THE IMPACT OF INSECT PESTS ON COWPEA PRODUCTION

By ADENUGA-TAIWO OMOWUNMI. A 030809007 ZLY419: SEMINAR WRITE-UP

DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY FACULTY OF SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS

JUNE 2008
ABSTRACT
Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata [L.] Walp.) is an annual herbaceous legume cultivated in the humid and sub-humid tropical countries. Nigeria is the highest world producer with an annual production of 2 million tonnes. In the tropics where the problem of protein deficiency is severe, cowpea is particularly important as a cheap and locally available source of dietary protein for man and his domestic livestock. A complex of insect pests attacks the crop at different growth stages and in storage thereby constituting a major constraint to actualizing high yield. Various efforts such as traditional intercropping and interspacing patterns, biological control, insecticides and the use of resistant varieties have been made to reduce pest damage, all with varying degrees of success. A sound ecological and biological knowledge of the pest complex is required to achieve successful control of these insects. To date scientists are designing management tactics using the integrated approach system against major pests so as to minimize the amount of damage and subsequently increase cowpea yield.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 2.0 Introduction ............................. 1 The insect pests of cowpea ...... 4 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.0 4.0 Pre-flowering insect pests .. 4 Post-flowering insect pests 7 Storage insect pest ......... 11

Consequence of pest infestation on cowpea yield .. 13 Attempted control measures .... 18 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Cultural control .............. 18 Biological control .......... 19 Use of insecticides ......... 20 Use of resistant varieties 23 Integrated Pest Management .. 24

5.0 6.0

Conclusion ................................ 27 References ................................. 28

INTRODUCTION
Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata Walp.), an old-world legume crop native to Africa, is a widely distributed plant cultivated as a major source of protein in many developing countries. It is valued highly for its grain which is rich in protein and digestible carbohydrates and has an energy content almost equal to that of cereal grains. Its leaves also have a high protein quality and are utilized as vegetables for human consumption. The stems, coupled with the dried and shelled pods (haulm), provide quality fodder for livestock. Cowpea possesses many secondary attributes that enhance its value, which include its ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen and ultimately enhance soil fertility; its drought-tolerant nature which enables it to adapt well to drier regions of the tropics where other legumes do not perform well; its shade-tolerant quality which makes it compatible as intercrop with maize, sorghum, millet, sugarcane, cotton and several plantation crops and the ability of the creeping varieties to help in weed control. All these have contributed to making cowpea an integral component of subsistence agriculture particularly in the dry savannahs of sub-Saharan Africa. In West Africa cowpea is cultivated as a rain-fed crop between the months of April and November. It is particularly well adapted to the semi-arid, sub-humid and humid tropical regions located within latitude 0 and 30 degrees Celsius and minimum rainfall of 250mm per annum (Sinha, 1977). It flowers 40 days after seeding, producing seeds enclosed in pods which mature within 60 - 150 days. Seventy-five percent of cowpea is produced in West Africa (Figure 1) and the principal cowpea-growing countries are Nigeria, Senegal, Niger Republic, Brazil, Uganda and Mali. Nigeria is the largest producer and consumer of cowpea with about 5 million hectare area and about 2 million tons produced annually (Table 1).

Figure 1. World cowpea production (FAOSTAT 2000)

Table 1. Major cowpea growing countries in the world (1999-2000)

Country
Nigeria Niger Brazil Mali Tanzania Myanmar Uganda Haiti USA Sri Lanka South Africa Total

Area under production (ha)

5 050 100 3 800 000 1 500 000 512 455 145 000 105 000 64 000 55 000 40 000 15 000 13 000 11 299 555

Production (t)
2 108 000 650 000 491 558 113 000 46 000 100 000 64 000 38 500 45 000 12 120 5 600 3 669 778

Yield (kg/ha)
417 171 324 220 317 952 1 000 700 1 000 808 430 324

Source: Singh et al, 2002

However, on the average, cowpea yield is relatively low, usually 350 to 700 kg/ha
2

out of a possible 2500 kg/ha (Ogbuinya, 1997). This is because its production is fraught with numerous biotic and abiotic stresses leading to very low yields at the farmers level (Marfo et al, 2000). The abiotic stresses include erratic rainfall, low soil fertility and high soil temperatures. Among the biotic stresses, which include insects, diseases and weeds, insect pests are the most important as each stage in the production of cowpea attracts an array of insect pests. For instance, aphids, leafhoppers and foliage beetles dwell on the crop in the period between germination and flower initiation. Afterwards, until maturation of the plant, it is endangered by flower thrips, pod-borers and pod-sucking bugs. Finally, from harvesting until storage and marketing, the seeds are under attack from bruchid beetles. This report discusses in detail the insect pests of cowpea, their impact on its production and the measures that have been taken to combat them.

THE INSECT PESTS OF COWPEA

The lush growth of the leaves and flowers of the cowpea plant attract a large number of pests, most of which are of little importance. There are at least 85 species of pests causing different types of damage to it from seedling to harvest as well as in storage. The insect pests of cowpea can be classified into pests of preflowering, post-flowering and storage phases, although in the first 2 phases there might be an overlap, as seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Cowpea pest complex in Africa in relation to crop phenology (Singh, 1980).

PRE-FLOWERING INSECT PESTS

A good number of pests attack cowpea during the period between seeding and flowering, but of these 3 are of major importance: the legume aphids (Aphis craccivora Koch), leafhoppers (Empoasca spp) and foliage beetles (Ootheca
4

mutabilis Walp).

The legume aphids (Aphis craccivora) belong to the order Hemiptera and family Aphididae. They have small, black, shiny bodies and mouthparts modified for piercing and sucking with which they suck sap from terminal shoots, stems and petioles in seedlings and from pods and flowers in mature plants. Wingless female adults (stem mothers) produce 2 or 3 nymphs daily without fertilization as male adults are rare in Africa. Nymphs develop into adults in 22 days; 5 days in warmer temperatures.

Leafhoppers of the genus Empoasca belong to the order Hemiptera and family Cicadellidae. They are found in Africa (Empoasca dolichi), Asia (Empoasca kerri) and South and Central America (Empoasca kraemerri). The leafhopper has small, green elongated bodies and mouthparts for piercing and sucking the leaves of the cowpea plant. The eggs of this insect are laid on the underside of leaves and hatch in 7-10 days. They undergo 5 nymphal instars within 10 days before they develop into adults.

Foliage beetle (Ootheca mutabilis) belongs to the order Coleoptera and family Chrysomellidae. They have oval, reddish bodies with mouthparts specialized for biting which they use to feed on cowpea leaves interveinally. Eggs of this beetle are laid in masses in soil and adults emerge after 3 larval instars.

Plate 1. Legume aphid (Aphis craccivora)

Plate 2. Leafhopper (Empoasca sp)

6

Plate 3. Foliage beetle (Ootheca mutabilis)

POST-FLOWERING INSECT PESTS

During the period between flower initiation and maturation of the crop the cowpea plant is attacked by many pests, which include flower thrips (Megalurothrips sjostedti Trybom), pod-borers (Maruca vitrata Fabricus syn Maruca testulalis Geyer) and a complex of pod-sucking bugs.

Flower thrips (Megalurothrips sjostedti) belong to the order Thysanoptera and family Thripidae. They have tiny, black, elongated bodies and mouthparts specialized for piercing and sucking which they use to feed on the leaves and flower buds of cowpea, scraping the epidermis and sucking the oozing sap. The eggs of this insect are laid in flower buds and life cycle is completed within 14-21 days.

The pod-borer Maruca vitrata (common name is mung moth) belongs to the order Lepidoptera and family Pyralidae. It is a nocturnal moth with mouthparts coiled to form a sucking tube that is used to feed on tender foliage and young pods. The adult lays eggs individually or in small batches on flower buds, flowers or on terminal shoots of cowpea. They hatch into larva in 3 days and feed on foliage and eventually on pods as they grow older. Larvae develop into pupae which develop into adults within 7 days.

The pod-sucking bugs which infest cowpea include Clavigralla tomentosicollis Stalberg, Riptortus dentipes Fabricus, Nezara viridula Linnaeus and Anoplocnemis curvipes Fabricus and they all belong to the order Hemiptera (true bugs) and families Coreidae, Alydidae, Pentatomidae and Coreidae respectively. Their mouthparts are modified for piercing and sucking sap from green pods. The eggs of these bugs are laid on cowpea or other leguminous plants in chains or batches and undergo 5 nymphal instars before they become adults.

Plate 4. Flower thrips (Megalurothrips sjostedti)

Plate 5. Mung moth (Maruca vitrata)

Plate 6. Pod-sucking bug (Clavigralla tomentosicollis)

Plate 7. Pod-sucking bug (Riptortus dentipes)

Plate 8. Pod-sucking bug (Nezara viridula)

10

Plate 9. Pod-sucking bug (Anoplocnemis curvipes)

STORAGE INSECT PEST

The most important storage insect pest of cowpea is the bruchid beetle Callosobruchus maculatus Fabricus. This insect belongs to the order Coleoptera and family Bruchidae. It is small, wedge-shaped and has mouthparts specialized for biting. Adult bruchids are found outdoors in pods and colonize the cowpea at the end of the rainy season, carrying the bruchid population into the storehouse where they undergo development. The female bruchid deposits eggs singly or in clusters on the dried, stored beans, glued to the seed. These hatch into young larva in 5-20 days and bore into seed, chewing near the surface and leaving a thin covering uneaten which appears as a window. Later they emerge as adults through that window. Infestation of the cowpea by bruchids is identified by the presence of holes in the seed.

11

Plate 10. Bruchid beetle (Callosobruchus maculatus)

12

CONSEQUENCE OF PEST INFESTATION ON COWPEA YIELD

The insect pests of cowpea have been implicated as the major limiting factor towards attaining high cowpea yield, accounting for 70% reduction in yield (Edema and Adipala, 1996). They cause the greatest damage to foliage, flowers and seeds of cowpea and even reduce the value of the harvested crop in storage as well. Each major insect pest of cowpea and the individual damage it causes is listed below.

Aphids (Aphis craccivora) are considered to be the most important of insect pests of cowpea as they attack the crop during both pre-flowering and post-flowering stages, though they cause more damage at the former. They feed in colonies, sucking plant sap and causing discoloration, curling and deformation of foliage. Apart from direct damage caused to plants, they transmit viral diseases like cowpea mosaic virus and the honeydew they secrete encourages the growth of sooty mold which interferes with the photosynthetic activity of the plant.

Foliage beetles (Ootheca mutabilis) feed on leaves, resulting in feeding holes and can totally defoliate cowpea seedlings and kill them when in large population. They are also effective vectors of cowpea yellow mosaic virus. They result in yield losses of between 27-100% (Ekesi, 2001).

Leafhoppers (Empoasca spp) suck the sap of leaves which results in yellow discoloration of leaf veins and margins, cupping of the leaves and stunting of infested plant. Premature drying of plants may occur as well. Flower thrips (Megalurothrips sjostedti) feed on flowers, the reproductive
13

structures of the plant, and high infestation early in the stage may result in shedding of flower buds, leading to total crop failure. Damage by the pest begins at the terminal leaf bud stage of cowpea plant and spreads to flower buds and flowers leading to necrosis and abscission (Ezueh, 1981)

The young larvae of pod borers (Maruca vitrata) feed on foliage and each larva damages 4-6 flowers. Later-instar larvae bore holes in pods, insert their anterior half of their body in the pods and feed on developing seeds. They cause severe damage, sometimes up to 80% loss in yield (Singh and Allen, 1979).

The nymphs and adults of pod-sucking bugs (Anoplocnemis curvipes, Clavigralla tomentosicollis, Riptortus dentipes and Nezara viridula) suck sap from young green pods, causing shriveling, discoloring and malforming of seeds. Some of the bugs suck sap from leaves and flowers as well. Premature drying and loss of seeds occurs in some instances.

Severe infestations by bruchid beetle (Callosobruchus maculatus) can lead to 70% seed infestation and 30% grain weight loss within 6 months of storage. (Singh and Jackai, 1985). They also cause weight loss, deterioration and reduction in market value of cowpea seeds. Damaged seeds are riddled with adult emergent holes and defaced with egg covers making them unfit for human consumption. When defaced beans are put up for sale by traders, they have to be sold at a reduced price, resulting in economic loss to the trader.

14

Plate 11. Yellowing and deformation of foliage following aphid infestation

Plate 12. Damage to leaves following infestation by foliage beetle

15

Plate 13. Cupping of leaves and stunted growth resulting from leafhopper infestation

Plate 14. Damage of green pod due to Maruca larva infestation

16

Plate 15. Shrivelling of pods following infestation by pod-sucking bugs

Plate 16. Cowpea seeds defaced by bruchid beetles

17

ATTEMPTED CONTROL MEASURES

Methods have been developed to control insect pests of cowpea, all with varying degrees of successes. Some have been remarkable in the control of the pests, while some have had moderate results. Some have generated side-effects that almost undermined the usefulness of the method itself. Measures that have been attempted include the cultural practices of intercropping and interspacing; the introduction of the natural enemies of the insect pests to the crop in field; application of insecticides (chemical and biological) on the crop; the use of genetically improved cowpea varieties and the Integrated Pest Management approach.

CULTURAL CONTROL
This consists of traditional measures which do not require the use of sophisticated tools or chemicals and have been in practice by local farmers. Two major methods of cultural control are by intercropping and interspacing. Intercropping is the planting of cowpea with other plantation crops like maize, sorghum and other cereals and is widely practiced by rural farmers to diversify their yield. This system has been adopted by modern scientists in the control of insect pests as it alters the microenvironment of the insect pests and subsequently reduces their population. Various patterns of intercropping have been experimented (Mensah, 1997; Karungi et al, 1999) and some have shown to be successful in barring the infestation of particular insects. The setback of intercropping lies in the fact that no single pattern of intercropping has been shown to effectively prevent infestation of all the major pests. For example the instance of a crop mixture of one row of sorghum alternated with two rows of cowpea recorded a low population density of Maruca vitrata and pod-sucking bugs but a high population density of Megalurothrips sjostedti (Mensah, 1997). Also an intercrop of cassava with cowpea reduced the population
18

of Megalurothrips sjostedti and pod-sucking bugs but increased the population of Maruca vitrata (Agboh-Noameshie et al, 1997). The second cultural method, interspacing, is by reducing the density of the cowpea crop in the field in order to alter the microenvironment of the pests and thereby reduce their incidence. The effect of different planting distances on insect pests has been researched but has not recorded widespread efficiency as well. A trial carried out by Pitan and Odebiyi (2002) on the control of pod-sucking bugs using this method revealed that increased spacing of cowpea reduced the population of just one species of podsucking bug, Clavigralla tomentosicollis. It can be inferred that effective control of insect pests cannot be achieved solely by cultural practices and will require a combination of a few more methods for better results.

Table 2. Effect of four different intra-row spacings on the mean population of pod-sucking bugs
POD-SUCKING BUGS 15
Clavigralla tomentosicollis early season Riptortus dentipes Anoplocnemis curvipes Clavigralla tomentosicollis late season Riptortus dentipes Anoplocnemis curvipes 20.30 5.30 7.50 37.70 5.30 1.30

PLANTING DISTANCE (cm) 30

14.30 2.90 3.80 30.30 4.80 1.10

45
14.80 2.60 2.60 27.70 4.50 1.80

60
14.00 3.20 3.10 28.50 5.10 1.80

Source: Pitan and Odebiyi, 2002

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
This is the introduction of the natural enemy or predator of the insect pests to the crop in the field in order to manage the population of the pests. The natural enemies of these pests may be insects as ladybugs and wasps or fungal species
19

which have also shown to be effective in the biological control of the insect pests of cowpea. A table displaying some insect pests of cowpea and their predators is shown below. The setbacks of this method include the possibility of disturbing the ecological balance by the total elimination of an insect species and also the tendency of the introduced predator species to become invasive and possibly detrimental to the survival of native species.

Table 3. Some insect pests of cowpea and their predators

Insect pests
Aphis craccivora Ootheca mutabilis

Natural enemies
Ladybug Hoverfly larvae Beauveria bassiana, Metarhizum anisopliae (fungal species) Orius albidipennis (bug), Ceranisus menes (wasp), Metarhizum anisopliae (fungi) Trichopoda pilipes (fly), Trissolcus bassalis (wasp) Phanerotoma leucoplasia, Dolichogenidea, Braunsia kriegeri (all wasps)

Source
Cowpea Post Harvest Operations Ekesi, 2001

Megalurothrips sjostedti

Nezara viridula (podsucking bug) Maruca vitrata

Fritsche and Tamo, 2000; Zebitz, Zenz and Koch, 2000 Ekesi and Maniana, 2000 Cowpea Post-Harvest Operations Zebitz, Zenz and Koch,2000

USE OF INSECTICIDES
This is the application of substances, chemical or naturally derived, that exhibit toxicity on the insect pests. Insecticides can be grouped into two: the chemical insecticides and the bio insecticides. The chemical insecticides are the most popular and a wide range exist which vary in types and methods of application. The most commonly used chemical insecticides in the control of cowpea are the organochlorines e.g. Endosulfan and DDT; the carbamates e.g. Furadan; the
20

organophosphates e.g. Dimethoate and the pyrethoids e.g. Deltamethrin and Cypermethrin. The insecticides could be used in spray form or in powder form and can be applied on the cowpea crop in the field or in storage. The major setbacks of using chemical insecticides are their cost and the lack of knowledge concerning their usage, which results in misuse and consequently pollution to the environment and to humans. A good example of the latter is the killer bean episode of 1996 in Nigeria where rampant cases of food poisoning resulting from consumption of cowpea stored with highly toxic pesticides were witnessed. Also in Benin a study conducted by the Ministry of Health in the northern Borgu province in 1999 revealed that 37 people died due to endosulfan poisoning while 36 people experienced ill-health as well (Pesticide News, 2000). Furthermore there is a possibility of a secondary pest outbreak due to the destruction of the natural enemy of the insect pest by the insecticide as observed by Don-Pedro (1980). Due to these setbacks, a lot of research has been carried out to discover less persistent alternatives to the chemical insecticides, resulting in the invention of the bioinsecticides. Extracts from some plants have been tested and discovered to be useful in the control of insect pests. Of major importance is the extract from the neem plant (Azadirachta indica) which has been used as a major component of broad spectrum biopesticides in the last 3 or 4 decades (Ahmed and Grainge, 1985; cited in Maina and Lales, 2005). Oils from other plants, such as those tested by Dungum et al (2005) and Oparaeke and Daria (2005) have exhibited pesticidal activities comparable with the chemical insecticides. Research is being carried on bioinsecticides till date.

21

Table 4. Effect of plant extracts on major insect pests of cowpea in 2001 and 2002.
NO. OF THRIPS/20 FLOWERS 2001 AZADIRACHTA INDICA ANACARDIUM OCCIDENTALE ANONA RETICULATA KARATE (chemical insecticide) CONTROL 26.7c 35.7b 31.7b 17.7d 59.7a 2002 22.6c 31.3b 27.4bc 15.0d 50.2a NO. OF MARUCA/ 20 FLOWERS 2001 7.5b 8.4b 8.0b 4.4d 14.3a 2002 7.4b 8.4b 8.1b 4.1c 14.0a NO. OF PSB/2 CENTRE ROWS 2001 18.8b 22.8b 21.2b 13.2c 34.2a 2002 16.6c 23.2b 19.3bc 11.7d 27.8a

PLANT EXTRACT

Source: Dungum et al, 2005

Table 5. Effect of plant powders on adult mortality of Callosobruchus maculatus after 48 hrs and oviposition period on treated cowpea.
TREATMENT MEAN (%) MORTALITY OF BRUCHID
5.0% w/w 2.5% w/w 24 hrs Clove leaf (Syzygium aromatica) Artemisia maciverae Ribes nigrum Treculia africana Actellic dust (chemical insecticide) 93.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 48 hrs 100.00 6.67 20.00 3.33 53.33 24 hrs 98.67 13.33 16.67 6.67 6.67 48 hrs 100.00 13.33 26.67 6.67 60.00 0.00 4.33 4.00 5.00 1.33 0.00 3.67 3.67 4.33 1.33
22

MEAN NO OF EGGS/20 SEEDS

2.5% w/w 5.0% w/w

Control LSD

3.33 3.27

13.33 5.63

3.33 5.21

13.33 6.36

3.67 0.52

5.67 0.67

Source: Oparaeke and Daria, 2005

USE OF RESISTANT COWPEA VARIETIES

This is the cultivation of cowpea varieties that have been shown to confer resistance to insect pests. Some of these varieties are existing accessions, as is seen in the work of Emeazor et al (2007) where cultivars from different parts of Nigeria were tested for their resistance to the storage bruchid beetle. Others have been created by crossbreeding with cultivars that possess the desirable traits. This has yielded limited success as most of the existing cultivars do not possess genes for resistance to the most problematic insect pests. However some wild species of cowpea, namely Vigna vexillata and Vigna oblongifolia, have been found to exhibit resistance and fertilization through a specialized technique known as the in vitro technique has allowed for incorporation of genes from these species into cultivated varieties (Ogbuinya, 1997). Some other varieties have been created by the incorporation of genes that encode resistant proteins from other plants (e.g. genes for hairiness and hardness of seed from African Yam Bean Sphenostylis steriocarpa and Hyacinth Bean Lablab purpurea) or microorganisms (e.g. Bacillus thuringiensis). This host-plant resistance method has been termed to be the most economical and environmentally friendly. A number of high-yielding varieties with resistance to major insect pests have been discovered and developed and research is still being carried out on this measure to date. This control measure is very promising, however in it lies a major challenge of distribution of the improved varieties as in most of Africa as there is a major gap between research results and transmission to rural farmers, who cultivate most of the consumed cowpea.

23

Table 6. Comparison of developmental and growth parameters of Callosobruchus maculatus on cowpea accessions/breeding lines.
Cowpea accessions/ breeding lines
ENU-NG-1 ENU-OB-2 ANI-AW-3 ENU-OG-4 ENU-NS-5 ENU-AB-6 ENU-AW-7 ENU-MB-8 ANI-EN-9 IT 90K-76 IT90KK277-2 IFE BROWN

Source

Mean number of eggs/20g seed

38.0 17.0 74.5 38.0 49.2 70.2 35.2 57.7 45.7 62.5 64.5 103.0

% adult emergence

Susceptibility index

NGOR-OKPUALA, IMO OTUKPE, BENUE AWKA, ANAMBRA LOKOJA, KOGI NSUKKA, ENUGU ABAKALIKI, EBONYI AWKA, ANAMBRA MBANO, IMO ENUGU, ENUGU IITA, IBADAN IITA, IBADAN IITA, IBADAN

84.2 82.4 36.2 68.4 30.5 64.1 39.7 64.1 63.4 14.4 18.6 85.4

10.8 9.1 8.7 11.2 9.3 12.3 8.8 12.0 10.9 3.4 3.8 14.0

Source: Emeasor et al, 2007

INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a pest control strategy that uses an array of complementary methods: mechanical devices, physical devices, genetic, biological, cultural management, and chemical management. Its fundamental aim is to control destructive pest populations while minimizing or eliminating the use of chemical insecticides. Creating an IPM program requires a prior knowledge on the life history, ecology and economic injury threshold (lowest pest population density that will cause economic damage) of the pests to be controlled. Pest populations should be monitored as the knowledge of the population level will determine what action
24

will be taken, if any action needs to be taken at all (Cowpea Post-Harvest Operations). Many IPM packages have been developed and some are already in use. Results from a study by Karungi et al (1999) (shown below) reveal the increased advantage this combined control package has on the yield on cowpea. Also a report from PRONAF countries for the years 2000 and 2001 shows the difference in cowpea yield on farmers plots and Integrated Crop Management (an alternative name for Integrated Pest Management) plots. The ICM plots made use of improved technologies as botanical-based pesticides and fertilizers, enhanced cowpea varieties, better storage and solar drying of grains to prevent bruchid infestation (Table 8).

Table 7. Grain yields of cowpea as influenced by different management strategies

Control Intercropping alone
264 160

Seed dressing alone

180 76

Foliar spray alone

935 831

Combined control measures

1136 1032

Grain yield (kg/ha) Yield gain (kg/ha)

104 -

Source: Karungi et al, 1999

Table 8. Comparison of cowpea yields from farmer and ICM practices (kg/ha) Country 2000 Farmer practice
687 209 450

2001 Farmer ICM practice practice

712 374 622 524 499 628

ICM practice
819 585 1015

Benin Niger Nigeria

Source: PRONAF-IITA, 2001

25

The IPM method is well-targeted and ensures no waste of labor, time and materials. It is effective, environmentally sensitive and relies on a combination of common-sense practices. A lot of research is still being carried out on combination of control practices to achieve the best, all-encompassing IPM solution for cowpea.

26

CONCLUSION
It has been shown how the insect pests have affected the overall yield of cowpea, reducing it drastically and threatening the food security of nations and how some attempts at controlling these pests have adversely affected the environment and humans. It is hoped, however, that with the creation and adoption of more holistic and environmentally friendly control approaches like the IPM package, management of the insect pests of the cowpea crop will become a reality for rural farmers.

27

REFERENCES
Agboh-Noameshie, A., Jackai, L.E.N., Agboola, A.A. and Ezumah, H.C. (1997). Manipulating canopy structure in cassava intercropped with cowpea and its effect on cowpea insect population densities. Tropical Agriculture 74: 210-215 Ahmed, S. and Grainge, M. (1985). The use of indigenous plant resources in rural development; potential of the neem tree. International Journal of Development Technology 3: 123-130 Coulibaly, O. and Lowenberg-DeBoer, J. (2002). The economics of cowpea West Africa. In: Challenges and opportunities for enhancing cowpea production. Proceedings of the World in IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria 4-8 September, in

suitable

Cowpea Conference held

2000 pp.351-366. International

Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Ibadan, Nigeria. Don-Pedro, K.N. (1980). A population explosion of Aphis craccivora Koch following DDT application in a cowpea, plot (Vigna unguiculata) cultivar (prima) in Nigeria. Journal of Natural History 14: 617-619 Dungum, S.M., Dike, M.C., Adebitan, S.A. and Ogidi, J.A. (2005). Efficacy of some plant materials for the control of cowpea field pests of Bauchi, Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Entomology 22: 46-53 Edema, R. and Adipala, E. (1996). Effect of crop protection management practice on yield of seven cowpea varieties in Uganda. International Journal of Pest Management 42: 317-320. Ekesi, S. and Maniania, N.K. (2000). Susceptibility of Megalurothrips sjostedti developmental stages to Metarhizum anisopliae and the effects of infection on feeding, adult fecundity, egg fertility and longevity. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 94(3): 229-236

28

Ekesi, S. (2001). Pathogenicity and antifeedant activity of entomopathogenic hyphomycetes to the cowpea leaf beetle Ootheca mutabilis Shalberg. Insect Science Application 21: 55-60 Emeasor, K.C., Emoisairue, S.O. and Ogbuji, R.O. (2007). Comparative susceptibility of some cowpea (Vigna unguiculata [L.] Walp.) breeding lines and winged bean to the cowpea bruchid maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Nigerian 24: 131-136 Ezueh, M.I. (1981). Nature of preflowering damage by thrips to cowpea. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 29: 305-312. Fatokun, C. (2002). Breeding cowpea for resistance to insect pests: crosses between cowpea and Vigna vexillata. In: Challenges attempted and accessions,

Callosobruchus

Journal of Entomology

opportunities for enhancing suitable cowpea production. Proceedings of the World Cowpea Conference held in IITA, Ibadan, 2000 pp. 52-61. International Institute of Ibadan, Nigeria. Fritsche, M.E and Tamo, M. (2000). Influence of thrips prey species on the life history and behavior of Orius albidipennis. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 96(2): 111-118 Inaizumi, H., Singh, B.B., Sanginga, P.C., Manyong, V.M., Adesina, A.A. and Taranali, S. (1999). Adoption and impact of dry-season dualpurpose cowpea in the semi-arid zone of Nigeria. IITA: Ibadan, Nigeria. 16pp. Isubikalu, P., Erbaugh, J.M., Semana, A.R. and Adipala, E. (2000). The influence of farmer perception on pesticide usage for management of cowpea field pests in eastern Uganda. African Crop Science Journal 8(3): 317-325
29

Nigeria 4-8 September, Agriculture (IITA),

Tropical

Karungi, J., Nampala, M.P., Adipala, E., Kyamanywa, S. and OgengaLatigo, M.W. (1999). Population dynamics of selected cowpea insect pests as influenced by different management practices in eastern African Crop Science Journal 7(4): 487-495 Maina, Y. and Lale, N.E.S. (2005). Influence of duration of storage of insecticidal plant oil and oil-treated seeds on the efficacy of neem seed oil in the control of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) infesting stored cowpeas. Nigerian Journal of Entomology 22: 54-63 Marfo, K.O., Salifu, A.B., Kaleem, F.Z., Owusu-Akyaw, M. and Hall, (2000). Breeding cowpea for the savannah zone and resistance to pests. Presented at the Midcourse 2000 Researchers meeting of the Bean/Cowpea Collaborative Research Support Program 9-14 April, 2000 pp.7-9 Mensah, G.W.K. (1997). Integrated pest management in cowpea through intercropping and minimal insecticide application. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences 5: 1-14 Ogbuinya, P.O. (1997). Advances in cowpea research. Biotechnology and Development Monitor 31: 10-12 Olufajo, O.O. and Singh, B.B. (2002). Advances in cowpea cropping research. In: Challenges and opportunities for enhancing suitable cowpea production. Proceedings of the World Cowpea Conference in IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria 4-8 September, 2000 pp. 267-277. Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Ibadan, Nigeria. Oparaeke, A.M. and Daria, V.S. (2005). Toxicity of some plant powders to Callosobruchus maculatus on stored cowpea. Nigerian Journal of Entomology 22: 76-83 Pesticide News (2000). Annual report (47): 24
30

Uganda.

A.E. insect

held

International

Pitan, O.O.R. and Odebiyi, J.A. (2002). Effect of intra-row spacing of cowpea on pod-sucking bug population and damage in Ibadan, Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Entomology 22: 31-39 PRONAF-IITA, (2001). Farmer Field School, Campaign 2000-2001. Working Document FFS/IITA, Cotonou, Benin. Saxena, R.C. and Kidiavai, E.L. (1997). Neem seed extract spray as low-cost input for management of flower thrips on Phytoparasitica 25(2): 99-110 Singh, B.B., Ehlers, J.D., Sharma, B. and Freire Filho, F. R. (2002). Recent progress in cowpea breeding. In: Challenges and opportunities for enhancing suitable cowpea production. Proceedings of the World Cowpea Conference held in IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria 4-8 September, 2000 applications crop.

cowpea

pp. 22-40. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Ibadan, Nigeria. Singh, S.R. (1980). Biology of cowpea pests and potential for host plant resistance. In M.K. Harris (ed.) Biology and Breeding for resistance to arthropod and pathogens in agricultural plants. College Station, Texas A & M University Bulletin No. 1451. 605pp. Singh, S.R. and Allen, D.J. (1979). Cowpea pests and diseases. Manual No. 2. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, 113pp. Singh, S. R. and Jackai, L.E.N (1985). Insect pests of cowpea in Africa; their life cycle, economic importance, and potential for control. In Singh, S. R. and Rachie, K. O. (eds.), Cowpea Research, Production, and Utilization. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons. pp 217-231. Sinha, S.K. (1977). Food legume distribution, adaptability and biology of FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper 3. FAO, Rome. Pp. 124
31

Texas,

series

Nigeria.

yield.

Umeozor, O.C. (2005). Effect of the infection of Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.) on the weight loss of stored cowpea (Vigna unguiculata [L.] Journal of Applied Science of Environmental Management 172 Zebitz, C., Zenz, N. and Koch, W. (2000). Control of two key pests in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp) by use of different mulching material. Ecological Evaluation of Innovations "On-farm": Phytosanitary Aspects. Special Research Programme. pp. 282-308 Cowpea and its importance. http://www.cowpea.org/node8.html Cowpea: Post-Harvest Operations. http://www.fao.org/inpho/content/comprehend/text/ch32_05.htm FAOSTAT 2000. http://www.fao.org/statistics How to grow a good cowpea crop in Nigeria. http://fao.org/sd/erp/toolkit/Books/pdf Pests of cowpea. http://www.info-vision.org Walp.). 9(1): 169-

32