Advertisement

Seed and Pod Resistance to Callosobruchus Maculatus Among Various Vigna Species

  • L. W. Kitch
  • R. E. Shade
Research Article

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 maculaius. 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 Nl 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.

Key Words

Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) Vigna unguiculata (L.) Warpers oviposition preference pod resistance seed 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 l’infection des graines varie selon les accessions, de 19, 3% chez l’accession NI 778 (cv-gr. Biflora) a 91, 3% chez l’accession NI 816 (cv-gr. Textilis). Le pourcentage global de mortalité larvaire dans les gousses contaminées va de 34,6% chez l’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) et s’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.

Mots Clés

Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walpers inhibition de la ponte resistance des gousses resistance des graines 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. Booker R. H. (1967) Observations on three bruchids associated with cowpea in northern Nigeria. J. Stored Prod. Res. 3, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Duncan D. B. (1955) Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 11, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fatunla T. and Badaru K. (1983) Resistance of cowpea pods to Callosobruchus maculatus. J. Agric. Sci. Camb. 100, 205–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. UTA Research Highlights (1980) Pod resistance to cowpea weevil p. 56.Google Scholar
  13. Kitch L. W. (1987) Relationship of bruchid (Callosobruchus maculatus) resistance genes in three cowpea cultivars. PhD. Thesis. Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. Myers J. H. (1978) Selecting a measure of dispersion. Environ. Entomol. 7, 619–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. Singh B. B., Singh S. R. and Adjadi O. (1985) Bruchid resistance in cowpeas. Crop Sci. 25, 736–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Steel R. G. D. and Torrie J. H. (1960) Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.Google Scholar
  26. Tun S. B. (1979) Control of cowpea storage pests and life history of the cowpea weevil. Samaru Misc. Papers, 1–13.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ICIPE 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. W. Kitch
    • 1
  • R. E. Shade
    • 1
  1. 1.Purdue UniversityDepartment of EntomologyWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations