Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:07:57.180Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Infestation potential of Callosobruchus maculatos (Fab.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) on cowpea cultivars stored under subtropical conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

G. W. K. Mensah
G. W. K. Mensah
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, University of Swaziland, Luyengo Campus, Swaziland
Get access

Abstract

Laboratory studies were conducted to assess the infestation potential of Callosobruchus maculalus (Fab.) on 12 elite and one local cowpea cultivars which were stored under subtropical conditions. Index of susceptibility, loss in grain quality and the number of adult progeny that emerged from previously infested grain were the criteria used to assess the vulnerability of the cowpeas to post-harvest infestation. Cultivars TV × 309–1C and TV × 1193–10F showed some degree of resistance to post-harvest infestation by C. maculalus and could therefore be stored safely for a relatively long time. TV × 1192–01D and TV × 1999-1D were the most susceptible cultivars to post-harvest attack by C. maculatus. Length of storage adversely affected the ability of the cultivars to resist the insect attack. Crop resistance, adequately supplemented with good sanitation, can be profitably applied to control insect infestations in grains during storage.

Résumé

Des études de laboratories furent menées pour mesurer la susceptibilité de douze variétés élites et une variété locale de haricots, aux attaques de Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.). Les trois critères suivants furent utilisés pour mesurer la vulnérabilité des variétés de haricots aux infestations d'apres récolte: l'index de susceptibilité, la diminution de la qualité du grain et le nombre de jeunes adultes insectes qui sortent des grains infestés. Les variétés TV × 309–1C et TV × 1192–10F se sont révélées resistantes. Elles peuvent être stockées pour une période assez longue. Les variétés TV × 1192–01D et TV × 1999–1D étaient les plus vulnérables. La résistance à l'insecte diminue avec la durée de stockage. La résistance de certaines variétés, combinée à de bonnes conditions d'hygiène, pourrait contribuer à réduire les infestations de grains par les insectes, durant la période de stockage.

Keywords

Cowpea weevilcowpea cultivarspost-harvest infestationsusceptibility indexquality losscrop resistanceCharançon de haricotvariétés de haricotsinfestation d'apres récolteindex de susceptibilitédiminution de qualitérésistance de plante
Type
Research Articles
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 7 , Issue 6 , December 1986 , pp. 781 - 784
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Caswell, G. H. (1970) The storage of cowpeas in the Northern States of Nigeria. Samaru Research Bulletin No. 120. Institute for Agricultural Research, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria.Google Scholar
Dobie, P. (1974) The laboratory assessment of the inherent susceptibility of maize varieties to post-harvest infestation by Sitophilus zeamais Motsch. (Coleoptera, Curculionidae). J. stored Prod. Res. 10, 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobie, P. (1977) The contribution of Tropical Stored Products Centre to the study of insect resistance in stored maize. Trop, stored Prod. Inform. 34, 7–22.Google Scholar
Nwanze, K. F. and Horber, E. (1975) Laboratory techniques for screening cowpeas for resistance to Callosobruchus maculatus. Environ. Ent. 4, 415–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, H. A. H. and Sinha, R. N. (1962) Fungi associated with hot spots in farm stored grain. Can. J. Pl. Sci. 42, 130–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheatley, P. E. (1973) Relative susceptibility of maize varieties to Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky. Trop. stored Prod. Inform. 25, 16–18.Google Scholar