Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T03:08:41.991Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of diverse germplasm of cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] against bruchid [Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.)] and correlation with physical and biochemical parameters of seed

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2020

Kuldeep Tripathi ,
T. V. Prasad Open the ORCID record for T. V. Prasad [Opens in a new window] ,
R. Bhardwaj ,
S. K. Jha ,
D. P. Semwal ,
P. G. Gore ,
P. K. Sharma  and
S. Bhalla
Kuldeep Tripathi
Affiliation:
ICAR-National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), New Delhi, India
T. V. Prasad*
Affiliation:
ICAR-Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture (CRIDA), Hyderabad, India
R. Bhardwaj
Affiliation:
ICAR-National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), New Delhi, India
S. K. Jha
Affiliation:
ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), New Delhi, India
D. P. Semwal
Affiliation:
ICAR-National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), New Delhi, India
P. G. Gore
Affiliation:
ICAR-National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), New Delhi, India
P. K. Sharma
Affiliation:
ICAR-National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), New Delhi, India
S. Bhalla
Affiliation:
ICAR-National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), New Delhi, India
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The current study was undertaken to identify the sources of tolerance to bruchid in cowpea, by screening a set of germplasm accessions as a source for natural resistance. A total of 103 diverse accessions of cowpea were evaluated for resistance to Callosobruchus maculatus Fab. under no-choice artificial infestation conditions. Significant differences among the cowpea accessions were observed for oviposition, adult emergence, exit holes and per cent seed weight loss (PSWL) caused by the bruchid infestation. The accessions showed variation in physical seed parameters viz., colour, shape, testa texture, length, width and seed hardness. Among the seed biochemical parameters studied, per cent sugar content ranged from 0.322 (IC330950) to 1.493 (IC249137), and per cent phenol content ranged from 0.0326 (EC390261) to 1.081 (EC528423). Correlation studies indicated that PSWL had significant positive correlation (r = 0.335) with exit holes, oviposition (r = 0.219), adult emergence (r = 0.534) and seed roundness (r = 0.219). Adult emergence had a significant negative correlation with seed hardness (r = −0.332). Correlation with biochemical parameters indicated that PSWL had a significant positive correlation (r = 0.231) with sugar content and a significant negative correlation with phenol content (r = −0.219). None of the accessions were found to be immune to bruchid infestation. However, out of studied accessions, EC528425 and EC528387 were identified as resistant based on PSWL and moderately resistant based on adult emergence. These resistance sources of cowpea germplasm can be used as potential donors for development of bruchid tolerant/resistant cultivars.

Keywords

bruchidcowpeagermplasmlandracesphysicalresistance seed weight lossVigna unguiculata
Type
Research Article
Information
Plant Genetic Resources , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , June 2020 , pp. 120 - 129
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of NIAB

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

Allard, RW (1990) The genetics of host-pathogen coevolution: implications for genetic resource conservation. Journal of Heredity 81: 1–6.10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a110918CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amusa, OD, Ogunkanmi, LA, Adetumbi, JA, Akinyosoye, ST and Ogundipe, OT (2018) Genetics of bruchid (Callosobruchus maculatus Fab.) resistance in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.). Journal of Stored Products Research 75: 18–20.10.1016/j.jspr.2017.11.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anglin, NL, Amri, A, Kehel, Z and Ellis, D (2018) A case of need: linking traits to Genebank accessions. Biopreservation and Biobanking 16: 337–349.10.1089/bio.2018.0033CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Appleby, JH and Credland, PF (2003) Variation in responses to susceptible and resistant cowpeas among West African populations of Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 96: 489–502.10.1603/0022-0493-96.2.489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Araújo, PMD and Nass, LL (2002) Caracterização e avaliação de populações de milho crioulo. Scientia Agricola 59: 589–593.10.1590/S0103-90162002000300027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bressani, R (1985) Nutritie Alue of Cowpeas. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 355–360.Google Scholar
Brush, SB (1995) In situ conservation of landraces in centers of crop diversity. Crop Science 35: 346–354.10.2135/cropsci1995.0011183X003500020009xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, PF, Volk, GM, Gardner, C, Gore, MA, Simon, PW and Smith, S (2018) Sustaining the future of plant breeding: the critical role of the USDA-ARS National Plant Germplasm System. Crop Science 58: 451–468.10.2135/cropsci2017.05.0303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrillo-Perdomo, E, Raffiot, B, Ollivier, D, Deulvot, C, Magnin-Robert, JB, Tayeh, N and Marget, P (2019) Identification of novel sources of resistance to seed weevils (Bruchus spp.) in a faba bean germplasm collection. Frontiers in Plant Science 9: 1914, doi:10.3389/fpls.2018.01914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casañas, F, Simó, J, Casals, J and Prohens, J (2017) Toward an evolved concept of landrace. Frontiers in Plant Science 8: 145, doi:10.3389/fpls.2017.00145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corcuera, LJ (1993) Biochemical basis for the resistance of barley to aphids. Phytochemistry 33: 741–747.10.1016/0031-9422(93)85267-UCrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Carvalho, MAAP, Bebeli, PJ, Bettencourt, E, Costa, G, Dias, S, Dos Santos, TM and Slaski, JJ (2013) Cereal landraces genetic resources in worldwide GeneBanks. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 33: 177–203.10.1007/s13593-012-0090-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díez, MJ, De la Rosa, L, Martín, I, Guasch, L, Cartea, ME, Mallor, C, Casals, J, Simó, J, Rivera, A, Anastasio, G and Prohens, J (2018) Plant Genebanks: present situation and proposals for their improvement. The case of the Spanish network. Frontiers in Plant Science 9: 1794, doi:10.3389/fpls.2018.01794.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engels, JMM (2002) Genebank management: an essential activity to link conservation and plant breeding. Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 129: 17–24.Google Scholar
Erler, F, Ceylan, F, Erdemir, T and Toker, C (2009) Preliminary results on evaluation of chickpea, Cicer arietinum, genotypes for resistance to the pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus. Journal of Insect Science 9: 58.Google Scholar
FAO (2010) The Second Report on the State of the World's Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome: FAO. Available at www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/thematic-sitemap/theme/seeds-pgr/sow/sow2/en/. Accessed 5 June 2020.Google Scholar
FAOSTAT (2020) FAOSTAT. Retrieved on 2 April 2020, from http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC.Google Scholar
Frankel, OH, Brown, AHD and Burdon, JJ (1998) The Conservation of Plant Biodiversity, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–78.Google Scholar
Giga, D (1995) Selection of oviposition sites by cowpea weevils Callosobruchus rhodesianus (Pic.) and Callosobruchus maculatus (F.). Insect Science and its Application 16: 145–149.Google Scholar
Gokhale, VG and Srivastava, BK (1975) Ovipositional behaviour of C. maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae), I. Distribution of eggs and relative ovipositional preference on several leguminous seeds. Indian Journal of Entomology 37: 122–128.Google Scholar
Gokhale, VG, Honda, H and Yamamoto, I (1990) Role of physical and chemical stimuli of legume host seeds in comparative ovipositional behaviour of C. maculatus (Fab.) and C. chinensis (L.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). In: Fujii, K, Gatehouse, AMR, Johnson, CD, Mitchel, R and Yoshida, T (eds) Bruchids and Legumes: Economics, Ecology and Coevolution Series Entomologica. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 45–51.Google Scholar
Hodgkin, T, Rao, VR, Cibrian-Jaramillo, A and Gaiji, S (2003) The use of ex situ conserved plant genetic resources. Plant Genetic Resources 1: 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoisington, D, Khairallah, M, Reeves, T, Ribaut, JM, Skovmand, B, Taba, S and Warburton, M (1999) Plant genetic resources: what can they contribute toward increased crop productivity? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96: 5937–5943.10.1073/pnas.96.11.5937CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howe, RW and Currie, JE (1964) Some laboratory observations on the rates of development, mortality and oviposition of several species of bruchidae breeding in stored pulses. Bulletin of Entomological Research 55: 437–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hussain, M, Roy, GC and Husain, M (1997) Laboratory evaluation of some greengram strains for susceptibility to pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis (L.). Bangladesh Journal of Entomology 7: 21–26.Google Scholar
IBPGR (1983) International Board for Plant Genetic Resources AGPG: IBPGR/82/80 June, 1983.Google Scholar
Kananji, GAD (2007) Study of bruchid resistance and its inheritance in Malawian dry bean germplasm. PhD Thesis, University of KwaZulu-Natal Republic of South Africa.Google Scholar
Kapila, R and Pajni, HR (1989) Screening of different cultivars of Phaseolus vulgaris to the attack of Zabrotes subfasciatus. Bulletin of Entomology 28: 138–144.Google Scholar
Kehel, Z, Sanchez-Garcia, M, El Baouchi, A, Aberkane, H, Tsivelikas, A, Chen, C and Amri, A (2020) Predictive characterization for seed morphometric traits for genebank accessions using genomic selection. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 8: 32, doi:10.3389/fevo.2020.00032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kell, S, Marino, M and Maxted, N (2017) Bottlenecks in the PGRFA use system: stakeholders’ perspectives. Euphytica 213: 170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khoury, C, Laliberté, B and Guarino, L (2010) Trends in ex situ conservation of plant genetic resources: a review of global crop and regional conservation strategies. Genetic Resource and Crop Evolution 57: 625–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kpoviessi, AD, Agbahoungba, S, Agoyi, EE, Chougourou, DC and Assogbadjo, AE (2019) Resistance of cowpea to cowpea bruchid (Callosobruchus maculatus Fab.): knowledge level on the genetic advances. Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science 11: 185–195.Google Scholar
Lattanzio, V, Terzano, R, Cicco, N, Cardinali, A, Di Venere, D and Linsalata, V (2005) Seed coat tannins and bruchid resistance in stored cowpea seeds. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 85: 839–846.10.1002/jsfa.2024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lephale, S, Abraham, A-B and Victoria, A (2012) Susceptibility of seven cowpea cultivars (Vigna unguiculata) to cowpea beetle (Callosobruchus maculatus). Agricultural Science Research Journal 2: 65–69.Google Scholar
Mahajan, R, Sapra, R, Umesh, S, Singh, M and Sharma, G (2000) Minimal Descriptors for Characterization and Evaluation of Agri-Horticultural Crops (Part I). New Delhi: National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, p. 230.Google Scholar
Mahendran, K and Mohan, S (2002) Technology adoption, estimation of loss and farmers behavior in pulses storage. A study in Western Tamil Nadu. Pestology 26: 35–38.Google Scholar
Manohar, SS and Yadava, SRS (1990) Laboratory observation on relative resistance and susceptibility of some cowpea cultivars to pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus F. (Bruchidae: Coleoptera). Indian Journal of Entomology 52: 180–186.Google Scholar
Marshall, DR (1989) Limitations to the use of germplasm collections. In: Brown, AHD, Frankel, OH, Marshall, DR and Williams, JT (eds) The Use of Plant Genetic Resources. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 105–122.Google Scholar
Mascher, M, Schreiber, M, Scholz, U, Graner, A, Reif, JC and Stein, N (2019) Genebank genomics bridges the gap between the conservation of crop diversity and plant breeding. Nature Genetics 51: 1076–1081.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maxted, N, Dulloo, ME, Ford-Lloyd, B V, Frese, L, Iriondo, J and de Carvalho, MAP (2012) Agrobiodiversity Conservation: Securing the Diversity of Crop Wild Relatives and Landraces. UK: CABI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxted, N, Magos, BJ and Kell, S (2013) Resource Book for Preparation of National Conservation Plans for Crop Wild Relatives and Landraces. UK: University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Nagaraja, M (2006) Evaluation of pigeonpea and cowpea genotypes for bruchid resistance (Bruchidae). MSc Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, India.Google Scholar
NBPGR (2020) PGR Portal. Retrieved on 2 January 2020, from http://www.nbpgr.ernet.in:8080/PGRPortal/(S(nuqbopigb1qmwv45rnce1b32))/Default.aspx.Google Scholar
Nwanze, K and Horber, E (1976) Seed coats of cowpeas affect oviposition and larval development of Callosobruchus maculatus. Environmental Entomology 5: 213–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obiadalla-Ali, HA, Salman, AMA and Abd El-Hady, MAH (2007) Screening some local and introduced cowpea cultivars for dry-seed yield and resistance to C. maculatus (F.). Annals of Agricultural Sciences 52: 197–212.Google Scholar
Pankaj, N and Singh, HK (2011) Correlation of seed characters of pulses with host suitability and preference of C. chinensis (L.). Indian Journal of Entomology 73: 365–370.Google Scholar
Raina, AK (1970) Callosobruchus spp. infesting stored pulses (grain legumes) in India and comparative study of their biology. Indian Journal of Entomology 32: 303–310.Google Scholar
Roe, JH (1955) The determination of sugar in blood and spinal fluid with anthrone reagent. Journal of Biological Chemistry 212: 335–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SAS (2009) Statistical Analysis Software System, Version 9.3. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Satya, V (1980) Ovipositional response and development of C. maculatus (Fab.) on different varieties of cowpea. Bulletin of Grain Technology 18: 200–203.Google Scholar
Scholten, M, Green, N, Campbell, G, Maxted, N, Ford-Lloyd, B, Ambrose, M and Spoor, B (2009) Landrace inventory of the UK. In: Veteläinen, M, Negri, V, Maxted, N (eds) European Landraces: On-Farm Conservation, Management and Use. Rome, Italy: Bioversity Technical Bulletin, No. 15, Bioversity International, pp. 161–170.Google Scholar
Semple, RL (1992) Host plant and varietal resistance to post-harvest insect attack. In: Semple, RL, Hicks, PA, Lozare, JV and Casterman, A (eds) Towards Integrated Commodity and Pests Management in Grain Storage. Manilla: REGNET and NAPHIRE.Google Scholar
Simmonds, MSJ (2003) Flavonoid-insect interactions: recent advances in our knowledge. Phytochemistry 64: 21–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singh, BD (2002) Plant Breeding: Principles and Methods. New Delhi, India: Kalyani Publishers.Google Scholar
Singh, S and Sharma, G (2003) Preference of Callosobruchus chinensis in pea varieties. Indian Journal of Entomology 65: 277–280.Google Scholar
Singh, K, Agrawal, NS and Girish, GK (1974) The oviposition and the development of Sitophilus oryzae L. in different high yielding varieties of wheat. Journal of Stored Products Research 10: 105–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slinkard, K and Singleton, VL (1977) Total phenol analysis: automation and comparison with manual methods. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 28: 49–55.Google Scholar
Somta, C, Somta, P, Tomooka, N, Ooi, PC, Vaughan, DA and Srinives, P (2008) Characterization of new sources of mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) resistance to bruchids, Callosobruchus spp. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Journal of Stored Products Research 44: 316–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southgate, BJ (1979) Biology of the bruchidae. Annual Review of Entomology 24: 449–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srinives, P, Somta, P and Somta, C (2007) Genetics and breeding of resistance to bruchids (Callosobruchus spp.) in Vigna Crops: a review. NU. International Journal of Science 4: 1–17.Google Scholar
Talekar, NS and Lin, CP (1992) Characterization of Callosobruchus chinensis (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) resistance in green gram. Journal of Economic Entomology 85: 1150–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanksley, SD and McCouch, SR (1997) Seed banks and molecular maps: unlocking genetic potential from the wild. Science (New York, N.Y.) 277: 1063–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tripathi, K, Shashi, B, Prasad, TV and Kalyani, S (2012) Differential reaction of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) genotypes to pulse-beetle (Callosobruchus maculatus). Vegetos (Bareilly, India) 25: 367–374.Google Scholar
Tripathi, K, Bhalla, S, Srinivasan, K, Prasad, TV and Gautam, RD (2013) Physical and biochemical basis of resistance in cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] accessions to pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis (L.). Legume Research 36: 457–466.Google Scholar
Tripathi, K, Chauhan, SK, Gore, PG, Prasad, TV, Srinivasan, K and Bhalla, S (2015) Screening of cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] accessions against pulse-beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis (L.). Legume Research 38: 675–680.Google Scholar
Tripathi, K, Chauhan, SK, Gore, PG, Mehta, PS, Bisht, IS and Bhalla, S (2017) Evaluation of wheat landraces of north-western Himalaya against rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae L. vis-à-vis physical seed parameters. Plant Genetic Resources 15: 321–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tripathy, SK (2016) Bruchid resistance in food legumes – an overview. Research Journal of Biotechnology 11: 97–105.Google Scholar
Upadhyaya, HD, Dwivedi, SL, Ambrose, M, Ellis, N, Berger, J, Smýkal, P and Sharma, SK (2011) Legume genetic resources: management, diversity assessment, and utilization in crop improvement. Euphytica 180: 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villa, TCC, Maxted, N, Scholten, M and Ford-Lloyd, B (2005) Defining and identifying crop landraces. Plant Genetic Resources 3: 373–384.10.1079/PGR200591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiklund, C (1973) Host plant suitability and the mechanism of selection in larvae of Papilio machaon. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 16: 232–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Tripathi et al. supplementary material

Tripathi et al. supplementary material

Download Tripathi et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 61.1 KB