The Influence of Cowpea Cultivar on the Host Preferences of Cowpea Bruchids [Callosobruchus maculatus (F.)]

Temisan, Bosede I.; Oyeniyi, Emmanuel Ayobami; Adeyemi, Joseph A.; Oladipo, Olufunmilayo Eunice

doi:10.2478/johr-2025-0004

Abstract

Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) is a major storage pest that causes significant quantitative and qualita-tive losses during storage and sale of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.). In this study, the behavioral response of cowpea bruchids (C. maculatus) to five local (‘Gombe’, ‘Drum’, ‘Sokoto’, ‘Big’, and ‘Honey’) and improved (ITI6K-1966-1, ITI5K-2377-1, ITI6K-1984-1, ITI4K-1903-1, and ITI5K-2386-1) cowpea cultivars was investigated using a Y-tube olfactometer. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) was used to analyze and identify the compounds of cowpea oils extracted using n-hexane, ethanol, and water solvents. The results showed that cowpea genotype had a significant effect on the decision time for attraction to the cowpea. Although mated female bruchids generally showed shorter decision times than male bruchids, gender significantly affected the attractiveness of only two cultivars. The solvent used for extraction had no significant effect on the time taken to decide on the attractiveness of different cowpea genotypes. Of the 20 bioactive compounds identified in local cultivars and 19 in improved cultivars, 13 were common to both cultivar groups. Bioactive compounds present in the highest percentages may be used as effective baits for monitoring and control of cowpea bruchids.

References

Abd El-Ghany N.M. 2019. Semiochemicals for controlling insect pests. Journal of Plant Protection Research 59(1): 1–11. DOI: 10.24425/jppr.2019.126036.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Adhikary P., Mukherjee A., Barik, A. 2015. Attraction of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchi-dae) to four varieties of Lathyrus sativus L. seed vol-atiles. Bulletin of Entomological Research 105(2): 187–201. DOI: 10.1017/s000748531400087x.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Agelopoulos N., Birkett M.A., Hick A.J., Hooper A.M., Pickett J.A., Pow E.M. et al. 1999. Exploiting sem-iochemicals in insect control. Pesticide Science 55(3): 225–235. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1096-9063(199903)55:3<;225::aid-ps887>3.3.co;2-z.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ahuchaogu C.E., Ojiako F.O. 2020. Attraction of Callo-sobruchus maculatus Fabricius (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Bruchinae) to pods of cowpea plants at different developmental stages. Agro-Sci-ence 19(3): 32–39. DOI: 10.4314/as.v19i3.6.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ajayi O.E., Balusu R., Morawo T.O., Zebelo S., Fa-damiro H. 2015. Semiochemical modulation of host preference of Callosobruchus maculatus on legume seeds. Journal of Stored Products Research 63: 31–37. DOI: 10.1016/j.jspr.2015.05.003.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ajayi O.E., Morawo T.O., Fadamiro H.Y. 2018. Preference of flight morph of Callosobruchus maculatus (Cole-optera: Chrysomelidae) for three plant legumes. In-ternational Journal of Tropical Insect Science 38(4): 362–372. DOI: 10.1017/s1742758418000152.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Anukiruthika T., Jian F., Jayas D.S. 2021. Movement and behavioral response of stored product insects under stored grain environments – A review. Journal of Stored Products Research 90: 101752. DOI: 10.1016/j.jspr.2020.101752.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Arnold S.E.J., Stevenson P.C., Belmain S.R. 2012. Odour-mediated orientation of beetles is influenced by age, sex and morph. PloS ONE 7(11); e49071; 7 p. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049071.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Arong G.A., Usua E.J. 2006. Comparative development of cowpea bruchid, (Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) on pods and seeds of some cowpea cultivars (Vigna unguiculata). Global Jour-nal of Pure and Applied Sciences 12(1): 35–40. DOI: 10.4314/gjpas.v12i1.16545.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Arotolu T.E., Adeyemi J.A., Adedire C.O. 2018. Influ-ence of intrinsic factors of cowpea seed varieties on the cowpea weevil, Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Journal of Crop Pro-tection 7(2): 219–229.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Baidoo P.K., Kwansa N.A., Annin C.P. 2015. The role of seed coat and its pigmentation on the acceptance of Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea L. Verdc.) cultivars by the cowpea beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus (F.). Advances in Entomology 3(4): 125–131. DOI: 10.4236/ae.2015.34015.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Beck J.J., Light D.M., Gee W.S. 2012. Electroanten-nographic bioassay as a screening tool for host plant volatiles. Journal of Visualized Experiments 63; e3931; 9 p. DOI: 10.3791/3931.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Beck C.W., Blumer L.S. 2014. A handbook on bean bee-tles, Callosobruchus maculatus developing bean beetles as a model system for undergraduate labor-atories. National Science Foundation, USA 14 p.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Boukar O., Abberton M., Oyatomi O., Togola A., Tripathi L., Fatokun C. 2020. Introgression breeding in cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.]. Frontiers in Plant Sci-ence 11; 567425; 11 p. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2020.567425.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hamzavi F., Naseri B., Hassanpour M., Razmjou J., Goliza-deh A. 2022. Biology and life table parameters of Cal-losobruchus maculatus (F.) on Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. fertilized with some mineral- and bio-fertilizers. Journal of Stored Products Research 97; 101978; 8 p. DOI: 10.1016/j.jspr.2022.101978.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Huff R.M., Pitts R.J. 2019. An odorant receptor from Anopheles gambiae that demonstrates enantiose-lectivity to the plant volatile, linalool. PLoS ONE 14(11); e0225637; 15 p. DOI: 10.1371/jour-nal.pone.0225637.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jacob K.N., Koutoua A., Casimir K.A., Denise B.M.A., Gogbeu S.J., Charlotte T.D. 2016. Agronomic and biochemical evaluation of some ecotypes of cow-pea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. (Fabaceae)] col-lected in Côte d’Ivoire. Scholars Journal of Agri-culture and Veterinary Sciences 3(4): 292–297. DOI: 10.21276/sjavs.2016.3.4.4.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kalpna, Hajam Y.A., Kumar R. 2022. Management of stored grain pest with special reference to Callosobruchus mac-ulatus, a major pest of cowpea: A review. Heliyon 8(1); e08703; 12 p. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08703.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kosini D., Nukenine E.N., Saidou C., Noubissié J., Doli-nassou S. 2019. Impact of environmental conditions and seed physico-chemical characteristics on the resistance of cowpea genotypes to Callosobruchus maculatus F. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) infesta-tion. Bulletin of Entomological Research 109(5): 595–603. DOI: 10.1017/s0007485318000962.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kpoviessi A.D., Agbahoungba S., Agoyi E.E., Chougourou D.C., Assogbadjo A.E. 2019. Resistance of cowpea to cowpea bruchid (Callosobruchus maculatus Fab.): Knowledge level on the genetic advances. Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science 11(8): 185–195. DOI: 10.5897/jpbcs2019.0818.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Li P., Zhu J., Qin Y. 2012. Enhanced attraction of Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) to pheromone-baited traps with the addition of green leaf volatiles. Journal of Economic Entomology 105(4): 1149–1156. DOI: 10.1603/ec11109.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Magagula C.N., Maina Y.T. 2012. Activity of Callo-sobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) on selected Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea L. Verdc.) landraces and breeding lines. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare 2(3): 84–91.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Musa A.K., Adeboye A.A. 2017. Susceptibility of some cowpea varieties to the seed beetle Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Jour-nal of Agricultural Sciences 62(4): 351–360. DOI: 10.2298/jas1704351m.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nojima S., Shimomura K., Honda H., Yamamoto I., Ohsawa K. 2007. Contact sex pheromone compo-nents of the cowpea weevil, Callosobruchus macu-latus. Journal of Chemical Ecology 33(5): 923–933. DOI: 10.1007/s10886-007-9266-5.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nyarko J., Asare A.T., Mensah B.A., Adjei F. 2022. Assess-ment of the response of fifteen cowpea [Vigna un-guiculata L. (Walp.)] genotypes to infestation by Cal-losobruchus maculatus Fab. (Coloeptera: Bruchidae). Cogent Food and Agriculture 8(1); 2095713; 11 p. DOI: 10.1080/23311932.2022.2095713.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Osei-Owusu J., Vuts J., Caulfield J.C., Woodcock C.M., Withall D.M., Hooper A.M. et al. 2020. Identifica-tion of semiochemicals from cowpea, Vigna unguic-ulata, for low-input management of the legume pod borer, Maruca vitrata. Journal of Chemical Ecology 46(3): 288–298. DOI: 10.1007/s10886-020-01149-7.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Oyeniyi E.A., Adegoke Y.A. 2024. Evaluating the effect of cowpea variety on the insecticidal response and anti-oxidant enzymes of Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab-ricius) treated with two plant powders. Plant Protec-tion 8(1): 87–100. DOI: 10.33804/pp.008.01.5057.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Oyeniyi E.A., Gbaye O.A., Holloway G.J. 2015a. Inter-active effect of cowpea variety, dose and exposure time on bruchid tolerance to botanical pesticides. African Crop Science Journal 23(2): 165–175.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Oyeniyi E.A., Gbaye O.A., Holloway G.J. 2015b. The in-fluence of geographic origin and food type on the susceptibility of Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab-ricius) to Piper guineense (Schum and Thonn). Journal of Stored Product Research 63: 15–21. DOI: 10.1016/j.jspr.2015.05.005.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Oyeniyi E.A., Adeyemi J.A., Omotoso O.T. 2021. The in-teraction between strain and food type influences biological parameters of Tribolium castaneum and its susceptibility to Dennettia tripetala extract. En-tomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 169(10): 899–910. DOI: 10.1111/eea.13064.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Oyeniyi E.A., Omotoso O.T., Barbosa F. Jr., Adeyemi J.A. 2024. Adult food and species type influence the nu-tritional physiology and tolerance of two flour bee-tles to the extract of Dennettia tripetala (G. Baker). Physiological Entomology 49(3): 253–269. DOI: 10.1111/phen.12442.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Paparella A., Shaltiel-Harpaza L., Ibdah M. 2021. β‐Io-none: its occurrence and biological function and metabolic engineering. Plants 10(4); 754; 12 p. DOI: 10.3390/plants10040754.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Phillips T.W. 1997. Semiochemicals of stored-product insects: Research and applications. Journal of Stored Products Research 33(1): 17–30. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-474x(96)00039-2.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Saeidi K., Adam N.A. 2011. Efficiency of methyl eugenol as attractant for Acanthiophilus helianthi Rossi, 1794 (Diptera: Tephritidae). International Research Journal of Agricultural Science and Soil Science 1(10): 412–416.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Salamanca J., Souza B., Kyryczenko-Roth V., Rodri-guez-Saona C. 2019. Methyl salicylate increases at-traction and function of beneficial arthropods in cranberries. Insects 10(12); 423; 15 p. DOI: 10.3390/insects10120423.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sharma A., Sandhi R.K., Reddy G.V.P. 2019. A review of interactions between insect biological control agents and semiochemicals. Insects 10(12); 439; 16 p. DOI: 10.3390/insects10120439.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tamiru A., Bruce T.J.A., Woodcock C.M., Birkett M.A., Midega C.A.O., Pickett J.A., Khan Z.R. 2015. Chemical cues modulating electrophysiological and behavioural responses in the parasitic wasp Cotesia sesamiae. Canadian Journal of Zoology 93(4): 281–287. DOI: 10.1139/cjz-2014-0266.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tewari H., Jyothi K.N., Kasana V.K., Prasad A.R., Prasuna A.L. 2015. Insect attractant and oviposition enhancing activity of hexadecanoic acid ester de-rivatives for monitoring and trapping Caryedon serratus. Journal of Stored Products Research 61: 32–38. DOI: 10.1016/j.jspr.2015.02.003.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tiroesele B., Thomas K., Seketeme S. 2015. Control of Cowpea weevil, Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae), using natural plant products. Insects 6(1): 77–84. DOI: 10.3390/insects6010077.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tobing M.C., Sinaga S.C.T., Bintang, Widihastuty, Pra-mayudi N. 2022. The used of attractants from coffee at various heights traps to control coffee berry borer and quality test of coffee berry. IOP Conference Se-ries: Earth and Environmental Science 974; 012024; 9 p. DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/974/1/012024.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Togola A., Boukar O., Belko N., Chamarthi S.K., Fato-kun C., Tamo M., Oigiangbe N. 2017. Host plant resistance to insect pests of cowpea (Vigna un-guiculata L. Walp.): achievements and future pro-spects. Euphytica 213(11); 239; 16 p. DOI: 10.1007/s10681-017-2030-1.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
War A.R., Murugesan S., Boddepalli V.N., Srinivasan R., Nair R.M. 2017. Mechanism of resistance in mung-bean [Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek var. radiata] to bruchids, Callosobruchus spp. (Coleoptera: Bruchi-dae). Frontiers in Plant Science 8; 1031; 11 p. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2017.01031.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Webster B., Bruce T., Dufour S., Birkemeyer C., Birkett M., Hardie J., Pickett J. 2008. Identification of volatile compounds used in host location by the black bean aphid, Aphis fabae. Journal of Chemical Ecology 34(9): 1153–1161. DOI: 10.1007/s10886-008-9510-7.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

The Influence of Cowpea Cultivar on the Host Preferences of Cowpea Bruchids [Callosobruchus maculatus (F.)]

Abstract

Paradigm

My account