Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T05:25:20.963Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pea weevil damage and chemical characteristics of pea cultivars determining their resistance to Bruchus pisorum L.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

I. Nikolova
I. Nikolova*
Affiliation:
Department of technology and ecology of forage crops, Institute of Forage Crops General Vladimir Vazov 89, 5800 Pleven, Bulgaria
*
*Author for correspondence Phone: +359 884684575 Fax: +359 64805882 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Bruchus pisorum (L.) is one of the most intractable pest problems of cultivated pea in Europe. Development of resistant cultivars is very important to environmental protection and would solve this problem to a great extent. Therefore, the resistance of five spring pea cultivars was studied to B. pisorum: Glyans, Modus; Kamerton and Svit and Pleven 4 based on the weevil damage and chemical composition of seeds. The seeds were classified as three types: healthy seeds (type one), damaged seeds with parasitoid emergence holes (type two) and damaged seeds with bruchid emergence holes (type three). From visibly damaged pea seeds by pea weevil B. pisorum was isolated the parasitoid Triaspis thoracica Curtis (Hymenoptera, Braconidae). Modus, followed by Glyans was outlined as resistant cultivars against the pea weevil. They had the lowest total damaged seed degree, loss in weight of damaged seeds (type two and type three) and values of susceptibility coefficients. A strong negative relationship (r = −0.838) between the weight of type one seeds and the proportion of type three seeds was found. Cultivars with lower protein and phosphorus (P) content had a lower level of damage. The crude protein, crude fiber and P content in damaged seeds significantly or no significantly were increased as compared with the healthy seeds due to weevil damage. The P content had the highest significant influence on pea weevil infestation. Use of chemical markers for resistance to the creation of new pea cultivars can be effective method for defense and control against B. pisorum.

Keywords

Bruchus pisorumpea cultivarsdamaged seedschemical seed compositionresistance
Type
Research Papers
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 106 , Issue 2 , April 2016 , pp. 268 - 277
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

Acosta-Gallegos, J.A., Kelly, J.D. & Gepts, P. (2008) Prebreeding in common bean and use of genetic diversity from wild germplasm. Crop Science 48, 3–16.Google Scholar
Ahmed, K., Khalique, F., Afzal, M., Tahir, M. & Malik, B.A. (1989) Variability in chickpea (C. arietinum L.) genotypes for resistance to Callosobruchus maculates F. (Bruchidae). Journal of Stored Products Research 25, 91–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ali, K. & Habtewold, T. (1994) Research on Insect Pests of Cool-Season Food Legumes. pp. 367–396 in Tilaye, A., Bejiga, G., Saxena, M.C. & Solh, M.B. (Eds) Cool-Season Food Legumes of Ethiopia, Proceedings of the First National Cool-Season Food Legumes Review Conference, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 16–20 December 1993; Aleppo, Syria, ICARDA/IAR.Google Scholar
Boeke, S.J., Baumgarta, I.R., Jvan Loona, J.A., van Huisa, A., Dickea, M. & Kossoub, D.K. (2004) Toxicity and repellence of African plants traditionally used for the protection of stored cowpea against Callosobruchus maculatus . Journal of Stored Products Research 40, 423–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burov, D. (1980) Studies on monophagy in the pea weevil, Bruchus pisi L. Scientific work Entomology, Mikrobiology, Fitopatology 25, 77–81.Google Scholar
Clement, S.L., Hardie, D.C. & Elberson, L.R. (2002) Variation among accessions of Pisum fulvum for resistance to pea weevil. Crop Science 42, 2167–2173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damte, T. & Dawd, M. (2003) Cickpea, lentil and grass pea insect pest research in Ethiopia: A review. pp. 260–273 in Food and Forage Legumes of Ethiopia: Progress and Prospects, Proceedings of a Workshop on Food and Forage Legumes, 22–26 September, 2003, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Doss, R.P. (2000) Bruchins: Insect-derived plant regulators that stimulate neoplasm formation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97, 6218–6223. www.pnas.orgycgiydoiy10.1073ypnas.110054697 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fox, C.W., Wallin, W.G., Bush, M.L., Czesak, M.E. & Messina, F.J. (2012) Effects of seed beetles on the performance of desert legumes depend on host species, plant stage, and beetle density. Journal of Arid Environments 80, 10–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghizdavu, I., Paşol, P., Pălăgeşiu, I., Bobîrnac, B., Filipescu, C., Matei, I., Georgescu, T., Baicu, T. & Bărbulescu, Al. (1997) Entomologia agricolă, Editura Didactică şi Pedagogică, Bucureşti, 435 pp.Google Scholar
Girsch, L., Cate, P.C. & Weinhappel, M. (1999) A newmethod for determining the infestation of field beans (Vicia faba) and peas (Pisum sativum) with bean beetle (Bruchus ruxmanus) and pea beetle (Bruchus pisorum), respectively. Seed Science and Technology 27, 377–383.Google Scholar
Haruta, M., Major, I.T., Christopher, M.E., Patton, J.J. & Constabel, C.P. (2001) A Kunitz trypsin inhibitor gene family from rembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.): cloning, functional expression, and induction by wounding and herbivory. Plant Molecular Biology 46, 347–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kjeldahl, J. (1883) Neue Methode zur Bestimmung des Stickstoffs in organischen Korpern (New method for the determination of nitrogen in organic substances). Zeitschrift fur analytische Chemie 22(1), 366–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, P.K. & Koundal, K.R. (2002) Plant protease inhibitors in control of phytophagous insects. Electronic Jurnal of Biotechnology 5, 93–109.Google Scholar
Lima, M.P.L., de Oliveira, J.O., Barros, R., Torres, J.B., Gonçalves, M.E.C. (2001) Stability of the resistance of cowpea genotypes to Callosobruchus maculatus (Fabr.) in successive generations. Scientia Agricola 59(2), 275–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makanurn, B. (2010) Phenotypic characterization, assessment of genetic diversity, screening for prtein content and bruchid infestation in cowrea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) genotypes . PhD Thesis. University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka, India.Google Scholar
Maldonado, S.H.G., Marinjarilla, A., Castellanos, J.Z., Demejia, E.G. & Acostagallegosc, J.A. (1996) Relationship between physical and chemical caracteristics and susceptibility to Zabrotes subfasciatus Boh (Coleoptera-Bruchidae) and Acanthoscelides obtectus Say in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) varieties. Journal of Stored Products Research 32(1), 53–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marzo, F., Aguirre, A. & Alonso, R. (1997) Fertilization effects of phosphorus and sulfur on chemical composition of seeds of Pisum sativum L. and relative infestation by Bruchus pisorum L. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 45, 1829–1833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mateus, C., Mexia, A., Duarte, I., Pereira, G. & Tavares de Sousa, M. (2011) Evaluation of damage caused by bruchids (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) on peas (Pisum sativum L.). Acta Horticulturae 917, 125–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, R.L., Schroeder, H.E., Bateman, K.S., Chrispeels, M.J., Armstrong, E. & Higgins, T.J.V. (2000) Bean α-amylase inhibitor 1 in transgenic peas (Pisum sativum) provides complete protection from pea weevil (Bruchus pisorum) under field conditions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97, 3820–3825.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moss, C.J. & Credland, P.F. (1994) The measurement of resistance to Acanthoscelides obtectus (Say) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) in seeds of Phaseolus vulgaruis L. pp. 545–552 in Highley, & Wright, E.J., Banks, J. & Champ, B.R. (Eds) Proceeding of the 6th International Working Conference on Stored – product Protection. 17–23 April 1994, Canberra, Australia. CAB International, Wallmgford, Oxon, UK.Google Scholar
Nikolova, I. (2015) Response of vetch varieties to Sitona lineatus L. in organic farming, Biological Agriculture & Horticulture: An International Journal for Sustainable Production Systems. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01448765.2015.1060580 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikolova, I. & Pachev, I. (2008) Study on tolerance of Ukrainian pea varieties to attack by pea weevil Bruchus pisi L. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). pp. 320–324 in Kobilijski, B., Burton, J.W., Denčić, S., Noel Ellis, T.H., Friedt, W., Ivanović, M., Kendall, R.L., Saftić-Panković, D. & Sorrels, M. (Eds) Breeding 08 International Conference “Conventional and Molecular Breeding of Field and Vegetable Crops”, 24–27 November, Novi Sad, Serbia. Institute of Field and Vegetable Crops, Novi Sad.Google Scholar
Nikolova, I., Ilieva, A. & Pachev, I. (2009) Effect of the damages caused by Bruchus pisi L. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) on some characteristics related to seed quality in different varieties of spring forage pea depending on susceptibility degree. Journal of Mountain Agriculture on the Balkans 12(1), 151–167.Google Scholar
Odagiu, A. & Porca, M. (2002) The influence of the chemical composition of different origin beans (Ohaseolus vulgaris L.) on the tolerance to the bean weevil (Acanthoscelides obtectus) stroke. Journal of Central European Agriculture 4(1), 13–22.Google Scholar
Poryazov, I. (1990) Breeding studies of green bean . PhD Thesis, Sofia, Bulgaria.Google Scholar
Rani, P.U. & Pratyusha, S. (2013) Defensive role of Gossypium hirsutum L. anti-oxidative enzymes and phenolic acids in response to Spodoptera litura F. feeding. Journal of Asia-Pacific Entomology 16, 131–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regnault-Roger, C., Hamraoui, A., Bareau, I., Patrice, B., Isabel, M., Gil, M. & Barberan, F.T. (1999) Isoflavonoids involvement in the non-adaptability of Acanthoscelides obtectus Say (Bruchidae, Coleoptera) to soya bean (Glycine max) seed. Meeting, 13–17 November 1999, Marseille, France.Google Scholar
Sarwar, M. (2012) Assessment of resistance to the attack of bean beetle Callosobruchus maculatus (Fabricius) in chickpea genotypes on the basis of various parameters during storage. Songklanakarin Journal of Science and Technology 34(3), 287–291.Google Scholar
Schmale, I., Wäckers, F.L., Cardona, C. & Dorn, S. (2001) Control potential of three hymenopteran parasitoid species against the bean weevil in stored beans: the effect of adult parasitoid nutrition on longevity and progeny production. Biological Control 21, 134–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmale, I., Wäckers, F.L., Cardona, C. & Dorn, S. (2005) How host larval age, and nutrition and density of the parasitoid Dinarmus basalis (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) influence control of Acanthoscelidae obtectus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 95, 145–150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmale, I., Wäckers, F.L., Cardona, C. & Dorn, S. (2006) Biological control of the bean weevil, Acanthoscelides obtectus (Say) (Col.: Bruchidae), by the native parasitoid Dinarmus basalis (Rondani) (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) on small-scale farms in Colombia. Journal of Stored Products Research 42(1), 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaheen, F.A., Khaliq, A. & Aslam, M. (2006) Resistance of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L) cultivars against pulse beetles. Pakistan Journal of Botany 38, 1224–1244.Google Scholar
Somta, P., Talekar, N.S. & Srinives, P. (2006) Characterization of Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) resistance in Vigna umbellata (Thunb.) Ohwi & Ohashi. Journal of Stored Products Research 42, 313–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srinivasan, T. & Durairaj, C. (2007) Biochemical basis of resistance to in rice bean Vigna umbellata Thunb. (Ohwi and Ohashi) against Callasobruchus maculatus F. Journal of Agricultural Entomology 4, 371–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statgraphics (1995) Software Statgraphics Plus for Windows. Version 2.1. Rockville, MD, Manugistics.Google Scholar
War, A.R., Paulraj, M.G., War, M.Y. & Ignacimuthu, S. (2012) Differential defensive response of groundnut germplasms to Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Journal of Plant Interactions 7, 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yankova, V., Kalupchieva, A. & Ilieva, A. (2007) Study on response of garden pea (Pisum sativum L.) varieties and lines to pea weevil (Bruchus pisi L.). Plant Science 44, 299–303.Google Scholar
Zubareva, C. (2006) Structural and biochemical characteristics of Pisum sativum L., which determine resistance to Bruchus pisorum L . PhD Thesis, Orel State Agrarian University, Orel, Russia.Google Scholar