No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Some aspects of the biology and control of the cowpea weevil, Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) on bambara groundnut and cowpea
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 September 2011
Abstract
Some aspects of the biology of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) on three varieties of bambara groundnut, Voandzeia subterranea (L.) Thou and a local brown cowpea variety, Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp were studied under ambient laboratory conditions. Egg hatchability of C. maculatus was above 90% on all the legume varieties. The mean developmental period of C. maculatus ranged from 23.7 days on cowpea to 28.5 days on the Piele kargu variety of groundnut. The percent emergence of C. maculatus ranged from 61.1% on var. Piele kargu to 89.5% on var. Piele balgu. There was a significant difference (P < 0.05) between the damage caused to the brown cowpea and the bambara groundnut varieties. However, there were no significant differences (P > 0.05) in damage among the three groundnut varieties. In experiments to assess the insecticidal potential of three plant materials against C. maculatus, Azadirachta indica (neem) seed powder showed a higher efficacy than both Citrus sinensis peel powder and the powder of Chromolaena odorata leaves. At 1.0 g per 40 g of legume seed, it was twice as effective as Ci. sinensis and Ch. odorata over a period of 40 days.
Résumé
Quelques aspects de la biologie de Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) ont été étudiés sur 3 variétés de vouandzou bambara, Voandzeia subterranea (L.) Thou et sur une variété locale brune de niébé, Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp dans les conditions ambientes de laboratoire. La capacité de ponte de Callosobruchus maculatus a été au dessus de 90% sur toutes les variétés de légumes. La période moyenne de développement de Callosobruchus maculatus se situait entre 23,7 jours pour le niébé et 28,5 jours pour la variété Piele kargu de vouandzou. Le pourcentage d'émergence de Callosobruchus maculatus se situait entre 61,1% pour la variété Piele kargu et 89,5% pour la variété Piele balgu. Une différence significative (P < 0,05) a été observée entre les domages causés à la variété de niébé et à celles de vouandzou bambara. Cependant, aucune différence significative n'a été notée (P > 0,05) concernant les domages parmi les 3 variétés de vouandzou. Lors d'essais pour évaluer le potentiel insecticide de 3 matériaux végétaux, de la poudre de graine d'Azadirachta indica a montré une plus grande efficacité par rapport à la poudre de la peau de Citrus sinensis et à celle des feuilles de Chromolaena odorata pour une période de 40 jours à 1,0 gr par 40 gr de graine de légume, A. indica a été 2 fois plus efficace que Ci. sinensis et Ch. odorata contre Callosobruchus maculatus.
Keywords
Callosobruchus maculatuscowpea weevildevelopmental periodAzadirachta indicaCitrus sinensisChromolaena odoratacowpeabambara groundnutstored product damageCallosobruchus maculatuspériode de développementAzadirachta indicaCitrus sinensisChromolaena odorataniébévouandzou bambaradégâts aux denrées stockées
- Type
- Research Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © ICIPE 1995
References
REFERENCES
Allotey, J. (1991) Storage insect pests of cereal in small scale farming community and their control. Insect Sci. Applic. 12, 679–693.Google Scholar
Allotey, J. and Goswami, L. (1990) Competition between the phycitid moths, Plodia interpunctella (Hubn.) and Ephestia cautella (Wlk.) in groundnuts and on a laboratory diet. Insect Sci. Applic. 13, 719–723.Google Scholar
Allotey, J. and Goswami, L. (1994) Damage caused and control of the moths Plodia interpunctella (Hubn.) and Ephestia cautella (Wlk.) on maize and groundnuts using local plant materials. Insect Sci. Applic. 15, 323–329.Google Scholar
Allotey, J. and Morris, J. G. (1993) Biology of Cathartus quadricollis Guerin-Meneville (Coleoptera: Silvanidae) on some selected food media. Insect Sci. Applic. 14, 61–68.Google Scholar
Allotey, J. and Oyewo, A. (1995) Some aspects of the biology and control of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) on some stored soya bean, Glycine max (L.) Merr varieties under tropical conditions. Proc. Ghana Sci. Assoc. (in press).Google Scholar
Allotey, J. and Unanaowo, I. E. (1993) Aspects of the biology of Lasioderma serricorne (F.) on selected food media under tropical conditions. Insect Sci. Applic. 14, 595–601.Google Scholar
Cornes, M. A. (1973) A check list of the insects associated with stored products in Nigeria (Revised edition). Ann. Rep. Nig. Stored Prod. Res. Inst. (1971) Tech. Rep. 11, 73–98.Google Scholar
Delobel, A. and Malonga, P. (1987) Insecticidal properties of six plant materials against Caryedon serratas (OI.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 23, 173–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Don-Pedro, K. N. (1985) Toxicity of some citrus peels to Dermestes maculatus Deg. and Dermestes maculatus (F.). J. Stored Prod. Res. 21, 31–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edezinma, F. O. C. and Maneke, F. O. (1985) Preliminary studies on bambára groundnuts (Voandzeia subterranea Thou) in the derived savanna belt of Nigeria. Trop. Grain Legume Bull. 31, 39–44.Google Scholar
El-Sawaf, S. K. (1956) Some factors affecting the longevity, oviposition and rate of development in the southern cowpea weevil, Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Bull. Soc. Ent. Egypt 40, 29–95.Google Scholar
Giga, D. P. and Smith, R. H. (1987) Egg production and development of Callosobruchus rhodesianus (Pic.) and Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) on several commodities at two different temperatures. J. Stored Prod. Res. 23, 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haines, C. P. (1981) Insects and arachnids from stored products; a report on specimens received by the Tropical Stored Products Centre 1973–1977. Tropical Products Institute (now TDRI). Rep. L. 54 iv + 73 pp.Google Scholar
Haines, C. P. (1991) Insects and arachnids of tropical products; their biology and identification (a training manual). NRI Crown Pub. 246 pp.Google Scholar
Nakhla, J. M. (1988) Loss in seed weight of different pulse grains caused by the cowpea weevil Callosobruchus maculatus (F). Agric. Res. Rev. 66, 71–75.Google Scholar
Nwanze, K. F. and Horber, E. (1976) Seed coats of cowpeas affect oviposition and larval development of Callosobruchus maculatus. Environ. Entomol. 5, 213–218.Google Scholar
Nwanze, K. F., Horber, E. and Pitts, C. W. (1975) Evidence of oviposition preference of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) for cowpea varieties. Environ. Entomol. 4, 409–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ofuya, T. L. (1987) Susceptibility of some Vigna species to infestation and damage by Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 23, 137–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira, J. and Wohlgemuth, R. (1982) Neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss) of West African origin as a protectant of stored maize. Z. Angew. Entomol. 94, 208–214.Google Scholar
Prakash, A., Pasalu, I. C. and Mathur, K. C. (1982) Evaluation of plant products as grain protectants in paddy storage. Int. J. Entomol. 1, 75–77.Google Scholar
Seek, D., Sidibe, B., Haubruge, E. and Gaspar, Ch. (1991) La protection des stocks de niebe Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp en milieu rural: Utilisation de differentes formulations a base de neem (Azadiracta indica A. Juss) provenant du Senegal. Med. Fac. Landbouww. Rijksuniv. Gent, 56/3b1217–1224.Google Scholar
Sellchop, J. P. F. (1962) Cowpea Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. Fid Crop Abstr. 15, 259–266.Google Scholar
Sowunmi, O. E. and Akinnusi, O. A. (1983) Studies on the use of neem kernel in the control of stored cowpea beetle Callosobruchus maculatus (F.). Trop. Grain Legume Bull. 27, 28–31.Google Scholar
Warui, M. (1984) Bruchid infestation of cowpea varieties in the field. Insect Sci. Applic. 5, 283–286.Google Scholar