Frontiers, Oviposition Preference of Pea Weevil, Bruchus pisorum L

Frontiers in Plant Science

Plant Breeding

Edited by
Maria Carlota Vaz Patto

Institute of Chemical and Biological Technology, New University of Lisbon, Portugal

Reviewed by
Anne-Kristin Løes

Norwegian Institute for Agricultural and Environmental Research, Norway

Isabel R. Teixeira

IFSULDEMINAS — campus Poços de Caldas

The editor and reviewers’ affiliations are the latest provided on their Loop research profiles and may not reflect their situation at the time of review.

  • Download Article
    • Download PDF
    • ReadCube
    • EPUB
    • XML (NLM)
    • Supplementary
      Material
  • Export citation
    • EndNote
    • Reference Manager
    • Simple TEXT file
    • BibTex
SHARE ON

Original Research ARTICLE

Oviposition Preference of Pea Weevil, Bruchus pisorum L. Among Host and Non-host Plants and its Implication for Pest Management

  • 1 Department of Plant Protection Biology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp, Sweden
  • 2 International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria

The pea weevil, Bruchus pisorum L. is a major insect pest of field pea, Pisum sativum L. worldwide and current control practices mainly depend on the use of chemical insecticides that can cause adverse effects on environment and human health. Insecticides are also unaffordable by many small-scale farmers in developing countries, which highlights the need for investigating plant resistance traits and to develop alternative pest management strategies. The aim of this study was to determine oviposition preference of pea weevil among P. sativum genotypes with different level of resistance (Adet, 32410-1 and 235899-1) and the non-host leguminous plants wild pea (Pisum fulvum Sibth. et Sm.) and grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.), in no-choice and dual-choice tests. Pod thickness and micromorphological traits of the pods were also examined. In the no-choice tests significantly more eggs were laid on the susceptible genotype Adet than on the other genotypes. Very few eggs were laid on P. fulvum and L. sativus. In the dual-choice experiments Adet was preferred by the females for oviposition. Furthermore, combinations of Adet with either 235899-1 or non-host plants significantly reduced the total number of eggs laid by the weevil in the dual-choice tests. Female pea weevils were also found to discriminate between host and non-host plants during oviposition. The neoplasm (Np) formation on 235899-1 pods was negatively correlated with oviposition by pea weevil. Pod wall thickness and trichomes might have influenced oviposition preference of the weevils. These results on oviposition behavior of the weevils can be used in developing alternative pest management strategies such as trap cropping using highly attractive genotype and intercropping with the non-host plants.

Introduction

Field pea, Pisum sativum L. is a cool season legume crop grown in tropical highlands and in many countries in temperate regions (Messiaen et al., 2006). It is an important crop both for human consumption and for animal feed mainly due to its high protein content, and thus nutritional value. Furthermore, it provides ecosystem services by improving soil fertility through symbiotic nitrogen fixation (French, 2004; Khan and Croser, 2004; Messiaen et al., 2006). Insect pests are one of the major constraints of field pea production (Clement et al., 2000), among which the pea weevil, Bruchus pisorum L. is an economically important pest of field pea worldwide. In Ethiopia, seed damage and weight loss up to 85 and 59%, respectively, has been reported after attack by the pea weevil (Teka, 2002; Seyoum et al., 2012). As a consequence, the damaged seeds have low marketable value, are less valuable for human consumption and animal feed and show poor germination rate (Brindley et al., 1956; Clement et al., 2000, 2002; Seyoum et al., 2012).

The pea weevil has one generation per year and it reproduces only on field pea. Upon emergence from hibernation sites adult weevils fly into the pea fields and start to search for mate and oviposition sites. Egg laying starts about 2–2.5 weeks after the arrival of the weevils. The female weevil lays its eggs on pods of peas and upon hatching the first instar larva bore directly to the seed. Larvae develop inside the seed by consuming the content of the seed, which results in damage to the crop (Brindley et al., 1956). This cryptic larval feeding habit within the seeds makes it difficult both to monitor the infestation and to control the pea weevil with chemical insecticides. Thus, the most suitable time to control the pest would be before females commence oviposition (Horne and Bailey, 1991; Baker, 1998; Clement et al., 2000). Due to the long infestation period of adult weevils it has been reported that repeated chemical spraying is required to be effective (Baker, 1998). Furthermore, fumigation of harvested peas in the store can prevent further damage by pea weevil (Baker, 1998; Clement et al., 2000). However, insecticides are often unaffordable for small-scale farmers in developing countries such as in Ethiopia. Furthermore, insecticides can have adverse effects on human health and the environment. For example, recent studies showed improper use of insecticides among field pea growers in Ethiopia can expose the farmers to pesticide risks (Mendesil et al., 2016). Thus, development of alternative pest management strategies is needed.

Understanding of oviposition preference behavior in relation to host and non-host plants may provide useful information for developing alternative pest management strategies such as intercropping and trap cropping strategy for insect pest management (Shelton and Badenes-Perez, 2006; Cook et al., 2007; Finch and Collier, 2012). Intercropping is a traditional agronomic practice in Africa which has been shown to reduce pest damage (Abate et al., 2000; Smith and McSorley, 2000) and increase productivity of farm land (Vandermeer, 1989). A study conducted in Ethiopia showed that intercropping of maize, Zea mays L. with Ethiopian mustard, Brassica carinata A. Braun and potato, Solanum tuberosum L. reduced infestation by the stem borers, Busseola fusca Füller and Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) (Wale et al., 2007). A plant species or variety which is attractive to insect pest can also be planted as a trap crop to protect the main crop (Shelton and Nault, 2004; Shelton and Badenes-Perez, 2006). Trap cropping has been developed for control of various insect pests (a review of Shelton and Badenes-Perez, 2006) and there is an increasing interest in the use of trap crops for pest management.

In many herbivorous insects, understanding female choice of oviposition site is important for evaluating plant resistance and interaction between plants. Among a variety of plants, insect herbivores often show higher preference for particular host plant species, crop varieties and/or crop stages for feeding and oviposition (Bernays and Chapman, 1994). Thus, there can be large differences in plant attractiveness and resistance between different host plants and varieties of the same crop (Smith, 2005). Furthermore, various studies have shown that non-host plants can influence insect herbivore behavior in different ways such as disturbing host finding, masking of host plants and as an oviposition repellent (Vandermeer, 1989; Finch and Collier, 2012; Ratnadass et al., 2012). Most insect herbivores rely on morphological and chemical cues in location of oviposition sites and both morphological traits and secondary chemical metabolites play a crucial role in plant resistance against insect pest attack (Bernays and Chapman, 1994). Plant traits such as different types of glandular structures, wax layers and tissue thickness have been shown to influence oviposition behavior of insect herbivores (Bernays and Chapman, 1994).

In previous field experiments, we found variation in the susceptibility to pea weevil attack between different field pea genotypes, of which Adet genotype is highly susceptible to the weevil, and 235899-1 and 32410-1 are moderately resistant based on mean percent seed damage (Teshome et al., 2015). There are also studies showing that non-host plants also can affect host plant choice behaviors of the pea weevil (Annis and O’Keeffe, 1984b). Furthermore, a specific morphological trait reported in peas is the growth of neoplasm on the pod surface, a ‘postular-like outgrowth’ that is controlled by a single dominant gene, Np (Nuttall and Lyall, 1964). Oviposition of pea weevil on peas with Np gene has been found to result in development of neoplasm (Berdnikov et al., 1992; Doss et al., 2000). Interestingly, neoplasms are also formed when peas with Np gene are grown in the greenhouse under reduced UV wavelengths (Nuttall and Lyall, 1964; Snoad and Matthews, 1969). However, there is little information about how oviposition behavior in the pea weevil reflects resistance among genotypes and how it is affected by non-host plants. There is also no information if it is possible to take advantage of neoplasm as a resistant trait against pea weevil.

Although intercropping and trap cropping pest management methods have been used for major insect pests in various cropping systems elsewhere, e.g., control of B. fusca and C. partellus in maize and sorghum, Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench in Africa (Khan et al., 2014), there is no available information on such management methods for pea weevil. Identifying host plants that are preferred to female pea weevil and those that are less or non-preferred, may pave the way to develop intercropping and trap cropping as pest management strategies for the pea weevil. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine oviposition preference of pea weevil to field pea genotypes with different level of pea weevil resistance and to non-host plants. We also wanted to determine the influence of pod morphological traits and neoplasm formation on oviposition preference by pea weevil.

See also:  Patience Young Grasshopper - Where did it come from? What does it mean, Super Hero Reviews

Materials and Methods

Plants

Three field pea, P. sativum L., genotypes were selected based on results obtained from field experiments conducted in northern and north-western Ethiopia during 2011–2012: Ebinat (12°10′ N 38° 05′ E), Liben (11° 50′N 37°10′ E), and Sekota (13° 00′ N 38° 50′E) (Teshome et al., 2015). The genotypes were: Adet, an improved variety which is highly susceptible to pea weevil, released by Adet Agricultural Research Center in Ethiopia in 1997, and 235899-1 and 32410-1 that both are gene bank accessions that were found moderately resistant (Teshome et al., 2015) obtained from the Ethiopian Institute of Biodiversity in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Furthermore, 235899-1 is a Np genotype with neoplasm formation in pods. Two non-host plants to pea weevil, wild pea, Pisum fulvum Sibth. et Sm. (NGB 102148) and grass pea, Lathyrus sativus L., were also included in the experiment. P. fulvum was obtained from the Nordic Genetic Resource Center (NordGen), Alnarp, Sweden whereas L. sativus was collected from Adet area, Ethiopia. Plants were grown to produce flowering branches and pods for the insect studies. All plants were grown in 2-L plastic pots with humus rich gardening soil (Weibulls, Sweden) in a biotron chamber (22°C, 75% RH, 12:12 h light/dark cycle) in 2014 at SLU, Alnarp.

Insects

Field pea seeds infested with B. pisorum were obtained from harvest of field experiments conducted in Liben, north-western Ethiopia during 2011–2012 and from farmers’ seed stores in this area. Infested seeds were kept in a transparent plastic insect rearing cage (31 cm × 22.5 cm × 12 cm) at room temperature (20–24°C). Newly emerged adult pea weevils were used for the bioassays. The sex of the weevils was determined based on the presence of a small spine on the tibia of the middle leg of only male insects (Bousquet, 1990). Newly emerged weevils can be kept alive up to 1 year.

Oviposition Bioassay

No-Choice Tests

A no-choice oviposition assay was conducted following the methods of Hardie and Clement (2001) and Clement et al. (2002) with some modification. A pair of male and female B. pisorum was introduced into a plastic insect rearing cage (31 cm × 22.5 cm × 12 cm) that was placed in a climate chamber (24°C, 60% RH, 12:12 h light/dark cycle). The weevils were provided a branch of a field pea plant with four to six fresh flowers every 2 days for 10 days before each experiment. In addition, weevils were provided distilled water and sugar solution on a cotton swab, which was changed every week. At the start of the experiment two flat pea pods, which is the preferred stages for oviposition by pea weevil (Hardie and Clement, 2001), were provided for oviposition. Each pod was placed hanging from the top of the cage using paper clip without damaging the pod, then a staples magnet (10 mm, Staples, Inc. Amsterdam, The Netherlands) was placed on the outer surface of the cage in order to fix/attach the pod. Only pods of one genotype per cage (Adet, 235899-1, 32410-1, P. fulvum and L. sativus) were provided to each weevil. Pods were changed daily and the number of eggs laid on each pod was counted under stereo microscope. For each experimental setup ten replications were made in a completely randomized design. The weevils were allowed to oviposit for 10 days.

Dual-Choice Tests

A similar experimental procedure as described above was followed in the dual-choice experiments, except that one pod of the control (Adet) and one pod from four test genotypes (235899-1, 32410-1, P. fulvum and L. sativus) were placed in each cage.

Degree of Neoplasm Formation on Pods of 235899-1

In order to determine the association of degree of neoplasm formation and number of eggs laid by the weevil, pods of 235899-1, which were selected for no-choice oviposition bioassay were first assessed for degree of neoplasm before oviposition assays. The degree of neoplasm formation was determined into four classes (1–4; Figure 3A), where 1 = 75% of the pod surface is covered with neoplasm. Then the level of neoplasm formation was correlated with (related to) the number of eggs laid per pod. Twenty pods were sampled for each class and in total eighty pods were sampled for this study.

Morphological Traits of Test Genotypes

Pod Thickness

Thickness of pod wall was measured using an Absolute Digimatic Caliper (500-182-30, Mitutoyo, Japan). A measurement was done in the middle of both on the upper and bottom part of the pod. In total forty pods were measured per each test genotype (Adet, 235899-1, 32410-1, P. fulvum and L. sativus), where four fresh pods of flat stage were sampled from ten different plants.

Scanning Electron Microscopy

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was performed at SLU, Alnarp to examine if there were any differences on the pod anatomy of test genotypes. Fresh pods of flat stage were sampled from Adet, 32410-1, 235899-1, P. fulvum and L. sativus. Small pieces of the pods were fixed overnight at 4°C in a solution of 2.5% glutaraldehyde and 2% paraformaldehyde in 0,1 M Na-phosphate buffer, pH 7.2, dehydrated in a graded series of ethanol and critical-point dried (CPD 020, Balzers, Lichtenstein). Sample pieces were attached on stubs with double-sided tape external, internal or cros section surface of the pod upwards, and coated with a mixture of gold and palladium 3:2 in a sputter (JFC-1100, JOEL, Tokyo, Japan). Coated samples were examined with SEM (435VP, LEO Electron Microscopy Ltd., Cambridge, UK) with 10 kV.

Statistical Analysis

No-choice oviposition and genotype combination data, and pod wall thickness was analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using a generalized linear model. Mean oviposition were logarithmic transformed before analysis. For dual-choice test a Student’s t-test was used to analyze differences in oviposition on control vs. test genotypes. Spearman’s correlation analysis was used to determine the associations of number of eggs laid and level of neoplastic formation. All statistical analysis was done using MINITAB 16 statistical software.

Results

Oviposition Preference Test

No-Choice Tests

There were clear differences in the number of eggs laid on the different genotypes (F = 121.53; df = 4; P ∗∗ P 51% neoplasm formation (Figures 3A,B). We found a negative correlation between the degree of neoplasm formation and number of eggs laid per pod (rs = -1.0; P Keywords : Bruchidae, host selection, insect behavior, legume, neoplasm, Pisum sativum, pea weevil

Citation: Mendesil E, Rämert B, Marttila S, Hillbur Y and Anderson P (2016) Oviposition Preference of Pea Weevil, Bruchus pisorum L. Among Host and Non-host Plants and its Implication for Pest Management. Front. Plant Sci. 6:1186. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2015.01186

Received: 12 August 2015; Accepted: 10 December 2015;
Published: 06 January 2016.

Maria Carlota Vaz Patto, Instituto de Tecnologia Quimica e Biologica/Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal

Anne-Kristin Løes, Bioforsk Norwegian Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Research, Norway
Isabel Ribeiro Do Valle Teixeira, IFSULDEMINAS – Campus Poços de Caldas, Brazil

Copyright © 2016 Mendesil, Rämert, Marttila, Hillbur and Anderson. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

www.frontiersin.org

What Are Pea Weevils: Information For Control Of Pea Weevil Pests

Does something seem amiss with your pea crop? Perhaps you have noticed insects feeding on the blossoms or tiny eggs on the pea pods. If so, the culprits are very likely pea weevil pests. Pea weevil damage is a major menace to pea production, specifically to garden and canning peas. What are pea weevils, anyway? Keep reading to find out.

What are Pea Weevils?

Pea weevil pests are small, black to brownish insects with a white zigzag running across the back. Bruchus pisorum overwinter in plant debris in the soil and then lay their eggs on the pea pods. Pea weevil larvae hatch and burrow into the pods and feed on the developing peas while adults munch on the blossoms.

The resulting pea weevil damage on the pea crop renders it unfit for sale in the commercial sector and unappetizing for the home gardener. Not only does this pea weevil infestation affect the germination potential of developing peas, but in the commercial arena, costs many dollars separating and discarding infested pea pods.

Control of Pea Weevil

The control of pea weevil pest is of paramount importance in relation to the commercial pea crop industry and it may be of a high importance to the home gardener as well.

Controlling pea weevils in the pea farm may be attained with the use of a dust mixture containing ¾ of 1 percent of rotenone. One to three dustings may be necessary to gain the upper hand on the pea weevil infestation at just the correct life cycle of the pea. The primary dusting should occur when the peas first begin to bloom, but before pods have set.

Successive application should occur depending upon weevil migrations that may afflict the field after the first rotenone application. This same dusting procedure will work in the home garden with a hand duster and should be repeated at weekly intervals throughout the growing season.

For the home gardener, however, the first order of business when controlling pea weevil infestations is to clean and dispose of any debris in the garden where the pests can potentially overwinter. Spent vines should be pulled and destroyed immediately post-harvest. The pulling of the vines before the peas are dry is the wisest course of action, although piling and burning will work just as well.

See also:  Bird-cherry Ermine Yponomeuta evonymella

Any that are left in the garden should be plowed underground 6-8 inches. This practice will prevent any eggs deposited from hatching or developing and infesting the pea crop the following year.

www.gardeningknowhow.com

Bruchus pisorum
(pea weevil)

Toolbox

Bruchus pisorum (pea weevil)

Index

Summary

  • Last modified
  • 21 November 2019
  • Datasheet Type(s)
  • Pest
  • Preferred Scientific Name
  • Bruchus pisorum
  • Preferred Common Name
  • pea weevil
  • Taxonomic Tree
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  • Kingdom: Metazoa
  • Phylum: Arthropoda
  • Subphylum: Uniramia
  • Class: Insecta
  • Summary of Invasiveness
  • The pea weevil is a small insect (up to 5 mm long) with good flight possibilities. The adults may fly up to 5 km in search of pea flowers. The larvae develop within a single pea seed; the pupae and newly emerged adults also remain there, so the pest.
  • Don’t need the entire report?

    Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.

    Pictures

    Picture Title Caption Copyright
    Title Ova
    Caption Bruchus pisorum (pea weevil); eggs (arrowed) are yellow, cigar-shaped and measure 1.5 x 0.6mm. They are laid singly or in pairs, and attached to green pods.
    Copyright ©Radoslav Andreev & I. Manolov/Agricultural University, Plovdiv, Bulgaria
    Ova Bruchus pisorum (pea weevil); eggs (arrowed) are yellow, cigar-shaped and measure 1.5 x 0.6mm. They are laid singly or in pairs, and attached to green pods. ©Radoslav Andreev & I. Manolov/Agricultural University, Plovdiv, Bulgaria
    Title Adult female
    Caption Bruchus pisorum (pea weevil); the females lay eggs on developing (immature) pea pods. Oviposition starts 5-52 hours after mating.
    Copyright ©Radoslav Andreev & I. Manolov/Agricultural University, Plovdiv, Bulgaria
    Adult female Bruchus pisorum (pea weevil); the females lay eggs on developing (immature) pea pods. Oviposition starts 5-52 hours after mating. ©Radoslav Andreev & I. Manolov/Agricultural University, Plovdiv, Bulgaria
    Title Adult
    Caption Bruchus pisorum (pea weevil); adults are ovoid, chunky beetles, ca.5.0mm in length. They are brownish, flecked with white, black and grey patches, and covered with short hairs or scales. The tip of the abdomen is exposed behind the wing covers and is white marked with two black oval spots. There is a visible white ‘cross’ mark.
    Copyright ©Radoslav Andreev & I. Manolov/Agricultural University, Plovdiv, Bulgaria
    Adult Bruchus pisorum (pea weevil); adults are ovoid, chunky beetles, ca.5.0mm in length. They are brownish, flecked with white, black and grey patches, and covered with short hairs or scales. The tip of the abdomen is exposed behind the wing covers and is white marked with two black oval spots. There is a visible white ‘cross’ mark. ©Radoslav Andreev & I. Manolov/Agricultural University, Plovdiv, Bulgaria
    Title Damage symptoms
    Caption Bruchus pisorum (pea weevil); damaged dry pea seeds. An opaque circular ‘window’ is visible (arrowed) on the pea. The fully-grown larva prepares an exit hole and pupates behind this ‘window’. Due to cannibalism, only one larva completes its development. The new generation of adult beetles pushes the window open and leaves the seed, creating a 5mm exit hole.
    Copyright ©Radoslav Andreev & I. Manolov/Agricultural University, Plovdiv, Bulgaria
    Damage symptoms Bruchus pisorum (pea weevil); damaged dry pea seeds. An opaque circular ‘window’ is visible (arrowed) on the pea. The fully-grown larva prepares an exit hole and pupates behind this ‘window’. Due to cannibalism, only one larva completes its development. The new generation of adult beetles pushes the window open and leaves the seed, creating a 5mm exit hole. ©Radoslav Andreev & I. Manolov/Agricultural University, Plovdiv, Bulgaria

    Identity

    Preferred Scientific Name

    • Bruchus pisorum Linnaeus, 1758

    Preferred Common Name

    Other Scientific Names

    • Bruchus cruciger Geoff.
    • Bruchus pisi Linnaeus
    • Bruchus salicis Skop.
    • Callosobruchus pisorum Linnaeus
    • Dermestes pisorum Linnaeus, 1758
    • Laria pisorum Linnaeus
    • Mylabris pisorum Linnaeus

    International Common Names

    • English: beetle, pea; pea beetle; pea seed beetle; weevil, pea
    • Spanish: brucho del poroto; bruco de la arveja; bruquido de las arvejas; brúquido de las arvejas; gorgojo de la arveja; gorgojo de la arveja y garbanzos; gorgojo de los chicharos; gorgojo del frijol y arveja; picudo del guisante
    • French: bruche du pois; bruchide des poix
    • Portuguese: caruncho da ervilha; gorgulho da ervilla

    Local Common Names

    • Austria: Erbsenkafer
    • Belgium: erwtekever
    • Bulgaria: grahov zarnoyad
    • Croatia: graskov zizak
    • Czech Republic: zrnokaz hrachov; zrnokaz hrachový; zrnokaza hrachového
    • Denmark: Ærtefrøbille
    • Ethiopia: yeater nekez
    • Finland: hernepiilokas
    • Germany: Gemeiner Erbsen Kaefer; Grosser Erbsen Kaefer; Kaefer, Gemeiner Erbsen-; Kaefer, Grosser Erbsen-
    • Hungary: borsózsizsik
    • Israel: zaryit haafuna
    • Italy: bruco del pisello; pappice; tonchio del pisello
    • Japan: endo-zomusi
    • Latvia: zirnu seklgrauzis
    • Netherlands: erwte kever
    • Norway: ertefrobille
    • Poland: strakowca grochowego
    • Romania: gargaritei
    • Slovenia: ggraharja
    • Sweden: ärtsmyg
    • Turkey: bezelye böcegi; bezelye tohumböcegi
    • Ukraine: zernivka gorohova
    • Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro): graskovog zizka

    EPPO code

    • BRCHPI (Bruchus pisorum)

    Summary of Invasiveness

    Taxonomic Tree

    Distribution Table

    The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.

    Last updated: 10 Jan 2020

    Africa

    Continent/Country/Region Distribution Last Reported Origin First Reported Invasive Reference Notes
    Ethiopia Present, Widespread CABI (Undated) Original citation: Assefa and et al. (2003)
    Nigeria Present CABI (Undated) Original citation: Olaifa (2000)
    Bangladesh Present, Widespread APPPC (1987); CABI (Undated)
    China Present APPPC (1987)
    Hong Kong Present CABI (Undated) Original citation: Hong Kong Government Information Centre, 2003
    India Present, Widespread CABI (Undated) Original citation: Raina (1971)
    -Jammu and Kashmir Present, Widespread CABI (Undated) Original citation: Bhat (1988)
    -Manipur Present, Widespread CABI (Undated) Original citation: Barwal and Devi (1993)
    -Punjab Present, Widespread CABI (Undated) Original citation: Pajni and Sood (1975)
    Iran Present CABI (Undated) Original citation: Abivardi (1976)
    Iraq Present, Widespread CABI (Undated) Original citation: Al-Rawy and Kaddou (1971)
    Japan Present, Few occurrences Lincoln Plant Protection Centre (1985); Lund University (2003)
    Kazakhstan Present, Widespread CABI (Undated) Original citation: Aleksandrova (1977)
    Nepal Present, Widespread CABI (Undated) Original citation: Pandey et al. (2000)
    South Korea Present KSAE (1989); CABI (Undated)
    Syria Present, Widespread CABI (Undated) Original citation: Weigand and et al. (1994)
    Tajikistan Present CABI (Undated) Original citation: Kadamshoev (1985)
    Turkey Present CABI (Undated) Original citation: Kalkan (1972)

    Europe

    Albania Present BBA (2003)
    Austria Present CABI (Undated) Original citation: Weinhappel and et al. (1996)
    Belgium Present CABI (Undated) Original citation: Rombaut (2003)
    Bulgaria Present, Widespread CABI (Undated) Original citation: Lazarov (1931)
    Cyprus Present Lund University (2003)
    Czechia Present AGRITEC (2003)
    Denmark Present CABI (Undated) Original citation: Hansen and et al. (1991)
    Estonia Present CABI (Undated) Original citation: Remm (1967)
    France Present, Widespread CABI (Undated) Original citation: Eschenbrenner and Taupin (1983)
    Germany Present CABI (Undated) Original citation: El Titi (1980)
    Greece Present Lund University (2003)
    Hungary Present CABI (Undated) Original citation: Jermy and Szentesi (1978)
    Italy Present, Widespread CABI (Undated) Original citation: Parisi and Govoni (1998)
    Latvia Present CABI (Undated) Original citation: Telnov and et al. (2003)
    Moldova Present, Widespread CABI (Undated) Original citation: Sokolov, 1977
    Poland Present, Widespread CABI (Undated) Original citation: Wnuk and Wiech (1987)
    Portugal Present Mateus et al. (2003)
    Romania Present, Widespread CABI (Undated) Original citation: Boguleanu and et al. (1969)
    Russia Present CABI (Undated a) Present based on regional distribution.
    -Central Russia Present, Widespread Volkov et al. (1955)
    -Northern Russia Present Volkov et al. (1955)
    -Southern Russia Present, Widespread Volkov et al. (1955)
    -Western Siberia Present CABI (Undated) Original citation: Legalov (2003)
    Serbia Present, Widespread CABI (Undated) Original citation: Almasi (1990)
    Slovakia Present CABI (Undated) Original citation: Cejka (2003)
    Slovenia Present Agroruse (2003)
    Spain Present, Widespread CABI (Undated) Original citation: Marzo and et al. (1997)
    Sweden Present Lund University (2003)
    Ukraine Present, Widespread CABI (Undated) Original citation: Sanin and et al. (1975)
    United Kingdom Present MapMate (2003)

    North America

    Canada Present CFIA (2003)
    United States Present CABI (Undated a) Present based on regional distribution.
    -Idaho Present, Widespread CABI (Undated) Original citation: Pesho and et al. (1977)
    -Kansas Present Introduced Kansas Pest Code List (2003)
    -Montana Present CABI (Undated) Original citation: Montana and Department of Agriculture (2003)
    -Oregon Present Introduced Invasive CABI (Undated) Original citation: Systma and et al. (2003)
    -Washington Present, Widespread CABI (Undated) Original citation: Pesho and et al. (1977)
    -Wisconsin Present CABI (Undated) Original citation: University of Wisconsin Madison, 2003

    Oceania

    Australia Present CABI (Undated a) Present based on regional distribution.
    -New South Wales Present, Widespread Introduced CABI (Undated) Original citation: Goodyer (1987)
    -South Australia Present, Widespread Introduced CABI (Undated) Original citation: Nourse (1973)
    -Victoria Present, Widespread Introduced CABI (Undated) Original citation: Comery and (1984)
    -Western Australia Present, Widespread Introduced CSIRO/AFFA (2003)
    New Zealand Present Lincoln Plant Protection Centre (1985)

    South America

    Argentina Present, Widespread CABI (Undated) Original citation: Via rural (2003)
    Chile Present, Widespread CABI (Undated) Original citation: Cafati and Jimenez (1974)
    Peru Present, Widespread ALNICOLSA (2003)

    Habitat List

    Top of page

    Category Sub-Category Habitat Presence Status
    Terrestrial

    Growth Stages

    List of Symptoms/Signs

    Sign Life Stages Type
    Seeds / internal feeding

    Natural enemies

    Natural enemy Type Life stages Specificity References Biological control in Biological control on
    Dinarmus basalis Parasite Larvae
    Paecilomyces fumosoroseus Pathogen Larvae
    Strongygaster triangulifera Parasite Adults
    Triaspis thoracicus Parasite Larvae Australia; Canada peas
    Trichomalopsis leguminis Parasite Larvae
    Uscana chiliensis Parasite Eggs
    Uscana senex Parasite Eggs Republic of Georgian; Ukraine peas

    Plant Trade

    Plant parts liable to carry the pest in trade/transport Pest stages Borne internally Borne externally Visibility of pest or symptoms
    True seeds (inc. grain) adults; larvae; pupae Yes Pest or symptoms usually invisible
    Plant parts not known to carry the pest in trade/transport
    Bark
    Bulbs/Tubers/Corms/Rhizomes
    Flowers/Inflorescences/Cones/Calyx
    Fruits (inc. pods)
    Growing medium accompanying plants
    Leaves
    Roots
    Seedlings/Micropropagated plants
    Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches
    Wood

    References

    Abate T, 2006. IPM in Ethiopia: The current status. Facilitating the implementation and adoption of integrated pest management (IPM) in Ethiopia. Dry lands coordination group (DCG) Proceedings, No. 17 [ed. by Bekele, E. Azerefegne, F. Abate, T.]. Oslo, Norway 3-15.

    AGRITEC, 2003. AGRITEC — Research, Breeding & Services Ltd. http://www.agritec.cz/luskoviny/.

    Aleksandrova EA, 1977. Results of an evaluation of pea varieties for susceptibility to pea weevil. Selektsiya i Semenovodstvo, 1:46-47.

    Ali K; Chichaybelu M; Abate T; Tefera T; Dawd M, 2009. Two decades of research on insect pests of grain legumes. In: Increasing crop production through improved plant protection, Vol. 2 [ed. by Tadesse, A.]. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Plant Protection Society of Ethiopia/Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, 38- 84.

    Almasi R, 1990. Monophagy of the pea weevil (Bruchus pisorum L. Coleoptera, Bruchidae). Zas^hacek

    tita Bilja, 41(4):395-403; 24 ref.

    APPPC, 1987. Insect pests of economic significance affecting major crops of the countries in Asia and the Pacific region. Technical Document No. 135. Bangkok, Thailand: Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific region (RAPA).

    Armstrong E; Matthews P, 2005. Managing pea weevil, pulse point, 3rd edition. Temora, Australia: NSW Department of Primary Industries.

    Assefa F; Dawd M; Abesha AD, 2003. Implementation Aspects of Integrated Pest Management (IPM): Policy and Extension Gap in Ethiopia. World Wide Web page at: http://www.drylands-group.org/Rep27_2003_full.pdf.

    Baker G, 1998. Pea weevil. Fact Sheet and the South Australian Research and Development Institute. http://www.sardi.sa.gov.au/pages/entomolo/pdf/peawevil.pdf.

    Balachowsky AS, 1962. Entomologie appliquée á l’agriculture, Coléoptéres, Tome 1, 1. Paris, France: Masson et Cie, 434-495.

    BARC, 2003. Chemicals affecting insect behavior. Bruchins. Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. http//www.barc.usda.gov/psi/caib/accomplishments.html#bruchins.

    BBA, 2003. Biologische Bundesanstalt für Land- und Forstwirtschaft. http://www.bba.de/ag/gesund/internat/al/zusamm/al2-qso.pdf.

    BDT, 2003. Biological control. Plagas de importancia económica y estado de desarrollo de tecnologías para el control biológico (TCB) en el cultivo de granos almacenados. Base de Dados Tropical. http://www.bdt.fat.org.br/biocontrol/cosave/tabla11.

    Boguleanu G; Nica F; Casian A, 1969. Response of various pea varieties to the attack of Bruchus pisorum L. in relation to sowing date. Lucrari Stiintifice, Institutul Agronomic «N. Balcescu», A, 12:425-430.

    Brindley TA; Chamberlin JC; Schopp R, 1956. The pea weevil and methods for its control. US Department of Agriculture Farmers’ Bulletin, No. 1971:1-24.

    Burns JW; Bragg DE, 2001. Pea Aphid and Pea Seed Weevil Control in Dry Field Peas: Effects on Yield and Yield Components from Insecticide Application Timings. http://variety.wsu.edu/Updates/2001_Pea_Report.pdf.

    Cafati KC; Jimenez TA, 1974. Some recommendations for growing peas for fresh consumption and conservation. Investigacion y-Progreso Agricola, 6(1):26-27.

    Cejka T, 2003. Safari v byte. World Wide Web pages at: http://www.inzine.sk/article.asp?art=8799.

    Chu P; Higgins TJ, 2003. Plant biotechnology for food and environment security. World Wide Web pages at: http://www.apctt.org/publication/pdf/tm_dec_plant.pdf.

    Clement SL; Lathrop A; Muehlbauer FJ, 1988. More on the pea’s nectaries and insect visitors. The Pisum Newsletter, 20:3-4.

    Crowe LJ, 2003. Onion family disease: what are pea weevils? World Wide Web pages at: http://nh.essortment.com/oniondiseasewe_rddi.htm.

    de Sousa M; Roush R; Hardie D; Morton R; Higgins T, 2003. Field strategies to manage the evolution of pea weevil (Bruchus pisorum) resistance in transgenic field pea. http://agspsrv38.agric.wa.gov.au/pls/portal30/docs/folder/ikmp/fcp/lp/insect_pests.pdf.

    Decelle J, 1979. Etude d’une collection de Coleopteres Bruchides de Somalie. Monitore Zoologica Italiano, 12(9): 79-88.

    Gerding M; Cisternas E, 2003. Mass rearing of Trichogramma to control agriculture and forest pest. http://www.bba.de/eggpara/eggp_11/egg11_10.pdf.

    Grigorov S, 1976. Grahov zarnojad. In: Special Entomologi. State publishing for agricultural literature, Sofia, 179-181.

    Grigorov S, 1992. Plant quarantine. Zemizdat, Sofia.

    Gulii V; Pamuzak N, 1992. Gorohovaya zernovka. In: Manual on Plant Protection for Farmers. Moscow, Russia: Rosagroservis, 169-173.

    Hansen M; Kristensen S; Mahler V; Pedersen J, 1991. Tenth supplement to the list of Danish Coleoptera. Entomologiske Meddelelser, 59(4):99-126.

    Hardie DC; Collie H; Clement SL; Elberson LR, 2003. Field evaluations of wild peas against pea weevil. http://www.entsoc.org/Protected/AMT/amt1999/M21.html.

    Hong Kong Government Information Centre, 2003. Food and Environmental Hygiene Department. http://www.fehd.gov.hk/safefood/pamphlet.html#pc.

    Jermy T; Balázs K, 1990. A növényvédelemi allattan kézikönyve. Akadémiai Kiado-Budapest, 3/b, 339-364.

    Kalkan M, 1972. Investigation on the species, distribution and percentage of damage of Bruchidae in central Anatolia. Tarim Bakanligi Zirai Mucadele ve Zirai Karantina Genel Mudurlugu Arastirma Subesi. Plant Protection Research Annual, Zirai Mucadele Arastirma Yilligi, Ankara, Turkey, 64, 192.

    Kaszab Z, 1967. Fauna Hungariae, Zsizsikfélék-Bruchidae, IX, 4, 84, 3-34.

    Kingsolver JM, 1969. A new species of neotropical seed weevil affecting pigeon peas, with notes on two closely related species (Col; Bruchidae: Bruchinae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 71(1):50-55.

    Kolesnikova MS, 1979. The pea Uladovo 10. Zemledelie, 12:56.

    KSAE, 1989. Abstracts of papers presented at the KSAE Autumn Meeting in 1989. Korean Journal of Applied Entomology, 28(4):254-259.

    Lazarov A, 1931. Investigations on biology and damages of the pea beetle. Publishing of Bulgarian Entomological Society, No. 6.

    Lazarov A, 1975. Grahov zarnoyad. in Ecological base of the plant protection with pests on agricultural crops. Zemizdat, Sofia, Bulgaria, 268-269.

    Legalov A, 2003. Bruchidae collection of Siberian Zoological Museum. http://szmn.sbras.ru/Coleop/Bruchid.htm.

    Lincoln Plant Protection Centre, 1985. Weta. 8(2):34-35.

    Loukianovitch FK; Ter-Minassian ME, 1957. Jouki zernoyki (Bruchidae), Faune de l´URSS, 24, 1, N.S. 67, 1-210.

    Lund University, 2003. Coleoptera : Bruchidae present in the Entomological Museum of Lund University. http://www.biol.lu.se/systzool/zoomus/ZooDoc/VetSam/ZooEnt/OrdCol/ListCol/167.Bruchidae.

    McDonald G, 1995. Pea weevil. Victoria, Australia: Department of Primary Industries.

    McPhee K, 2003. Dry pea production and breeding — a mini-review. Food, Agriculture & Environment, 1(1):64-69. http://www.isfae.org/pdf/journal2.pdf.

    Mihiretu E; Wale M, 2013. Effect of harvesting and threshing time and grain fumigation of field peas (Pisum sativum l.) on pea weevil (Bruchus pisorum (l.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) development and damage. Ethiopian Journal of Science and Technology, 6(1):13-24.

    Mitchell R, 2003. Bean gene protects peas from weevils in Australia. Phaction News, No. 5, 2002. http://www.iita.org/info/phnews5/mr9.htm.

    Montana Department of Agriculture, 2003. Dry Pea Production In Montana. http://scarab.msu.montana.edu/extension/MTPIAP_drypea.htm.

    Muehlbauer FJ; Pesho GR, 1973. Host plant resistance to pea weevil (Bruchus pisorum L.). Agronomy Abstracts, 11.

    NSPP, 2003. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. List of registered products for plant protection and fertilizers for sale and use in Bulgaria. Sofia, Bulgaria: Videnov and Son.

    NSPPQA, 1997. Economic Injury Levels for Main Pests on Agricultural Crops. Sofia, Bulgaria: National Service of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Agrochemistry, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Production.

    Olaifa JL, 2000. Alternative Pest Control Strategies for Crops in Sub-Saharan Africa. Papers from the First Country Ecofarming Workshop: NECOFA-NIGERIA, December 20th to 21st, 2000. http://www.necofa.org/network/nigeria2000.html.

    Panagiotopoulos K; Hopkins D; Baker G; Rohitha H, 2003. Insect Pests of Pulses and their Control. http://www.grdc.com.au/growers/as/Insect_Pests_Of_Pulses.htm.

    Pandey et al., 2000. Insect pests of lentil, chickpea, faba bean, pea and khesari and their status in the Terai region of Nepal. http://www.icrisat.org/text/research/nrmp/dfid/Tables/Nepal/table%20IV.3.e.asp.

    Panin S, 1951. Determinatorul coleopterelor daunatoare si folositoare din R.P.R. Editura de Stat pentru Literatura Stiintifica si Didactica, Bucuresti, p. 45, 150-152.

    Petri K, 1912. Siebenbürgens Käferfauna, 286-287.

    Pierrard G, 1992. Insect pest of tropical food legumes. Editura S.R. Siugh, 62-65.

    Plant Industry CSIRO, 2005. Risk assessment of GM field peas., Australia: CSIRO. http://www.gefree.nz/assets/CSIRO-peas-05

    Porca M, 2003. The actual stage the knowledge about the damages bruchides. Journal of Central European Agriculture (online), 4(3). http://www.agr.hr/jcea/issues/jcea4-3/pdf/jcea43-1.pdf.

    Rombaut A, 2003. Biologische gewasbescherming — deel 3: insecten. http://www.detuingids.be/pages/detail.asp?Id=2736.

    Rybalko AP, 1966. Ecologicalfaunistic survey of Bruchidae (Col.) in the steppe zone on the Ukraine, University of Kharkov, tom XLV, ed. 10, Revista zoologica, Editura Stiinta.

    Smith AM, 1992. Modeling the development and survival of eggs of pea weevil (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Environmental Entomology, 21:314-321.

    Systma M; Heimowitz P; Hilburn D; Nugent M; Parker B; Warren K; Cudd S; Buttrick S; Demasi R; Alexanian K; Cooc B; Mishaga R, 2003. Oregon Invasive Species Action Plan. http://www.oda.state.or.us/plant/Inv_spp/OISCActionPlan_2=03.pdf.

    Teka W, 2002. Proceedings of a national workshop on the management of pea weevil, Bruchus pisorum, November 25-27, 2002. Bahir Dar, Ethiopia: Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Institute/Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization.

    Teka W, 2002. The importance and distribution of pea weevil (Bruchus pisorum) in the Amhara Region. In: Proceedings of a national workshop on the management of pea weevil, Bruchus pisorum, 25-27 November 2002. Bahir Dar, Ethiopia: Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Institute/Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization, 30-36.

    Telnov D; Barsevskis A; Savich F; Kovalevsky F; Berdnikov S; Doronin M; Cibulskis R; Ratniece D, 2003. Bruchidae — The Updated List of Latvian Beetles (Coleoptera). http://www.lubi.edu.lv/les/Bruchidae.htm.

    Ter-Minassian, 1954. Specii noi de gargarite (Col., Bruchidae) din fauna URSS, CCCP, XL, 65-73.

    TVPestAlert.net, 2003. Treasure Valley Pest Alert Network. http://www.tvpestalert.net/reference/Crops

    Verbitskii NM, 1979. Selection of parental pairs for hybridization in pea. Selektsiya i Semenovodstvo, 4:21-22.

    Verbitskii NM; Pokazeeva AP, 1980. Breeding pea for immunity to Bruchus pisorum. Selektsia i semenovodstvo zernovih i kormovih kultur, 80-84.

    Wale M; Assayehegne B; Mengistu F, 2002. Research attempts on the management of pea weevil (Bruchus pisorum) on field pea. In: Proceedings of a national workshop on the management of pea weevil, Bruchus pisorum, 25-27 November 2002. Bahir Dar, Ethiopia: Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Institute/Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization, 60-66.

    Distribution References

    AGRITEC, 2003. AGRITEC — Research, Breeding & Services Ltd., http://www.agritec.cz/luskoviny/

    APPPC, 1987. Insect pests of economic significance affecting major crops of the countries in Asia and the Pacific region. In: Technical Document No. 135, Bangkok, Thailand: Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific region (RAPA).

    CABI, Undated. Compendium record. Wallingford, UK: CABI

    CABI, Undated a. CABI Compendium: Status inferred from regional distribution. Wallingford, UK: CABI

    CABI, Undated b. CABI Compendium: Status as determined by CABI editor. Wallingford, UK: CABI

    Kansas Pest Code List, 2003. Great Plains Diagnostic Network., http://www.gpdn.org/PestLists/Exotic_Pests_Insects.pdf

    KSAE, 1989. Abstracts of papers presented at the KSAE Autumn Meeting in 1989. In: Korean Journal of Applied Entomology, 28 (4) 254-259.

    Lincoln Plant Protection Centre, 1985. Weta., 8 (2) 34-35.

    www.cabi.org

Share:
No comments

Добавить комментарий

Your e-mail will not be published. All fields are required.

×
Recommend
Adblock
detector