Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T04:56:08.565Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Groundnut Bruchid, Caryedon gonagra (F.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

Pauline M. Davey
Pauline M. Davey
Affiliation:
Department of Scientific & Industrial Research, Pest Infestation Laboratory, Slough, Bucks.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Information on the world distribution and host-plants of the Groundnut Bruchid, Caryedon gonagra (F.), has been summarised from the literature. As a result of misidentification of the species that attacks groundnuts and of differing views about its generic assignment, this information has been given under several different names. The records brought together here are believed all to represent C. gonagra, and in a number of cases this has been confirmed by examination of the material concerned by Mr. B. J. Southgate.

C. gonagra is widely distributed in the Old World tropics and sub-tropics, but it is absent from Australasia, and it has only a restricted distribution in the New World tropics. Almost all its host-plants belong to the Leguminosae, the principal one being the tamarind, Tamarindus indica, in the pod of which the beetle has been found to develop more quickly than in the groundnut.

Data on the life-history and habits, and on the duration of pre-adult development and adult life, are summarised from the literature.

Experiments are described to determine the optimum conditions for multiplication of C. gonagra, using groundnuts as food. When adult females were allowed to lay large numbers of eggs on shelled and unshelled nuts, only a small proportion of the resulting larvae completed their development, the number of adults that emerged averaging about 2·4 per kernel in shelled nuts and 3·2 in unshelled ones. The developmental period at 70 per cent. relative humidity was 42 days at 30°C. and 91–98 at 25°C.; the former figure is less than any recorded in the literature at higher or lower temperatures, and all subsequent experiments were therefore made at 30°C. and 70 per cent. relative humidity.

Adults confined for three weeks, starting when four days old, at the rate of 25 pairs on 160 g. of a mixture of broken and intact kernels gave rise to some 314 F1 adults; this total was virtually unchanged when 50 pairs were used, but lower densities, though giving rise to greater yields per parent adult, gave much lower yields per weight of food. Emergence of adults began six weeks after the date of egg-laying and reached its peak from one to three weeks later.

The yield from ten females on intact kernels was greater than from the same number on the mixture, but differed little whether the parent adults were left on for one week or three weeks, indicating that the majority of the eggs are laid in the first 11 days of adult life. The yield from unshelled nuts was nearly twice as great as that from shelled nuts, and also significantly larger than that from shelled nuts with ground shell added. Possible causes of this are discussed.

The sexes can be distinguished in the adult stage by differences in the terminal abdominal segments.

Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , July 1958 , pp. 385 - 404
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1958

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

Beattie, A. G. (1946). Annual report on the Agricultural Department (Nigeria) for the year 1944.—47 pp. Lagos.Google Scholar
Beeson, C. F. C. (1919). The food plants of Indian forest insects. Parts I & II.—Indian For., 65, pp. 49–56, 139–153. (R.A.E., (A) 7, p. 291.)Google Scholar
Blair, K. G. (1935). Heteromera, Ptinidae, Dasytidae and Bruchidae collected by Mr. H. P. Thomasset and the late H. J. Snell in Rodriguez, Aug.–Nov. 1918.—Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (10) 16, pp. 264–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridwell, J. C. (1918). Notes on the Bruchidae and their parasites in the Hawaiian Islands.—Proc. Hawaii. ent. Soc., 3, pp. 465–505. (R.A.E., (A) 6, p. 352.)Google Scholar
Bridwell, J. C. (1919). Some additional notes on Bruchidae and their parasites in the Hawaiian Islands.—Proc. Hawaii. ent. Soc., 4, pp. 15–20.Google Scholar
Bridwell, J. C. (1920). Insects injurious to the algaroba feed industry.—Hawaii. Plant. Eec., 22, pp. 337–343. (R.A.E., (A) 8, p.430.)Google Scholar
Bridwell, J. C. (1929). A preliminary generic arrangement of the palm Bruchids and allies (Coleoptera) with descriptions of new species.—Proc. ent. Soc. Wash., 31, pp. 141–160.Google Scholar
Bridwell, J. C. (1938). Specularius erythrinae, a new Bruchid affecting seeds of Erythrina (Coleoptera).—J. Wash. Acad. Sci., 28, pp. 69–76.Google Scholar
Bridwell, J. C. (1946). The genera of beetles of the family Bruchidae in America north of Mexico.—J. Wash. Acad. Sci., 36, pp. 52–57.Google Scholar
Chevalier, A. (1936). L'arachide au Sénégal.—Rev. Bot. appl., 16, pp. 181–182. (R.A.E., (A) 25, p. 96.)Google Scholar
Cobby, H. D. R. (1941). Report of a study of a pest (Pachymerus longus, Pic) causing damage to groundnuts in the Wurkum District of the Muri Division of Adamawa.—Rep. agric. Dep. Samaru, Zaria, no. 9302/167, 15 pp. (Nigeria, Dep. Agric., no. 840.)Google Scholar
Cotes, E. C. (1893). Miscellaneous notes. Tamarind Bruchid.—Indian Mus. Notes, 3, pp. 14–15.Google Scholar
Cotterell, G. S. (1952). The insects associated with export produce in southern Nigeria.—Bull. ent. Res., 43, pp. 145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dammerman, K. W. (1929). The agricultural zoology of the Malay Archipelago.—473 pp. Amsterdam, de Bussy.Google Scholar
Decelle, J. E. (1951). Contribution à l'étude des Bruchidae du Congo belge (Col. Phytophaga).—Rev. Zool. Bot. afr., 45, pp. 172–192.Google Scholar
Elditt, H. L. (1860). Die Metamorphose des Caryoborus (Bruchus) gonagra, Fbr.—12 pp. Königsberg, Rathke.Google Scholar
Fletcher, T. B. (1914). Some South Indian ínsects and other animals of importance considered especially from an economic point of view.—565 pp. Madras, Supt. Govt. Pr.Google Scholar
Ghosh, C. C. (1925). Report of the Entomologist, Mandalay, and sericultural work for the year ended 30th June, 1925.—18 pp. Rangoon.Google Scholar
Golding, F. D. (1946). The insect pests of Nigerian crops and stock.—Spec. Bull. agric. Dep. Nigeria, no. 4, 48 pp.Google Scholar
Greenwood, W. (1940). The food-plants or hosts of some Fijian insects. IV.—Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., 65, pp. 211–218.Google Scholar
Hall, D. W. (1954). The quality of groundnuts from the Gambia with special reference to insect infestation.—Colon. Pl. Anim. Prod., 4, pp. 227–235.Google Scholar
Harada, T. (1940). On Pachymerus gonager Fab. [In Japanese.]—Nojikair-yoshiryo Minist. Agric. Japan, no. 152, pp. 108–110. (R.A.E., (A) 30, p. 13.)Google Scholar
Herford, G. M. (1935). A key to the members of the family Bruchidae (Col.) of economic importance in Europe.—Trans. Soc. Brit. Ent., 2, pp. 1–32.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, A. (1945). Coléoptères Bruchides et Anthribides.—Faune Fr., 44, pp. 94–95. Paris, Lechevalier.Google Scholar
Howe, R. W. (1952). Entomological problems of food storage in northern Nigeria.—Bull. ent. Res., 43, pp. 111–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jonghe d'Ardoye, E. (1935). Note sur la bruche de l'arachide Pachymoerus acaciae Gill.—Bull. Ann. Soc. ent. Belg., 75, pp. 421–422.Google Scholar
Lefroy, H. M. (1906). Indian insect pests.—318 pp. Calcutta, Supt. Govt. Printing.Google Scholar
Lefroy, H. M. (1909). Indian insect life. A manual of the insects of the plains.—786 pp. Calcutta, Thacker & Spink.Google Scholar
Lepesme, P. (1945). Les Coléoptères des denrées alimentaires et des produits industriels entreposés.—Encycl. Ent., (A) 22, 335 pp. Paris, Lechevalier.Google Scholar
Lever, R. J. A. W. (1942). Entomological notes.—Agric. J. Fiji, 13, pp. 24–26.Google Scholar
Lever, R. J. A. W. (1947). Insect pests of some economic crops in Fiji. No. 2.—Bull. ent. Res., 38, pp. 137–143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mackie, F. R. (1946). Notes on the biology of the Groundnut Bruchid Caryedon fuscus, Goeze.—B.Sc. thesis, Univ. Glasgow.Google Scholar
Mackie, J. R. (1944). Annual report on the Agricultural Department (Nigeria) for the year 1943.—34 pp. Lagos.Google Scholar
Mukerji, S. & Chatterjee, S. N. (1951). Morphology of the genital structures of some of the Bruchidae (Lariidae) of India and Ceylon and their taxonomic importance.—Indian J. Ent., 13, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
Pic, M. (1913). Bruchidae.—Coleopt. Cat., pars 55, 74 pp.Google Scholar
Prevett, P. F. (1953). Studies on the fecundity and longevity of the Groundnut Bruchid, Caryedon fuscus Goeze, and the external morphology of the immature stages.—B.Sc. thesis, Univ. London.Google Scholar
Prevett, P. F. (1954). Some aspects of the biology and control of the Groundnut Bruchid (Caryedon fuscus, Goeze).—D.I.C. thesis, Univ. London.Google Scholar
Reh, L. (1928). Bruchiden. Samen- oder Muffelkäfer, pulse beetles, pea bugs.—In Sorauer, P.Handb. Pflanzenkr., 4. Aufl., 5, II. Teil, pp. 229–233. Berlin, Parey.Google Scholar
Ritchie, A. H. (1918). Annual report of the Entomologist.—Rep. Dep. Agric. Jamaica, 1917–18, pp. 34–40.Google Scholar
Roepke, W. (1917). Verslag over het jaar 1916–17.—Meded. Proefst. Mid.-Java, no. 28, pp. 10–33. (R.A.E., (A) 6, p. 232.)Google Scholar
Roubaud, E. (1916). Les insectes et la dégénérescence des arachides au Sénégal.—Annu. Com. Afr. occ., 1916, pp. 363–436. (R.A.E., (A) 5, p. 338.)Google Scholar
Sagot, E. & Bouffil, F. (1935). Etudes sur la bruche de l'arachide (Pachymoerus acaciae).—Bull. Com. A.O.F., 18, pp. 79–91.Google Scholar
Sohi, G. S. (1940). Pachymerus gonagra F. as a store pest.—Indian J. Ent., 2, p. 244.Google Scholar
Southgate, B. J. & Pope, R. D. (1958). The Groundnut Seedbeetle, a study of its identity and taxonomic position.—Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (12) 10, pp. 669–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stebbing, E. P. (1914). Indian forest insects of economic importance: Coleoptera.—648 pp. London, Eyre & Spottiswoode.Google Scholar
Strong, L. A. (1922). Bureau of Plant Quarantine. A synopsis of work for the months of March, April, May, June and July, 1922.—Mon. Bull. Calif. Dep. Agric., 11, pp. 775–780. (R.A.E., (A) 11, p. 52.)Google Scholar
Swezey, O. H. (1928). Present status of certain insect pests under biological control in Hawaii.—J. econ. Ent., 21, pp. 669–676. (R.A.E., (A) 17, p. 72.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Dep. Agric. (1926–1945). Service and Regulatory Announcements, Federal Horticultural Board, (later) Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, 1926–45.Google Scholar
Vayssière, P. (1939). Au sujet de l'organisation de la lutte contre les insectes nuisibles au Sénégal et au Soudan.—Act. Ass. Colon.-Sci., 15, pp 45–52, 65–70. (R.A.E., (A) 28, p. 138.)Google Scholar
Weidner, H. (1954). Vorratsschädlinge an Erdnusskernen.—Anz. Schädlingsk., 27, pp. 178–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zacher, F. (1921). Schädlinge der Nutzpflanzen im West-Sudan.—Tropenpflanzer, 24, pp. 97–108, 132–142.Google Scholar
Zacher, F. (1927). Die Vorrats-, Speicher- und Materialsehädlinge und ihre Bekämpfung.—366 pp. Berlin, Parey.Google Scholar
Zacher, F. (1932). Die tierischen Samenschädlinge in Freiland und Lager. Spinnentiere, Käfer und Hautflügler.—Wiss. u. Tech. Gartenb., Heft 5, 78 pp. Neudamm, Neumann.Google Scholar
Zacher, F. (1933). Haltung und Züchtung von Vorratsschädlingen.—Handb. biol. ArbMeth., 9, pp. 389–592.Google Scholar
Zacher, F. (1936). Beitrag zur Nährpflanzenkenntnis der Samenkäfer (Col. Bruch.–Lariidae).—Mitt. dtsch. ent. Ges., 7, pp. 10–13.Google Scholar
Zacher, F. (1951). Die Nährpflanzen der Samenkäfer.—Z. angew. Ent., 33, pp. 210–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zacher, F. (1952). Die Nährpflanzen der Samenkäfer.—Z. angew. Ent., 33, pp. 460–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zacher, F. (1954). Bruchidae (Lariidae, Mylabridae), Samenkäfer, Muffelkäfer, pulsebeetles, bean and pea weevils. In Sorauer, P.Handb. Pflanzenkr. 5 Aufl., 5, II. Teil, 2 Lief., pp. 380–397. Berlin, Parey.Google Scholar