Banner

Legume Research

  • Chief EditorJ. S. Sandhu

  • Print ISSN 0250-5371

  • Online ISSN 0976-0571

  • NAAS Rating 6.80

  • SJR 0.32, CiteScore: 0.906

  • Impact Factor 0.8, Q3

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November 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

Legume Research, volume 35 issue 2 (june 2012) : 159-163

A STUDY ON THE DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY OF CALLOSOBRUCHUS MACULATUS (FABRICIUS) IN DIFFERENT PULSES

B. Malaikozhundan, S. Thiravia Raj
1Department of Zoology, Alagappa Govt. Arts College, Karaikudi-630 003, India

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Malaikozhundan B., Raj Thiravia S. (2025). A STUDY ON THE DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY OF CALLOSOBRUCHUS MACULATUS (FABRICIUS) IN DIFFERENT PULSES. Legume Research. 35(2): 159-163. doi: .

ABSTRACT

The development of Callosobruchus maculatus on five different varieties of pulses were studied. The cowpea variety CoCp-7 recorded significantly highest number of eggs oviposited and percentage adult emergence, the shortest developmental period, highest susceptibility indices and the highest weight loss. Dobie's susceptibility index showed that the cowpea variety CoCp-7 and Co-6 were found to be highly susceptible to C.maculatus, whereas greengram varieties Km-2 and VBN2 were found to be moderately resistant to C.maculatus. The blackgram varieties VBN3 and VBN4 were resistant and regarded as non-suitable hosts for the development of C.maculatus.

REFERENCES

  1. Abdullahi Y.M. and Muhammad, S. (2004). Assessment of the toxic potentials of some plants powders on survival and development of Callosobruchus maculatus. African J Biotechnology, 3: 60–62.
  2. CAB International. (2007). Crop Protection Compendium. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
  3. Chandrakantha, J. and Mathavans, S.(1986). Change in developmental rates and biomass energy in Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera:Bruchidae) reared on different foods and temperatures. J. Stored Products Research, 22(2): 71-75.
  4. Cope, J.M. and. Fox, C.W.( 2003). Oviposition decisions in the seed beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera:Bruchidae): effects of seed size on superparasitism.J. Stored Products Res., 39: 355-365.
  5. Creadland, P.F. (1987). Effect of host change on the fecundity and development of an unusual strain of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera:Bruchidae). J. Stored Products Research, 25(2): 91-98.
  6. Dick, K.M. and Creadland, P.F.(1984). Egg production and development of three strains of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera:Bruchidae). Journal of Stored products Research, 20(4): 221-227.
  7. Dobie, P. (1974). The laboratory assessment of the inherent susceptibility of maize varieties to post-harvest infestation by Sitophilus zeamais Motsch. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Journal of Stored Products Research,
  8. 10: 183-197.
  9. El-Halfawy, M.A. et al. (1972). Effect of food on the fecundity, longevity and development of the southern cowpea weevil, Callosobruchus maculatus F. Agricultural Research Review, 5(91): 67-70.
  10. Fox, C.W. (1993). Multiple mating, lifetime fecundity and female mortality of the bruchid beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera:Bruchidae). Functional Ecology, 7(2): 203-208.
  11. Giga, D.P. and Smith, R.H. (1983). Comparative life history studies of four Callosobruchus species infesting cowpeas with special reference to C. rhodesianus (Pic.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Journal of Stored Products Research, 19:189-198.
  12. Gokhale, V.G. and Srivastava, B.K. (1975). Ovipositional behaviour of Callosobruchus maculatus (Fabricius.) (Coleoptera:Bruchidae).I. Distribution of eggs and relative ovipositional preference on several leguminous seeds. Indian Journal of Entomology, 37(2): 122-128.
  13. Guntrip, J. et al. (1997). Heredity, 78(2): 158-165.
  14. Mansour, M.M. et al. (1975). Effect of various population densities on the bionomics and longevity of Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.) at different temperatures and relative humidities. Bulletin de la Societe Entomologique dEgypte, 59: 183-189.
  15. Meyer, J.S. et al. (1986). Mcdonald and M.S. Boyce, 1986. Estimating uncertainly in population growth rate: Jackknife vs bootstrap techniques. Ecology, 67: 1156-1166.
  16. Papadopoulos, N.T. et al. (2002). Demographic parameters of the mediterranean fruit fly (Diptera:Tephritdae) reared in apples. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 95(5): 564-569.
  17. Sandhus, G.S. et al. (1987). Evaluation of susceptibility in seed of rice bean and different genotypes of cowpea to pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) II. Growth and development. Journal of Research Punjab Agricultural University, 24(3): 423-432.
  18. Sibly, R.M. et al. (1991). Evolutionary demography of a bruchid beetle. IV. Genetic trade-off,stabilizing selection and a model of optimal body size. Functional Ecology, 5: 594-601.
  19. Swella, B.G. and Mushobozy, D.M.K. (2009). Compareative susceptibility of different legume seeds to infestation by cowpea bruchid, Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera:Chrysomelidae). Plant Protect.Sci, 45(1): 19 -24.
  20. Van Hius, A. and de Rooy, M. (1998). The effect of leguminous plant species on Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera:Bruchidae) and its parasitoid Uscana lariophaga (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research, 88: 93-99.
  21. Wasserman, S.S. and Asami, T. (1985). The effect of maternal age upon fitness of progeny in the southern cowpea weevil, Callosobruchus maculatus. Oikos, 45(2): 191-196.
  22. Yadav, T.D and Pant, N.C. (1974). Developmental responses of Callosobruchus chinensis and C. maculatus to different pulses. Entomologists, 4: 58.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)