalo Precoce 19.2 ± 0.63 b 0.217 ± 0.03 7.7 ± 0.28 b 131.0 ± 0.01
BRS Campeiro 18.3 ± 0.76 b 0.222 ± 0.04 10.0 ± 0.17 ab 164.0 ± 0.01
BRS Agreste 20.0 ± 0.79 b 0.777 ± 0.70 9.5 ± 0.34 ab 148.0 ± 0.01
BRS Cometa 19.5 ± 0.99 b 0.179 ± 0.02 10.6 ± 0.48 ab 151.0 ± 0.00
BRS Executivo 22.2 ± 0.80 b 0.333 ± 0.02 10.7 ± 0.28 ab 153.0 ± 0.02
BRS Pitanga 21.1 ± 0.86 b 0.180 ± 0.03 10.2 ± 0.81 ab 143.0 ± 0.00
F (trat.) 4.87 * 1.04 NS 4.41 * 0.76 NS
C.V. (%) 18.00 28.86 36.93 22.04

1 Means followed by the same letter are not different by Tukey’s test at the 5 % probability level. Data were transformed to (x + 0.5)1/2) for analysis purposes. * Significant at 5 % probability. NS Non-significant.

The pupae originating from larvae fed on BRS Realce also presented an extended pupal stage that was 6.8 days longer than those from Jalo Precoce. The adults presented a higher longevity after feeding on BRS Notável compared to Pérola (Table 4). The same authors mentioned previously found extension in the life cycle of S. frugiperda when fed on resistant plants. It is important to use as IPM tactic because over time there is a reduction in the population density of the pest (Gatehouse 2002).

The observed extension of the larval and pupal stages on S. frugiperda fed on BRS Realce indicates a detrimental effect of the plant on their biology. S. frugiperda needed more time to complete the larval and pupal stages than those feeding on a susceptible cultivar. Delays on S. frugiperda development are usually associated with antibiosis. Antibiosis is characterized by an extension on the larval stage when the insect feeds on a resistant host plant. This results in negative effects on initial insect developmental stages, such as high mortality, deformities and decreased body weight (Lara 1991; War et al. 2012; Seifi et al. 2013).

Table 4.Larval:
and pupal viability (%) (± SEM) and adult longevity (days) of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) fed on common bean cultivars.
Cultivars Larval viability Pupal viability Adult longevity
BRS Ametista 36.00 ± 5.00 32.00 ± 6.00 3,80 ± 0,29 ab
Pérola 36.00 ± 5.00 32.00 ± 6.00 3.10 ± 0.15 b
BRS Notável 60.00 ± 10.00 56.00 ± 8.00 5.20 ± 0.25 a
BRS Realce 48.00 ± 8.00 40.00 ± 8.00 4.20 ± 0.25 ab
Jalo Precoce 36.00 ± 5.00 32.00 ± 6.00 3.50 ± 0.38 ab
BRS Campeiro 44.00 ± 7.00 36.00 ± 5.00 4.20 ± 0.24 ab
BRS Agreste 36.00 ± 5.00 32.00 ± 6.00 4.00 ± 0.29 ab
BRS Cometa 48.00 ± 8.00 44.00 ± 8.00 4.50 ± 0.23 ab
BRS Executivo 40.00 ± 6.00 36.00 ± 5.00 4.10 ± 0.26 ab
BRS Pitanga 48.00 ± 8.00 44.00 ± 8.00 4.20 ± 0.25 ab
F (trat.) 1.12 NS 1.44 NS 4.82 *
C.V. (%) 32.33 30.32 29.32

1 Means followed by the same letter are not different by Tukey’s test at the 5 % probability level. Data were transformed to (x + 0.5)1/2) for analysis purposes. * Significant at 5 % probability. NS Non-significant.

The principal component analysis separated the bean cultivars into four levels of antibiosis resistance: highly resistant - BRS Notável; moderately resistant - BRS Pitanga, BRS Campeiro, BRS Cometa and BRS Realce; susceptible - BRS Ametista, BRS Executivo and Pérola; and highly susceptible - Jalo Precoce and BRS Agreste (Fig. 2).

Distribution of the common bean cultivars according to principal component analysis based on biological parameters of Spodoptera frugiperda.

Figure 2: Distribution of the common bean cultivars according to principal component analysis based on biological parameters of Spodoptera frugiperda.

Conclusions

The cultivars BRS Pitanga, BRS Executivo, BRS Notável and BRS Campeiro presented antixenosis and BRS Realce antibiosis to S. frugiperda under laboratory conditions. However, it is not known whether the levels of resistance, exhibited in the laboratory, are sufficiently high, to be of any economic value in farmers’ fields. Therefore, the next step is to evaluate, under field conditions, the cultivars showing the most resistance in the laboratory tests. If field evaluations indicate sufficient levels of resistance, to be of practical value, these cultivars may be used as donor sources in the breeding program or used directly by farmers.

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

This study was partially supported by National Council of Research and Technology of Brazil (CNPq) grant 311280/2015-3 to F. G. Jesus. We also thank the Instituto Federal Goiano - Campus Urutaí for support. Dr. E. A. “Short” Heinrichs from Departmentof Entomology to University of Nebraska - Lincoln forreviewing the manuscript and the anonymous reviewers forcomments and corrections of this manuscript.

Literature cited

  1. , , , , , , , (). Assessment of the high-dose concept and level of control provided by MON 87701 × MON 89788 soybean against Anticarsia gemmatalis and Pseudoplusia includens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Brazil. Pest Management Science 68(7), 1083-1091. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.3271
  2. , , , , (). Antixenosis and tolerance to Diabrotica speciosa (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in common bean cultivars. Florida Entomologist 98(2), 464-472. https://doi.org/10.1653/024.098.0212
  3. , , , , (). Resistência de genótipos de feijão-vagem ao ataque de bruquíneos, em condições de laboratório. Revista Caatinga 25(1), 92-97.
  4. , , , , (). The feeding preferences of Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on cotton plant varieties. Acta Scientiarum Agronomy 34(1), 125-130.
  5. , , , (). Efficiency of chemical pesticides to control Spodoptera frugiperda and validation of pheromone trap as a past management tool in maize crops. Revista Brasileira de Milho e Sorgo 9(2), 107-122.
  6. (). Can mechanism help explain insect host choice?. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 25(2), 244-251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02435.x
  7. (). Sisvar: a computer statistical analysis system. Ciência e Agrotecnologia 35(6), 1039-1042. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-70542011000600001
  8. (). Plant resistance towards insect herbivores: a dynamic interaction. New Phytologist 156(2), 145-169.
  9. , , (). Velvetbean caterpillar: a rearing procedure and artificial medium. Journal Economic Entomology 69(4), 487-488.
  10. , , , , (). Efeito de genótipos de feijoeiro, inseticida e produtos naturais no controle Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) biotipo B (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) e Caliothrips phaseoli (Hood) (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Acta Scientiarum Agronomy 33(3), 445-450. https://doi.org/10.4025/actasciagron.v33i3.7577
  11. , , , , , (). . Infestação de Bemisia tabaci biótipo B e Caliothrips phaseoli em genótipos de feijoeiro. Bragantia 69(3), 637-648. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0006-87052010000300016
  12. , , , , , (). Behavior of bean genotypes to attack by Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) biotype B (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae). Arquivo do Instituto Biológico 77(4), 635-641.
  13. , , , (). Behavior, development, and predation of Podisus nigrispinus (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) on Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) fed transgenic and conventional cotton cultivars. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 107(3), 601-606.
  14. (). . . São Paulo: Ícone. .336.
  15. , , , , (). Relationship between physical and chemical characteristics and susceptibility to Zabrotes subfasciatus (Boh.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) and Acanthoscelides obtectus (Say) in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) varieties. Journal of Stored Products Research 32(1), 53-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-474X(95)00037-8
  16. , , , , (). Antixenosis of bean genotypes to Chrysodeixis includens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 50(6), 450-458. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2015000600003
  17. , , , , , , (). Resistance of corn genotypes to fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). African Journal of Biotechnology 15(35), 1877-1882.
  18. , , , , , (). Effects of industrial canning on the proximate composition, bioactive compounds contents and nutritional profile of two Spanish common dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Food Chemistry 166(1), 68-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.05.158
  19. , , (). How to effectively deploy plant resistances to pests and pathogens in crop breeding. Euphytica 190(3), 321-334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-012-0823-9
  20. , , , , , (). Effect of the flavonoid rutin on the biology of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Acta Scientiarum Agronomy 38(2), 165-170. https://doi.org/10.4025/actasciagron.v38i2.27956
  21. (). . . Berlin: Springer. .423.
  22. (). . Statistica (data analysis software system), version 7.
  23. , , , , , (). Mechanisms of plant defense against insect herbivores. Plant Signal Behavior 7(10), 1306-1320. https://doi.org/10.4161/psb.2166