International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research

Home About Us Scope Editorial Board Blog/Latest News Contact Us
10th percentile
Powered by  Scopus
Scopus coverage:
Nov 2018 to May 2020


IJSTR >> Volume 2- Issue 4, April 2013 Edition

International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research  
International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research

Website: http://www.ijstr.org

ISSN 2277-8616

Varietal Susceptibility Of Cowpea (Vigna Unguiculata L.) To The Storage Beetle, Callosobruchus Maculatus F. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae)

[Full Text]



Badii, K. B. Asante, S. K., Sowley E. N. K.



Index Terms: - Cowpea genotypes, Callosobruchus maculatus, infestation, susceptibility.



Abstract: - Twenty-two cowpea genotypes, comprising eighteen elite lines from the CSIR-Savanna Agricultural Research Institute, and three improved cultivars from the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture were evaluated for their susceptibility to infestation and damage by the storage beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus F. The assessment of their relative susceptibilities was based on oviposition, mean developmental period, adult emergence, seed weight loss and growth index. The results showed that the number of eggs laid on the seeds was significantly different among the genotypes. More eggs were laid on seeds of SARC 3-122-2, Marfo-Tuya and SARC 1-119-2, while SARC 1-132-1, SARC 1-91-1 and SARC1-13-2 recorded the least egg load. The mean development period was also significantly higher on SARC 3-122-2, SARC 4-75 and Marfo-Tuya (21.1-21.5 days), and lower on SARC 1-57-2, SARC 1-136-2 and Apabgaala (18.4-18.9 days). A significantly higher number of adults emerged from SARC 1-34-2, SARC 1-136-2 and Apabgaala, while SARC 1-132-1, SARC 3-103-1 and SARC 1-119-2 recorded the least. Moreover, Apabgaala, SARC 1-36-1 and Marfo-Tuya recorded the highest percentage weight loss (24.0-29.4%) while SARC 1-132-1, SARC 3-90-2 and SARC 3-103-1 recorded the least (4.3-9.6%). Overall, SARC 1-132-1, SARC 3-90-2, SARC 1-91-1, SARC 1-13-2 and SARC 3-103-1 consistently demonstrated high tolerance to to infestation by C. maculatus and therefore, should be promoted or incorporated into further breeding programmes to help minimize the high grain losses incurred by farmers during storage.



[1]. Adjadi, O., Singh, B. B. and Singh, S. R. (1995). Inheritance of bruchid resistance in cowpea. Crop Science 25, 740-742.

[2]. Avidov, Z., Berlinger, M. J. and Applebaum, S. W. (1965). Physiological aspects of host specificity in the Bruchidae. III. Effect of curvature and surface area on oviposition of Callosobruchus chinensis L. Animal Behaviour 13, 178-180.

[3]. Baker, T. A., Nielson, S. S., Shade, R. E. and Singh, B. B. (1989). Physical and chemical attributes of cowpea lines resistant and susceptible to Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Journal of Stored Products Research 25, 1-8.

[4]. Birch, A. N. E., Fellows, L. E., Evans, S. V. and Doharty, K. (1986). Para-amino phenylalanine in Vigna: Posible taxonomic and ecological significance as a seed defense against bruchids. Phytochemistry 25, 2745-2749.

[5]. Caswell, G. H. (1981). Damage to stored cowpea in the Northern part of Nigeria. Samaru Journal of Agricultural Research 1, 11-19.

[6]. Dobie, P. (1974). Laboratory assessment of the inherent susceptibility of maize to post harvest infestation by Sitophilus zeamais Motsch. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Journal of Stored Products Research 10: 183-197.

[7]. Egwuatu, R. I. (1987). Current status of conventional insecticides in the management of stored product pests in the tropics. Insect Science and its Application 8, 695-701.

[8]. Fitzner, M. S., Hagstrum, D. W., Knauft, D. A., Bhur, K. L. and Mclaughlin, J. R. (1985).Genotypic diversity in the suitability of cowpea (Rosales: Leguminosae) pods and seeds for cowpea weevils (Coleopteran: Bruchidae) oviposition and development. Journal of Economic Entomology 78, 806-810.

[9]. Gatehouse, A. M. R., Gatehouse, J. A., Dobie, P., Kilminster, A. M. and Boulter, D. (1979).

[10]. Biochemical basis of insect resistance in Vigna unguiculata. Journal of Science, Food and Agriculture 30, 948-958.

[11]. Hedin, P. A. (1983). Plant Resistance to Insects. ACS symposium series 208, American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.

[12]. Howe, R. W. (1971). A parameter for expressing the suitability of environment for insect development. Journal of Stored Products Research 7, 63-65.

[13]. Ishismoto, M. and Kitamura, K. (1988). Identification of growth inhibitor on Azuki bean weevil in kidney bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Japan Journal of Breeding 38, 367-370.

[14]. Jackai, L. E. N. and Daoust, R. A. (1986). Insect pests of cowpea. Annual Review of Entomology 38, 95-119.

[15]. Jackai, L. E. N. and Asante, S. K. (2003). A case for the standardization of protocols used in screening cowpea, Vigna unguiculata for resistance to Callosobruchus maculatus F. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Journal of Stored Products Research 39,251-263.

[16]. Mbata, G. N. (1993). Evaluation of susceptibility of varieties of cowpea to Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) and Callosobruchus subinnotatus (Pic.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Journal of Stored Products Research 22, 207-213.

[17]. Mbata, G. N. (1992). Egg distribution on seeds by Callosobruchus subinnotatus (Pic.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Journal of Stored Products Research 28, 301-305.

[18]. Nwanze, K. F. and Horber, E. (1976). Seed coats of cowpeas affect oviposition and larval development of Callosobruchus maculatus. Environmental Entomology 5, 213-218.

[19]. Nwanze, K. F., Horber, E., Pitts, C. W. P. (1975). Evidence of ovipositional preference of Callosobruchus maculatus for cowpea varieties. Environmental Entomology. 4: 409-412.

[20]. Osborn, T. C., Alexander, D. C., Sun, S. S. M., Cardona, C. and Bliss, F. A. (1988). Insecticidal activity and lectin homology of arcelin seed protein. Science 240, 207-210.

[21]. Prevett, P. F. (1961). Field infestation of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) pods by beetles of the families Bruchidae and Curculionidea in northern Nigeria. Bulletin of Entomological Research 52, 635-646.

[22]. Rachie, K. O. (1985). Introduction. In: S.R.Singh and K.O.Rachie (Eds.) Cowpea research, production and utilization 21-28pp, Wiley, London, UK.

[23]. Redden, R. J. and McGuire, J. (1983). The genetic evaluation of bruchid resistance in seeds of cowpea. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 34, 707-715.

[24]. Seck, D., SidibeŽ B., Haubruge, E., Hemptinne, J. L. and Gasper, C. (1991). La protection chimique des stock de niebeŽ et de mais contre les insects au Senegal. Mededelingen van de Faculteit Landbouwetensohappen Prijksuniversiteit Gent 56, 1225-1234.

[25]. Singh, B. B. and van Emden, H. F. (1979). Insect pests of grain legumes. Annual Review of Entomology 24,255-278.

[26]. Singh, B. B., Singh, S. R. and Adjadi, O. (1985). Bruchid resistance in cowpea. Crop Science 25, 736-739.

[27]. Southgate, B. J. (1979). Biology of the Bruchidae. Annual Review of Entomology 24, 449-473.

[28]. Thomas, M. B. and Waage, J. K. (1995). Integration of biological control and host plant resistance breeding for control of insect pests. CTA-IAF. IIBC Seminar, 9-14 October 1995, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

[29]. Wasserman, S. S. (1981). Host-induced oviposition preferences and oviposition markers in the cowpea weevil, Callosobruchus maculatus. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 72,242-245.

[30]. Wolfson, J. L., Shade, R. E., Mentzer, P. E. and Murdock, L. L. (1991). Efficacy of ash for control of Callosobruchus maculatus (F). (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) in stored cowpea. Journal of Stored Product Research 27, 239-243.