Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T23:16:48.101Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on Varietal Resistance of Cowpeas to the Cowpea Weevil, Callosobruchus rhodesianus (Pic)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

T. M. Ndlovu  and
D. P. Giga
T. M. Ndlovu
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, University of Zimbabwe, PO Box MP167, Harare
D. P. Giga*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, University of Zimbabwe, PO Box MP167, Harare
*
† Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Get access

Abstract

Eighteen cowpea varieties were evaluated for their resistance to cowpea weevil, Callosobruchus rhodesianus (Pic) infestation. The experiments were conducted at 27°C and 65–70% r.h. The varieties showed a differential response to infestation by C. rhodesianus with respect to oviposition, egg hatch, adult emergence, adult survival and development period. The intrinsic rates of increase and the indices of susceptibility of the varieties were estimated. The varieties were categorized into three groups of susceptibility (low, medium and high) to C. rhodesianus infestation based on the adult survival data. IT 82D-1064 and IT 81D-1032 were the least susceptible varieties.

Résumé

La résistance de 18 variètés de haricot, Vigna unguiculata à l'infestation de charancon, Callosobruchus rhodesianus (Pic) a été evaluée. L'expérience a été menée à la température de 27°C et l'humidité relative de 65–70 pour cent. L'oviposition, l'éclosion des oeufs, la production et la survie des adultes et la durée totale du developpement de C. rhodesianus varient en fonction de la variété de ce haricot. Le taux intrinsèque de croissance de C. rhodesianus et les indices de susceptibilité des variété ont été evalués. Sur le base de survie des adultes, de C. rhodesianus les variétés de haricot ont été groupées en trois catégories (bas, moyen, haut) en ce qui concerne leur prédisposition à l'infestation par C. rhodesianus. IT 82D-1064 et IT 81D-1032 sont les variétés moins susceptibles.

Keywords

Cowpea weevilCallosobruchus rhodesianusvarietysusceptibilityHaricotVigna unguiculatacharanconCallosobruchus rhodesianussusceptibilitévariétés
Type
Research Articles
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , February 1988 , pp. 123 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1988

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

Anonymous (1983) Annual Report (1982/83) of Agronomy Institute.Google Scholar
Appelbaum, S. W. (1964) Physiological aspects of host specificity in the Bruchidae. I. General considerations of developmental compatibility. J. Insect Physiol. 40, 783–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appelbaum, S. W. and Birk, Y. (1972) Natural mechanism of resistance to insects in legume seeds. In Insects and Mite Nutrition (Edited by Rodriguez, J. G.). Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Appelbaum, S. W., Gestetner, B. and Birk, Y. (1965) Physiological aspects of host specificity in Bruchidae: IV Developmental incompatibility of soyabeans for Callosobruchus. J. Insect Physiol. II, 611–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appelbaum, S. W., Southgate, B. J. and Podler, H. (1968) The comparative morphology, specific status and host compatibility of two geographic strains of Callosobruchus chinensis (L.). J. Stored Prod. Res. 4, 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avidov, Z., Appelbaum, S. W. and Berlinger, M. J. (1965) Physiological aspects of host specificity in the Bruchidae. II. Ovipositional preference and behaviour in Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) Ent. expt. et appl. 8, 96–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borchers, R., Ackerson, C. and Kimmet, L. (1947) Trypsin inhibitor. IV Occurrence in seeds of Leguminosae and other seeds. Arch. Biochem. 13, 291–293.Google Scholar
Caswell, G. H. (1973) The impact of infestation on commodities. Trap. Stored Prod. Inf. 25, 19.Google Scholar
Dobie, P. (1974) The laboratory assessment of the inherent susceptibility of maize varieties to post-harvest infestation by Sitophilus zeamais Motsch. (Coleoptera, Cur-culionidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 10, 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobie, P. (1980) The use of resistant varieties of cowpeas (Vigna unguiculata) to reduce losses due to post-harvest attack by Callosobruchus maculatus. In The Ecology of Bruchids Attacking Legumes (Edited by Labeyrie, V.) The Hague.Google Scholar
Gatehouse, A. M., Gatehouse, J. A., Dobie, P., Kilminster, A. and Boulter, D. (1979) Biochemical basis of insect resistance in Vigna unguiculata. J. Sci. Food Agric. 30, 948–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giga, D. P. and Smith, R. H. (1981) Varietal resistance and intraspecific competition in cowpea weevil Callosobruchus maculatus and C. chinensis (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J. Appl. Ecol. 18, 755–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giga, D. P. and Smith, R. H. (1983) Comparative life history studies of four Callosobruchus species infesting cowpeas with special reference to Callosobruchus rhodesianus (Pic) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) J. Stored Prod. Res. 19, 189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, R. W. (1971) A parameter for expressing the suitability of an environment for insect development. J. Stored Prod. Res. 7, 63–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mariga, I. K., Giga, D. P. and Maramba, P. (1985) Cowpea production constraints and research in Zimbabwe. Trop. Grain Legume Bull. 30, 9–14.Google Scholar
Nwanze, K. and Horber, E. (1976) Seed coats of cowpeas afTect oviposition and larval development of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.). Environ. Ent. 5, 213–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nwanze, K., Horber, E. and Pitts, C. (1975) Evidence of ovipositional preference of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) for cowpea varieties. Environ. Ent. 4, 409–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, S. R. and Jackai, L. E. N. (1985) Insect pests of cowpea in Africa: Their life cycle, economic importance and potential for Control. In Cowpea Research, Production and Utilization (Edited by Singh, S. R. and Rachie, K. D.). Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
Southgate, B. J. (1958) Systematic notes of species of Callosobruchus of economic importance. Bull. ent. Res. 49, 591–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southgate, B. J. (1964) Distribution and hosts of certain Bruchidae in Africa. Trop. Stored Prod. Inf. 7, 277–279.Google Scholar