Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T05:08:14.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Evaluation of bean cultivars for resistance to beanflies in single plantings at different seasons

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

J. H. Nderitu
Affiliation:
National Agricultural Laboratories, P. O. Box 14733, Nairobi, Kenya
H. Y. Kayumbo
Affiliation:
National Agricultural Laboratories, P. O. Box 14733, Nairobi, Kenya
J. M. Mueke
Affiliation:
National Agricultural Laboratories, P. O. Box 14733, Nairobi, Kenya
Get access

Abstract

Seven selected cultivare of common beans Phaseolus vulgaris L. were evaluated for resistance at two sites under different weather and beanfly population pressures in the field. The indices of resistance were the number of leaf punctures, eggs, larvae and puparia and per cent dead plants. Beanfly species, Ophiomyia spencerella (Greathead) and Ophiomyia phaseoli (Tryon) infested the bean plants in the field. There were seasonal differences in the response of the cultivare to beanfly infestation attributed to differences in the level of attack of the bean crop, being highest in the non-cropping season of 1985 and lowest in the long rains of 1985. Despite the variation in results, Gip 1004 and Gip x-92 showed some resistance on the basis of their least plant mortalities and low larvae/puparia surviving on them. When the beanfly population was high enough to cause death of the bean plants, percentage plant mortality was correlated to the numbers of larvae and puparia of beanflies and it may be the best parameter for resistance.

Résumé

Sept variétés de haricots ordinaires, le Phaseolus vulgaris L. ont été sélectionnées et étudiées afin d'en évaluer la résistance.

L'étude a été menée dans deux sites différents sous des conditions atmosphériques différentes et sous différentes vagues de population de la mouche du haricot dans le champs. Les indices de résistance étaient le nombre des feuilles rongées, les oeufs, les larves et chrisalides, ainsi que le pourcentage des plantes mortes. Dans le champs les plantes des haricots avaient été infestées par les types de la mouche de haricot Ophiomyia spencerella (Greathead) et Ophiomyia phaseoli (Tryon).

La réaction des plantes à l'infestation des mouches du haricot variait selon les saisons et était fonction de l'intensité de l'invasion subie par les plantes des haricots. La quelle invasion avait atteint son niveau le plus élevé au cours de la saison sans misson en 1985, et son niveau le plus bas durant la longue saison pluvieuse de la même année. Malgré la diversification dans les résultats, les variétés Glp 1004 x-92 ont manifesté une certaine résistance dûe au faible taux de mortalité parmi elles et au fait que les larves/chrisalides survivent difficilement sur ce type de plantes. Lorsqu la population des mouches du haricot était suffisamment dense pour causer des dégâts chez les plantes de haricots, le pourcentage de la mortalité des plantes dépendait du nombre des larves et de chrisalides des mouches. Et cela peut bien servir de meilleur paramètre pour évaluer la résistance des plantes des haricots.

Type
Research 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

Anonymous (1986) Proceedings of the Beanfly Workshop, Arusha, Tanzania, 16–20 November, 1986 (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Chiang, H. S. and Talekar, N. S. (1980) Identification of sources of resistance to the beanfly and two other agromyzid flies in soybean and mungbean. J. econ. Entomol. 73, 197199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, F. M. (1985) Entomological techniques and methodologies used in research programmes on plant resistance to insects. Insect Sci. Applic. 6, 391400.Google Scholar
Karel, A. K. (1984) Evaluation of common bean cultivars for resistance to beanfly, Ophiomyia phaseoli Tryon. Proc. 3rd Workshop on Bean Research in Tanzania (Edited by Minjas, A. N. and Salema, M. P.), pp. 4346.Google Scholar
Maerere, A. P. and Karel, A. K. (1984) Evaluation of common bean cultivars for resistance to beanfly, Ophiomyia phaseoli Tryon. Proc. 3rd Workshop on Bean Research in Tanzania, 1984 (Edited by Minjas, A. N. and Salema, M. P.), pp. 4952.Google Scholar
Msangi, R. B. and Karel, A. K. (1984) Host plant resistance in common beans to beanfly, Ophiomyia phaseoli. Proc. 3rd Workshop on Bean Research in Tanzania, 1984 (Edited by Minjas, A. N. and Salema, M. P.), pp. 6063.Google Scholar
Mueke, J. M. (1979) A preliminary screening of seventeen bean cultivars for beanfly resistance. In Plant Protection Programme Report, 1979 (Edited by Karue, C. N. and Mukunya, D. M.), pp. 5972. University of Nairobi, Faculty of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Mushebezy, D. M. K. and Karel, A. K. (1985) Resistance to beanfly, Ophiomyia phaseoli Tryon in common beans. Proc. 4th Workshop on Bean Research in Tanzania, 1985 (Edited by Minjas, A. N. and Salema, M. P.), pp. 6268.Google Scholar
Redy, A. R., Venkateswarlu, S., Vaid, K. L. and Singh, R. M. (1983) Evaluation of the germplasm of Rajmash with special reference to beanfly infestation. Indian J. Entomol. 45, 184189.Google Scholar
Rogers, D. J. (1979) Host plant resistance to Ophiomyia phaseoli Tryon (Diptera: Agromyzidae) in Phaseolus vulgaris L. J. Aust. Entomol. Soc. 18, 245250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rwamugira, W. P. and Karel, A. K. (1984) Varietal evaluation of common beans for resistance to beanfly, Ophiomyia phaseoli. Proc. 2nd Workshop on Bean Research in Tanzania. University of Dar es Salaam, Morogoro, Tanzania, 6–7 September, 1983 (Edited by Minjas, A. N. and Salema, M. P.).Google Scholar
Saxena, K. N. (1985) Behavioural basis of plant resistance or susceptibility to insects. Insect Sci.Applic. 3, 303313.Google Scholar
Talekar, N. S. (1980) Search for beanfly resistance in soybean, mungbean and snapbean. In Processing of Legumes in the Tropics. Faculty of Agriculture, University of Pertanian, Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia, pp. 293295.Google Scholar