Studies on the Efficacy of Vittallaria paradoxa Seed Oil on the Oviposition, Hatchability of Eggs and Emergence of Callasobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) on Treated Cowpea Seed
The efficacy of Vittallaria paradoxa seed oil against Callosobruchus maculatus (Fabricius) on cowpea treated seed was evaluated under ambient conditions (32±0.64°C and 68±3% R.H) at the Biological Sciences Department of Bayero University Kano. Callasobruchus maculatus were obtained from IITA Store in Kano State of Nigeria. The insect were reared and bred in the laboratory. The cowpea seed used for the bioassay were kept in the freezer overnight to eliminate maculatus infestation coming from field and the Moisture content was determined. The oil was extracted locally by steaming of dry seeds of Vittallaria paradoxa in a large cooking pot after pounding into paste in a mortar. Four different concentrations of seed oil (0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 mL) were separately mixed with 20 g of cowpea in separate petri dishes which correspond to (2.5, 5.0, 7.5 and 10.0% v/w), respectively. Ten pairs of one-day old Callasobruchus maculatus were introduced into each petri dish. Number of eggs laid, viability of the eggs and adult emergence from each treatment were compared with the control and were found to be significantly reduced in comparison with the control treatment. It is concluded that Vittallaria paradoxa has great potential for use as a plant-based biopesticide for controlling pulse beetle Callasobruchus maculatus.
to cite this article:
N. Abdullahi, Q. Majeed and T.I. Oyeyi, 2011. Studies on the Efficacy of Vittallaria paradoxa Seed Oil on the Oviposition, Hatchability of Eggs and Emergence of Callasobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) on Treated Cowpea Seed. Journal of Entomology, 8: 391-397.
Received: September 07, 2010;
Accepted: January 17, 2011;
Published: March 25, 2011
Nigeria accounts for 70% of the worlds Cowpea production (Blade
et al., 1997). It is an extremely valuable crop both as a source
of revenue and an important source of cheap dietary protein for the third world
where meat is expensive (Alghali, 1991; Lale,
1991). As common to many leguminous crops, a wide spectrum of insects attack
cowpea seed among them is the cowpea bruchid, Callosobruchus maculatus (F.)
(Coleoptera, Bruchidae) (Deborah and Credland, 2003).
The insect is a field to store pest as its infestation of cowpea often begins
in the field as the mature pods dry (Haines, 1991). The
insect multiplies very rapidly in storage where it causes very high losses.
According to IITA (1989) C. maculatus consumes
50-90% of cowpea in storage annually throughout tropical Africa.
Several methods have been used over the years to protect cowpea grains in storage,
but the use of synthetic insecticides has been very dominant (Adabie-Gomez
et al., 2006; Mbata et al., 2005).
The pervasive use of these insecticides in granaries of small-scale farmers
has led to a number of problems, such as killing of non-target species, user
hazards, food residues, and evolution of resistance to the chemicals, high cost
of the chemical and the destruction of the balance of the ecosystem. The search
for alternative insect pest control methods and materials which are relatively
cheaper and less harmful to the user and the environment has therefore become
essential (Subramanyam and Hagstrum, 2000; Arthur
and Phillip, 2002). Attention has been focused on the use of indigenous
plants as sources of cheap and locally available pesticides. The use of plant
oils against Callasobruchus maculatus (Boateng and
Kusi, 2008) have been reported.
Similarly, The efficacy of Jatropha seed oil against cowpeabeetles (Adabie-Gomez
et al., 2006; Henning, 2007) has also been
documented. Oil and powder obtainable from neem (Azadirachta indica A.
Juss) seed have been reported to provide sustained protection of stored grains
(Ketoh et al., 2002; Ogunwolu
and Idowu, 1994; Lale and Ajayi, 1996; Ogunwolu
and Odunlami, 1996). The objective of the paper was to study the efficacy
of Vittallaria paradoxa seed oil on the oviposition,hatchability and
emergences of Callasobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) on
treated cowpea seed.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study area: The study was conducted in 2010 in Kano State of Nigeria at the Department of Biological Sciences Bayero University Kano under ambient conditions (32±0.64°C and 68±3% R.H)
Test plant materials: Seed of Vittallaria paradoxa was collected
from some rural areas of Kano State (DanMadanho,Bela) during dry and rainy season.
These were washed and air dried in the shade (Boateng and
Kusi, 2008; Bamaiyi et al., 2006).
Test insect and maintainance: The beetle, Callasobruchus maculatus
(F.) was used for the experiment. A small population of Callasobruchus maculatus
beetle was obtained from IITA store in Kano State of Nigeria, along with infested
cowpea. These were identified as described by Utida (1972).
The beetle Callasobruchus maculatus were reared and bred in the Biological
Sciences laboratory and were differentiated into males and females based on
their morphological characters (Southgate, 1979).
Maintainance of Cowpea: Cowpea (Danila) was collected from IITA, Kano.
The seed were checked individually and damaged seed were excluded. Checked seeds
were placed in plastic bags and kept in the freezer overnight to eliminate maculatus
infestation coming from field (Marcileyne et al., 2004).
The seed were removed from the freezer and placed at room temperature and relative
humidity for some hours to equilibrate and the moisture content of the seed
were measured before the experiment (Jackai and Asante,
Seed oil formulation: Oil was extracted from the seed of Vittallaria
paradoxa according to the method described by Bamaiyi
et al. (2006). The fruit was collected from the plant and after pre-treatment
of the fruit. The seed was grounded into paste using pestle and mortar. The
paste were mixed with cold water and allowed to stand for 3 h. The mixture were
sieved over cheese cloth to obtained the filtrate. The filtrate were then heated
in a large cooking pot until evaporation was completed and the crude oil extract
were collected at the bottom of the container (Bamaiyi et
Bioassay: Bioassay were conducted based on the method described by Talukder
and Howse (1994). Four different diluted concentration of oils from the
seed of Vittallaria paradoxa (0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 mL) was separately
mixed with 20 g of Cowpea in separate petri dishes which correspond to 2.5,
5.0, 7.5 and 10.0% v/w, respectively. These seeds mixed with different plants
oils were shaken properly to ensure proper coating of the seed with the oils.
After shaking the seeds were taken out and air-dried for 1 h to evaporate the
solvent (Talukder and Howse, 1994). Similar concentration
of Dichorlovos (DVP) were set up as standard chemical insecticides. Control
was also set along (which has neither oil nor dichorlovos). Ten pairs of the
beetle Callasobruchus maculatus (1 day old) were released into each
treatments. These were covered with a muslin cloth to facilitate proper aeration
and prevent entry of other insects. Each treatment was replicated three times
and arranged in a Completely Randomized Design (CRD) and left on the laboratory
bench for daily observation (Opakaraeke, 1996). The number
of eggs laid were counted separately for each treatment. All the eggs laid in
different petri dishes were examined for hatching. The hatch or viable eggs
were recognized by their morphological aspect (Marcileyne
et al., 2004) since they become opaque as a function of their residue
discharged by the larvae during penetration. The number of hatch or viable eggs
was calculated based on the hatching of eggs (Marcileyne et
al., 2004). The adult emergence was also monitored in each treatment
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The higher doses of Vittallaria paradoxa seed oil used in the study
significantly (p<0.05) inhibited the females Callasobruchus maculatus
from laying eggs on treated cowpea seed (Table 1). The
result was comparable with that of the chemical insecticide used in the study
(Table1). This indicate the probable presence of a strong
oviposition detterent in the oil. The finding in this study conform with the
finding of Srivastava et al. (1988) who reported
that eucalyptus oil effectively prevented the oviposition of insects and that
of Mulatu and Gebremedhin (2000) who showed that the
oils of A. indica, Milletiaie ferruginea and Chrysanthemum
cineraraefolium were the most effective in partially or completely preventing
egg laying, and pulse beetles emergence from the laid eggs. Lale
and Mustapha (2000) found no significant difference in the efficacy of neem
seed oil and pirimiphos-methyl in reducing oviposition of C. maculatus,
adult emergence or seed damage rates in treated cowpeas which are also in agreement
with the present study.
|| Oviposition of female Callasobruchus maculatus and
viability of eggs deposited (laid) on cowpea treated with Vittalaria
paradoxa seed oils
|Each observation is based on three replicates. Mean±SE
bearing same letter(s) in a column are not significant different by LSD
||Emergence of adult Callasobruchus maculatus from cowpea
grains treated with varying concentration of Vittallaria paradoxa
|Each observation is based on three replicate. Mean followed
by same letter(s) are not significant different by LSD at 0.05
Furthermore the viability (%hatching of the eggs) in the lower dose of the
oil was significantly reduced (47.16%) in comparison with untreated control
(86.34%). The eggs mortality and failure to hatch on the seed treated with oil
has been attributed to the toxic component of the oil and also to the physical
properties which cause changes in surface tension and oxygen tension within
the eggs (Singh, 1978).
Adult emergence was found to be inhibited at some dosage level of treatments
(Table 2). Don-Pedro (1989) and Copping
and Menn (2000) have reported that applications of oils occlude seed funnel
leading to the death of the developing embryo of the insect by asphyxia which
ultimately reduced the emergence of the insect from the treated seed.
The oil coating the seed may prevent Callasobruchus maculatus eggs to
firmly attach to the seed coat which can inhibit larval penetration into the
seed (Adebowale and Adedire, 2006) and this can prevent
adult emergence. Oils coating on grains can also prevented penetration of oxygen
to the developing stages (Adebowale and Adedire, 2006)
which consequently affect the survival of the immature stages (Larvae and pupae)
of Callasobruchus maculatus.
Several workers have reported growth and development inhibition properties
of plant product on of the bettle Callasobruchus maculatus. Pandey
et al. (1986), Akinkurolere (2007), Sathyaseelan
et al. (2008) and Ramzan (1994) reported that
cotton seed, sunflower, groundnut, soybean and mustard oils, when mixed with
cowpea, completely suppressed the survival of immature stages as well as adult
emergence of C. maculates. Similarly Shaaya et
al. (1997) reported that edible oils are potential control agents against
C. maculatus and can play an important role in stored-grain protection.
Ahmed et al. (1999) found that the neem and sesame
oils completely inhibited the survival of immature stages of the insect as well
as adult emergence and appeared to be most promising as a seed protectant against
C. chinensis. Yalamanchilli and Punukollu (2000)
observed that the volatile oil from the leaves of Curcuma domestica could
effectively protect the seeds against C. chinensis. The findings from
these authors were similar to the finding in this study using Vittallaria
paradoxa seed oil.
The use of Vittallaria paradoxa oil has demonstrated a potent activity against Callasobruchus maculatus indicating that the plant oil may have some properties which can be useful in short listing the oil as an alternative source of botanical pesticide. It is recommended that further studies be conducted to identify and characterized the bioactive compound present in the plant oil which will benefit the low resource farmers as against the use of synthetic pesticide.
1: Adabie–Gomez, D.A., K.G. Monford, A. Agyir-Yawson, A. Owusu-Biney and M. Osae, 2006. Evaluation of four local plant species for insecticidal activity against Sitophilus zeamais Mots ch. (Coleopte ra: Curculion idae) and Callosobruchus maculatus (F) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Ghana J. Agric. Sci., 39: 147-154.
Direct Link |
2: Adebowale, K.O. and C.O. Adedire, 2006. Chemical composition and insecticidal properties of the underutilized Jatropha curcas seed oil. Afr. J. Biotechnol., 5: 901-906.
Direct Link |
3: Ahmed, K.S., T. Itino and T. Ichikawa, 1999. Effects of plant oils on oviposition preference and larval survivorship of Callosobruchus chinensis (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) on azuki bean. Applied Entomol. Zool., 34: 547-550.
4: Akinkurolere, R.O., 2007. Assessment of the insecticidal properties of Anchomanes difformis (P. Beauv.) powder on five beetles of stored produce. J. Entomol., 4: 51-55.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
5: Alghali, A.M., 1991. Studies on cowpea farming practices in Nigeria, with emphasis on insect pest control. Trop. Pest Manage., 37: 71-74.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
6: Bamaiyi, L.J., I.S. Ndams, W.A. Toro and S. Odekina, 2006. Effects of Mahogany Khaya senegalensis seed oil in the control of Callosobruchus maculatus on stored cowpea. Plant Prot. Sci., 42: 130-134.
Direct Link |
7: Arthur, F. and T.W. Phillips, 2002. Stored Product Pest Management and Control. In: Food Plants Sanitation, Hui, Y.H., B.L. Bruinsma, J.R. Gorham, W.K. Nip, P.S. Tong and P. Ventreca (Eds.). Marcel Deckker, Inc., New York, pp: 341-358
8: Blade, S.F., S.V.R. Shetty, T. Terao and B.B. Singh, 1997. Recent Developments in Cowpea Cropping Systems Research. In: Advances in Cowpea Research, Singh, B.B., D.R. Mohan Raj, K.E. Dashiell and L.E.N. Jackai (Eds.). IITA and JIRCAS, Ibadan, Nigeria, pp: 114-128
9: Boateng and Kusi, 2008. Toxicity of Jatrophaseed oil to Callasobruchus maculates (F) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) and its parasitoid, Dinarmus basalis (Hymeneptera: Pteromalidae). J. Applied Sci. Res., 4: 945-951.
10: Copping, L.G. and J.J. Menn, 2000. Biopesticides. A review of their action application and efficacy. Pest Manage. Sci., 56: 651-676.
3.0.CO;2-U/abstract target='_blank' class='botlinks'>Direct Link |
11: Deborah, M.J.P. and P.F. Credland, 2003. Determinant of oviposition in acanthoscelises obstectus: A non-conformist bruchid. Physiol. Entomol., 28: 221-231.
12: Don-Pedro, K.N., 1989. Mode of action of fixed oils against eggs of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.). Pest. Sci., 26: 107-115.
Direct Link |
13: Haines, C.P., 1991. Insects and Arachnids of tropical stored products: Their biology and Identification : A Training Manual. 2nd Edn., Natural Resources Institute, UK
14: Henning, R.K., 2007. Jatropha curcas L. [Internet] Record from Protabase. In: PROTA (Plant Resources of Tropical Africa/ Ressources Végétales de l`Afrique Tropicale), Van der Vossen, H.A.M. and G.S. Mkamilo (Eds.). Longman Publishing Co., Wageningen, The Netherlands
15: IITA, 1989. IITA (International Institute of Tropical Agriculture) Annual Report 1988/89. Ibadan, Nigeria.
16: Jackai, L.S. and S.K. Asante, 2001. Acase for the standardization of protocol used in screening cowpeas, Vigna Unguiculata for resistance to Callasobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Int. Institute Trop. Agric., 25: 210-285.
17: Ketoh, G.K., A.I. Glitho and J. Huignard, 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.
18: Lale, N.E.S., 1991. The biological effects of three essential oils on Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J. African Zool., 105: 357-362.
19: Lale, N.E.S. and F.A. Ajayi, 1996. Comparative effects of extraction solvents on the persistence and acute toxicity of seed extracts against Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Samaru J. Agric. Res., 13: 49-57.
20: Lale, N.E.S. and A. Mustapha, 2000. Efficacy and acceptability of neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss) seed oil and pirimiphos-methyl applied in three storage devices for the control of Callosobruchus maculates (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Zeitschrift fuer Pflanzenkrankheiten und Pflanzenschutz, 107: 399-405.
21: Marcileyne, P.L.D., V.D.O. Jose and B. Reginaldo, 2004. Alternation of cowpea genotype affect the Biology of Callasobruchus maculatus. Sci. Agric. (Piraricaba, Brazil), 61:
22: Mbata, G.N., T. Akee and H.F. Fadamiro, 2005. Parasit ism by Pteromalus cerealellae (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) on the Cowpea weevil, Callosbruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae): Host density, temperature effects and host finding ability. Biol. Cont., 33: 286-292.
23: Mulatu, B. and T. Gebremedhin, 2000. Oviposition-deterrent and toxic effects of various botanicals on the Adzuki bean beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis L. Insect Sci. Appl., 20: 33-38.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
24: Ogunwolu, O. and O. Idowu, 1994. Potential of powdered Zanthoxylum zunthoxyloides (Rutaceae) root bark and Azadirachta indica (Maliaceae) seed for control of cowpea seed bruchid Callosobruchus maculatus (Bruchidae) in Nigeria. J. African Zool., 108: 521-528.
25: Ogunwolu, O. and A.T. Odunlami, 1996. Suppression of seed bruchid (Callosobruchus maculatus) development and damage on cowpea Vigna unquiculata with Zanthoxylum zanthoxyloides (Lam.) Weterm. (Rutaceae) root bark powder. Crop Protect., 15: 603-607.
26: Opakaraeke, A.M., 1996. Comparative evaluation of some local plant materials for the control of C. maculatus (L.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) on stored cowpea. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Crop Protection, Faculty of Agriculture, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.
27: Pandey, N.D., K.K. Mathur, S. Pandey and R.A. Tripathi, 1986. Effect of some plant extracts against pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis Linnaeus. Ind. J. Entomol., 48: 85-90.
28: Ramzan, M., 1994. Efficacy of edible oils against pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus. J. Insect Sci., 7: 37-39.
Direct Link |
29: Sathyaseelan, V., V. Baskaran and S. Mohan, 2008. Efficacy of some indigenous pesticidal plants against pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) on green gram. J. Entomol., 5: 128-132.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
30: Subramanyam, B. and D.W. Hagstrum, 2000. Alternatives to Pesticides in Stored-Product IPM. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA. USA
31: Srivastava, S., K.C. Gupta and A. Agrawal, 1988. Effect of plant product on Callosobruchus chinensis infestation on red gram. Seed Res., 16: 98-101.
32: Shaaya, E., M. Kostjukovski, J. Eilberg and C. Sukprakarn, 1997. Plant oils as fumigants and contact insecticides for the control of stored-product insects. J. Stored Prod. Res., 33: 7-15.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
33: Southgate, P.J., 1979. Biology of the Bruchidae. Annu. Rev. Entomol., 24: 449-473.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
34: Talukder, F.A. and P.E. Howse, 1994. Repellent, toxic and food protectant effects of pithraj, Aphanamixis polystachya extracts against the pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis in storage. J. Chem. Ecol., 20: 899-908.
Direct Link |
35: Utida, S., 1972. Density dependant polymorphism in the adult of Callasobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J. Stored Prod. Res., 8: 111-125.
36: Yalamanchilli, R.P. and B. Punukollu, 2000. Bioefficacy studies on leaf oil of Curcuma domestica Valeton: Grain protectant activity. J. Med. Aromatic Plant Sci., 22: 715-718.
37: Singh, S.R., 1978. Resistance to Pest of Cowpeas in Nigeria. In: Pests of Grain Legumes: Ecology and Control, Singh, S.R., H.F. Van Emden and T.A. Taylor (Eds.). Academic Press, London, pp: 267-269