Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-pfhbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T18:33:43.792Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Natural Enemies of the Legume Pod Borer, Maruca Testulalis Geyer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in Small Scale Farming Systems of Western Kenya

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

J. B. Okeyo-Owuor
Affiliation:
The International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), P. O. Box 30772, Nairobi, Kenya
G. W. Oloo
Affiliation:
The International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), P. O. Box 30772, Nairobi, Kenya
P. O. Agwaro
Affiliation:
The International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), P. O. Box 30772, Nairobi, Kenya
Get access

Abstract

Studies at ICIPE's Mbita Point Field Station (site 1) and a farmer's field in Lambwe Valley (site 2) in Western Kenya, revealed the presence of at least seven parasitoids, two predators, one nematode and several microorganic pathogens attacking Maruca testulalis on cowpea crop. Some parasitoids and pathogens were also recovered from M. testulalis cadavers collected on wild host plants of the pest. A pupal endoparasitoid, Antrocephalus sp. was the most predominant, while the pathogens Nosema sp. and Bacillus sp. caused the highest natural mortality on M. testulalis in this region.

Parasitoids and pathogens contributed 40.65 and 35.6% to the total generation mortality (K) at sites 1 and 2 respectively. Observed parasitism only contributed 3.25% at site 1 and 3.8% at site 2 of the generation mortality. Mortality due to disappearance which included predation accounted for 59.35 and 64.8% of K at the respective sites. Life table data and survival curves for the pest revealed high generation mortality (ca. 98%), most of which occurred in the early life stages of the pest. The results suggest a high potential for utilizing biocontrol agents in IPM of the pest.

Résumé

Des études menées au Centre de Recherche de l'ICIPE à Mbita (site 1) et dans un champs d'un agriculteur de Lambwe Valley (site 2) à l'ouest du Kenya ont révélé l'existence d'au moins 7 espèces de parasites, 2 espèces de prédateurs, 1 espèce de nématode et plusieurs pathogènes microscopiques s'attaquant au Maruca testulalis sur le petits pois.

On a également découvert quelques parasitoides et quelques pathogènes sur des cadavres de M. testulalis receuillis sur de plantes-hôtes sauvages de l'insecte. Une chrysalide endoparasitoide, l'Antrocephalus sp., était la plus abondante, tandis que les pathogènes Nosema sp. et Bacillus sp. représentaient la principale cause de la mortalité naturelle dans cette région.

Les parasitoides et les pathogènes avaient contribué pour 40, 65 et 35, 6% du total du taux de mortalité par génération (K) respectivement au site 1 et au site 2. Il a été constaté que le parasitisme avait contribué à la mortalité par génération pour seulement 3, 25% au site 1 et 3, 8% au site 2.

La mortalité due à la disparition, y compris la prédation, avait été pour 59,35% et 64,8% de K respectivement au site 1 et au site 2. La graphique des données sur la vie et les courbes indiquant la survivance de l'insecte ont révélé une forte mortalité par génération (ca. 98%) dont la majeure partie s'est produite au cours des premières étapes du cycle de vie de l'insecte. Les résultats finals de l'étude font appel à une utilisation plus intense des éléments de la lutte biologique dans l'IPM des insectes nuisibles.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1991

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

REFERENCES

Attsat, P. R. and O'Dowd, D. J. (1976) Plant defence guilds. Science 193, 2429.Google Scholar
Booker, R. H. (1965) Pests of cowpea and their control in Northern Nigeria. Bull. Entomol. Res. 55, 663672.Google Scholar
Cock, M. J. W. (1986) Requirements for biological control. An ecological perspective. Biocontrol News. Info. 7, 721.Google Scholar
Don-Pedro, K. N. (1983) Level of parasitism of Maruca testulalis (Geyer) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) larvae in early and late cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) cultivar (Prima) in Nigeria. Rue de Zoologie Africaine 97, 677683.Google Scholar
Ezue, M. I. (1982) Effect of planting date on pest infestation, yield and harvest quality of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata). Experimental Agric. 18, 311318.Google Scholar
Fellowes, R. W. and Amarasena, J. (1977) Natural enemies of some grain legume pests in the dry zone. Trop. Agriculturalist 133, 8389.Google Scholar
Le-Dao, Ke, Fang, Jue-Lien and Li, Zhi Jiang (1985) Bionomics and control of the legume pod borer, Maruca testulalis (Geyer). Acta Entomol. Sin. 28, 5159.Google Scholar
Koehler, C. S. and Mehta, P. N. (1972) Relationships of insect control attempt by chemicals to components of yield on cowpea in Uganda. J. econ. Entomol. 65, 14211427.Google Scholar
Morris, R. F. and Miller, C. A. (1954) The development of life tables for the spruce bud worm. Can. J. Zool. 32, 283301.Google Scholar
MacFoy, C. J., Dabrowski, Z. T. and Okech, S. H. (1983) Studies on the legume pod borer, Maruca testulalis Geyer VI. Cowpea resistance to oviposition and larval feeding. Insect Sci. Applic. 4, 147157.Google Scholar
Okeyo-Owuor, J. B. O. and Ochieng, R. S. (1981) Studies on the legume pod borer, Maruca testulalis Geyer—I. Life cycle and behaviour. Insect Sci. Applic. 1, 263268.Google Scholar
Okeyo-Owuor, J. B. O., Agwaro, P. O. and Simbi, C. O. J. (1983) Studies on the legume pod borer, Maruca testulalis Geyer—V. Larval population. Insect Sci. Applic. 4, 7581.Google Scholar
Taylor, T. A. (1967) Bionomics of Maruca testulalis Geyer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) a major pest of cowpea in Nigeria. J. West African Sci. Assoc. 12, 111129.Google Scholar
Varley, G. C., Gradwell, G. R. and Hassell, M. P. (1973) Insect Population Ecology: An Analytical Approach. Oxford.Google Scholar
Vishakantaiah, M. and Babu, C. J. J. (1980) Bionomics of the tur webworm, Maruca testulalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Mysore J. Agric. Sci. 14, 529532.Google Scholar