Studies on the Legume Pod-Borer, Maruca Testulalis (Geyer)—VI. Cowpea Resistance to Oviposition and Larval Feeding

  • G. A. Macfoy
  • Z. T. Dabrowski
  • S. Okech


Three cowpea cultivars, TVu 946, Ife Brown and Vita 1 were examined for resistance to the legume pod-borer, Maruca testulalis (Geyer). TVu 946 was found to be the most resistant in both the flowering and pre-flowering stages, followed by Ife Brown and Vita 1, respectively. Field and screen-house experiments show that Maruca larvae caused significantly less damage on TVu 946 than on Ife Brown and Vita 1. In addition, larval survival and development on TVu 946 was the most negatively affected. Screenhouse experiments in a choice situation clearly show non-preference of TVu 946 for oviposition by adult Maruca females, and biochemical studies show evidence of antibiosis due to nutritional and antibiotic factor(s).

Key Words

Maruca testulalis cowpea resistance oviposition non-preference antibiosis biochemical 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Akinfenwa S. (1975) Bioecological study of Maruca testulalis (Geyer) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in the Zaria area of Northern Nigeria. M.Sc. thesis. Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria, 82 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Association of Official Analytical Chemists (1970) ‘Official Methods of Analysis’. 11th edition. Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  3. Chapman R. F. and Bernays E. A. (1977) Chemical resistance of plants to insect attack. Scr. varia pont. Acad. Sci. 41, 603–643.Google Scholar
  4. Cooper-Driver G., Finch S., Swain T. and Bernays E. (1978) Seasonal variation in secondary plant compounds in relation tothe palatability of Pteridium aquilimun. Biochemical Systemutics and Ecology 7, 177–192.Google Scholar
  5. Dabrowski Z. T. (1974) Bases of Plant Resistance to Pests. (In Polish). PWRL, Warszawa. 163 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Dabrowski Z. T., Bungu M. and Ochieng R. S. (1983) Studies on the legume pod-borer. Maruca testudalis (Geyer)—III. Methods used in cowpea screening for resistance. Insect Sci. Application 4, 141–145.Google Scholar
  7. Ezueh M. I. (1981) The biological bases of resistance in cowpea to the cowpea moth, Cydia pytchora (Lepidoptera: Olethreutidae). Ann. appl. Biol. 99, 313–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jackai L. E. N. (1981) Relationship between cowpea crop phenology and field infestation by the legume pod-borer. Maruca testulalis. Ann ent. Soc. Am. 74, 402–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jackai L. E. N. (1982) A field screening technique for resistance of cowpea (Vigna unyuiculata) to the pod-borer Maruca testulalis (Geyer) (Lepidoptera:Pyralidae) Bull, ent. Res. 72, 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kogan M. (1974) Plant resistance in pest management. In Introduction to Insect Pest Management (Edited by Metcalf R. L. and Luckmann W. H.), pp. 103–146. John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Kogan M. and Ortman E. E. (1978) Antixenosis—a newterm proposed to replace Painter’s ‘Non-preference’ modality of resistance. Ent. Sc. Amer. Bull. 24, 175–176.Google Scholar
  12. Okeyo-Owuor J. B. and Ochieng R. S. (1981) Studies on the legume pod-borer, Maruca testulalis (Geyer)—I: life cycle and behaviour. Insect Sci. Application 1, 263–268.Google Scholar
  13. Ochieng R. S., Okeyo-Owuor J. B. and Dabrowski Z. T. (1981) Studies on the legume pod-borer, Maruca testulalis (Geyer)—II: mass-rearing on natural food. Insect Sci. Application 1, 269–272.Google Scholar
  14. Perrin R. M. (1978) Varietal differences in the susceptibility of cowpea to larvae of the seed moth, Cydia ptychora (Mecyrick) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Bull. ent. Res. 68, 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pridham J. B. (1964) Methods in Polyphenol Chemistry. Pergamon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  16. Raman K. V., Singh S. S. and van Embden H. F. (1980) Mechanisms of resistance to leaf-hopper damage in cowpea. J. econ. Ent. 73, 484–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Roe J. H. (1955) The determination of sugars in blood & spinal fluid with anthronc reagent. J. biol. Chem. 212, 335–338.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Rosen H. (1957) A modified Ninhydrin calorimetric analysis for amino acids. Archs biochem. Biophys. 67, 10–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Singh S. R. (1978) Resistance to pests of cowpea in Nigeria. In Pests of Grain Legumes: Ecology and Control (Edited by Singh S. R., van Embden H. F. and Taylor T. A.), pp. 267–279. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  20. Singh S. R. and Jackai L. E. N. (1983) The legume podborer, Maruca testulalis (Geyer): past, present and future research. Insect Sci. Application. (In Press).Google Scholar
  21. Singh S. R. and van Embden H. F. (1979) Insect pests of grain legumes. A. Rev. Ent. 24, 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Taylor T. A. (1967) The bionomics of Maruca testulalis Gey. (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). a major pest of cowpea in Nigeria. Jl W. Afr. Sci. Ass. 12, 111–129.Google Scholar
  23. Taylor T. A. (1978) Maruca testulalis: an important pest of tropical grain legumes. In Pests of Grain Legumes: Ecology and Control. (Edited by Singh S. R., van Embden H. F. and Taylor T. A.) pp. 193–200. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  24. Woodhead S. and Bernays E. A. (1978) The chemical basis of resistance of Sorghum bicolor to attack by Locusta migratoria. Ent. exp. appl. 24, 123–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wright D. W., Geering W. A. and Dunn J. A. (1951) Varietal differences in the susceptibility of peas to attack by the pea moth, Laspeyresia nigricana (Steph.). Bull. ent. Res. 41, 663–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ICIPE 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. A. Macfoy
    • 1
  • Z. T. Dabrowski
    • 1
  • S. Okech
    • 1
  1. 1.The International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE)NairobiKenya

Personalised recommendations