Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:55:40.001Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Seed and pod resistance to Callosobruchus Maculatus among Various Vigna Species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

L.W. Kitch  and
R. E. Shade
L.W. Kitch
Affiliation:
Purdue University, Department of Entomology, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907–1158, USA
R. E. Shade
Affiliation:
Purdue University, Department of Entomology, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907–1158, USA
Get access

Abstract

Accessions of Vigna vexillata, Vigna oblongifolia, and Vigna unguiculata (subspecies unguiculata, dekindtiana, and pubescens) were evaluated under laboratory conditions to identify sources of seed and/or pod resistance to the cowpea weevil Callosobruchus maculates. TVnu 37 and TVnu 88 (V. oblongifolia) and TVnu 72 (V. vexillata) possessed high levels of seed resistance. On mature, dry pods, seventeen-fold differences in mean eggs laid/cm2 were observed, suggesting that ovipositional nonpreference could be a practical form of resistance to C. maculatus. In infested pods, pre-establishment larval mortality (mortality before larvae become established in seeds) varied among accessions, ranging from 19.3% in N1 778 (cv-gr. Biflora) to 91.3% in NI 816 (cv-gr. Textilis). The total percentage larval mortality in infested pods ranged from 34.6% in TN 88–63 (V. unguiculata) to 100% in TVnu 72 (V. vexillata) and NI 816 (cv-gr. Textilis) with the majority of accessions producing over 80% mortality. Higher levels and more durable forms of bruchid resistance might be achieved by combining seed and pod resistance.

Résumé

Des populations naturelles répertoriées (accessions) de Vigna vexillata, Vigna oblongifolia et de Vigna unguiculata (sous-espèces unguiculata, dekindtiana et pubescens) ont été évaluées en laboratoire afin d'identifier des sources de résistance des graines et/ou des gousses a la bruche de niébé, Callosobruchus maculatus. Les graines des accession TVnu 37, TVnu 88 (V. oblongifolia) et TVnu 72 (V. vexillata) possèdent une forte résistance contre cet agent. Chez certaines accessions le nombre d'oeufs pondus par cm2 était 17 fois plus élevé que chez d'autres, ce qui permet de suggérer qu'une réaction d'inhibition de la ponte pourrait être une forme de résistance contre C. maculatus. Dans les graines contaminées, la mortalité larvaire précédant I'infection des graines varie selon les accessions, de 19,3% chez I'accession N1 778 (cv-gr. Biflora) a 91,3% chez I'accession NI816 (cv-gr. Textilis). Le pourcentage global de mortalité larvaire dans les gousses contaminées va de 34,6% chez I'accession TN 88–63 (V. unguiculata) a 100% chez les accessions TVnu 72 (V. vexillata) et NI 88–63 (V. unguiculata) a 100% chez les accessions TVnu 72 (V. vexillata) et NI 816 (cv-gr. Textilis) ets' élève à plus de 80% chez la majorité des accession. Des formes plus durables et un taux plus élève de résistance a la bruche pourraient être obtenus en combinant des aptitudes de résistance des graines et des gousses.

Keywords

Callosobruchus maculatus (F.)Vigna unguiculata (L.) Warpersoviposition preferencepod resistanceseed resistanceCallosobruchus maculatus (F.)Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walpersinhibition de la ponteresistance des goussesresistance des graines
Type
Research Artilces
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , June 1993 , pp. 333 - 341
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1993

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

Akingbohungbe, A. E. (1976) A note on the relative susceptibility of unshelled cowpeas to the cowpea weevil (Callosobruchus maculatus). Trop. Grain Legume Bull. 5, 11–13.Google Scholar
Birch, N., Southgate, B. J. and Fellows, L. E. (1985) Wild and semi-cultivated legumes as potential sources of resistance to bruchid beetles for crop breeders: a study of Vigna/Phaseolus Plants for Arid Lands (Edited by Wickens, G. E., Goodin, J. R. and Field, D. V.), pp. 303–320. George Allen and Unwin. London, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booker, R. H. (1967) Observations on three bruchids associated with cowpea in northern Nigeria. J. Stored Prod. Res. 3, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caswell, G. H. (1980) A review of the work done in the entomology section of the Institute for Agricultural Research on the pests of stored grain. Samaru Misc. Paper 99. pp. 1–11. Institute for Agricultural Research, Samaru, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria.Google Scholar
Daoust, R. A., Roberts, D. and Das Neves, B. (1985) Distribution, biology, and control of cowpea pests in Latin America. In Cowpea Research, Production and Utilization (Edited by Singh, S. R. and Rachie, K. O.), pp. 249–264. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
Dick, K. M. and Credland, P. F. (1986a) Variation in the response of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) to a resistant variety of cowpea. J. Stored Prod. Res. 22, 43–48.Google Scholar
Dick, K. M. and Credland, P. F. (1986b) Changes in the response of Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) to a resistant variety of cowpea. J. Stored Prod. Res. 22, 227–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, D. B. (1955) Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 11, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fatunla, T. and Badaru, K. (1983) Resistance of cowpea pods to Callosobruchus maculatus. J. Agric. Sci. Camb. 100, 205–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fery, R. L. and Cuthbert, F. P. Jr (1979) Measurements of pod-wall resistance to the cowpea curculio in the southernpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) (Walp.) Hortscience 14, 29–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzner, M. S., Hagstrun, D. W., Knauft, D. A., Buhr, K. L. and McLaughlin, J. R. (1985) Genotypic diversity in the suitability of cowpea (Rosales:Leguminosae) pods and seeds for cowpea weevil (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) oviposition and development. J. econ. Entomol. 78, 806–810.Google Scholar
IITA Research Highlights (1980) Pod resistance to cowpea weevil p. 56.Google Scholar
Kitch, L. W. (1987) Relationship of bruchid (Callosobruchus maculatus) resistance genes in three cowpea cultivars. Ph.D. Thesis. Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.Google Scholar
Messina, F. J. (1984) Influence of cowpea pod maturity on the oviposition choices and larval survival of bruchid beetle Callosobruchus maculatus. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 35, 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messina, F. J. and Renwick, J. A. A. (1985a) Ability of ovipositing seed beetles to discriminate between seeds with differing egg loads. Ecol. Entomol. 10, 225–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messina, F. J. and Renwick, J. A. A. (1985b) Mechanism of egg recognition by the cowpea weevil Callosobruchus maculatus. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 37, 241–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, J. H. (1978) Selecting a measure of dispersion. Environ. Entomol. 7, 619–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ofuya, T. I. (1987) Susceptibility of some Vigna species to infestation and damage by Callosobruchus maculatus (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 23, 137–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouedraogo, A. P. and Huignard, J. (1981) Polymorphism and ecological reactions in Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) in Upper Volta. In The Ecology of Bruchids Attacking Legumes (Pulses) (Edited by Labeyrie, V.), pp. 175–184. Junk, The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prevett, P. F. (1961) Field infestation of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) PODS by beetles of the families Bruchidae and Curculionidae in northern Nigeria. Bull. Entomol. Res. 52, 635–645.Google Scholar
Rachie, K. O. (1985) Introduction. In Cowpea Research, Production and Utilization (Edited by Singh, S. R. and Rachie, K. O.). John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
Rymal, K. S. and Chambliss, O. L. (1981) Influence of cultivar and maturity on pod wall strength in the southernpea. Hortscience 16, 186–187.Google Scholar
Singh, B. B., Singh, S. R. and Adjadi, O. (1985) Bruchid resistance in cowpeas. Crop Sci. 25, 736–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, S. R. and Jackai, L. E. N. (1985) Insect pests of cowpeas in Africa: Their life cycle, economic importance and potential for control. In Cowpea Research, Production and Utilization (Edited by Singh, S. R. and Rachie, K. O.), pp. 217–231. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. (1960) Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.Google Scholar
Tun, S. B. (1979) Control of cowpea storage pests and life history of the cowpea weevil. Samaru Misc. Paper 83, 1–13.Google Scholar