Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-pfhbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T17:11:48.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Revue des methodes de lutte contre Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae), ravageur des graines de niébé (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp) en Afrique tropicale

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

V. Lienard  and
D. Seck
V. Lienard
Affiliation:
Unité et Zoologie générale et appliquée, Faculté des Sciences Agronomiques 2, Passage des Déportés, B-5030 Gembloux
D. Seck
Affiliation:
Unité et Zoologie générale et appliquée, Faculté des Sciences Agronomiques 2, Passage des Déportés, B-5030 Gembloux
Get access

Abstract

Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae), commonly known as the cowpea seed beetle, is the most important pest of stored cowpea in tropical Africa. In rural area where preservation techniques and facilities are limited, it causes post-harvest weight and quality losses. The importance of damages which can reach 100% in a few months justifies the development of effective and appropriate control methods in the villages. All these control methods and their applications are discussed in this paper. Chemical control is inappropriate at farm level, because of its cost and hazards. The many studies conducted on varietal resistance have enabled identification of varieties that are more or less resistant to this pest; however, the varieties are often of little interest from the agronomic point of view. The incorporation of that resistance in cultivated varieties is in progress. The physical control methods are inadequate because their application requires equipment and technical knowledge which are not found in rural areas. Biological control is an attractive alternative but is still at an experimental stage. All these limitations support promotion of traditional control methods. Among them, the use of inert substances as well as indigenous plants or their by-products have given, in many cases, a satisfactory control of C. maculatus.

Résumé

Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) ou bruche du niébé est un des ravageurs les plus redoutables des graines de niébé en Afrique tropicale. En zone rurale où les techniques de conservation des denrées sont rudimentaires, ce ravageur entraîne des pertes post-récolte pouvant atteindre 100% en quelques mois. L'importance des dégâts occasionnés a justifié le développement de méthodes de contrôle efficaces et applicables en milieu villageois. L'ensemble de ces méthodes sont passées en revue et l'applicabilité de chacune d'entre elles est discutée. Il s'avère que la lutte chimique est inadaptée au monde rural compte tenu de son coût et des dangers liés à son utilisation. Les nombreux travaux effectués sur la résistance variétale ont permis d'identifier des variétés plus ou moins résistantes à ce ravageur; toutefois, ces variétés sont souvent peu intéressantes du point de vue agronomiques. L'incorporation de cette résistance dans des variétés acceptables n'a pas encore donné satisfaction. Les méthodes physiques de lutte sont souvent insutfisantes pour assurer une protection efficace des stocks et de plus, demandent un équipement et des connaissances techniques approfondies. Quant à la lutte biologique, bien que prometteuse, elle n'en est encore qu'au stade de recherche. Toutes ces restrictions placent les méthodes traditionnelles de lutte parmi les plus efficaces et les plus usitées. Ainsi, l'utilisation de la flore indigène et de ses dérivés, de substances inertes, le contrôle de l'humidité et de la température, ainsi que l'appiication des méthodes préventives entraînent une réduction significative des populations de C. maculatus et donc, diminuent les pertes post-récolte.

Keywords

Callosobruchus maculatusniébéVigna unguiculata (L.) Walpméthodes de lutteAfrique tropicaleCallobruchus maculatuscowpeaVigna unguiculata (L.) Walpcontrol methodstropical Africa
Type
Research Articles
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , June 1994 , pp. 301 - 311
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1994

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 BIBLIOGRAPHIQUES

Abdel-Wahab, A. M., Abdel-Rahim, W. A. et Rizk, M. (1975) Comparative susceptibility of male and female southern cowpea weevil Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) to thirteen insecticides (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Bull. Soc. Entomol. Egypte, Ser. Econ. 10, 165–170.Google Scholar
Adjadi, O., Singh, B. B. et Singh, S. R. (1985) Inheritance of bruchid resistance in cowpea. Crop Sci. 25, 740–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmed, M. (1990) Irradiation disinfestation of stored foods. In Proc. 5th Int. Work. Conf. on Stored-Prod. Prot. (Bordeaux, 9–14 Sept. 1990), Vol. II, Paris, Fleurat-Lessard F. et Ducom P. pp., 1105–1117.Google Scholar
Akingbohungbe, A. E. (1976) A note on the relative susceptibility of unshelled cowpeas to the cowpea weevil (Callosobruchus maculatus) (Fabr.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Trop. Grain Legume Bull. 5, 11–13.Google Scholar
Boughdad, A., Gillon, Y. et Gagnepain, C. (1987) Effect of Arachis hypogea seed fats on the larval development of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 23 (2), 99–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caswell, G. H. (1961) The infestation of cowpeas in the western region of Nigeria. Trop. Sci. 3, 154–158.Google Scholar
Caswell, G. H. (1984) The value of the pod in protecting cowpea seed from attack by bruchid beetles. Samaru J. Agric. Res. 2(1–2), 49–55.Google Scholar
Credland, P. F. (1992) The structure of bruchid eggs may explain the ovicidal effect of oils. J. Stored Prod. Res. 28(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniel, S. H. et Smith, R. H. (1990) The repellent effect of neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss) oil and its residual efficacy against Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) on cowpea. In Proc. 5th Int. Work. Conf. on Stored-Prod. Prot. (Bordeaux, 9–14, Sept. 1990), Vol. III, Paris, Fleurat-Lessard F. et Ducom P. pp. 1589–1597.Google Scholar
Dick, K. M. et Credland, P. F. (1986a) Variation in the response of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) to a resistant variety of cowpea J. Stored Prod. Res. 22(1), 43–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dick, K. M. et Credland, P. F. (1986b) Changes in the response of Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) to a resistant variety of cowpea. J. Stored Prod. Res. 22(4), 227–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobie, P. (1981) The use of resistant varieties of cowpeas (Vigna unguiculata) to reduce losses due to post-harvest attack by Callosobruchus maculatus. Ser. Entomol. 19, 185–192.Google Scholar
Don-Pedro, K. N. (1985) Toxicity of some citrus peels to Dermestes maculatus Deg. and Callosobruchus maculatus (F.). J. Stored Prod. Res. 21(1), 31–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Don-Pedro, K. N. (1989a) Effects of fixed vegetable oils on oviposition and adult mortality of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) on cowpea. Int. Pest Control 31, 34–37.Google Scholar
Don-Pedro, K. N. (1989b) Mode of action of fixed oils against eggs of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.). Pestic. Sci. 26, 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Don-Pedro, K. N. (1990) Insecticidal activity of fatty acid constituents of fixed vegetable oils against Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) on cowpea. Pestic. Sci. 30, 295–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Echendu, T.N.C. (1991) Ginger, cashew and neem as surface protectants of cowpeas against infestation and damage by Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.). Trop. Sci. 31, 209–211.Google Scholar
Egwuatu, R. I. (1987) Current status of conventional insecticides in the management of stored product insect pests in the tropics. Insect Sci. Applic. 8 (4/5/6), 695–701.Google Scholar
Elbadry, E. A. et Ahmed, M. Y. Y. (1975) Effects of gamma radiation on the egg stage of southern cowpea weevil, Callosobruchus maculatus F. Z. angew. Entomol. 79, 323–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO (1991) La situation mondiale de l'alimentation et de l'agriculture.Google Scholar
Fatunla, T. et Badaruk, K. (1983) Resistance of cowpea pods to Callosobruchus maculatus (Fabr.). J. Agric. Sci. Camb. 100, 205–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gatehouse, A. M. R. et Boulter, D. (1983) Assessment of the antimetabolic effects of trypsin inhibitors from cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) and other legumes on development of the bruchid beetle Callosobruchus maculatus. J. Sci. Food Agric. 34, 345–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gatehouse, A. M. R., Fenton, D. A., Jepson, I. et Pavey, D. J. (1986) The effects of a amylase inhibitors on insect storage pests: inhibition of a amylase in vitro and effects on development in vivo. J. Sci. Food Agric. 37, 727–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gatehouse, A. M. R., Gatehouse, J. A., Dobie, P., Kilminister, A. M. et Boulter, D. (1979) Biochemical basis of insect resistance in Vigna unguiculata. J. Sci. Food Agric. 30, 948–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hekal, A. M. et El-Kady, E. A. (1987) Effect of gamma radiation on the level of infestation with Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) in stored cowpea seeds. Ann. Agric. Sci., Egypt 32(3), 1689–1698.Google Scholar
Heong, K. L. (1981) Searching preference of the parasitoïd, Anisopteromalus calandrae (Howard) for different stages of the host, Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) in the laboratory. Res. Popul. Ecol. 23, 177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, J. et Schoonhoven, A. V. (1981) Effectiveness of vegetable oil fractions in controlling the mexican bean weevil on stored beans. J. Econ. Entomol. 74(4), 478–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hindmarsh, P. S., Tyler, P. S. et Webley, D. J. (1978) Conserving grain on the small farm in the tropics. Outlook Agric. 9(5), 214–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, R. W. (1978) Introduction—The principles and problems of storage and pest control. Outlook Agric. 9(5), 198–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, R. W. (1990) Zero tolerance insect infestation now. In Proc. 5th Int. Work. Conf. on Stored-Prod. Prot. (Bordeaux, 9–14 Sept. 1990), Vol. I, Paris, Fleurat-Lessard F. et Ducom P., pp. 547–552.Google Scholar
van Huis, A. (1991) Biological methods of bruchid control in the tropics: A review. Insect Sci. Applic. 12(1/2/3), 87–102.Google Scholar
Hussein, M. H. et Abdel-Aal, Y. A. I. (1982) Toxicity of some compounds against the cowpea seed beetle Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Int. Pest Control 24, 12–16.Google Scholar
Ivbijaro, M. F. (1983) Preservation of cowpea, Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp, with the neem seed, Azadirachta indica A. Juss. Prot. Ecol. 5, 177–182.Google Scholar
Ivbijaro, M. F. (1990a) The efficacy of seed oils Azadirachta indica A. Juss and Piper guineense Schum and Thonn on the control of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.). Insect Sci. Applic. 11(2) 149–152.Google Scholar
Jackai, L. E. N. et Daoust, R. A. (1986) Insect pests of cowpeas. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 31, 95–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapila, R. et Agarwal, H. C. (1990) Biology of an egg parasite of Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). In Proc. 5th Int. Work. Conf. on Stored-Prod. Prot. (Bordeaux, 9–14 Sept., 1990), Vol. II, Paris, Fleurat-Lessard F. et Ducom P., pp. 1265–1273.Google Scholar
Kerharo, J. et Adam, J. G. (1974) La pharmacopée sénégalaise traditionnelle. Plantes médicinales et toxiques. Paris, Vigot.Google Scholar
Kitch, L. W., Shade, R. E. et Murdock, L. L. (1991) Resistance to the cowpea weevil (Callosobruchus maculatus) larva in pods of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata). Entomol. Exp. Appl. 60, 182–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labeyrie, V. (1981) Vaincre la carence protéique par le développement des légumineuses alimentaires et la protection de leurs récoltes contre les bruches. Food Nutr. Bull. 3(1), 24–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawani, S. M. (1989) Le niébé, la biotechnologie et la lutte contre les ravageurs. Echo de l'IITA9 9(2), 3–6.Google Scholar
Luca, Y. (de), (1965) Catalogue des métazoaires parasites et prédateurs de Bruchides (Coleoptera). J. Stored Prod. Res. 1, 51–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messina, F. J. et Renwick, J. A. A. (1983) Effectiveness of oils in protecting stored cowpeas from the cowpea weevil (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 76(3), 634–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monge, J. P., Ouedraogo, A. P. et Huignard, J. (1990) Development of two bruchid species Bruchidius atrolineatus (Pic) and Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) and their larval parasitoids during storage of cowpea seeds Vigna unguiculata (Walp) in West Africa. In Proc. 5th Int. Work. Conf. on Stored-Prod. Prot. (Bordeaux, 9–14 Sept., 1990), Vol. I, Paris, Fleurat-Lessard F. et Ducom P., pp. 151–160.Google Scholar
Naik, R. L. et Dumbre, R. B. (1984) Effect of some vegetable oils used in protecting stored cowpea on biology of pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus (Fabr.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Bull. Grain Technol. 22(1), 25–32.Google Scholar
Navarro, S., Donahaye, E., Rindner, M. et Azrielli, A., (1990) Airtight storage of grain in plastic structures. Hassadeh Quart. 1(2), 85–88.Google Scholar
Nwanze, K. F. et Horber, E. (1976) Seed coats of cowpeas affect oviposition and larval development of Callosobruchus maculatus. Environ. Entomol. 5 (2), 213–218.Google Scholar
Nwanze, K. F., Horber, E. et Pitts, C. W. (1975) Evidence for ovipositional preference of Callosobruchus maculatus for cowpea varieties. Environ. Entomol. 4 (3), 409–412.Google Scholar
Ofuya, T. I. (1986) Use of wood ash, dry chilli pepper fruits and onion scale leaves for reducing Callosobruchus maculatus (Fabricius) damage in cowpea seeds during storage. J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 107, 467–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pajni, H. R. (1990) Status of Uscana muskerjii (Mani) in the biocontrol of bruchids (Trichogrammatidae: Hymenoptera). In Proc. 5th Int. Work. Conf. on Stored-Prod. Prot. (Bordeaux, Sept. 1990), Vol. II, Paris, Fleurat-Lessard F. et Ducom P., pp. 1279–1280.Google Scholar
Pajni, H. R. et Gill, M. (1990) Use of new pesticides of plants origin for the control of bruchids. In Proc. 5th Int. Work. Conf. on Stored-Prod. Prot. (Bordeaux 9–14 Sept. 1990), Vol. III, Paris, Fleurat-Lessard F. et Ducom P., pp. 1671–1678.Google Scholar
Pereira, J. (1983) The effectiveness of six vegetable oils as protectants of cowpeas and bambarra groundnuts against infestation by Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 19(2), 57–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piergiovanni, A. R., Sonnante, G., Delia Gatta, C. et Perrino, P. (1991) Digestive enzyme inhibitors and storage pest resistance in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) seeds. Euphytica 54, 191–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrard, G. (1984) Management and control of insect pests of stored grain legumes. In Proc. Int. Workshop on IPC for Grain Legumes Goiania, Goias (Brézil), 3–9 avril 1983, pp. 276–286.Google Scholar
Poleman, T. T. (1975) World food: A perspective. Science 188, 510–518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prevett, P. F. (1961) Field infestation of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) pods by beetles of the families Bruchidae and Curculionidae in Northern Nigeria. Bull. Entomol. Res. 52, 635–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajapakse, R. (1990) The effect of four botanicals on oviposition and adult emergence of the pulse beetle Callosobruchus maculatus. In Proc. 5th Int. Work. Conf. on Stored-Prod. Prot. (Bordeaux 9–14 Sept., 1990), Vol. III, Paris, Fleurat-Lessard F. et Ducom P., pp. 1679–1680.Google Scholar
Redden, R. J., Dobie, P. et Gatehouse, A. M. R. (1983) The inheritance of seed resistance to Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) I. Analysis of parental, F1, F2, F3 and backcross seed generations. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 34, 681–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rojas-Rousse, D., Kalmes, R., Combescot, C., Eslami, J. et Gomez-Alvarez, L. (1988) Bilan nutritionnel au cours du développement de l'ectoparasite grégaire Dinarmus vagabundus et du solitaire Dinarmus basalis. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 46, 63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoonhoven, A. V. (1978) Use of vegetable oils to protect stored beans from bruchid attack. J. Econ. Entomol. 71(2) 254–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seek, D. et Gaspar, Ch. (1992) Effïcacité du stockage du niébé (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) en fûts métalliques hermétiques comme méthode alternative de contrôle de Callosobruchus maculatus (Col. Bruchidae) en Afrique sahélienne. Meded. Fac. Landbouwwet. Rijkuniv., Gent. 51/3a, 751–758.Google Scholar
Seek, D., Sidibe, B., Haubruge, E. et Gaspar Ch. (1991a) La protection des stocks de niébé (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp) en milieu rural: Utilisation de différentes formulations à base de neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss) provenant du Sénégal. Meded. Fac. Landbouwwet. Rijkuniv. Gent. 56/3b, 1217–1224.Google Scholar
Seek, D., Sidibe, B., Haubruge, E., Hemptinne, J. L. et Gaspar Ch. (1991b) La protection chimique des stocks de niébé et de maïs contre les insectes au Sénégal. Meded. Fac. Landbouww. Rijikuniv. Gent. 56/3b, 1225–1233.Google Scholar
Shekib, L. A., El-Iraqui, S. M. et Abo-Bakr, T. M. (1988) Studies on amylase inhibitors in some Egyptian legumes seeds. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 38, 325–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singh, B. B., Singh, S. R. et Adjadi, O. (1985) Bruchid resistance in cowpea. Crop Sci. 25, 736–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, R. P. (1986) Comparison of antifeedant efficacy and extract yields from different parts and ecotypes of neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss) trees. In Natural Pesticides from the Neem Tree and Other Tropical Plants. Proc. 3rd Int. Neem Conf. (Nairobi, 10–15 juillet 1986) (Edited by Schmutterer, H. et Ascher, K. R. S.) pp. 185–194. Eschborn.Google Scholar
Singh, S. R. (1977) Cowpea cultivars resistant to insect pests in world germplasm collection. Trop. Grain Legume Bull. 9, 3–7.Google Scholar
Singh, S. R. (1987) Host plant resistance for cowpea insect pest management. Insect Sci. Applic. 8, 765–769.Google Scholar
Singh, S. R. (1990) Insect Pests of Tropical Food Legumes. Chichester, Wiley.Google Scholar
Singh, S. R. et Jackai, L. E. N. (1985) Insect pests of cowpeas in Africa: Their life cycle, economic importance and potential for control. In Cowpea Research, Production and Utilization (Edited by Singh, S. R. et Rachie, K. O.), pp. 217–231. London, Wiley.Google Scholar
Singh, S. R., Jackai, L. E. N., Dos Santos, J. H. R. et Adalla, C. B. (1990) Insect pests of cowpea. In Insect Pests of Tropical Food Legumes (Edited by Singh, S. R.), pp. 43–49, Chichester, Wiley.Google Scholar
Singh, S. R., Luse, R. A., Leuschner, K. et Nangju, D. (1978) Groundnut oil treatment for the control of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) during cowpea storage. J. Stored Prod. Res. 14, 77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storey, C. L. (1975) Mortality of adult stored-product insects in an atmosphere produced by an exothermic inert atmosphere generator. J. Econ. Entomol. 68(3), 316–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storey, C. L. (1978) Mortality of cowpea weevil in a low-oxygen atmosphere. J. Econ. Entomol. 71(5), 833–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Su, H. C. F. (1977) Insecticidal properties of black pepper to rice weevils and cowpea weevils. J. Econ. Entomol. 70(1), 18–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Su, H. C. F. et Horvat, R. (1981) Isolation, identification and insecticidal properties of Piper nigrum amides. J. Agric. Food Chem. 29(1), 115–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Su, H. C. F. et Horvat, R. (1987) Isolation and characterization of four major components from insecticidally active lemon peel extract. J. Agric. Food Chem. 35(4), 509–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Su, H. C. F., Speirs, R. D. et Mahamy, P. G. (1972) Citrus oil as protectants of black-eyed peas against cowpea weevils: Laboratory evaluation. J. Econ. Entomol. 65(3), 1433–1436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swamiappan, M., Jayaraj, S., Chandy, K. C. et Sundaramurthy, V. T. (1976) Effect of activated kaolinitic clay on some storage insects. Z. angew. Entomol. 80, 385–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viaud, P. (1983) La protection des légumineuses contre les bruches: Vigna unguiculata et Callosobruchus maculatus. Bull. Soc. Entomol. Fr. 88, 241–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkin, D. R. et Green, A. A. (1970) Polythene sacks for the control of insects in bagged grain. J. Stored Prod. Res. 6, 97–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfson, J. L., Shade, R. E., Mentzer, P. E. et Murdock, L. L. (1991) Efficacy of ash for controlling infestations of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) in stored cowpeas. J. Stored Prod. Res. 27(4), 239–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xavier-Filho, J., Campos, F. A. P., Ary, M. B., Peres Silva, C., Carvalho, M. M. M., Macedo, M. L. R., Lemos, F.J.A. et Grant, G. (1989) Poor correlation between the levels of proteinase inhibitors found in seeds of different cultivars of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) and the resistance/susceptibility to predation by Callosobruchus maculatus. J. Agric. Food Chem. 37, 1139–1143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yadava, R. L. (1971) Use of essential oil of Acorus calamus L. as an insecticide against the pulse beetle, Bruchus chinensis L. Z. angew. Entomol. 68, 289–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yadava, S. R. S. et Bhatnagar, K. N. (1987) A preliminary study on the protection of stored cowpea grains against pulse beetle, by indigenous plant products. Pesticides août 87, 25–29.Google Scholar
Zehrer, W. (1980) Méthodes traditionelles de lutte contre les insectes dans le cadre de la protection des stocks. Problèmes de post-récolte (113)—Documentation sur un séminaire OUA/GTA: 92–118.Google Scholar
Zehrer, W. (1984) L'effet des substances de conservation traditionnelles utilisées dans le nord du Togo et de l'huile de nim pour le contrôle des parasites de stockage. In Résumés de la Deuxième Conférence sur l'Arbre de Nim, Rauischholzhausen, République Fédérale d'Allemagne 25–28 mai, 1983, pesticides naturels de l'arbre de Nim (Azadirachta indica A. Juss) et des autres plantes tropicales, Eschborn.Google Scholar