Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T19:01:22.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Intercropping on Relative Resistance and Susceptibility of Cowpea Cultivars to Maruca Testulalis Geyer when in mono and when Intercropped with Maize

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

Macharia Gethi ,
E. O. Omolo  and
J. M. Mueke
Macharia Gethi
Affiliation:
Regional Research Centre, P. O. Box 27, Embu, Kenya
E. O. Omolo
Affiliation:
Regional Research Centre, P. O. Box 27, Embu, Kenya
J. M. Mueke
Affiliation:
Regional Research Centre, P. O. Box 27, Embu, Kenya
Get access

Abstract

Field studies to investigate the effect of intercropping on the relative resistance and susceptibility of cowpea cultivars to Maruca testulalis impure stands and intercropped with maize, were conducted at the International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE). It was clearly indicated that intercropping affected the relative resistance and susceptibility of cowpea cultivars. The resistance of TVU 946 to Maruca was reduced when the cultivar was under maize. This was attributed to the phenological changes observed, i.e. when planted with maize there was a significant (P = 0.05) increase in length of the pods and peduncles and significant (P = 0.05) reduction in the number of branches. Weekly mean temperatures and relative humidities indicated that there were significant differences between cropping patterns. Similarly there was a significant reduction in the photosynthetic active radiation incident on cowpea canopy in all the intercropped plots. This suggested that both intercropping and microenvironmental differences observed, reduced resistance in cultivar TVU 946 by probably acting directly on the crop, thus rendering it more susceptible.

Résumé

Des etudes sur le terrain pour etudier I'effet de I'assolement sur la resistance relative et la susceptibilite du niébe au Maruca testulalis ont ete faites. Le niébe fut assolé avec le mais au Centre International de Physiologie et Ecologie des Insectes. II a étè clairement indiqué que I'assolement affecte la resistance relative et la susceptibilité du niébe. La resistance du niébe TVU 946 au Maruca a étè reduite par la presence du mais. Ceci a étè attribué aux changes phenologiques qui furent observés quand la niébe fut assoler avec le mais. II y a en une augmentation de la longueur des cosses et de pedoncules (P = 0.05) et une reduction des nombres des branches (P = 0.05). Les moyennes hebdomadaires de temperature et d'humidité relative ont demontré qu'il y a une difference significative entre les models de plantations. Pareillement il y a une reduction significative de la radiation photosynthetic de la canopée sur toutes les parceiles assolées. Ceci implique que l'assolement et les differences microenvironmentales observés, ont reduit la resistance du plant TVU 946 en agissant directement sur la recolte pour le rendre plus susceptible.

Keywords

Intercroppingmixed croppingresistancesusceptibilitycowpeamaizeMaruca testulalisphenologymicroenvironmentAnolementmelange de recolteresistancesusceptibiliténiébemais Maruca testulalisphenologiesmicroenvironment
Type
Research Artilces
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , June 1993 , pp. 305 - 313
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1993

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

Amoako Atta, B. and Omolo, E. O. (1983) The stem borer complex with maize, cowpea, sorghum intercropping systems in Kenya. Insect Sci. Applic. 4, 39–46.Google Scholar
Amoako Atta, B., Omolo, E. O. and Kidega, E. K. (1983) Influence of maize, cowpea and sorghum intercropping system on stem/pod borer infestation. Insect Sci. Applic. 4, 47–57.Google Scholar
Ezueh, M. I. (1984) The effect of time of intercropping with maize on cowpea susceptibility to three major pests Trop. Agric. (Trinidad) 61, 82–86.Google Scholar
Francis, C. A., Flor, G. A. and Tempne, S. N. (1975) Adapting varieties for intercropping systems in the tropics. Paper Presented at the Multiple Cropping Symposium. American Society of Agronomy. Knoxville 24–29 ASA Special Publication Series.Google Scholar
Francis, C. A., Flor, C. A. and Prager, M. (1977) Effect of bean association on yields and yield component of maize. Crop Science 18.Google Scholar
IRRI (1973) Annual Report Los Baños, Philippines.Google Scholar
Jackai, L. E. N. (1981) Relationship between cowpea crop phenology and field infestation by legume pod borer, Maruca testulalis. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 74, 402–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jafckai, L. E. N. and Singh, S. R. (1981) Studies of some behavioral aspects of Maruca testulalis on selected species of Crotalaria and Vigna unguiculata. Grain Legume Bull. 22, 3–6.Google Scholar
Kayumbo, H. Y. (1976) Crop protection in mixed crop ecosystem. Proc. Symposium on Intercropping in Semi-Arid Areas. Morogoro, Tanzania.Google Scholar
Karel, A. K., Lakhani, D. A. and Ndunguru, B. J. (1980) Intercropping of maize and cowpea: Effect of plant and seed yield. Proc. of Second Symposium on Intercropping in Semi-Arid Areas, Morogoro, Tanzania, pp. 102–109.Google Scholar
Lawani, S. M. (1982) A review of the effects of various agronomic practices on cereal stem borer population. Trop. Pest Manage. 28, 266–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osiru, D. S. O. (1976) Studies on mixtures of maize and beans with particular emphasis on time of planting beans. In Symposium on Intercropping in Semi-arid Areas, Morogoro, Tanzania.Google Scholar
Osiru, D. S. O. and Willey, R. W. (1972) Studies on mixtures of dwarf sorghum and beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) with particular reference to plant population. J. Agric. Sci. 79, 531–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Painter, R. L. (1951) Insect resistance in crop plants. In Proc. of the First TA Grain Legume Improvement Workshop, Ibadan Nigena, pp. 295–301.Google Scholar
Pathak, R. S. and Olela, J. C. (1986) Registration of 14 cowpea cultivars. Crop Science 26, 647–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saxena, K. N. (1985) Behavioral basis of plant resistance or susceptibillity to insect. Insect Sci. Applic. 6, 303–313.Google Scholar
Singh, S. R. (1978) Resistance to pest of cowpea in Nigeria. In Pests of Grain Legumes: Ecology and Control (Edited by Singh, S. R., Van Emden, H. F. and Taylor, T. A.), pp. 267–279. London and New York.Google Scholar
Singh, S. R. (1979) Biology of cowpea pest and potential for host plant resistance. Annual Res. Conf. IITA Ibadan Nigeria.Google Scholar
Singh, S. R. and Allen, D. J. (1980) Pest, diseases resistance and protection of Vigna unguiculata (L) Walp. In Advances in Legume Science, pp. 419–445.Google Scholar
Tahvanainen, J. O. and Root, R. B. (1973) The influence of vegetational diversity on the population ecology of a specialized herbivore, Phyllotreta cruciferae (Coleoptera; Chrysomelidae). Oecologia 10, 321–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trenbath, R. B. (1976) Diversify or be damned. Ecologist 5, 76–83.Google Scholar
Willey, R. W. (1979) Intercropping, its importance and research needs, Part 1. Competition and yield advantages. Field Crop Abstracts 32, 1–10.Google Scholar