Salivary glands and their digestive enzymes in pod-sucking bugs (Hemiptera: Coreoidea) associated with cowpea Vigna unguiculata ssp. unguiculata in Nigeria
The salivary glands of the cowpea pod-sucking bugs Anoplocnemis curvipes (Fabricius), Clavigralla tomentosicollis Stål, Clavigralla shadabi Dolling, Riptortus dentipes (Fabricius) and Mirperus jaculus (Thunberg) are described and illustrated. Extracts of the glands were assayed for the presence of proteinases, α-amylase, β-amylase and amyloglucosidase. The salivary glands consist of four-lobed principal glands and a tubular accessory gland, and they differ in shape and size among the different species except for the median lobe, which is more or less spherical. The sickle-shaped nature of the posterior lobe reported before for Riptortus linearis (Linnaeus) was also observed in R. dentipes, suggestive of a probable generic characteristic. Anoplocnemis curvipes has the biggest salivary gland, and it is followed by R. dentipes, M. jaculus, C. tomentosicollis and C. shadabi in descending order. Assays of the gland extracts revealed that the four digestive enzymes tested are present in the five coreoid species. Proteinases were preponderant (1.4–94.9 μg/ml), while amylases were detected in traces [(0.5–11.0) × 10−3 μg/ml]. Proteinases may be largely responsible for the feeding damage caused by the coreoid species and their concentration in the glands of the different species correlates well with their known capacity to inflict pod damage and yield reduction in cowpea. Fourth instar nymphs of the different species also had higher concentrations of the digestive enzymes compared with their respective adults; and this correlates with the known ability of the nymphs to cause greater pod damage and yield reduction than adults.
Key wordsAnoplocnemis curvipes Riptortus dentipes Mirperus jaculus Clavigralla tomentosicollis Clavigralla shadabi salivary glands proteinases α-amylase β-amylase amyloglucosidase
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Abiose S. H., Atalabi T. A. and Ajayi L. O. (1988) Fermentation of African locust beans: Microbiological and biochemical studies. Nigerian Journal of Biological Sciences 1, 103–117.Google Scholar
- Hori K. (1972) Comparative study of a property of salivary amylase among various heteropterous insects. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 42B, 501–508.Google Scholar
- Jackai L. E. N., Singh S. R., Raheja A. K. and Wiedijk F. (1985) Recent trends in the control of cowpea pests in Africa, pp. 233–245. In Cowpea Research, Production and Utilization (Edited by S. R. Singh and K. O. Rachie). John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
- Machuka J. (2002) Potential role of transgenic approaches in the control of cowpea insect pests, pp. 213–222. In Challenges and Opportunities for Enhancing Sustainable Cowpea Production. Proceedings of the World Cowpea Conference III. 4–8 September 2000 (Edited by C. A. Fatokun, S. A. Tarawali, B. B. Singh, P. M. Kormawa and M. Tamo). IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria.Google Scholar
- Murdock L. L., Brookhart G., Dunn P. E., Foard D. E. and Kelley S. (1987) Cysteine digestive proteinases in Coleoptera. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 87B, 783–787.Google Scholar
- Nuorteva P. (1956) Studies on the comparative anatomy of the salivary glands in four families of Heteroptera. Annales Entomologica Fennica 22, 45–54.Google Scholar
- Panizzi A. R., Schaefer C. W. and Natuhara Y. (2000) Broad-headed bugs (Alydidae), pp. 321–336. In Heteroptera of Economic Importance (Edited by C. W. Schaefer and A. R. Panizzi). CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
- Singh S. R., Jackai L. E. N., Santos J. H. R. and Adalla C. B. (1986) Insect pests of cowpea, pp. 43–89. In Insect Pests of Tropical Food Legumes (Edited by S. R. Singh). John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
- Somogyi M. (1945) A new reagent for the determination of sugars. Journal of Biological Chemistry 160, 61–68.Google Scholar
- Wheeler A. G. Jr. and Miller G. L. (1981) Fourlined plant bug (Hemiptera: Miridae), a reappraisal: Life history, host plants, and response to feeding. Great Lakes Entomology 14, 23–35.Google Scholar