Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-28T19:33:19.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Synthetic pyrethroids for the control of cowpea insect pests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

S. O. Dina
S. O. Dina
Affiliation:
National Cereals Research Institute, Moor Plantation, P.M.B. 5042, Ibadan, Nigeria
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In field trials made in 1977, the synthetic pyrethroids Deois and Permethrin offered better protection to cowpea flowers and pods but the crop did not outyield that treated with Nuvacron in grain production. Further evaluation of Decis and Permethrin in 1978 showed that the relationships between rate and insect damage, and yield were curvilinear. On the early crop, Decis at 15 g a.i./ha and lOga.i./ha reduced insect damage to flowers and pods, respectively, below the control but yield differences were not significant from 5 to 50 g. Four or five applications of Decis were most effective in reducing insect damage, but yields obtained from them were not better than that from one application. Permethrin at 12·5 g a.i./ha reduced insect damage below the control but produced grain yield which was significantly lower than 25 g and above.

On the late crop, Permethrin was effective from 5 to 25 g in reducing insect damage and providing increased grain yield. One application of Decis was sufficient to reduce pod damage and increase grain yield over the control, but appreciable yields were obtained from the three and four application regimes.

A cost/benefit analysis of insecticide application shows that the synthetic pyrethroids compared favourably with Nuvacron. In 1978, two and three applications of Decis gave the highest net returns on the early and late season crops, respectively. Decis appeared most economical at 10 g on the early crop while Permethrin was most rewarding at 62·5 g in the early crop and 10 g in the late crop. The seasonal differences in weather are discussed in relation to the performance of the crop.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 93 , Issue 3 , December 1979 , pp. 735 - 747
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

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

Ayoade, K. A. (1974). Evaluation of DDT schedules for the control of pod borer, Maruca testulalis Gey. infestation on cowpea, (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp) var. ‘Mala'. Nigerian Journal of Entomology 1, 9–12.Google Scholar
Booker, R. H. (1965). Pests of cowpea and their control in northern Nigeria. Bulletin of Entomological Research 55, 663–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caswell, G. H. & Raheja, K. A. (1977). Preliminary trials using synthetic pyrethroids to control pests of cotton and cowpea. Samaru Agricultural Newsletter 19, 46–49.Google Scholar
Dina, S. O. (1977 a). Effects of monocrotophos on insect damage and yield of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) in southern Nigeria. Experimental Agriculture 13, 155–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dina, S. O. (1977 b). Effects of rate of monocrotophos application on insect damage, grain yield and economy of field cowpea. Nigeria Agricultural Journal 13, 44–49.Google Scholar
Dina, S. O. & Medaiyedu, J. A. (1976). Field tests with insecticides to control Maruca testulalis and other pod boring insects of cowpea in southern Nigeria. Journal of Economic Entomology 69, 173–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebong, U. U. (1972). An analysis of yield components in cowpea (Vigna sinensis Endl.). Nigerian Journal of Science 5, 185–189.Google Scholar
Food and Agricultural Organisation (1971). Crop Loss Manual, Method 82. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (1972). Report of Grain Legume Improvement Programme, pp. 35–38.Google Scholar
Jerath, M. L. (1968). Insecticide control of Maruca testulalis on cowpea in Nigeria. Journal of Economic Entomology 61, 413–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koehler, E. S. & Mehta, P. M. (1972). Relationships of insect control attempts by chemicals to components of yield of cowpeas in Uganda. Journal of Economic Entomology 65, 1421–1427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raheja, K. A. (1976). ULV spraying for cowpea in northern Nigeria. Pest Articles and New Summary 22, 327–332.Google Scholar
Taylor, T. A. (1964). Field pests of cowpea. Federal Department of Agricultural Research, Ibadan, Memorandum, no. 52.Google Scholar
Taylor, T. A. (1965). Observations on the bionomics ofLaspeyresia ptychora Meyr. (Lepidoptera, Eucosmidae) infesting cowpea in Nigeria. Bulletin of Entomological Research 55, 761–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, T. A. (1967). The bionomics of Maruca testulalis Gey. (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), a major pest of cowpea in Nigeria. Journal of the West African Science Association 12, 111–129.Google Scholar
Taylor, T. A. (1968). The effects of insecticide applications on insect damage and the performance of cowpea in southern Nigeria. Nigerian Agricultural Journal 5, 29–37.Google Scholar
Taylor, T. A. (1969). Preliminary studies on the integrated control of the pest complex of cowpeas (Vigna unguiculata Walp.). Journal of Economic Entomology 62, 900–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, T. A. & Ezedinma, F. O. C. (1964). Preliminary investigation on field pests of cowpea and methods of control. Nigerian Agricultural Journal 1, 8–11.Google Scholar