Indian Journal of Agricultural Research

  • Chief EditorV. Geethalakshmi

  • Print ISSN 0367-8245

  • Online ISSN 0976-058X

  • NAAS Rating 5.60

  • SJR 0.293

Frequency :
Bi-monthly (February, April, June, August, October and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, volume 38 issue 2 (june 2004) : 101 - 105

RELATIVE SUSCEPTffiILITY OF STORED COWPEA, VIGNA UNGljICULATA WALP AND SOYABEAN, GLYCINE MAX (L.) MERRILL, TO INFESTATION BY THE COWPEA SEED BEETLE, CALLOSOBRUCHUS MACULATUS (FAB.) (COLEOPTERA: BRUCI1tIDAE)

P.O. Pessu1, a.c. Umeozor*
1Department of Animal and Environmental Biology, University of Port Harcourt Box 384, Uniport Post Office, Port Harcourt, Nigeria

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Pessu1 P.O., Umeozor* a.c. (2024). RELATIVE SUSCEPTffiILITY OF STORED COWPEA, VIGNA UNGljICULATA WALP AND SOYABEAN, GLYCINE MAX (L.) MERRILL, TO INFESTATION BY THE COWPEA SEED BEETLE, CALLOSOBRUCHUS MACULATUS (FAB.) (COLEOPTERA: BRUCI1tIDAE). Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 38(2): 101 - 105. doi: .

ABSTRACT

Cowpea, Vigna unguiculata Walp was significantly more susceptible than soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merrill, to Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.) infestation; indices of susceptibility were 7.4 and 2.7 on cowpea and soybean, respectively. In addition, the developmental period of C. maculatus on soybean was more titan double the period on cowpea; the developmental periods were 24.3±3.0 days and 58.5±1.0 days on cowpea and soybean, respectively. Furthermore, thenumbers of F1 and F2 adults from soybean were significantly fewer, smaller, and weighed less than those from cowpea. Significantly higher percent damage and weight 1055 were observed on cowpea; percent damage were 16.7±8.6 and 5,3±1.4 for cowpell and soybean, respectively for F1 and 66.7±4.9 and 7.5±1.0 for cowpea and soybean, respectively for F2 while weight losses were 1.33±0.5g and 0.08±0.5g for cowpea and soybean, respectiyely for F1 and 5.16±0.2g and 0.11±0.5g for cowpea and soybean, respectively for F2. The implications of these results on the sources of plant proteins in the tropics are discussed

KEYWORDS

    REFERENCES

    1. A.E. (1976). Trop. Grain Legume Bull., 5: 11-13.
    2. Caswell, G.H. (1981). Samaru J. Agric. Res., 1: 11-19.
    3. Duke, J.A. (1990). In: Insect Pests of Tropical Food Legumes (Singh, S.R. ed). John Wiley, Chichester, UK 1-42.
    4. El Sawaf, SK (1956). Bull Grain Techn., 2: 28-31.
    5. Howe, R.W. (1971). 1. Stored Prod Res., 1: 63-65.
    6. Jackai, L.E.N. et al. (1990). In: Insect Pests ofTropical Food Legumes (Singh, S.R. ed). John Wiley, Chichester, UK '91-156.
    7. NRI (Natural Resource Institute) (1996). Insect Pests of Nigerian Crops: Identification, Biology. and Control Vol. 38, No.2, 2004 105 NRI, Chatham. U.K. 253 pp.
    8. Ofuya, T. I. and Adeduntan, SA (1999). Nigerian J. Ent., 16: 14c22.
    9. Ogunwolu, E.O. (1992).lnsectSci. AppJ., 13: 801-805.
    10. Pandey, N.D.et al. (1976). Indian J. Ent., 38: 110-114.
    11. Pix'ton, SV. and Warburton, S. (1975). J. Stored Prod. Res., 2: 249-251.
    12. Singh, S.R. et a!. (1987). Soybeans for the Tropics: Research, Production and Utilization. John Wiley, Chichester, U.K. 230 pp.
    13. Singh, S.R. eta!. (1990). In: Insect Pests ofTropical Food Legumes (Singh, S.R. ed.) John Wiley, Chichester,U.K. 43-89.
    14. Singh, O.P. et al. (1994). Indian Ann. Ent.,12: 37-38.
    15. Sodipo, OA and Ayalogu, E.O. (1999). J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Mgmt., 2: 5-8.
    16. Srivastava, B.K. and Bhatia, S.K. (1959). Ann. Zool., 3: 37-42
    Reviewed By

    Download Article
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)