Legume Research

  • Chief EditorJ. S. Sandhu

  • Print ISSN 0250-5371

  • Online ISSN 0976-0571

  • NAAS Rating 6.80

  • SJR 0.391

  • Impact Factor 0.8 (2023)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Legume Research, volume 45 issue 9 (september 2022) : 1185-1189

Correlation of Pests Resistance Levels and Seed Chemical Concentrations of Soybean Genotypes

Suhartina1, Kurnia P. Sari1, Purwantoro1, Apri Sulistyo1, Trustinah1, Rudy Soehendi1, Suyamto1, Sholihin1, Made J. Mejaya1,*
1Indonesian Legumes and Tuber Crops Research Institute (ILETRI) Jl. Raya Kendalpayak km.8. PO Box 66 Malang 65101, East Java, Indonesia.
  • Submitted30-09-2021|

  • Accepted26-05-2022|

  • First Online 14-06-2022|

  • doi 10.18805/LRF-658

Cite article:- Suhartina, Sari P. Kurnia, Purwantoro, Sulistyo Apri, Trustinah, Soehendi Rudy, Suyamto, Sholihin, Mejaya J. Made (2022). Correlation of Pests Resistance Levels and Seed Chemical Concentrations of Soybean Genotypes . Legume Research. 45(9): 1185-1189. doi: 10.18805/LRF-658.
Background: Pests and diseases infestations reduce the quantity and quality of seed yields. The objective of this study was to identify the correlation value between level of resistance to pests and chemical (fat and protein) concentrations of soybean genotypes. 

Methods: A total of 15 soybean genotypes were planted in field and glass house environments in 2017. Observations were made on the infestation intensity of pest and disease, dry seed yield, yield components and chemical (fat and protein) concentrations. 

Result: Soybean genotype DG-91-8 showed resistant (R) category to pod borer and pod sucker, while DM-122-35-17 showed resistant (R) category to army worm and pod borer. Two highest yielding genotypes (DG-91-8 and DG-99-32-14) had 15% higher seed yield than check variety Dering 1 (2.41 t/ha), with higher 100 seeds weight and pod number/plant. Fat concentration showed a significant positive correlation value with leaf rust disease. Pod suckers showed a significant positive correlation value with pod borer infestation, indicating that they had the same preference for soybean pods. Soybean genotypes DG-91-8 showed high seed yield (2.70 t/ha) and resistant (R) level to pod borer and pod sucker.
In Indonesia, soybean (Glycine max) is important source of protein. The  low productivity of  soybean is mainly due to pests and diseases infestations that reduce the quantity and quality of crop yields. With the global climate change, developing of soybean superior variety that resistant to pests and diseases is the one of determinant factors of the area expanding accomplishment (Suhartina and Kuswantoro, 2011).
       
As much as  15-20% of soybean production in Indonesia is lost directly or indirectly by pest each year (Rustam, 2016).  Three major soybean insect pests that reduce yield productivity are pod borer (Etiella  zinckenella Treitschke), pod sucker (Riptortus linearis Hemiptera: Alydidae) and armyworm (Spodoptera litura F.). While the major soybean disease is leaf rust (Phakopsora pachyrizi). Pod borer, pod sucker and armyworm caused seed yield losses ranges 79%-100% (Baliadi et al., 2008; Sari and Suharsono, 2011; Motaphale et al., 2016; Marwoto et al., 2017). In mungbean, the 36-75% yield loss was due to pod borer (Umbarkar et al., 2011; Indiati et al., 2021).
 
Planting resistant legume varieties is a long-term problem solving in controlling pests  due to its economically sound, easy to use and can be integrated with other means of pest control as eco safe method of pest-plant management (Shanower et al., 1999; Soundararajan et al., 2013).
       
In soybean, resistant variety to pod sucker was controlled by genetic factors (Asadi et al., 2012), therefore,  resistant varieties is very important due to  differences in efficacy of  different insecticides againts pest (Lekha et al., 2017) and different response of varieties to planting seasons (Soundararajan and Chitra 2017). Breeding of soybean lines tolerant to drought has been conducted at the ILETRI and 13 soybean promising lines were obtained. This study was aimed to identify the correlation between level of resistance to pests and seed chemical  concentrations of these soybean genotypes.
Field study
 
Field research was conducted at the ILETRI Reseach Farm in Malang, East Java, Indonesia from April - August 2017. A total of 15 soybean genotypes consisted of 13 lines and two check varieties (Dering 1 and Grobogan) were planted in the field and glass house environments (Table 1). The genotypes were arranged in a randomized block design (RBD) with four replications. Dering 1  was resistant to pod borer and leaf rust while Grobogan was susceptible. Each line was planted on a plot of 3.2 m × 4.5 m, plant spacing of 40 cm × 15 cm and two plants per hole.

Table 1: Drought-tolerant soybean lines and their parents used in the study.


         
Evaluation of pests and disease
 
Evaluation of pod borer (Etiella  zinckenella Treitschke), pod sucking (Riptortus linearis Hemiptera: Alydidae) and armyworm (Spodoptera litura, F.) insect pests  as well as is leaf rust (Phakopsora pachyrizi) disease were conducted  at ILETRI glass house environments in Malang, East Java, Indonesia from April-August 2017. A totalof 15 soybean genotypes were arranged in a completely randomized trial design, repeated three times. The no choice test method was used by artificial investment in gauze cages. The tested genotypes were planted in a polybag containing 10 kg of soil two plants/polybag. At the age of 60 days an imago investment was made.
       
Observation of the intensity of leaf damage due to armyworm attack in each clump was carried out at the age of 7 days after investment. Leaf damage was observed based on the 0-4 scoring method, with the following criteria:
 
Score 0: Healthy leaves (no armyworm attack).
Score 1: ¼ the leaves were attacked by armyworms.
Score 2: ½ of the leaves were attacked by armyworms.
Score 3: ¾ the leaves were attacked by armyworms.
Score 4: 1 part of the full leaves were attacked by armyworms.
 
The intensity of damage was calculated using the formula:
 
 
Where,
P = Percentage of leaf damage.
ni = The number of leaves indicating the ith score.
vi = Score of leaves i (i: 0-4).
Z = Highest score (4).
N = Number of leaves observed.
       
Parameters observed were damage intensity (DI) based on the amount of damage to pods and seeds. The criteria for resilience were determined based on average and standard deviation (SD) according to the method of Chiang and Talekar (1980), then grouped into 5 categories:
 
1.  Highly resistant (HR) : Xi < (X - 2 SD)      
2.  Resistant (R) :  (X- 2 SD) £ Xi  £ (X- SD)     
3.  Moderate resistant (MR) : (X- SD) £ Xi  £ X       
4.  Susceptible (S)   : X £ Xi £ (X+ SD)
5.  Highly susceptible (HS)  : Xi X ³ (X+ 2 SD)
 
Where,
Xi =  Pod damage or seed damage of each genotype or accession.
X = Mean of pod damage or seed damage.
SD = Standard deviation.
       
The source of the initial inoculum was rust stained soybean leaves from farmers’ fields.
 
Observations were made on all tested plants at the age of 8 weeks using the International Working Group of Soybean Rust (IWGSR) method developed by Shanmugasundaram (1977).
 
Protein and fat content analysis
 
Analysis of protein and fat content using the Kjeldahl Micro method (AOAC, 2005 No. 12.1.07) by direct extraction method with Soxhlet (SNI 01-2891-1992) (BSN, 1992).
Resistance to pests and disease
 
The intensity of armyworm infestation on the tested soybean lines showed difference categories ranged from very susceptible to resistant (Table 2). Two soybean lines AGm-29-3-2 and DM-122-35-17 showed resistant (R) level against armyworm pests which were equivalent to that of Grobogan check variety and more resistant than that of Dering 1 check variety which was classified as moderately resistant (MR)  (Table 2). One soybean line (DG-91-8) and eight soybean lines showed resistant (R) and moderately resistant (MR)  categories, respectively to pod suckers (Riptortus linearis). While the check varieties Grobogan and Dering 1  showed  highly susceptible (HS) and moderately resistant (MR), respectively (Table 2).
 

Table 2: The resistance levels of 13 drought tolerant soybean lines and 2 check varieties to the main pests and rust disease. Malang, 2017.


       
Three soybean lines (DG-91-8, DG-100-33-15 and DM-122-35-17) showed resistant (R) category to pod borer (Etiella zinckenella). While the check varieties Grobogan and Dering 1 showed highly susceptible (HS) and  susceptible (S) categories, respectively (Table 2). All genotypes showed  moderately resistant (MR) category to leaf rust disease (Phakopsora pachyrhizi).
       
There was no soybean line showed resistant (R)  category based on resistant level to three major pests above.  Soybean line DG-91-8 showed resistant (R) category to pod borer and pod sucker, while DM-122-35-17 showed resistant (R) category to army worm and pod borer. Three soybean lines (TGm-161-25-10,  AB-157-41-22 and DG-240-44-25) showed moderately resistant (MR)  category to three major pest above (Table 2). Two soybean lines (DG-91-8  and DG-240-44-25) showed improvement on resistance level to three major pest above compared to check varieties  Grobogan and Dering 1 as their parents in their pedegree crosses (Table 1).
       
Based on the value of the percentage of seed damage, there were two resistant genotypes, however, based on the value of the percentage of pod damage, only one genotype  showed a resistant level that was G511H/Anjasmoro//Anjasmoro-2-8. A very high natural population of pod sucking bug was recorded in the field with the average number of damaged pod in full protection environment (L1) and insecticide control until 50 dap (L2), i.e. 41.45% and 60.16%, respectively. Genotype of G511H/Anj//Anj-2-8 was consistently resistant to pod sucking bug both in L1 and  L2 (Krisnawati et al., 2016; 2017; 2018).
 
Seed yield and yield components
 
The seed yield of 13 soybean lines ranged from 2.11 to 2.76 t/ha.  Seven lines showed higher seed yield than check  varieties (Dering 1 and Grobogan). Two highest yielding line (DG-91-8 and DG-99-32-14) had 15% higher seed yield than check variety Dering 1 (2.41 t/ha). These two lines also had higher seed size (100 seeds weight) and pod number/plant (Table 3). Soybean line DG-91-8 also showed resistant (R)  category to pod borer and pod sucker (Table 2).
 

Table 3: Seed yield, yield components, protein and fat concentrations of 13 drought tolerant soybean genotypes. Malang, 2017.


 
Protein and fat concentrations
 
The range of protein and fat concentrations of soybean lines are presented in Table 4. The highest protein and fat concentrations was showed by TGm-288-38-19 (41.47%) and AB-157-41-22 (19.74%), respectively. These concentrations were higher than the check varieties Dering 1 and Grobogan.
 

Table 4:Protein and fat concentrations of 13 soybean genotypes. Malang, 2017.


 
Correlation among characters
 
The correlation among characters of soybean lines are presented in Table 5. The correlation between protein content and fat concentration shows a significant negative value, but did not show a significant correlation with the intensity of infestation of the three pest types. Fat concentration shows a significant positive correlation with leaf rust disease. Pod suckers showed a significant positive correlation with the intensity of pod borer infestation, indicating that these two types of pests had the same preference for soybean pods. Seed yield  and number of pods showed significant positive correlation value. This finding agrees with the study reported by San et al., (2022) that there was a negative relationship between biological attributes of H. armigera and protein content in different chickpea genotypes. 
 

Table 5: Correlation among soybean traits of 15 soybean genotypes.


       
The different response of genotype to pod borer attack could be influenced by various factors, including pod morphology (wall thickness of pods, number of pods/cluster, angle between pods in one cluster, trichome pods, length, density and position of trichome pods, pod length and pod width). In addition to differences in pod morphology, the content of compounds or plant nutrients can also affect the level of pod borer attack (Sunitha et al., 2008; Halder and Srinivasan 2007; 2011).
       
Plant resistant to insect pest may expressed in a morphological characters such as dense and rigid, irregular trichome structure, the thicker leaves and stem and harder pod shell (Suharsono 2009; Suharsono and Sulistyowati 2012). Resistance to pod sucking pests associated with pod morphological factors (antixenosis) as well as antibiosis factors  (Haq et al., 2003; War et al., 2012). The angle between the pods and the widt h of the pods showed a negative correlation with pod damage of pegeon pea genotypes (Halder and Srinivasan 2011). The level damageof soybean pod do tue pd sucking bug on soybean varieties Kipas Merah and Anjasmoro determined by the number of trichomes, wide surface pod and number pod per nodes (Hendrival et al., 2013).                 
Two  highest yielding line (DG-91-8 and DG-99-32-14)  had  15% higher seed yield than check  variety Dering 1 (2.41 t/ha), with higher seed size (100 seeds weight) and pod number/plant. Fat concentration showed a significant positive correlation value with leaf rust disease. Pod suckers showed a significant positive correlation value with the intensity of pod borer infestation, indicating that these two types of pests had the same preference for soybean pods. Soybean line DG-91-8 was the most ideal line since it  showed high seed yield (2.70 t/ha) and resistant (R)  category to pod borer and pod sucker.
We would like to express our greatest gratitude to the head of the Indonesian Legumes and Tuber Crops Research Institute (ILETRI), Indonesian Agency for Agricultural Research and Development (IAARD), for the financial support during this research.
None.

  1. Asadi, Purwantoro, A. and Yakub, S. (2012). Genetic control of soybean resistance to soybean pod sucker (Riptortus linearis L.). Agrivita. 34(1): 28-35. 

  2. BSN. (1992). Prosedur analisis kimia bahan makanan. Badan Standarisasi Nasional. Jakarta. 35 hlm.

  3. Baliadi, Y., Tengkano, W. and Marwoto. (2008). Soybean pod borer, Etiella zinckenella treitschke (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and its control strategy in Indonesia. Jurnal Litbang Pertanian. 27(4): 113-123. 

  4. Chiang, H.S. and Talekar, N.S. (1980). Identification of source of resistance to the beatfly and two other Agromyzed flies in soybean and mungbean. J. of Econ. Entomol. 73: 197-199.

  5. Halder, J. and Srinivasan, S. (2007). Biochemical basis of resistance against Maruca vitrata in urbean. Ann. Pl. Protec. Sci. 15: 287-290.

  6. Halder, J. and Srinivasan, S. (2011). Varietal screening and role of morphological factors on distribution and abundance of spotted pod borer, Maruca vitrata (Geyer) on Cowpea. Ann. Pl. Protec. Sci. 19 (1): 71-74.

  7. Haq, I.U., Amjad, M., Kakakhel, S.A. and Khokhar, M.A. (2003). Morphological and physical parameters of soybean resistance to insect pests. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences. 2(2): 202-204.

  8. Hendrival, Latifah, A. and Nisa. (2013). Efficacy some botanical insecticides for controlling pest pod sucking in soybean fields. Jurnal Agrista. 17(1): 18-27.  

  9. Indiati, S.W., Hapsari. R.T., Prayogo. Y., Sholihin, Sundari. T. and Mejaya. M.J. (2021). Resistance level of mung bean genotypes to pod borer Maruca testulalis geyer. Legume Research. 44(5): 602-607.  DOI:10.18805/LR-590.

  10. Krisnawati, A., Bayu, M.S.Y.I. and Adie, M.M. (2016). Identification of soybean resistance to pod sucking bug (Riptortus linearis) by no-choice test. biosaintifika: Journal of Biology and Biology Education. 8(3): 407-414. DOI: 10.15294/biosaintifika.v8i3.5180. 

  11. Krisnawati, A., Bayu, M.S.Y.I. and Adie, M.M. (2017). Screening of soybean genotypes for resistance to pod sucking bug, Riptortus linearis. Nusantara Bioscience. 9(2): 181-187. DOI: 10.13057/nusbiosci/n090213.

  12. Krisnawati, A. and Adie, M.M. (2018). Evaluation of soybean resistance to pod-sucking bug, Riptortus linearis F. and performance of its agronomic characters. Biosaintifika: Journal of Biology and Biology Education. 10(1): 213-222. DOI: 10.15294/biosaintifika.v10i1.12806.

  13. Lekha, Ameta, O.P.  and Swami, H. (2017). Evaluation of new generation pesticides to control pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) infesting chickpea. Legume Research. 40 (2) : 384-387.

  14. Marwoto, Hardaningsih, S. and Taufiq, A. (2017). Soybean plant pests and diseases, identification and control. Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pertanian. Jakarta. 

  15. Motaphale, A.A., Bhosle, B.B. and Khan, F.S. (2016). Screening of germplasm for tolerrance against major stem pests of soybean. Internat. J. Plant Protec. 9(2): 387-394. DOI: 10.15740/HAS/IJPP/9.2/387-394.

  16. Rustam. (2016). Production performance and organisms that disturb rice, corn and soybean plants in Riau Province. J. Agrotek. Trop. 5(1): 39-54.

  17. San, S.H., Sagar, D., Kalia, V.K., Krishnan, V. (2022). Effect of different Chickpea genotypes and its biochemical constituents on biological attributes of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). Legume Research. 45(4): 514-520. DOI:10.18805/LR-4474.

  18. Sari, K.P. and Suharsono. (2011). The status of the pod sucking pest on soybean, regional distribution area and control method. Bul. Palawija. 22: 79-85. 

  19. Shanmugasundaram, S. (1977). The International Working Group on Soybean Rust and its Proposed Soybean Rust Rating System. Workshop on Rust on Soybean-The Problem and Research Needs. Manila, Philippines, 28 February-4 March 1977.

  20. Shanower, T.G., Romewas, J. and Minja, E.M. (1999). Insect pests of pigeonpea and their management. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 44: 77-96.

  21. Soundararajan, R.P., Chitra, N., Geetha, S. (2013). Host plant resistance to insect pests of grain legumes- A review. Agri. Reviews. 34(3): 176-187.

  22. Soundararajan, R.P.  and Chitra, N. (2017). Field evaluation of mungbean (Vigna radiata L.) germplasm for resistance against pod borer complex. Legume Research. 40(4): 768-772. 

  23. Suharsono. (2009). Hubungan kerapatan trikoma dengan intensitas serangan penggerek polong kedelai. Jurnal Penelitian Pertanian Tanaman Pangan 28(3): 176-182. 

  24. Suharsono and Sulistyowati, L. (2012). Expression of resistance of soybean to the pod sucking bug Riptortus linearis F. (Hemiptera: Coreidae). Agrivita. 34(1): 55-59.

  25. Suhartina and Kuswantoro, H. (2011). Pemuliaan tanaman kedelai toleran kekeringan [Soybean breeding genotipe for drought tolerance]. Buletin Palawija. 21: 26-38.

  26. Sunitha, V., Rao, G.V.R., Lakshmi, K.V., Saxena, K.B., Rao, V.R. and Reddy, Y.V.R. (2008). Morphological and biochemical factors associated with resistance to Maruca vitrata (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in short-duration pigeonpea. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science. 28(1).

  27. Umbarkar, P.S., Parsana, G.J. and Jethva, D.M. (2011). Estimation of yield losses by pod borer complex in greengram. Legume Research. 34(4): 308-310.

  28. War, A.R, Paulraj, M.G., Ahmad, T., Buhroo, A.A., Hussain, B., Ignacimuthu, S. and Sharma, H.C. (2012). Mechanisms of plant defense against insect herbivores. Plant Signal Behav. 7(10): 1306-1320.

Editorial Board

View all (0)