Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T18:31:27.252Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of Empoasca dolichi Paoli (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) on the performance and yield of two cowpea cultivars

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

I. A. Parh
I. A. Parh
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Jos, Jos, Nigeria
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effects of feeding by groups of 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 75 or 90 adults of Empoasca dolichi Paoli per plant on the growth and yield of caged Prima and Ife Brown cowpea plants infested 14, 21 or 28 days after planting were studied in Ibadan, Nigeria. Caging had no significant adverse effects on yield. E. dolichi caused severe hopper-burn in plants infested 14 days after planting. The mean pre-flower-opening stage lasted 42–1, 38–0 and 39–0 days in Prima and 446, 407 and 423 days in Ife Brown plants infested 14, 21 and 28 days after planting, respectively, the first figure for each cultivar being significantly different from the other two. The mean yields were 23 3, 28 5 and 298 pods per plant for Prima, and 350, 48–1 and 437 for Ife Brown, respectively, the first figure for each cultivar being significantly lower than the other two. The reduction in seed yield in damaged plants infested 14 days after planting ranged from 287 to 413% for Prima and 272 to 56–9% for Ife Brown, the reductions being significantly correlated with scores for feeding damage by E. dolichi.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 73 , Issue 1 , March 1983 , pp. 25 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

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

Dina, S. O.. (1973). Insecticidal control of cowpea pests. —pp. 282–294, in Luse, R. A. & Williams, R. J.. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 1st IITA Grain Legume Improvement Workshop held at IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria, from October 29 to November 2, 1973. — 325 pp. IITA Press, Ibadan.Google Scholar
Ogunlana, M. O. & Pedigo, L. P.. (1974). Economic-injury levels of the potato leafhopper on soybeans in Iowa. — J. econ. Ent. 67, 29–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parh, I. A.. (1979). Studies on the bionomics of Empoasca species (Hemiptera, Cicadellidae) associated with cowpea. — 288 pp. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Ibadan.Google Scholar
Parh, I. A. & Taylor, T. A.. (1981), Studies on the life cycle of the cicadellid bug Empoasca dolichi Paoli in Southern Nigeria. Jnl. nat. Hist.— 15, 829–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pillemer, E. A. & Tingey, W. M.. (1978). Hooked trichomes and resistance of Phaseolus vulgaris to Empoasca fabae (Harris). — Entomologia exp. appl. 24, 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raman, K. V.. (1977). Studies on host plant resistance of cowpea to leafhoppers. — 213 pp. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Reading.Google Scholar
Taylor, T. A..(1964). Field pest problems on cowpea, (Vigna sinensis L.) in southern Nigeria. — Nigerian Grower & Producer 3, 17–21.Google Scholar
Van Schoonhoven, A.GÖmez, L. A. & Avalos, F. A., (1978). The influence of leafhopper (Empoasca kraemeri) attack during various bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) plant growth stages on seed yield. — Entomologia exp. appl. 23, 115–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfenbarger, D. & Sleesman, J. P.. (1961). Resistance to the potato leafhopper in lima bean lines, interspecific Phaseolus crosses, Phaseolus spp., thecowpea, and the bonavist bean. J. econ. Ent. 54, 1077–1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar