Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T06:17:39.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Studies on the legume pod-borer Maruca testulalis (Geyer)—V. Larval population

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

J. B. Okeyo-Owuor
Affiliation:
The International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), Mbita Point Field Station, P.O. Box 30, Mbita, South Nyanza, Kenya
P. O. Agwaro
Affiliation:
The International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), Mbita Point Field Station, P.O. Box 30, Mbita, South Nyanza, Kenya
C. O. J. Simbi
Affiliation:
The International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), Mbita Point Field Station, P.O. Box 30, Mbita, South Nyanza, Kenya
Get access

Abstract

The studies show that the population of Maruca testulalis fluctuates greatly between the long and short rainy season and is significantly lower during the short and dry season, even when the cowpea crop is maintained under irrigation conditions. Studies on larval and pupal populations at Mbita Point, in Western Kenya and related farmers' plots showed lower populations under pure cowpea than under cowpea-maize intercrop, especially at 50% cowpea flowering stage (i.e. the second sampling stage). Although this difference was consistently manifested in the three seasons of experimentation there was no significant difference in larval population and extent of flower damage. Studies using three susceptible cowpea varieties (Ex-Lwanda, TVX 66-2H, and TVX 1193-059D) showed no significant difference in larval, pupal and adult populations when unsprayed. However, when sprayed with dimethoate (Rogor E 40) a systemic insecticide, significantly higher larval population was obtained in TVX 1193-059D, which shows the most vegetative growth of the three varieties. The borer damage on the flowers was not significantly different in all varieties under both the sprayed and unsprayed conditions. Studies using assessment of the different larval instars of M. testulalis in both sprayed and unsprayed conditions showed a continuous infestation of the crop throughout the season unless pod and flower production ceased. The fourth and fifth instar larvae were more abundant in pods than in flowers of the cowpea plant.

Type
Research Articles
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 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

REFERENCES

Booker, R. H. (1963) Notes on the pest complex of cowpea in Northern Nigeria. Proc. 1st Nigerian Grain Legume Conference, Institute of Agricultural Research, Samaru, Zaria, Nigeria, pp. 912.Google Scholar
Booker, R. H. (1965) Pests of cowpea and their control in Northern Nigeria. Bull. ent. Res. 55, 663672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jerath, M. L. (1968) Insecticidal control of Maruca testulalis on cowpea in Nigeria. J. econ. Ent. 66, 423–416.Google Scholar
Koehler, C. S. and Mehta, P. N. (1972) Relationships of insect control attempts by chemicals to components of yield on cowpea in Uganda. J. econ. Ent. 65, 14211427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Okeyo-Owuor, J. B. and Ochieng', R. S. (1981) Studies on the legume pod-borer, Maruca testulalis (Geyer)—I. Life cycle and behaviour. Insect Sci. Application 1, 263268.Google Scholar
Raheja, A. J. (1974) Report on the insect pest complex of grain legumes in Northern Nigeria. Proc. 1st IITA Grain Legume Improvement Workship (1973), Int. Inst. Trop. Agric, Ibadan, Nigeria, pp. 295299.Google Scholar
Taylor, T. A. (1964) The field pest problems on cowpea, Vigna sinensis L. in southern Nigeria. Nig. Grower Producer 3, 14.Google Scholar
Taylor, T. A. (1968a) The effect of insecticide application on insect damage and the performance of cowpea in southern Nigeria. Niger. Agric. J. 5, 2937.Google Scholar
Taylor, T. A. (1978) Maruca testulalis; an important pest of tropical grain legumes. In Pest of Grain Legumes: Ecology and Control. (Edited by Singh, S. R., Van Emden, H. F. and Taylor, T. A.), pp. 193202. Academic Press, London, New York.Google Scholar