Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T06:24:06.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A rapid visual field screening technique for resistance of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) to the legume pod borer Maruca testulalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

S. Oghiakhe*
Affiliation:
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria
L.E.N. Jackai
Affiliation:
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria
W.A. Makanjuola
Affiliation:
Zoology Unit, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Lagos, Nigeria
*
Dr. S. Oghiakhe, International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), Crop Pests Research Programme, P.O. Box 30, Mbita, South Nyanza District, Kenya

Abstract

A rapid visual field screening technique for resistance of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) to the legume pod borer Maruca testulalis (Geyer) was developed. The methodology involved measurement of two damage parameters: field examination of flowers for signs of M. testulalis injury or larval presence (i.e. rapid visual technique - flowers) and/or a pod evaluation index, from the ratio of pod load to pod damage (i.e. rapid visual technique - pods). Highly significant (P <0.01) correlations were obtained between the rapid visual field screening technique and the existing field screening technique. The latter is recommended as a fast and precise method for initial screening large collections of genotypes while the former should be used for more detailed selection and other resistance studies. The technique described here uses fewer variables than the previous method and thereby reduces costs while improving efficiency and precision.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

Booker, R.H.. (1964) Pests of cowpeas and their control in Northern Nigeria. Bulletin of Entomological Research 55, 663673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, D.B. (1955) Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 11, 142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guthrie, W.D.. (1975) Entomological problems involved in developing host plant resistance programs. lowa State Journal of Research 49, 519525.Google Scholar
IITA (International Institute of Tropical Agriculture) (1982) Annual report of 1981. 178 pp. Ibadan, Nigeria.Google Scholar
IITA (International Institute of Tropical Agriculture) (1984) Annual report for 1983. 218 pp. Ibadan, Nigeria.Google Scholar
IITA (International Institute of Tropical Agriculture) (1988) Annual report and research highlights for 1987/88. 161 pp. Ibadan, Nigeria.Google Scholar
Jackai, L.E.N. (1982) A field screening technique for resistance of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) to the pod borer Maruca testulalis (Geyer) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 72, 145156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackai, L.E.N. (1983) Efficacy of insecticide application at different times of day against the legume pod borer Maruca testulalis (Geyer) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), on cowpea in Nigeria. Protection Ecology 5, 245251.Google Scholar
Jackai, L.E.N.. & Singh, S.R. (1988) Screening techniques for host plant resistance to cowpea insect pests. Tropical Grain Legume Bulletin 35, 218.Google Scholar
Oghiakhe, S. (1990) Resistance screening, biology and behaviour of Maruca testulalis Geyer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) on cowpea, Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. PhD Thesis, University of Lagos, Akoka-Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.Google Scholar
Rossetto, C.J. (1989) Breeding for resistance to stink bugs. pp. 20462059in Pascale, A.J. (Ed.) World Soybean Research Conference IV: Proceedings. Vol. III. Buenos Aires, Argentina, Impressions Amawald S.A.Google Scholar
Taylor, T.A. (1967) The bionomics of M. testulalis Gey, a major pest of cowpeas in Nigeria. Journal of the West African Science Association 12, 111129.Google Scholar