Research Paper (Ecology: ) ( :)

#$ % !" soccata Rondani

2 1 [email protected] : (1) .# '#* $% & !"# (2)

&'! $ % Atherigona soccata Rondani "# ! .2008 . .94+89 :26 ( * ) .'( ! &"

" " !/ Atherigona soccata Rondani ) 4- 5 26$ 7 23 % *+ + 10 !) *+ #) '% % ,- .'( %& # $ - 6 - ' % 0 # 6% - . 8

% #>" 26$ 5 = < ( .; ' 1.30–1.25 8( : 5( - #9! 8 .-% 8( : #9! @ .( 10/ 22) 56 $ 26$B A 6 ?? @ 26$ " -< #

@ %93 ) B ,) .- 9 - ' # #9! 9 < 5$( , .6 9 1 7.8–1.5 @ -+ ,)> 1% 7- 5 = # $ & , .( 7 #8 ( '8- @ 26$ - ' # 9 .!) 7- *+ %%) 26$ ! + 1% 7- @ $(

Sesamia cretica ) 0% ) < ) 6$ + ?9( 6 ' 23 !) * < ( 1%66 7- = .(Led. .0 1 !) 1@ + 1Atherigona soccata 1 :

-C 9 (2) + , * .= &" E :" >/ + % , E #2 F" ()* + ' ' %& $ !"# @# , 0& & 9 ./ , 3 12 +# &$ 0 +- + & ./ , G/ ?) (/ ? & @# # 0 >/ + 5 4) . @# :& + /H %"9 (Diptera:) Atherigona soccata Rondani / 8"9 : / 1"2 7 (5) 0 .(13 Deeming +*, ; % + &< > &$ + "= /& :"7 (3) Barry * + 3 /9 E ) E + & @# ;" .# @# / . , ?) 0 IH- ? 9 ,0 .&- 2002 +/ .& ,C* %A + ,9 : , ?) &< ) </ H0 . '0 . 4×3 / & %A " " ,</ ?) 9 + "&

(" 3 .*& +/ .&) (" , C @# # ? (7) Ramshe Mote 0 .(6) +&< ,</ K 9 E .(J 0" ) ("2 ?) 0 < &" ": +

/ ..& 75 G/ :/ / HH* + 2002/3/20 &" D "C + %91–90 - && .& 10 & ") (* ) 9 "= 0 .(11) "= ' 24 / %80 ? ) - =

,* I" ,E & 9 IH0 . 1 & " ?) ,2 Atherigona humeralis Wide ,9& . %& E )/ 9 .C/

89 Arab J. Pl. Prot. Vol. 26, No. 2 (2008) / %10±40 # 6 ?º 2±27 .(1) .Q A E# & / 5O / I ; : ! " #

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×40 K 8 ' .# *"M@ % /' /!< / / /% 6 ?º 3±27 A % ! 56< 3@ A% 01 / I 0%1 3! < $ J / %5±50 # H8 * .R " / C % A 1 !# /' $ # .* F ' #1 * / S9 0 .* .I 4 6 V > 5# % I 0%1 15 A ' 5K" <# / 0%1 / 6! * S A&' / % J 6< 6M 5E6 3! B '#" C6 % A9 ?W E A C# 9 $ I C61 .(10) AI E<& 3! B ! L* /' / 5R / ! J" 3! ' ' ' &"& 3! O 3! '#" EM -!< I 0%1 * % ' PC6 ' % A P O ? 3! B

(2008) 2 26 90 ! # " .4 .7 # # $ # # $ %& '&# ( " )# " 4"# $# ) B!& >& '&# ( )# !"# *+ $ ,"& -+# ./ #.) .)& $0# *+ 2 B& # $+ ;!# 0 &) E+ 7 0&2& *+ 1&# $# ) +& &# 4"# . # )# 7# # 4"5& 6" 1+# ) " 3 $# %93.3 #" F 4"# )# # ) 90 " 7 8 $+& . %6.7 #" )# 2 '&# ( $+& .# # $ $# & $0# +&# ; "& D .&# )# " $# +& ; $# 90 3 $) +&0# I5# (# &2 .;0) ( 90 #H# !"# *+. 3 .4& .% ." /&# %2 .$H## '2 .) (# A F .07& &# $# $&2 <#+# /# ; $# 90

9#D ! -+# % 0 " (14) Tongsanga *7 8 <#+ & ># # # 90 +# $ ."& 65 " ; &# ;& +&# $# >4 $.4 6" 1$# 3 > 3 =2 $; )# *+ .,02 ,0 ; )# # # $ # # " &0# 90 ? % " ? P7D >& ) &# 0"# $)# O 12 90 7 @ ;& A# 8 <#+ & .7&# +# .(# *+ B&) # $ 8 %); * )& -+# )# $# # # @/ .)# B <#+ 1> 0# # 8 $# 90 $# 8 C)# C2# # > 7.33 $; +&# & (# 90 QI&# $" '&# ( )# # " 7 4"5 &# (# ># ()&# R0 > 6.66 ; " # # 7 5(D .4& ># &# %& ( >;"&& .> 6.86 $H## '2 9&" A+0# # # &) =02#– 7# @# D .> 6=5 / )# (# "# $7 . I A+# ># $# + # # $ ,0 .4& ># -+# &# # +&# ; 9#D 3 A3 & > 0# )# $ D E2 D 6"3 ,#D && Tongsanga *7 8 QI&# *+ $.!& .$# , +&& ;# & A 0"# $4"5# , ;F&# >& + .) ."# > 6.42 $; A+# & ( F (14) 90 7 @ ; 7 1$# 0# #

87! G# $# 7& "# # " 7# @# 90 7 D 6"D 90 0;# !"# + G# A# +# 5 ))" >& >& ,&+ $0# 0&2 @ 90 ; % 0 " 4 " # .# :0 QI&# $" H# @ B!& A .4 ."# # 90 " ; 7 .# ;!# #(& # & $; $0# 0# # $#

1> 0.4–0.3 ( %& > 1.30–1.25 .#( T& # +H&# 7& .; "I $+ # 9&" )# B()# 90 8& 1C# A 9#D .# "& .0 $7 +# "# # # $" ..0 . @/& ()# 0# %/ U# 0)# 87&& 9&" %#/& 8# #& 7& %7 H J2 $ 7 > 9#D (1 7) QI&# $! 0# ;# 7# +# %) ; -+# " ( # >)0# 0&2# $& 10/# .7 $02 A(D # &) >K ./ #.) # +2 # # $ $7 " 12002 3 F (14 112 111 12) %) ! 8 # + & $H0 +D 1$& 10/# &# $# # # $ & $# " ; &

90 $& 10/ 6.52 5.93 16.74 .7 @ ;&& .#&# 90 1+D B 1;

91 Arab J. Pl. Prot. Vol. 26, No. 2 (2008) 2 ? . &2 ."% 5- ) !"#$ . 5 5 "% 5- ) . %) &2 "%) " !"#$ )*) +) '( % & !"#$ 22 6%) - ./ ,2002 &% 1) 1 ) &2 3 1 )/ %0 ) " .- ( ,

!5 > "= .) 1 1$ &2 " 10/ Jotwani Singh - * .4 56 78 10.67 2 %) ( > 1$ . "%) . +1) & /"/) .8 (8) 5- ) * . "%) .) !5 / ," 10/ &2 !"#$ . < .- )*) )? ? >- ?1 )2 ,'5$ "% % 27/ - #= &2 / / 5" ."= .) 1 $ .1$ &2 !"#$ . . - %) &2 "%) 2 ? .( 29 @22 .5$ .) &2 - >- ?1 - !"#$ )) ( % ,!"#$ .- * ( ) * ( % ,)/- )" ( &2 1 & ) ) /) ? )"( ? 6 )% &2 )*) " !"#$ 11 +) % , 0 )" 7 "? - )% 7 "

(9) Jotwani Singh ? 7)) ? &2 . # 7/- ./ )" 7 < ?2) %0 .- ( !"#- )*) . +1) )% .8 - . .) )* <$ .) ))

"%) 2 ? ( ,& /"/) & 1" . "%) & 1 0 " .8 (14) Tongsanga 0 &2 78 ./ / 11 )*) !"#$ . 0)$ )/ 1 & )* ) 4)

)/ .'% .) / . (Longevity) )% . ) 0

(2) Mohammad Awadallah ? ) ) 1 < ,15 @? ,3 @? #) !"#- )? .8 1? . )/ ) 7.8–1.5 . 0 0) > # 11 "/ NES1007 115– ? &2 7+ ) .- ( - . ?- ,)% )* " #) ( * % !5 +) % & )" )* ) 4) 1" &2 1" .) - )*) &2 . 1 2 ."% 5- ) !5 - .)" ) " 1$ ( " .0 " 2 ? ( 2 ? &2 ") 4" ./ / 5) !"#$ . %) &2 "%)

.(2002) !! " # $"% 10/ .1 Table 1. Mean numbers of shoot eggs/10 plants of three varieties during the 2002 spring season.

Sampling dates 29 22 15 08 01 24 17 10 03 / / / / / / / / / Mean May May May May May April April April April varieties 0.07±6.7 0.0±0.0 0.0±0.0 0.20±2.7 1.53±12.7 2.03±20.0 0.37±9.3 1.36±6.7 0.03±6.0 0.04±3.3 Kaifer 0.14±5.9 0.0±0.0 0.0±0.0 0.01±8.0 0.05±12.0 0.05±12.0 0.29±11.3 1.41±6.7 0.04±3.3 0.00±0.0 Rabih 0.72±6.3 0.0±0.0 0.0±0.0 0.20±6.7 0.03±8.0 0.06±14.0 0.41±9.3 0.03±8.0 0.10±7.3 0.04±5.3 Inkhad 0.0±0.0 0.0±0.0 0.11±5.9 0.07±10.9 0.04±15.3 0.56±10.0 0.25±7.1 0.08±5.6 0.08±2.9 Mean 3.88 :"# " # !2.24 = !ns : (LSD) LSD (least significant difference) for cultivars was not significant, for sampling dates was 2.24 and for the interaction of the two factors was 3.88.

(2008) 2 26 92 .(2002) ! " #!$ % 10/ .2 Table 2. Mean numbers of shoot fly larvae / 10 plants of three sorghum varieties during the 2002 spring season.

Sampling dates 29 22 15 08 01 24 17 10 03 / / / / / / / / / Mean May May May May May April April April April varieties 1.02±6.9 0.0±0.0 0.62±7.3 0.61±10.0 2.44±25.3 1.08±7.3 0.14±8.0 0.04±3.3 0.08±0.7 0.0±0.0 Kaifer 0.31±6.0 0.0±0.0 0.05±2.0 0.08±12.7 1.06±20.0 0.08±8.7 0.08±9.3 0.09±0.13 0.00±0.0 0.0±0.0 Rabih 0.22±5.6 0.0±0.0 0.05±2.0 0.11±9.3 0.09±20.7 0.32±6.7 0.51±6.7 0.14±3.3 0.10±2.0 0.0±0.0 Inkhad 0.0±0.0 0.41±3.8 0.74±10.7 2.15±22.0 0.07±7.6 0.31±8.0 0.16±2.7 0.05±8.9 0.0±0.0 Mean .ns :"# " # 2.17 : ! ns : (LSD) LSD (least significant difference) for cultivars was not significant, for sampling dates was 2.17 and for the interaction of the two factors was not significant.

: *9 0 1*8 .)*! $ '( %65.61 ;( ! +(, )*! '( & % $ "# 0 %/ .2002 -

)*! % 2 1 * 8 7 73 %68 '( 34 5 67 ) ( (7 5 )8 1

.38

Abstract Al-Karboli, H.H. and A.I. Al- Nakhli. 2008. The Economic Importance of the Shoot Fly, Atherigona soccat Rondani on Sorghum in Iraq. Arab J. Pl. Prot., 26: 89-94. The shoot fly (Atherigona soccata) is one of the most important pests attacking sorghum, maize and millet in many parts of Asia and Africa. Laboratory and field investigations to study some aspects of biology, damage and control of this pest were conducted. Females started oviposition on sorghum seedlings one week after emergence. Eggs were white, elongate and approximately 1.25–1.30 mm in length. A peak of oviposition of 15.33/10 seedlings were recorded during the fifth week, and no eggs were observed eight weeks after emergence. Adults laid more eggs on leaf three and leaf four with an average of 22 eggs/10 seedlings. Larvae were nearly 1.5–7.8 mm long, vermiform and creamy white in color. Larvae tunneled in the seedlings causing wilt and finally a dead heart to sorghum seedlings. About 93% of the mature larvae were observed to make an exit hole in the crown of the seedlings stalk and pupate inside the stalk near the soil surface. Pupal development was completed in about 7 days. There were no significant differences between the three tested sorghum cultivars (Inkhad, Rabih and Kaifer) in relation to shoot fly resistance. The average of seedling dead hearts four weeks after emergence were 66%, and shoot fly caused more dead heart to sorghum seedlings than the corn pink borer, Sesamia cretica Led. This is the first record of the shoot fly A. soccata on sorghum, maize and Johnson grass in Iraq. Keywords: Shoot fly, Atherigona soccata, economic importance, sorghum insects, Iraq. Corresponding author: Hameed H. Al-Karboli, Department of Plant Protection, College of Agriculture, Abu-Ghraib, Baghdad, Iraq, E- mail : [email protected]

References

sorghum in Upper Egypt. Agricultural Research & &% '% .1993 . .1 Review, 62: 59-63. " * ,& *% - .*+& 3. Barry, D. 1972. Chemical control of Sorghum shoot .& 469 . * % fly on susceptible variety of sorghum in Uganda. 2. Awadallah, W.H. and K.K. Mohammad. 1984. The Journal of Economic Entomology, 65: 1123-1125. shoot fly Atherigona humeralis Wide, infesting 4. Dalvi, C.S. and V.P. Dalaya. 1984. Screening of Sorghum varieties for resistance to shoot fly,

93 Arab J. Pl. Prot. Vol. 26, No. 2 (2008) 9. Singh, S.P. and M.G. Jotwani. 1980. Mechanism of Atherigona soccata Rondani. Indian Journal of resistance in sorghum to shoot fly. II- Antibiosis. Entomology, 46: 421-429. Indian Journal of Entomology, 42: 353-360. 5. Deeming, J.C. 1971. Some species of Atherigona 10. Soto, P.E. and K. Laxminarayana. 1971. A method spp. (Diptera: Muscidae) from Northern Nigeria with for rearing the sorghum shoot fly. Journal of special reference of those injurious to cereal crops. Economic Entomology, 64: 553. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 61: 133-190. 11. Suasaard, W. and K. Charernsom. 1985. 6. Gudeta, S., T. Abate and R.K. Lakra. 1996. The Population survey of the shoot fly, Atherigona Biology and management of sorghum shoot fly soccata Rondani (Diptera: Muscidae) and other Atherigona soccata in Alemaya area: A Review insects associated in sweet sorghum fields. Kasetsart Eshetu–Bekele. Pages 98-112. In: Proceedings of the University, Bangkok (Thailand). Research reports. 3rd Annual Conference of the Crop Protection Society Raingan Khonkwa wicha : Prachampi. 2528 pp. of Ethiopia. A. Abdullah and A. Yemane (eds.). IAR, 12. Sukhani, T.R. and M.G. Jotwani. 1980. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Ovipositional preference and damage of shoot fly on 7. Mote, U.N. and D.G. Ramshe. 1987. Effects of sorghum on different stages of tillers of ratoon crop. fertilizers and plant population on the incidence of Indian Journal of Entomology, 42: 488-493. shoot fly Atherigona soccata Rondani on some 13. Teetes, G.L., W.R. Young and M.G. Jotwani. 1979. sorghum cultivars. Indian Journal of Entomology, 49: Element of control of Sorghum pests. Food and 490-495. Agriculture Organization of the United Nation. Plant 8. Singh, S.P. and M.G. Jotwani. 1980. Mechanism of Production and Protection, Paper No. 19, Rome, Italy, resistance in Sorghum to shoot fly. I. Ovipositional Pages 17-40. non–preference. Indian Journal of Entomology, 42: 14. Tongsanga, S. 1985. Ecology of sorghum shoot fly 240-247. (Atherigona soccata Rondani) (Diptera: Muscidae) Bangkok (Thailand). 176 pp.

Received: August 16, 2007; Accepted: April 20, 2008 2008/4/20 : 2007/8/16 :

(2008) 2 26 94