Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T08:04:29.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Activité de reproduction et capacité de développement de la descendance de Callosobruchus maculatus (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) dans des graines de différents cultivars de Vigna unguiculata (Walp.) et de Cicer arietinum (L.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2007

A. Kellouche ,
N. Soltani  and
J. Huignard
A. Kellouche*
Affiliation:
Faculté des Sciences Biologiques et des Sciences Agronomiques, Université M. Mammeri de Tizi Ouzou, Algérie:
N. Soltani
Affiliation:
Faculté des Sciences, Département de Biologie, Laboratoire de Biologie Animale Appliquée, Université Badji Mokhtar, Annaba, Algérie
J. Huignard
Affiliation:
Institut de Recherches sur la Biologie de l'Insecte, UMR CNRS 6035, Université de Tours Parc Grandmont, 37200 Tours, France
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The reproductive activity and the offspring development of the bruchid Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) were monitored in the seeds of seven cultivars of Cicer arietinum and three cultivars of Vigna unguiculata. The number of eggs laid by the C. maculatus was higher on the V. unguiculata cultivars than on those of C. arietinum. The survival rate during the embryonic development was higher than 90% regardless of the plant species and cultivars while the post-embryonic development rates did not differ significantly between the cultivars. However, the duration of the embryonic and post-embryonic development and the weight of the emerging females varied with seed species. V. unguiculata seeds allow a higher reproduction and a better development than C. arietinum. In this study, no cultivar had been found to be resistant. In Algeria, C. maculatus can develop in stored grains of both chickpea and cowpea, and it is a major stored grain insect pest.

Keywords

Coleoptera BruchidaeCallosobruchus maculatusVigna unguiculataCicer arietinumcultivarsreproductionoffspring developmentadult weight
Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , December 2004 , pp. 304 - 310
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahmed, K., Khalique, F., Afzali, M., Tahir, M. & Malik, B. A. (1989) Variability in chickpea ( Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes for resistance to Callosobruchus maculatus F. (Bruchidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 25, 97–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Applebaum, S. W. (1964) Physiological aspects of host specificity in the Bruchidae – General considerations of developmental compatibility. J. Insect Physiol. 10, 783–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Applebaum, S. W., Gestetner, B. & Birk, Y. (1965) Physiological aspects of host specificity in the Bruchidae IV – Developmental incompatibility of soybeans for Callosobruchus. J. Insect Physiol. 11, 611–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Credland, P. F. (1991) Biotype variation and host change in bruchids: Causes and effects in the evolution of bruchid pests, pp. 271–288. In Bruchids and Legumes: Economics, Ecology and Coevolution (Edited by Fujii, K., Gatehouse, A. M. R., Johnson, C. D., Mitchel et, R. & Yoshida, T.). Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Dagnelli, P. (1975) Théories et méthodes statistiques Vol. 2 245–249 pp. Les presses agronomiques de Gembloux, Belgique.Google Scholar
Decelle, J. (1981) Bruchidae related to grain legumes in the Afro-Tropical area, pp. 193–198. In The Ecology of Bruchids Attacking Legumes (Edited by Labeyrie, V.). Junk Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delobel, A. et, Tran, M. (1993) Coléoptères des denrées alimentaires entreposées dans les régions chaudes. Orstom publ., Paris. 424 pp.Google Scholar
Desroches, P., El-Shazali, N., Mandon, N. & Huignard, J. (1995) Development of Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) and C. maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) in seeds of V. faba (L.) differing in their tannin, vicine and convicine contents. J. Stored Prod. Res. 3, 83–89.Google Scholar
Don-Pedro, K. N. (1996) Fumigant toxicity is the major route of insecticidal activity of citrus peel essential oils. Pestic. Sci. 46, 71–78.Google Scholar
El - Sawaf, S. K. (1956) Some factors affecting the longevity, oviposition and rate of development in the southern cowpea weevil, Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Bull. Soc. Entomol. Egypte 40, 29–45.Google Scholar
Gakuru, S. et, Foua-Bi, K. (1995) Effet comparé des huiles essentielles de 4 espèces végétales contre la bruche du niébé ( Callosobruchus maculatus Fab.) et le charançon du riz ( Sitophilus oryzae L.). Tropicultura 13, 4 143–146.Google Scholar
Gatehouse, A. M. R., Gatehouse, J. A., Dobie, P., Kilminster, A. M. & Boulter, D. (1979) Biochemical basis of insect resistance in Vigna unguiculata. J. Sci. Food Agric. 30, 948–958.Google Scholar
Gatehouse, A. M. R., Dewey, F. M., Dove, J., Fenton, K. A. & Pusztai, A. (1984) Effect of seed lectin from Phaseolus vulgaris on the development of larvae of Callosobruchus maculatus: Mechanism of toxicity. J. Sci. Food Agric. 35, 373–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gbolade, A. A. & Adebayo, T. A. (1993) Fumigant effects of some volatile oils on fecundity and adult emergence of Callosobruchus maculatus F. Insect Sci. Applic. 14, 631–636.Google Scholar
Giga, D. P. & Smith, R. H. (1987) Egg production and development of Callosobruchus rhodesianus (Pic) and Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) on several commodities at two different temperatures. J. Stored Prod. Res. 23, 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gokhale, V. G. & Srivastava, B. K. (1975) Oviposition behaviour of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). I. Distribution of eggs and relative ovipositional preference on several leguminous seeds. Indian J. Entomol. 37, 2 122–128.Google Scholar
Howe, R. W. & Curie, J. E. (1964) Some laboratory observations on the rates of development, mortality and oviposition of several species of Bruchidae breeding in stored pulses. Bull. Entomol. Res. 55, 437–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huis, A., van et Rooy, M. (1998) The effect of leguminous plant species on Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) and its egg parasitoid Uscana lariophaga (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). Bull. Entomol. Res. 88, 93–99.Google Scholar
Ignacimuthu, S., Janarthanan, B. & Balachandran, B. (2001) Chemical basis of resistance in pulses to Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 36, 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackai, L. E. N. & Daoust, R. A. (1986) Insect pests of cowpeas. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 31, 95–119.Google Scholar
Janzen, D. H., Juster, H. B. & Bell, E. A. (1977) Toxicity of secondary compounds to the seed-eating larvae of the bruchid beetle Callosobruchus maculatus. Phytochemistry 16, 223–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keita, S. M., Vincent, C., Schmidt, J. P., Arnason, J. T. & Belanger, A. (2001) Efficacy of essential oil of Ocimum basilicum L. and O. gratissimum L. applied as an insecticidal fumigant and powder to control Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 37, 339–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ketoh, G. K., Glitho, A. I. & Huignard, J. (2002) Susceptibility of the bruchid Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) and its parasitoid Dinarmus basalis (Rond.) (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) to three essential oils. J. Econ. Entomol. 95, 174–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mark, G. A. (1982) Induced oviposition preference, periodic environments and demographic cycles in the bruchid beetle Callosobruchus maculatus. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 32, 155–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ofuya, T. I. & Credland, P. F. (1995) Responses of three populations of the seed beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae), to seed resistance in selected varieties of cowpea, Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. J. Stored Prod. Res. 31, 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouedraogo, A. P., Sou, S., Sanon, A., Monge, J. P., Huignard, J., Tran, M. D. & Credland, P. F. (1996) Influence of temperature and humidity on populations of Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) and its parasitoid Dinarmus basalis (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) in two zones of Burkina Faso. Bull. Entomol. Res. 86, 695–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parr, M. J., Tran, M. D., Simmonds, M. S. J., Kite, G. C. & Credland, P. F. (1998) Influence of some fatty acids on oviposition by the bruchid beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus. J. Chem. Ecol. 24, 1577–1593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piergiovanni, A. R., Della Gatta, C. & Perrino, P. (1994) High antinutrient levels and bruchid resistance of cowpea ( Vigna unguiculata ) seeds. Euphytica 80, 59–62.Google Scholar
Raja, N., Albert, S., Ignacimuthu, S. & Dorn, S. (2001) Effect of plant volatile oils in protecting stored cowpea Vigna unguiculata (L.) against Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) infestation. J. Stored Prod. Res. 37, 127–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rajapakse, R. H. S. (1996) The effect of four botanicals on the oviposition and adult emergence of Callosobruchus maculatus F. (Coleptera: Bruchidae). Entomon. 21, 211–215.Google Scholar
Sanon, A., Ouedraogo, A. P., Tricault, Y., Credland, P. F. & Huignard, J. (1998) Biological control of bruchids in cowpea stores by release of Dinarmus basalis (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) adults. Environ. Entomol. 27, 717–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seck, D., Lognay, G., Haubruge, E., Wathelet, J. P., Marlier, M., Gaspar, M. & Severin, M. (1993) Biological activity of the shrub Boscia senegalensis (Capparaceae) on stored grain insects. J. Chem. Ecol. 19, 377–389.Google Scholar
Southgate, B. J. (1978) The importance of the Bruchidae as pests of grain legumes, their distribution and control, pp. 219–229. In Pests of Grain Legumes: Ecology and Control. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Thanthianga, C. & Mitchell, R. (1990) The fecundity and oviposition behaviour of a South Indian strain of Callosobruchus maculatus. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 57, 133–142Google Scholar