Effects of faba bean (Vicia faba) varieties on the development of Bruchus rufimanus
M. Seidenglanz, I. Huňadyhttps://doi.org/10.17221/122/2015-CJGPBCitation:Seidenglanz M., Huňady I. (2016): Effects of faba bean (Vicia faba) varieties on the development of Bruchus rufimanus. Czech J. Genet. Plant Breed., 52: 22-29.
The development of Bruchus rufimanus was assessed in randomised field trials from 2005 to 2007 with eight faba bean genotypes (SU 5/13, SU-BT, Mistral, Merkur, Stabil Merlin, Melodie, Divine). Significant differences, reproducible between the years, were found between the faba bean lines. The varieties most attractive to B. rufimanus ovipositing females were SU-BT and Divine. Merkur showed a certain level of non-preference. The highest mortality rates of eggs and first instar larvae in pod valve tissues were recorded in Merkur (34–45%) and Divine (51–55%). The highest mortality rates of larvae and pupae during their development in seeds (effect of seed coat and cotyledon tissues) were recorded in Merkur (87–90%) and Melodie (87–99%). Parasitation by Triaspis thoracicus contributed to this mortality. The highest levels of B. rufimanus parasitation were found in SU-BT (32–35%), the lowest in Melodie (3–9%). The total reduction in Bruchus rufimanus individuals during their development was relatively high in all varieties, ranging from 72% to 99%.Keywords:
antibiosis; Bruchus rufimanus mortality in seeds; nonpreference; plant resistance to bruchidsReferences:
Annis B.A. (1983): Mechanisms of Host Plant Resistance to the Pea Weevil in Peas. [PhD. Thesis.] Moscow, University of Idaho.Bruce Toby JA, Martin Janet L, Smart Lesley E, Pickett John A (2011): Development of semiochemical attractants for monitoring bean seed beetle, Bruchus rufimanus. Pest Management Science, 67, 1303-1308 https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.2186Burov D. (1980): Studies on monophagy in the pea weevil, Bruchus pisi L. Nauchni Trudove, Entomologiya, Mikrobiologiya, Fitopatologiya, 25: 77–81.Clement S. L. (1992): On the function of pea flower feeding by Bruchus pisorum. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 63, 115-121 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1992.tb01566.xCzerniakowski Z.W., Błażej J., Olbrycht T. (1996): Increased incidence of major diseases and pests on horse bean (Vicia faba L. var. minor Harz.). Plant Breeding and Seed Science, 40: 79–86.Doss R. P., Oliver J. E., Proebsting W. M., Potter S. W., Kuy S., Clement S. L., Williamson R. T., Carney J. R., DeVilbiss E. D. (2000): Bruchins: Insect-derived plant regulators that stimulate neoplasm formation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97, 6218-6223 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.110054697Hoffmann A., Labeyrie V., Balachowsky A.S. (1962): Famille des Bruchidae. In: Entomologie appliqué à l´agriculture. Paris, Masson et Cie: 185–188. (in French)Kaniuczak Z. (2004): Seed damage of field bean (Vicia faba L. var. minor Harz.) caused by bean weevils (Bruchus rufimanus Boh.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Journal of Plant Protection Research, 44: 125–129.Kaniuczak Z. (2006): Bruchus rufimanus on beans. Ochrona Roślin, 51: 15–17.Matłosz I. (1998): Results of studies on susceptibility of some field broad bean cultivars to seed damage by broad bean weevil (Bruchus rufimanus Boh.) in Rzeszów region. Journal of Plant Protection Research, 38: 154–157.Matłosz I., Kaniuczak Z. (1997): Results of studies on the occurrence of the broad bean weevil (Bruchus rufimanus Boh.) and on the effects of its control on broad bean at different dates. Journal of Plant Protection Research, 37: 94–98.Medjdoub-Bensaad F., Khelil M. A., Huignard J. (2007): Bioecology of broad bean bruchid Bruchus rufimanus Boh. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) in a region of Kabylia in Algeria. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 2: 412–417.Meyer E. (1998): Attack by seed beetle (Bruchus sp.) on broad beans. Gemüse (München), 34: 152–153.Middlekauff W. W. (1951): Field Studies on the Bionomics and Control of the Broad Bean Weevil. Journal of Economic Entomology, 44, 240-243 https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/44.2.240Seidenglanz M., Rotrekl J., Poslušná J., Kolařík P. (2011): Ovicidal effects of thiacloprid, acetamiprid, lambda-cyhalothrin and alpha-cypermethrin on Bruchus pisorum L. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) eggs. Plant Protection Science, 47: 109–114.Smith M. A., Hepworth G. (1992): Sampling Statistics and a Sampling Plan for Eggs of Pea Weevil (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 85, 1791-1796 https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/85.5.1791Tran B., Huignard J. (1992): Interactions between photoperiod and food affect the termination of reproductive diapause in Bruchus rufimanus (Boh.), (Coleoptera, Bruchidae). Journal of Insect Physiology, 38, 633-642 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1910(92)90115-TTran B., Darquenne J., Huignard J. (1993): Changes in responsiveness to factors inducing diapause termination in Bruchus rufimanus (Boh.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Journal of Insect Physiology, 39, 769-774 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1910(93)90052-SWard R.L., Smart L. (2011): The effect of temperature on the effectiveness of spray applications to control bean seed beetle (Bruchus rufimanus) in field beans (Vicia faba). Aspects of Applied Biology, 106: 247–254.