Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Insecticidal toxicity of two bruchid-resistant cowpea cultivar powders as cowpea seed protectants against Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)

Insecticidal toxicity of two bruchid-resistant cowpea cultivar powders as cowpea seed protectants... Toxicity of bruchid-resistant cultivars MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders as cowpea protectants against Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.) was investigated at an ambient temperature of 28  ±  2°C and a relative humidity of 75  ±  5%. Their efficacy was tested at dosage, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 g/20 g of cowpea seeds on adult mortality, oviposition, adult emergence, progeny development, seed damage, weight loss, and Beetle Perforation Index (BPI) by cowpea bruchid. The result showed that toxicity of the bruchid-resistant cowpea cultivar powders on adult bruchid is dosage- and time-dependent. At a dosage of 3.0  g/20  g, cultivars MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders achieved 70% and 72.5% lethal effect on adult C. maculatus after 4 days of treatment, respectively. Oviposition and percentage adult emergence of C. maculatus decrease with an increase in powder dosage. Conversely, reduction in progeny development of C. maculatus increases with an increase in powder dosage. The mean number of adult emergence decreased at 2 g/20 g, 2.5 g/20 g and 3 g/20 g. The MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders significantly affected egg development. The MIT07K-299-92 powder was more effective against oviposition and adult emergence at higher concentrations than MIT04K-399-1 powder, an effect that was not significantly different (P > 0.05) from each other. The BPI of 9.1 and 6.2 was recorded on cowpea seeds treated with MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders at a dosage of 3 g/20 g, respectively. The fear of residual toxicity on nontargeted organisms is not associated with the use of resistant cowpea cultivars as seed protectant. Subsistence farmers are familiar with the technology involved in the preparation and application of powders as protectants. Integration of bruchid-resistant cowpea cultivars MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders into the management of coleopteran pests will ensure availability of viable seeds for future farming in developing nations such as Nigeria. Key words: bruchid resistant; cultivar MIT04K-399-1; cultivar MIT07K-299-92; Callosobruchus maculatus; Vignia unguiculata. 2001; Shazia et al., 2006). Cowpea are cultivated majorly in Africa Introduction to combat malnutrition in young children in lieu of expensive Cowpea, Vignia unguiculata, is a pulse crop that can be grown in sources of protein such as meat, egg, and fish (Ofuya, 2001; Shazia high temperature with low relative humidity and poor soil (Ofuya, © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Zhejiang University Press. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fqs/article-abstract/3/1/35/5300161 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 16 April 2019 36 K. D. Ileke, 2019, Vol. 3, No. 1 et  al., 2006). Cowpeas also complement diets of poor resources Adulticidal mortality bioassay farmers which mainly comprise roots, tubers, and cereals (Ofuya, Twenty grams of disinfected V.  unguiculata cultivar ‘Ife brown’ 1986; Shazia et al., 2006; Ileke et al. 2013). seeds were treated with 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 g of bruchid- Cowpea seeds in storage are damaged by several species of insect resistant cowpea cultivars, MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 pests in the former family Bruchidae (Appert, 1987; Gbaye and powders, in separate plastic containers (250 ml). The mixtures were Hollway, 2011), the commonest being Callosobruchus maculatus, a agitated gently to homogenize the distribution of powders. Ten pairs field-to-store insect pest in the trophic (Adedire, 2001; Ofuya, 2001; of freshly emerged 1- to 3-day-old male and female C.  maculatus Udo, 2011). This often leads to loss in weight, quality, and viabil- adults from the stock culture were introduced into the 20 g treated ity of seeds. The activities, such as respiration, of cowpea bruchid susceptible ‘Ife brown’ cultivar. The container was covered with a lid. can trigger an increase in seed temperature and moisture content Four replicates of the treated and untreated controls were laid out (Odogola, 1991; Nwosu, 2014). When the population builds up, in complete randomized design. The adult mortality was evaluated this leads to the formation of ‘hot spot’, a condition of high tem- after every 24 h for 4 days. At the end of day 4, all insects, both dead perature and moisture content which further predisposes the stored and alive, were removed from each container and ovipositions were seeds to secondary infestation by thermophilic fungi leading to recorded. Percentage adult mortality was corrected (Abbott, 1925). production of mycotoxin (Derera et  al., 2001; Nwosu, 2014). It Percentage inhibition rate (IR) was also calculated using the method has been recognized that postharvest loss to storage coleopterans described by Tapondju et al. (2002). pests such as cowpea bruchid, C.  maculatus is a major constraint The setup was kept inside the insect cage for 42  days for the to food security in developing nations such as Nigeria (Markham emergence of the first filial (F ) generation, and percentage weight et al., 1994; Udo, 2011). loss and damage of the cowpea seeds were determined using stand- Insect pest control is solely relied on synthetic chemical control, ard methods. which has environmental health hazards to seed handlers and other Beetle Perforation Index (BPI) used by Fatope et al. (1995) was nontargeted organisms (Gbaye and Holloway, 2011; Udo, 2011; adopted for the analysis of damage. BPI value exceeding 50 was Ileke et  al., 2016). Research effort on the use of botanicals in the regarded as an enhancement of infestation by the weevil or negative control of coleopteran pests has been intensified by many researchers protectability of the extract tested. (Adedire and Lajide, 1999; Adedire and Akinkurolere, 2005; Adedire et  al., 2011, Akinkurolere et  al., 2006; Ileke and Olotuah, 2012; Statistical method Ileke et al., 2012, 2016). Unfortunately, the use of bruchid-resistant Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS, version 16) was used in cowpea cultivar powders as seed protectants against infestation by the analysis of the quantitative data. Data were subjected to analy- C. maculatus is scarce in literature. In view of this, this present study sis of variance (ANOVA), and means were separated using the new assesses the insecticidal toxicity of two established bruchid-resistant Duncan’s multiple range test. cowpea cultivars MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 (Ileke et al., 2013, 2014a, 2014b) powders as a biodegradable alternative in the Results control of C. maculatus infesting cowpea seeds during storage. Toxicity of bruchid-resistant cowpea cultivar powders on adult C. maculatus Materials and Methods The toxicity of bruchid-resistant cowpea cultivars MIT04K-399-1 Insect rearing and MIT07K-299-92 powders on the adult C. maculatus is shown The cowpea bruchid C.  maculatus was obtained from the in Table  1. The toxicity of the bruchid-resistant cowpea cultivar bruchid insectary of Department of Biology, Federal University of powders on the adult cowpea beetle is dosage- and time-dependent. Technology, Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria. One hundred pairs of the None of the concentration of bruchid-resistant cowpea cultivars bruchid were introduced into 1 litre plane glass kilner jar containing MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders tested was able to 200 g of V. unguiculata cultivar ‘Ife brown’. The culture was placed achieved 100% mortality of the adult cowpea bruchid. Cultivars in an insect-rearing cage at an ambient temperature of 28 ± 2 C and MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders were able to cause a relative humidity of 75 ± 5%. 40% and 42.5% mortality of C. maculatus at a dosage of 2.5 g/20 g after 4 days treatment, respectively. It also reveals that a minimum of 2  days are required at 3.0  g/20  g of cowpea seeds to achieve a Collection of cowpea cultivars lethal effect of 50% mortality on the bruchid. There was an increase The two known resistant cowpea cultivars MIT04K-399-1 and in percentage mortality in seeds treated with MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 and the most susceptible cowpea cultivar (Ife MIT07K-299-92 powders at 3.0  g/20  g dosage. At a dosage of Brown) (Ileke et al., 2013) evaluated were collected from Cowpea 3.0 g/20 g, MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders achieved Seeds Unit, International Institute for Tropical Agriculture, 70% and 72.5% lethal effect on adult C. maculatus, respectively. No Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria. The cowpea cultivars were first significant difference (P > 0.05) was observed in all the dosages after cleaned and disinfested by keeping them in a freezer at −5°C for 24 h post-treatment. There were no significant differences (P > 0.05) 7 days to kill all hidden infestations and allowed to equilibrate in in the lethal effects of MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders the laboratory before they were stored in plastic containers with on the mortality of adult cowpea bruchid. tight lids. The bruchid-resistant cowpea cultivars, MIT04K-399-1 and Toxicity of bruchid-resistant cultivar powders on MIT07K-299-92, were air-dried for 2 weeks in the laboratory and oviposition, adult emergence, and reduction in thereafter ground into powders and allowed to pass through 1 mm progeny development (IR) of adult C. maculatus perforation so as to obtain fine powder. The fine powders were kept separately in plastic containers with tight lids and stored in a cool Figure  1 presents the effect of bruchid-resistant cowpea cultivars place prior to use. MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders on oviposition, adult Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fqs/article-abstract/3/1/35/5300161 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 16 April 2019 Insecticidal toxicity of cowpea cultivar powders, 2019, Vol. 3, No. 1 37 Table 1. Toxicity of bruchid-resistant cultivar powders on adults C. maculatus Bruchid-resistant cultivar Conc. (g) % Mortality ± SE in days powders 1 2 3 4 b b b b MIT04K-399-1 0.5 10.00 ± 1.02 22.50 ± 1.12 30.00 ± 2.17 32.50 ± 2.12 b bc b b 1.0 12.50 ± 1.12 25.00 ± 1.19 32.50 ± 2.12 35.00 ± 2.19 b bc b bc 1.5 15.00 ± 1.09 25.00 ± 1.19 35.00 ± 2.19 40.00 ± 2.17 bc c b bc 2.0 20.00 ± 1.17 30.00 ± 2.17 35.00 ± 2.19 45.00 ± 2.19 c c b c 2.5 30.00 ± 2.17 35.00 ± 2.19 40.00 ± 2.17 50.00 ± 2.17 d d d d 3.0 45.00 ± 2.19 50.00 ± 2.17 60.00 ± 2.19 72.50 ± 2.12 b b b b MIT07K-299-92 0.5 12.50 ± 1.02 22.50 ± 1.12 32.50 ± 2.17 35.00 ± 2.19 b bc b b 1.0 12.50 ± 1.12 25.00 ± 1.19 30.00 ± 2.17 40.00 ± 2.17 b bc b bc 1.5 20.00 ± 1.17 30.00 ± 1.17 35.00 ± 2.19 42.50 ± 2.12 bc c b bc 2.0 22.50 ± 1.12 32.50 ± 2.12 40.00 ± 2.17 45.00 ± 2.19 c c b c 2.5 30.00 ± 2.17 35.00 ± 2.19 42.50 ± 2.12 52.50 ± 2.12 d d d d 3.0 45.00 ± 2.19 55.00 ± 2.19 62.50 ± 2.12 75.00 ± 2.19 Control 0.0 0.00 ± 0.00a 0.00 ± 0.00a 0.00 ± 0.00a 0.00 ± 0.00a Each value is a mean ± standard error of four replicates. Means followed by the same letter along the columns are not significantly different (P > 0.05) using new Duncan’s multiple range test. Figure 1. Toxicity of bruchid-resistant cultivar powders on oviposition, adult emergence, and reduction in progeny development (IR) of adult C. maculates. emergence, and reduction in progeny development of adult C. mac- seed damage on cowpea seed treated with MIT04K-399-1 powder ulatus after 4  days of treatment. There were no significant differ - at concentrations 2 g/20 g, 2.5 g/20 g and 3 g/20 g of cowpea seed, ences (P > 0.05) in the lethal effects of cultivars MIT04K-399-1 and respectively. Similarly, at rates 2  g/20  g, 2.5  g/20  g, and 3  g/20  g, MIT07K-299-92 powders on oviposition, adult emergence, and % the damage caused by C.  maculatus to cowpea seeds treated with progeny development of adult cowpea bruchid. None of the culti- MIT07K-299-92 powder was 15.9%, 10.94%, and 4.7%, respect- vars tested completely prevented eggs laying and adult emergence. ively, compared with the untreated that had 75.75% seed damage. At 4 days post-exposure, 65%, 63.67%, 60%, 48.89%, 40%, and The Beetle Perforation Index (BPI) of 9.1 and 6.2 recorded on 25% of adult emergence were recorded in cowpea seeds treated cowpea seeds treated with bruchid-resistant cowpea cultivars with 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0,  2.5, and 3.0  g of cultivar MIT04K-399-1 MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders, respectively, at a powder, respectively. Similarly, 66.67%, 65.45%, 57.5%, 45%, dosage of 3 g/20 g was significantly different (P > 0.05) from BPI of 35%, and 24.5% of adult emergence were recorded in cowpea seeds the untreated cowpea seeds. treated with 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.5, and 3.0 g of cultivar MIT07K-299-92 powder, respectively. The number of eggs laid and % adult emer- Discussion gence of adult C.  maculatus decrease with an increase in powder dosage. Conversely, reduction in progeny development of adult The insecticidal constituents of many plant powders are due to their C. maculatus increases with an increase in powder dosage. enrichment of phytochemicals such as alkaloids, tannins, and flavo- noids (Afolabi et al., 2018). As a result of their volatility, they have Damage assessment of cowpea seeds treated with fumigant potential that might be of importance for the management bruchid-resistant cultivar powders of stored product coleopteran pests (Shazia et al., 2006). Bruchid-resistant cowpea cultivars MIT04K-399-1 and The present study indicates that subsistence farmers can adopt MIT07K-299-92 powders did not completely prevent infestation the use of resistant cowpea seed powders as protectants against and damage of the treated cowpea seeds (Figure 2). Callosobruchus infestation by C.  maculatus for a short-term storage. The positive maculatus caused 2.5 g/20 g and 3 g/20 g, 17.85%, 13% and 6.9% relationships observed among cowpea bruchid treated with cultivars Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fqs/article-abstract/3/1/35/5300161 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 16 April 2019 38 K. D. Ileke, 2019, Vol. 3, No. 1 Figure 2. Toxicity of bruchid-resistant cultivar powders on % seeds damaged, weight loss, and Beetle Perforation Index caused by C. maculatus. MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders at dosages 2 g/20 g, adult emergence also decreased at 2 g/20 g, 2.5 g/20 g, and 3 g/20 g. 2.5 g/20 g, and 3 g/20 g and level of seed damage, and negative rela- The MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders significantly tionships between bruchid and undamaged seeds confirm the effect- affected egg development. The MIT07K-299-92 powders were more iveness of the resistant cowpea cultivars in reducing C.  maculatus effective against oviposition and adult emergence at higher concen- population which can lead to higher levels of stored seeds damage trations than MIT04K-399-1 powder, an effect that was not signifi- (Shazia et al., 2006), thereby necessitating for a need to control pest cantly different (P > 0.05) from each other. population to a low or zero level so as to have enough viable seeds for future farming in developing nations such as Nigeria. Conclusion The lethal effect of MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 pow- ders at dosages 2  g/20  g, 2.5  g/20  g, and 3  g/20  g on the cowpea This investigation reported the use of cowpea resistant cultivar powders bruchid could be as a result of contact toxicity with powders which in lieu of synthetic chemical insecticides that are associated with environ- led to blockage of trachea system and total withdrawal of water mental health hazards as biopesticides against harvested cowpea seeds that from insect body (Adedire et  al., 2011). The insecticidal activity were not immediately consumed by subsistence or peasant farmer’s family of two cowpea cultivars investigated may be due to high level of members. Excess cowpea seeds are conveyed to strategy grains reserve ei- antinutritional factors such as tannin, phytate, and oxalate present ther by government or by philanthropist in the community to boost food (Singh and McCain, 1963; Ileke et al., 2013; Ileke, 2014a, 2014b). security in Nigeria. The insects associated with cowpea seeds are enormous The presence of antinutritional factors in food is a means of defence with C.  maculatus being the major and primary coleopteran insect pest against the attack by insect pests and grazing animals (Harborne, in the field and during storage (Adedire & Lajide, 1999, Ileke, 2014a). 1989; Ileke, 2014a, 2014b). The repellent effect against the C. macu- Some authors referred to it as field-to-store pest (Lale, 2001; Lale & Ofuya, latus indicates the presence of high antifeedant secondary metabo- 2001; Ofuya, 2001). Cowpeas have been the major source of protein for lites in MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders at dosages the poor subsistence or peasant farmers to combat protein deficiency in 2g/20  g, 2.5  g/20  g, and 3  g/20  g. This finding collaborates with young children in lieu of expensive proteins such as fish, meat, and egg earlier researchers (Nawrot et al., 1989; Udo, 2005; Udo, 2011) that in the tropical regions such as Nigeria (Ofuya, 1989, 1990; Ileke 2014a). insects react more strongly to antifeedant secondary metabolites. In view of the economic importance of cowpea seeds, beetles associated MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders at dosages with the seeds during post-harvest and in storage should be addressed in 2  g/20  g, 2.5  g/20  g, and 3  g/20  g showed higher insecticidal ac- other to keep the seed quality and safe for human consumption as well tivity on oviposition, adult emergence, and progeny development of as maintaining the viability for future cultivation. The present study has C.  maculatus than cultivars MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 given landmark results on the use of resistant cowpea cultivars as cowpea powders at dosages 0.5  g/20  g, 1.0  g/20  g, and 1.5  g/20  g. At seeds protectant for short-time storage against infestation by C. maculatus. 2 g/20 g, 2.5 g/20 g, and 3 g/20 g, the mean number of eggs laid by The positive relationships observed among cowpea bruchid treated with C. maculatus were 22.5, 20.0, and 15.0 and 22.5, 20.0, and 12.5, re- MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders at concentrations 2 g/20 g, spectively, indicating a significant reduction (P < 0.05) in the number 2.5 g/20 g, and 3 g/20 g and level of seed damage, and negative relation- of eggs laid compared with the control that adds 65.0 eggs. This may ships between C. maculatus and undamaged seeds confirm the effective- be due to powders affect bruchid locomotion which led to inability ness of the resistant cowpea cultivars in reducing C. maculatus population of insects to mate freely (Adedire et al., 2011). The mean number of which can lead to higher levels of stored seeds damage (Shazia et al., 2006). Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fqs/article-abstract/3/1/35/5300161 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 16 April 2019 Insecticidal toxicity of cowpea cultivar powders, 2019, Vol. 3, No. 1 39 Ileke, K. D., Olotuah, O. F. (2012). Bioactivity of Anacardium occiden- Subsistence or peasant farmers are familiar with the technology involved in tals and Allium sativum powders and oils extracts against cowpea the preparation and application of powders as protectants. The novelties in bruchid, Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.) [Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae]. the use of resistant cowpea cultivars MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 International Journal of Biology, 4: 96–103. (Ileke 2014a, 2014b; Ileke et  al., 2014)  powders in the management of Ileke, K. D., Adesina, J. M., Obajulaye, E. O. (2016). Synergetic effects of two cowpea bruchid, C.  maculatus infestation during short-term storage of botanicals entomocides as pest-protectants in maize grains. Journal of cowpea seeds have been highlighted in this study. The fear of residual tox- Biological Research, 89: 33–39. icity on nontargeted organisms is not associated with the use of resistant Ileke, K. D., Odeyemi, O. O., Ashamo, M. O. (2012). Insecticidal activity of cowpea cultivars as seed protectant. Integration of bruchid-resistant culti- Alstonia boonei De Wild powder against cowpea bruchid, Callosobruchus vars MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders into the management maculatus (Fab.) [Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae] in stored cowpea seeds. of coleopteran pests will ensure availability of viable seeds for future farm- International Journal of Biology, 4: 125–131. Ileke, K. D., Odeyemi, O. O., Ashamo, M. O. (2013). Varietal resistance of ing in developing nations such as Nigeria. some cowpea cultivars to cowpea bruchid, Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.) [Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae] infestation. FUTA Journal of Research in Sciences, 9: 72–81. Acknowledgements Ileke, K. D., Odeyemi, O. O., Ashamo, M. O. (2014). Entomotoxic effect The author thanks Mr. Remi Adeleke, Cowpea seed unit, CGIAR, International of Cheese wood, Alstonia boonei De Wild against cowpea bruchid, Institute for Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria, for the supply of cow- Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.) [Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae], attacking pea cultivars. I appreciate Prof. (Mrs.) O. O. Odeyemi and Prof. M. O. Ashamo of cowpea seeds in storage. Molecular Entomology, 5: 10–17. Storage Entomology Unit, Department of Biology, Federal University of Technology, Lale, N. E. S. (2001). Integrated pest management in tropical storage environ- Akure, Nigeria for the intensive training I received in Applied Entomology. ment. In: Ofuya, T. I., Lale, N. E. S., eds. Pests of Stored Cereals and Pulses in Nigeria: Biology, Ecology and Control. Dave Collins Publications, Akure, Nigeria. pp. 142–163. References Lale, N. E. S., Ofuya, T. I. (2001). Overview of pest problems and control in Abbott, W. S. (1925). A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecti- the tropical storage environment. In: Ofuya, T. I., Lale, N. E. S., eds. Pests cide. Journal of Economic Entomology, 18: 265–267. of Stored Cereals and Pulses in Nigeria: Biology, Ecology and Control. Adedire, C. O. (2001). Biology, ecology and control of insect pests of stored Dave Collins Publications, Akure, Nigeria. pp. 1–23. cereal grains. In: Ofuya T. I., Lale N. E.  S., eds. Pests of Stored Cereal Markham, R. H., Bosque-perez, N. A., Borgemeister, C., Meikle, W. G. (1994). and Pulses in Nigeria: Biology, Ecology and Control. Dave Collins Developing pest management strategies for the maize weevil, Sitophilus Publications, Akure, Nigeria, pp. 59–94. zeamais and the larger grain borer Prostephanus truncatus, in the humid Adedire, C. O., Akinkurolere, R. O. (2005). Bioactivity of some plant extracts and sub-humid tropics. FAO Plant Protection Bulletin, 42: 97–116. on coleopterous pests of stored cereals and grain legumes in Nigerian. Nawrot, J., Harmatha, J., Kosotova, I., Ognyanov, I. (1989). Antifeedant ac- Zoological Research, 26:243–249. tivity of Rotenone and some derivatives towards selected insect storage Adedire, C. O., Lajide, L. (1999). Toxicity and oviposition deterrency of some pests. Biochemical Systematic Ecology, 7: 55–57. plants extracts on cowpea storage bruchid, Callosobruchus maculatus Nwosu, L. C. (2014). Evaluation of powder of weevil resistant maize as Fabricius. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection, 106: 647–653. eco-friendly option in the management of Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky Adedire, C.O., Akinkurolere, R. O., Ajayi, O. O. (2011). Susceptibility of some (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) infestation in stored maize. Journal of maize cultivars in Nigeria to infestation and damage by maize weevil, Entomological Researh, 38:245–250 Sitophilus zeamais (Motsch.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Nigerian Odogola, W. R., Henriksson, I. (1991). Post-harvest management and stor- Journal of Entomology, 28: 55–63. age of maize. In: Technical Systems for Agriculture. UNDP/OPS Regional Afolabi, O. J., Simon-Oke, I., Adepeju, E. O, Oniya, M. O. (2018). Adulticidal Programme on Agricultural Operations Technology for Small Holders in and repellent activities of some botanical oils against malaria mosquito East and Southern Africa, Harare, Zimbabwe, pp. 27–48. Anopheles gambiae (Diptera: Culicidae). Beni-Suef University Journal of Ofuya, T. I. (1986). Use of wood ash, dry chilli pepper fruits and onion scale Basic and Applied Sciences, 7: 134–138 leaves for reducing Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) damage in cowpea seeds Akinkurolere, R. O., Adedire, C. O., Odeyemi, O. O. (2006). Laboratory evalu- during storage. Journal of Agricultural Science, 107:467–468. ation of the toxic properties of forest anchomanes, Anchomanes difformis Ofuya, T. I. (1990). Oviposition deterrence and ovicodal properties of some plant against pulse beetle Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). powders against Callosobruchus maculatus in stored cowpea (Vigna unguic- Insect Science, 13: 25–29. ulata) seeds. Journal of Agricultural Science Cambridge, 115: 343–345. Appert, J. (1987). The storage of food grains and seeds. CTA Macmillan, p. Ofuya, T. I. (2001). Pest of stored cereals and pulses in Nigeria. In: Ofuya T. I., 146. Lale N. E. S., eds. Biology, Ecology and Control of Insect Pests of Stored Derera, J., Pixley, K. V., Giga, P. D., (2001). Resistance of maize to the maize Food Legumes.Dave Collins, Akure. pp. 25–58. weevil: II. Non-preference. African Crop Science Journal, 9: 441–450. Shazia, O. W. M. R., et al. (2006). Control of cowpea weevil, Callosobruchus Fatope, M. O., Mann, A., Takeda, Y. (1995). Cowpea weevil bioassay: a simple maculatus in stored cowpea, Vigna unguiculatus grains using botanicals. prescreen for plants with grain protectant effects. International Journal of Asian Journal of Plant Science, 5: 91–97. Pest Management, 41: 44–86. Singh, D. N., McCain, P. S. (1963). The relationship of some nutritional prop- Gbaye, O. J., Holloway, G. J. (2011). Varietal effects of cowpea, Vigna unguic- erties of corn kernel to rice weevil infestation. Crop Science, 3:259–261. ulata, on tolerance to Malathion in Callosobruchus maculatus. Journal of Tapondju, L. A., Alder, A., Bonda, H., Fontem, D. A. (2002). Efficacy of Stored Product Research, 47: 365–371. powder and oil from Chenpodium ambrosioides leaves as post-harvest Harborne, J. B. (1989). Biosynthesis and function of antinutritional factors in grain protectants against six stored products beetles. Journal of Stored plants. Aspects of Applied Biology, 19:21–28. Product Research, 38: 395–402. Ileke, K. D. (2014a). Insecticidal and toxicological studies on Alstonia boo- Udo, I. O. (2005). Evaluation of the potential of some local spices as nei De Wild used as cowpea protectant against Collosobruchus mac- stored grain protectants against maize weevil Sitophilus zeamais ulatus (Fab.). Ph.D Thesis, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Mots (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Journal of Applied Science and Nigeria. p. 269. Environmental Management, 9: 165–168. Ileke, K. D. (2014b). Antinutritional factors determining the suscepti- Udo, I. O. (2011). Potentials of Zanthoxylum xanthoxyloides (LAM.) for the bility of Cowpea to Cowpea bruchid, Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.) control of stored product insect pests. Journal of Stored Products and [Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae] infestation. Bioscience Methods, 5: 1–8 Postharvest Research. 2: 40–44. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Food Quality and Safety Oxford University Press

Insecticidal toxicity of two bruchid-resistant cowpea cultivar powders as cowpea seed protectants against Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)

Food Quality and Safety , Volume 3 (1) – Apr 12, 2019

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/insecticidal-toxicity-of-two-bruchid-resistant-cowpea-cultivar-powders-lLFV1QYjPT

References (35)

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Zhejiang University Press.
ISSN
2399-1399
eISSN
2399-1402
DOI
10.1093/fqsafe/fyy024
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Toxicity of bruchid-resistant cultivars MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders as cowpea protectants against Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.) was investigated at an ambient temperature of 28  ±  2°C and a relative humidity of 75  ±  5%. Their efficacy was tested at dosage, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 g/20 g of cowpea seeds on adult mortality, oviposition, adult emergence, progeny development, seed damage, weight loss, and Beetle Perforation Index (BPI) by cowpea bruchid. The result showed that toxicity of the bruchid-resistant cowpea cultivar powders on adult bruchid is dosage- and time-dependent. At a dosage of 3.0  g/20  g, cultivars MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders achieved 70% and 72.5% lethal effect on adult C. maculatus after 4 days of treatment, respectively. Oviposition and percentage adult emergence of C. maculatus decrease with an increase in powder dosage. Conversely, reduction in progeny development of C. maculatus increases with an increase in powder dosage. The mean number of adult emergence decreased at 2 g/20 g, 2.5 g/20 g and 3 g/20 g. The MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders significantly affected egg development. The MIT07K-299-92 powder was more effective against oviposition and adult emergence at higher concentrations than MIT04K-399-1 powder, an effect that was not significantly different (P > 0.05) from each other. The BPI of 9.1 and 6.2 was recorded on cowpea seeds treated with MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders at a dosage of 3 g/20 g, respectively. The fear of residual toxicity on nontargeted organisms is not associated with the use of resistant cowpea cultivars as seed protectant. Subsistence farmers are familiar with the technology involved in the preparation and application of powders as protectants. Integration of bruchid-resistant cowpea cultivars MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders into the management of coleopteran pests will ensure availability of viable seeds for future farming in developing nations such as Nigeria. Key words: bruchid resistant; cultivar MIT04K-399-1; cultivar MIT07K-299-92; Callosobruchus maculatus; Vignia unguiculata. 2001; Shazia et al., 2006). Cowpea are cultivated majorly in Africa Introduction to combat malnutrition in young children in lieu of expensive Cowpea, Vignia unguiculata, is a pulse crop that can be grown in sources of protein such as meat, egg, and fish (Ofuya, 2001; Shazia high temperature with low relative humidity and poor soil (Ofuya, © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Zhejiang University Press. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fqs/article-abstract/3/1/35/5300161 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 16 April 2019 36 K. D. Ileke, 2019, Vol. 3, No. 1 et  al., 2006). Cowpeas also complement diets of poor resources Adulticidal mortality bioassay farmers which mainly comprise roots, tubers, and cereals (Ofuya, Twenty grams of disinfected V.  unguiculata cultivar ‘Ife brown’ 1986; Shazia et al., 2006; Ileke et al. 2013). seeds were treated with 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 g of bruchid- Cowpea seeds in storage are damaged by several species of insect resistant cowpea cultivars, MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 pests in the former family Bruchidae (Appert, 1987; Gbaye and powders, in separate plastic containers (250 ml). The mixtures were Hollway, 2011), the commonest being Callosobruchus maculatus, a agitated gently to homogenize the distribution of powders. Ten pairs field-to-store insect pest in the trophic (Adedire, 2001; Ofuya, 2001; of freshly emerged 1- to 3-day-old male and female C.  maculatus Udo, 2011). This often leads to loss in weight, quality, and viabil- adults from the stock culture were introduced into the 20 g treated ity of seeds. The activities, such as respiration, of cowpea bruchid susceptible ‘Ife brown’ cultivar. The container was covered with a lid. can trigger an increase in seed temperature and moisture content Four replicates of the treated and untreated controls were laid out (Odogola, 1991; Nwosu, 2014). When the population builds up, in complete randomized design. The adult mortality was evaluated this leads to the formation of ‘hot spot’, a condition of high tem- after every 24 h for 4 days. At the end of day 4, all insects, both dead perature and moisture content which further predisposes the stored and alive, were removed from each container and ovipositions were seeds to secondary infestation by thermophilic fungi leading to recorded. Percentage adult mortality was corrected (Abbott, 1925). production of mycotoxin (Derera et  al., 2001; Nwosu, 2014). It Percentage inhibition rate (IR) was also calculated using the method has been recognized that postharvest loss to storage coleopterans described by Tapondju et al. (2002). pests such as cowpea bruchid, C.  maculatus is a major constraint The setup was kept inside the insect cage for 42  days for the to food security in developing nations such as Nigeria (Markham emergence of the first filial (F ) generation, and percentage weight et al., 1994; Udo, 2011). loss and damage of the cowpea seeds were determined using stand- Insect pest control is solely relied on synthetic chemical control, ard methods. which has environmental health hazards to seed handlers and other Beetle Perforation Index (BPI) used by Fatope et al. (1995) was nontargeted organisms (Gbaye and Holloway, 2011; Udo, 2011; adopted for the analysis of damage. BPI value exceeding 50 was Ileke et  al., 2016). Research effort on the use of botanicals in the regarded as an enhancement of infestation by the weevil or negative control of coleopteran pests has been intensified by many researchers protectability of the extract tested. (Adedire and Lajide, 1999; Adedire and Akinkurolere, 2005; Adedire et  al., 2011, Akinkurolere et  al., 2006; Ileke and Olotuah, 2012; Statistical method Ileke et al., 2012, 2016). Unfortunately, the use of bruchid-resistant Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS, version 16) was used in cowpea cultivar powders as seed protectants against infestation by the analysis of the quantitative data. Data were subjected to analy- C. maculatus is scarce in literature. In view of this, this present study sis of variance (ANOVA), and means were separated using the new assesses the insecticidal toxicity of two established bruchid-resistant Duncan’s multiple range test. cowpea cultivars MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 (Ileke et al., 2013, 2014a, 2014b) powders as a biodegradable alternative in the Results control of C. maculatus infesting cowpea seeds during storage. Toxicity of bruchid-resistant cowpea cultivar powders on adult C. maculatus Materials and Methods The toxicity of bruchid-resistant cowpea cultivars MIT04K-399-1 Insect rearing and MIT07K-299-92 powders on the adult C. maculatus is shown The cowpea bruchid C.  maculatus was obtained from the in Table  1. The toxicity of the bruchid-resistant cowpea cultivar bruchid insectary of Department of Biology, Federal University of powders on the adult cowpea beetle is dosage- and time-dependent. Technology, Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria. One hundred pairs of the None of the concentration of bruchid-resistant cowpea cultivars bruchid were introduced into 1 litre plane glass kilner jar containing MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders tested was able to 200 g of V. unguiculata cultivar ‘Ife brown’. The culture was placed achieved 100% mortality of the adult cowpea bruchid. Cultivars in an insect-rearing cage at an ambient temperature of 28 ± 2 C and MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders were able to cause a relative humidity of 75 ± 5%. 40% and 42.5% mortality of C. maculatus at a dosage of 2.5 g/20 g after 4 days treatment, respectively. It also reveals that a minimum of 2  days are required at 3.0  g/20  g of cowpea seeds to achieve a Collection of cowpea cultivars lethal effect of 50% mortality on the bruchid. There was an increase The two known resistant cowpea cultivars MIT04K-399-1 and in percentage mortality in seeds treated with MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 and the most susceptible cowpea cultivar (Ife MIT07K-299-92 powders at 3.0  g/20  g dosage. At a dosage of Brown) (Ileke et al., 2013) evaluated were collected from Cowpea 3.0 g/20 g, MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders achieved Seeds Unit, International Institute for Tropical Agriculture, 70% and 72.5% lethal effect on adult C. maculatus, respectively. No Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria. The cowpea cultivars were first significant difference (P > 0.05) was observed in all the dosages after cleaned and disinfested by keeping them in a freezer at −5°C for 24 h post-treatment. There were no significant differences (P > 0.05) 7 days to kill all hidden infestations and allowed to equilibrate in in the lethal effects of MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders the laboratory before they were stored in plastic containers with on the mortality of adult cowpea bruchid. tight lids. The bruchid-resistant cowpea cultivars, MIT04K-399-1 and Toxicity of bruchid-resistant cultivar powders on MIT07K-299-92, were air-dried for 2 weeks in the laboratory and oviposition, adult emergence, and reduction in thereafter ground into powders and allowed to pass through 1 mm progeny development (IR) of adult C. maculatus perforation so as to obtain fine powder. The fine powders were kept separately in plastic containers with tight lids and stored in a cool Figure  1 presents the effect of bruchid-resistant cowpea cultivars place prior to use. MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders on oviposition, adult Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fqs/article-abstract/3/1/35/5300161 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 16 April 2019 Insecticidal toxicity of cowpea cultivar powders, 2019, Vol. 3, No. 1 37 Table 1. Toxicity of bruchid-resistant cultivar powders on adults C. maculatus Bruchid-resistant cultivar Conc. (g) % Mortality ± SE in days powders 1 2 3 4 b b b b MIT04K-399-1 0.5 10.00 ± 1.02 22.50 ± 1.12 30.00 ± 2.17 32.50 ± 2.12 b bc b b 1.0 12.50 ± 1.12 25.00 ± 1.19 32.50 ± 2.12 35.00 ± 2.19 b bc b bc 1.5 15.00 ± 1.09 25.00 ± 1.19 35.00 ± 2.19 40.00 ± 2.17 bc c b bc 2.0 20.00 ± 1.17 30.00 ± 2.17 35.00 ± 2.19 45.00 ± 2.19 c c b c 2.5 30.00 ± 2.17 35.00 ± 2.19 40.00 ± 2.17 50.00 ± 2.17 d d d d 3.0 45.00 ± 2.19 50.00 ± 2.17 60.00 ± 2.19 72.50 ± 2.12 b b b b MIT07K-299-92 0.5 12.50 ± 1.02 22.50 ± 1.12 32.50 ± 2.17 35.00 ± 2.19 b bc b b 1.0 12.50 ± 1.12 25.00 ± 1.19 30.00 ± 2.17 40.00 ± 2.17 b bc b bc 1.5 20.00 ± 1.17 30.00 ± 1.17 35.00 ± 2.19 42.50 ± 2.12 bc c b bc 2.0 22.50 ± 1.12 32.50 ± 2.12 40.00 ± 2.17 45.00 ± 2.19 c c b c 2.5 30.00 ± 2.17 35.00 ± 2.19 42.50 ± 2.12 52.50 ± 2.12 d d d d 3.0 45.00 ± 2.19 55.00 ± 2.19 62.50 ± 2.12 75.00 ± 2.19 Control 0.0 0.00 ± 0.00a 0.00 ± 0.00a 0.00 ± 0.00a 0.00 ± 0.00a Each value is a mean ± standard error of four replicates. Means followed by the same letter along the columns are not significantly different (P > 0.05) using new Duncan’s multiple range test. Figure 1. Toxicity of bruchid-resistant cultivar powders on oviposition, adult emergence, and reduction in progeny development (IR) of adult C. maculates. emergence, and reduction in progeny development of adult C. mac- seed damage on cowpea seed treated with MIT04K-399-1 powder ulatus after 4  days of treatment. There were no significant differ - at concentrations 2 g/20 g, 2.5 g/20 g and 3 g/20 g of cowpea seed, ences (P > 0.05) in the lethal effects of cultivars MIT04K-399-1 and respectively. Similarly, at rates 2  g/20  g, 2.5  g/20  g, and 3  g/20  g, MIT07K-299-92 powders on oviposition, adult emergence, and % the damage caused by C.  maculatus to cowpea seeds treated with progeny development of adult cowpea bruchid. None of the culti- MIT07K-299-92 powder was 15.9%, 10.94%, and 4.7%, respect- vars tested completely prevented eggs laying and adult emergence. ively, compared with the untreated that had 75.75% seed damage. At 4 days post-exposure, 65%, 63.67%, 60%, 48.89%, 40%, and The Beetle Perforation Index (BPI) of 9.1 and 6.2 recorded on 25% of adult emergence were recorded in cowpea seeds treated cowpea seeds treated with bruchid-resistant cowpea cultivars with 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0,  2.5, and 3.0  g of cultivar MIT04K-399-1 MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders, respectively, at a powder, respectively. Similarly, 66.67%, 65.45%, 57.5%, 45%, dosage of 3 g/20 g was significantly different (P > 0.05) from BPI of 35%, and 24.5% of adult emergence were recorded in cowpea seeds the untreated cowpea seeds. treated with 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.5, and 3.0 g of cultivar MIT07K-299-92 powder, respectively. The number of eggs laid and % adult emer- Discussion gence of adult C.  maculatus decrease with an increase in powder dosage. Conversely, reduction in progeny development of adult The insecticidal constituents of many plant powders are due to their C. maculatus increases with an increase in powder dosage. enrichment of phytochemicals such as alkaloids, tannins, and flavo- noids (Afolabi et al., 2018). As a result of their volatility, they have Damage assessment of cowpea seeds treated with fumigant potential that might be of importance for the management bruchid-resistant cultivar powders of stored product coleopteran pests (Shazia et al., 2006). Bruchid-resistant cowpea cultivars MIT04K-399-1 and The present study indicates that subsistence farmers can adopt MIT07K-299-92 powders did not completely prevent infestation the use of resistant cowpea seed powders as protectants against and damage of the treated cowpea seeds (Figure 2). Callosobruchus infestation by C.  maculatus for a short-term storage. The positive maculatus caused 2.5 g/20 g and 3 g/20 g, 17.85%, 13% and 6.9% relationships observed among cowpea bruchid treated with cultivars Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fqs/article-abstract/3/1/35/5300161 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 16 April 2019 38 K. D. Ileke, 2019, Vol. 3, No. 1 Figure 2. Toxicity of bruchid-resistant cultivar powders on % seeds damaged, weight loss, and Beetle Perforation Index caused by C. maculatus. MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders at dosages 2 g/20 g, adult emergence also decreased at 2 g/20 g, 2.5 g/20 g, and 3 g/20 g. 2.5 g/20 g, and 3 g/20 g and level of seed damage, and negative rela- The MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders significantly tionships between bruchid and undamaged seeds confirm the effect- affected egg development. The MIT07K-299-92 powders were more iveness of the resistant cowpea cultivars in reducing C.  maculatus effective against oviposition and adult emergence at higher concen- population which can lead to higher levels of stored seeds damage trations than MIT04K-399-1 powder, an effect that was not signifi- (Shazia et al., 2006), thereby necessitating for a need to control pest cantly different (P > 0.05) from each other. population to a low or zero level so as to have enough viable seeds for future farming in developing nations such as Nigeria. Conclusion The lethal effect of MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 pow- ders at dosages 2  g/20  g, 2.5  g/20  g, and 3  g/20  g on the cowpea This investigation reported the use of cowpea resistant cultivar powders bruchid could be as a result of contact toxicity with powders which in lieu of synthetic chemical insecticides that are associated with environ- led to blockage of trachea system and total withdrawal of water mental health hazards as biopesticides against harvested cowpea seeds that from insect body (Adedire et  al., 2011). The insecticidal activity were not immediately consumed by subsistence or peasant farmer’s family of two cowpea cultivars investigated may be due to high level of members. Excess cowpea seeds are conveyed to strategy grains reserve ei- antinutritional factors such as tannin, phytate, and oxalate present ther by government or by philanthropist in the community to boost food (Singh and McCain, 1963; Ileke et al., 2013; Ileke, 2014a, 2014b). security in Nigeria. The insects associated with cowpea seeds are enormous The presence of antinutritional factors in food is a means of defence with C.  maculatus being the major and primary coleopteran insect pest against the attack by insect pests and grazing animals (Harborne, in the field and during storage (Adedire & Lajide, 1999, Ileke, 2014a). 1989; Ileke, 2014a, 2014b). The repellent effect against the C. macu- Some authors referred to it as field-to-store pest (Lale, 2001; Lale & Ofuya, latus indicates the presence of high antifeedant secondary metabo- 2001; Ofuya, 2001). Cowpeas have been the major source of protein for lites in MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders at dosages the poor subsistence or peasant farmers to combat protein deficiency in 2g/20  g, 2.5  g/20  g, and 3  g/20  g. This finding collaborates with young children in lieu of expensive proteins such as fish, meat, and egg earlier researchers (Nawrot et al., 1989; Udo, 2005; Udo, 2011) that in the tropical regions such as Nigeria (Ofuya, 1989, 1990; Ileke 2014a). insects react more strongly to antifeedant secondary metabolites. In view of the economic importance of cowpea seeds, beetles associated MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders at dosages with the seeds during post-harvest and in storage should be addressed in 2  g/20  g, 2.5  g/20  g, and 3  g/20  g showed higher insecticidal ac- other to keep the seed quality and safe for human consumption as well tivity on oviposition, adult emergence, and progeny development of as maintaining the viability for future cultivation. The present study has C.  maculatus than cultivars MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 given landmark results on the use of resistant cowpea cultivars as cowpea powders at dosages 0.5  g/20  g, 1.0  g/20  g, and 1.5  g/20  g. At seeds protectant for short-time storage against infestation by C. maculatus. 2 g/20 g, 2.5 g/20 g, and 3 g/20 g, the mean number of eggs laid by The positive relationships observed among cowpea bruchid treated with C. maculatus were 22.5, 20.0, and 15.0 and 22.5, 20.0, and 12.5, re- MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders at concentrations 2 g/20 g, spectively, indicating a significant reduction (P < 0.05) in the number 2.5 g/20 g, and 3 g/20 g and level of seed damage, and negative relation- of eggs laid compared with the control that adds 65.0 eggs. This may ships between C. maculatus and undamaged seeds confirm the effective- be due to powders affect bruchid locomotion which led to inability ness of the resistant cowpea cultivars in reducing C. maculatus population of insects to mate freely (Adedire et al., 2011). The mean number of which can lead to higher levels of stored seeds damage (Shazia et al., 2006). Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/fqs/article-abstract/3/1/35/5300161 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 16 April 2019 Insecticidal toxicity of cowpea cultivar powders, 2019, Vol. 3, No. 1 39 Ileke, K. D., Olotuah, O. F. (2012). Bioactivity of Anacardium occiden- Subsistence or peasant farmers are familiar with the technology involved in tals and Allium sativum powders and oils extracts against cowpea the preparation and application of powders as protectants. The novelties in bruchid, Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.) [Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae]. the use of resistant cowpea cultivars MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 International Journal of Biology, 4: 96–103. (Ileke 2014a, 2014b; Ileke et  al., 2014)  powders in the management of Ileke, K. D., Adesina, J. M., Obajulaye, E. O. (2016). Synergetic effects of two cowpea bruchid, C.  maculatus infestation during short-term storage of botanicals entomocides as pest-protectants in maize grains. Journal of cowpea seeds have been highlighted in this study. The fear of residual tox- Biological Research, 89: 33–39. icity on nontargeted organisms is not associated with the use of resistant Ileke, K. D., Odeyemi, O. O., Ashamo, M. O. (2012). Insecticidal activity of cowpea cultivars as seed protectant. Integration of bruchid-resistant culti- Alstonia boonei De Wild powder against cowpea bruchid, Callosobruchus vars MIT04K-399-1 and MIT07K-299-92 powders into the management maculatus (Fab.) [Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae] in stored cowpea seeds. of coleopteran pests will ensure availability of viable seeds for future farm- International Journal of Biology, 4: 125–131. Ileke, K. D., Odeyemi, O. O., Ashamo, M. O. (2013). Varietal resistance of ing in developing nations such as Nigeria. some cowpea cultivars to cowpea bruchid, Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.) [Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae] infestation. FUTA Journal of Research in Sciences, 9: 72–81. Acknowledgements Ileke, K. D., Odeyemi, O. O., Ashamo, M. O. (2014). Entomotoxic effect The author thanks Mr. Remi Adeleke, Cowpea seed unit, CGIAR, International of Cheese wood, Alstonia boonei De Wild against cowpea bruchid, Institute for Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria, for the supply of cow- Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.) [Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae], attacking pea cultivars. I appreciate Prof. (Mrs.) O. O. Odeyemi and Prof. M. O. Ashamo of cowpea seeds in storage. Molecular Entomology, 5: 10–17. Storage Entomology Unit, Department of Biology, Federal University of Technology, Lale, N. E. S. (2001). Integrated pest management in tropical storage environ- Akure, Nigeria for the intensive training I received in Applied Entomology. ment. In: Ofuya, T. I., Lale, N. E. S., eds. Pests of Stored Cereals and Pulses in Nigeria: Biology, Ecology and Control. Dave Collins Publications, Akure, Nigeria. pp. 142–163. References Lale, N. E. S., Ofuya, T. I. (2001). Overview of pest problems and control in Abbott, W. S. (1925). A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecti- the tropical storage environment. In: Ofuya, T. I., Lale, N. E. S., eds. Pests cide. Journal of Economic Entomology, 18: 265–267. of Stored Cereals and Pulses in Nigeria: Biology, Ecology and Control. Adedire, C. O. (2001). Biology, ecology and control of insect pests of stored Dave Collins Publications, Akure, Nigeria. pp. 1–23. cereal grains. In: Ofuya T. I., Lale N. E.  S., eds. Pests of Stored Cereal Markham, R. H., Bosque-perez, N. A., Borgemeister, C., Meikle, W. G. (1994). and Pulses in Nigeria: Biology, Ecology and Control. Dave Collins Developing pest management strategies for the maize weevil, Sitophilus Publications, Akure, Nigeria, pp. 59–94. zeamais and the larger grain borer Prostephanus truncatus, in the humid Adedire, C. O., Akinkurolere, R. O. (2005). Bioactivity of some plant extracts and sub-humid tropics. FAO Plant Protection Bulletin, 42: 97–116. on coleopterous pests of stored cereals and grain legumes in Nigerian. Nawrot, J., Harmatha, J., Kosotova, I., Ognyanov, I. (1989). Antifeedant ac- Zoological Research, 26:243–249. tivity of Rotenone and some derivatives towards selected insect storage Adedire, C. O., Lajide, L. (1999). Toxicity and oviposition deterrency of some pests. Biochemical Systematic Ecology, 7: 55–57. plants extracts on cowpea storage bruchid, Callosobruchus maculatus Nwosu, L. C. (2014). Evaluation of powder of weevil resistant maize as Fabricius. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection, 106: 647–653. eco-friendly option in the management of Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky Adedire, C.O., Akinkurolere, R. O., Ajayi, O. O. (2011). Susceptibility of some (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) infestation in stored maize. Journal of maize cultivars in Nigeria to infestation and damage by maize weevil, Entomological Researh, 38:245–250 Sitophilus zeamais (Motsch.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Nigerian Odogola, W. R., Henriksson, I. (1991). Post-harvest management and stor- Journal of Entomology, 28: 55–63. age of maize. In: Technical Systems for Agriculture. UNDP/OPS Regional Afolabi, O. J., Simon-Oke, I., Adepeju, E. O, Oniya, M. O. (2018). Adulticidal Programme on Agricultural Operations Technology for Small Holders in and repellent activities of some botanical oils against malaria mosquito East and Southern Africa, Harare, Zimbabwe, pp. 27–48. Anopheles gambiae (Diptera: Culicidae). Beni-Suef University Journal of Ofuya, T. I. (1986). Use of wood ash, dry chilli pepper fruits and onion scale Basic and Applied Sciences, 7: 134–138 leaves for reducing Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) damage in cowpea seeds Akinkurolere, R. O., Adedire, C. O., Odeyemi, O. O. (2006). Laboratory evalu- during storage. Journal of Agricultural Science, 107:467–468. ation of the toxic properties of forest anchomanes, Anchomanes difformis Ofuya, T. I. (1990). Oviposition deterrence and ovicodal properties of some plant against pulse beetle Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). powders against Callosobruchus maculatus in stored cowpea (Vigna unguic- Insect Science, 13: 25–29. ulata) seeds. Journal of Agricultural Science Cambridge, 115: 343–345. Appert, J. (1987). The storage of food grains and seeds. CTA Macmillan, p. Ofuya, T. I. (2001). Pest of stored cereals and pulses in Nigeria. In: Ofuya T. I., 146. Lale N. E. S., eds. Biology, Ecology and Control of Insect Pests of Stored Derera, J., Pixley, K. V., Giga, P. D., (2001). Resistance of maize to the maize Food Legumes.Dave Collins, Akure. pp. 25–58. weevil: II. Non-preference. African Crop Science Journal, 9: 441–450. Shazia, O. W. M. R., et al. (2006). Control of cowpea weevil, Callosobruchus Fatope, M. O., Mann, A., Takeda, Y. (1995). Cowpea weevil bioassay: a simple maculatus in stored cowpea, Vigna unguiculatus grains using botanicals. prescreen for plants with grain protectant effects. International Journal of Asian Journal of Plant Science, 5: 91–97. Pest Management, 41: 44–86. Singh, D. N., McCain, P. S. (1963). The relationship of some nutritional prop- Gbaye, O. J., Holloway, G. J. (2011). Varietal effects of cowpea, Vigna unguic- erties of corn kernel to rice weevil infestation. Crop Science, 3:259–261. ulata, on tolerance to Malathion in Callosobruchus maculatus. Journal of Tapondju, L. A., Alder, A., Bonda, H., Fontem, D. A. (2002). Efficacy of Stored Product Research, 47: 365–371. powder and oil from Chenpodium ambrosioides leaves as post-harvest Harborne, J. B. (1989). Biosynthesis and function of antinutritional factors in grain protectants against six stored products beetles. Journal of Stored plants. Aspects of Applied Biology, 19:21–28. Product Research, 38: 395–402. Ileke, K. D. (2014a). Insecticidal and toxicological studies on Alstonia boo- Udo, I. O. (2005). Evaluation of the potential of some local spices as nei De Wild used as cowpea protectant against Collosobruchus mac- stored grain protectants against maize weevil Sitophilus zeamais ulatus (Fab.). Ph.D Thesis, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Mots (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Journal of Applied Science and Nigeria. p. 269. Environmental Management, 9: 165–168. Ileke, K. D. (2014b). Antinutritional factors determining the suscepti- Udo, I. O. (2011). Potentials of Zanthoxylum xanthoxyloides (LAM.) for the bility of Cowpea to Cowpea bruchid, Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.) control of stored product insect pests. Journal of Stored Products and [Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae] infestation. Bioscience Methods, 5: 1–8 Postharvest Research. 2: 40–44.

Journal

Food Quality and SafetyOxford University Press

Published: Apr 12, 2019

There are no references for this article.