Loading...

Legume Research

PHYSICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL BASIS OF RESISTANCE IN COWPEA [VIGNA UNGUICULATA (L.) WALP.] ACCESSIONS TO PULSE-BEETLE, CALLOSOBRUCHUS CHINENSIS (L.)

Article Id: LR-2990 | Page : 457-466
Citation :- PHYSICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL BASIS OF RESISTANCE IN COWPEA [VIGNA UNGUICULATA (L.) WALP.] ACCESSIONS TO PULSE-BEETLE, CALLOSOBRUCHUS CHINENSIS (L.).Legume Research.2013.(36):457-466
Kuldeep Tripathi1, Shashi Bhalla*, Kalyani Srinivasan, T.V. Prasad and R.D. Gautam sbhalla@nbpgr.ernet.in
Address : National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, Pusa Campus, New Delhi 110 012, India

Abstract

Laboratory studies were conducted in 52 accessions of cowpea including check (Local variety) for variability in physical parameters of seed viz., colour, shape, texture, length, width, hardness, seed coat hardness and 100 seed weight and biochemical parameters namely, moisture, phenols, tannins and a-amylase inhibitor activity to understand the basis of resistance against pulse beetle. Significant differences among the cowpea accessions were observed for all the physical and biochemical parameters. Based on growth index of pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis, eleven accessions viz., IC107466, 106815, 106037, 106812, 106816, 106817, 108749, 311138, 328859, 381583 and Pusa komal were found to be resistant to the beetle. Correlation coefficients between growth index (GI) of pulse beetle and physical and biochemical parameters of cowpea indicated that GI of C. chinensis had insignificant relation with seed hardness and seed coat hardness. The GI of beetle had a positive relation with seed length-width ratio, 100 seed weight and seed moisture. Phenol and tannin had negative relation with GI of C. chinensis while amylase inhibitor had a positive relation.

Keywords

Biochemical Callosobruchus chinensis Cowpea Growth index Physical Resistance.

References

  1. Adam, J.I. and Baidoo, P.K. (2008). Susceptibility of five cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) varieties to attack by Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.) [Coleoptera: Bruchidae] J Ghana Sci Asso, 10: 85-92.
  2. Appleby, J.H. and Credland, P.F. (2003). Variation in responses to susceptible and resistant cowpeas among West African populations of Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J Econ Ent, 96: 489-502.
  3. Bernfeld, P. (1955). Amylases, Alpha and Beta. Methods in Enzymology, 1: 149.
  4. Butler, L.G. (1982). Polyphenols and their effects on sorghum quality. Proc. Int. Symp. Sorghum Grain Quality. (Eds. LW Rooney and DS Murthy), 28-31. ICRISAT, India.
  5. Corcuera, L.J. (1993). Biochemical basis for the resistance of barley to aphids. Phytochemistry, 33: 741-747.
  6. Desroches, P., Shazly, E.L., Mandon, E. and Husgnard, J.L. (1994). Development of Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) and C. maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) in seeds their tannin, vicine and convicine contents. J Stored Product Res, 31: 83-89.
  7. Giga, D. (1995). Selection of oviposition sites by cowpea weevils Callosobruchus rhodesianus (Pic.) and Callosobruchus maculatus (F.). Insect Sci Application, 16: 145-149.
  8. Harborne, J.B. (1999). Recent advances in chemical ecology. Natural Product Reports, 16: 509- 523.
  9. Howe, R.W. (1971). A parameter for expressing the suitability of an environment for insect development. J Stored IBPGR (1983)Products Res, 7: 63-65.
  10. ISTA (1985). International Rules for Seed Testing. Rules 1985. Seed Sci Technol, 13: 299-355.
  11. Jackai, L.E.N. and Singh, S.R. (1988). Screening techniques for host plant resistance to insect pests of cowpea. Trop Grain Legume Bull, 35: 2-18.
  12. Lale, N.E.S. and Makoshi, M.S. (2000). Role of chemical characteristics of the seed coat in the resistance of selected cowpea varieties to C. maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) in Nigeria. Int J Pest Manag, 46: 97-102.
  13. 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. J Sci Food Agric, 85: 839–846.
  14. Lephale Sankie, Abraham Addo-Bediako and Victoria Ayodele (2012). Susceptibility of seven cowpea cultivars (Vigna unguiculatus) to cowpea beetle (Callosobruchus maculatus) Agric Sci Res J, 2: 65-69.
  15. 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.
  16. Nwanze, K. and Horber, E. (1976). Seed coats of cowpeas affect oviposition and larval development of Callosobruchus maculatus. Environ Ent, 5: 213-218.
  17. Pankaj, N. and Singh, H.K. (2011). Correlation of seed characters of pulses with host suitability and preference of C. chinensis (L.). Indian J Ent, 73: 365-370.
  18. SAS (2009). Statistical analysis software system, Version 9.2, SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA.
  19. Sen Gupta, D. and Pandey, I. D. (2009). Bioassay for bruchid resistance in cowpea. J Food Legumes, 22: 43-45.
  20. Simmonds, M.S.J. (2003). Flavonoid-insect interactions: recent advances in our knowledge. Phytochemistry, 64: 21–30.
  21. Singh, B.D. (2002). Plant Breeding: Principles and Methods; Kalyani Publishers: New Delhi, India.

Global Footprints