African Journal of
Agricultural Research

  • Abbreviation: Afr. J. Agric. Res.
  • Language: English
  • ISSN: 1991-637X
  • DOI: 10.5897/AJAR
  • Start Year: 2006
  • Published Articles: 6688

Full Length Research Paper

Screening of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) lines for resistance to three Aphids (Aphis craccivora Koch) strains in Burkina Faso

Adelaїde P. Ouédraogo
  • AdelaÑ—de P. Ouédraogo
  • Departement de Production Vegetal, Institut de l’Environnement et de Recherches Agricoles (INERA), 01 BP 476 Ouagadougou 01, Burkina Faso.
  • Google Scholar
Benoit J. Batieno
  • Benoit J. Batieno
  • Departement de Production Vegetal, Institut de l’Environnement et de Recherches Agricoles (INERA), 01 BP 476 Ouagadougou 01, Burkina Faso.
  • Google Scholar
Fousseni Traore
  • Fousseni Traore
  • Departement de Production Vegetal, Institut de l’Environnement et de Recherches Agricoles (INERA), 01 BP 476 Ouagadougou 01, Burkina Faso.
  • Google Scholar
Jean-Baptiste Tignegre
  • Jean-Baptiste Tignegre
  • Departement de Production Vegetal, Institut de l’Environnement et de Recherches Agricoles (INERA), 01 BP 476 Ouagadougou 01, Burkina Faso.
  • Google Scholar
Bao-Lam Huynh
  • Bao-Lam Huynh
  • Department of Nematology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0124, USA.
  • Google Scholar
Philip A. Roberts
  • Philip A. Roberts
  • Department of Nematology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0124, USA.
  • Google Scholar
Timothy Close
  • Timothy Close
  • Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA.
  • Google Scholar
Jeremy T. Ouédraogo
  • Jeremy T. Ouédraogo
  • Departement de Production Vegetal, Institut de l’Environnement et de Recherches Agricoles (INERA), 01 BP 476 Ouagadougou 01, Burkina Faso.
  • Google Scholar


  •  Received: 14 May 2018
  •  Accepted: 18 June 2018
  •  Published: 19 July 2018

 ABSTRACT

Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.) is an important cash, food and nutritional security grain legume crop in the semi-arid regions of sub-Saharan Africa. However, its productivity is hampered by several biotic stress factors including numerous insect pests that infest and damage the crop at all its development stages in the field as well as during storage. This study sought to identify new sources of resistance to cowpea aphids. Ten lines were infested with three strains of aphids and their resistance was evaluated. Results revealed that among the cowpea genotypes, line IT97K-556-6 was found to be the most resistant to all the three strains of aphids. Line N ° 2300 was the most susceptible to all the three strains of aphids. KN-1 considered as a susceptible control was found to be resistant. Prior to lines classification based on their resistance to aphids, the analysis of the Area Under the Infestation Progress Curve (AUIPC) showed that IT97K-556-6 has exhibited the higher level of antibiosis. It was the least favorable to the development of aphids and NS-1 was the most favorable. Promising lines have been identified for further evaluation and utilization for improvement in cowpea.

Key words: Vigna unguiculata, Aphis craccivora, antibiosis, genetic resistance, area under the infestation progress curve (AUIPC), control.

 


 INTRODUCTION

Cowpea, Vigna unguiculata (L) .Walp. is a proteinaceous plant with a high nutritional value. Like other legumes, awareness of its nutritional benefits, its importance in food security and sustainable agriculture, and in mitigating biodiversity loss and climate change have been promoted by the United Nations General Assembly who designated 2016 the International Year of Pulses (LPWG, 2017). It is the   most   economically   important   indigenous  African legume crop (Langyntuo et al., 2003). Cowpeas are of vital importance to the livelihood of several millions of people in West and Central Africa. Rural families that make up the larger part of the population of these regions derive from its production, food, animal feed, alongside cash income (Gómez, 2004). West Africa alone produces about 83% of the world production (Faostat, 2016). However, grain yield remains the lowest in these areas. It rarely exceeds 400 to 500 kg per hectare in the traditional production system (Langyintuo et al., 2003). High yields in cowpea are seriously militated by insect pests and without insect control, yields range between 100 and 250 kg ha-1(Oladejo et al., 2017).

The cowpea aphid, Aphis craccivora Koch (Homoptera, Aphididae) is one of the insects causing serious yield losses in cowpea. This species feeds on phloem and became a major pest of cowpea in Africa, Asia and America (Obeng-Ofori, 2007). Aphids cause damage to susceptible cultivars directly by modifying the metabolism and by extracting plant nutrients and, indirectly, by transmitting phytopathogenic viruses (Blackman and Eastop, 2000). At least 14 legume viruses are transmitted by A. craccivora (Thottapilly et al., 1990). Host plant resistance is an efficient and environmentally friendly way of controlling insects, including aphids. Some cowpea lines have been screened in Africa and different levels of resistance to aphids have been found (Kusi et al., 2010; Souleymane et al., 2013; Aliyu and Ishiyaku, 2013, Omoigui et al., 2017). Unfortunately resistance-breaking biotypes have occurred in several plant–aphid systems (Dogimont et al., 2010). So, new resistant sources need to be developed and deployed in cowpea growing areas where aphids occur in order to reduce the risk of resistance break-down. Genetic studies on aphid resistance have also been done (Bata et al., 1987; Pathak and Krishna, 1991; Huynh et al., 2015) but the results of these studies differ from one to another raised questions about the mode of inheritance to aphids. Thus, to increase the understanding of aphid resistance, it is necessary to find out more sources of resistance.

The purpose of this study was to contribute to the increase in the yield of cowpea by the identification of aphid resistant lines. The specific objectives were i) to assess differences among lines in terms of degree of aphids infestation  ii) to find out relevant parameters to be used for lines classification and iii) to classify the lines based on their level of resistance to aphids.

 


 MATERIALS AND METHODS

The screening test conducted in February 2014 was hosted by the laboratory of genetics and biotechnologies and the laboratory of entomology located at the Environmental, Agricultural Research and Training Center of Kamboinsé in Burkina Faso. The site geographical coordinates are: 12° 45’ North -1° 55’ West. Ten cowpea lines (B301; KVx295-2-124-99 SARC1-91-1 SARC1-57-2 IT97K-556-6 NS1 N°2300 NS-Farako-Ba CB27 and KN-1) were used for screening; among which IT97K-556-6 (resistant) and KN-1 (susceptible) lines were used as controls.

Three strains of aphids from Bobo-Dioulasso, Kamboinse and Pobé-Mengao were used for screening. Bobo-Dioulasso belongs to the Sudanian zone with temperatures ranged between 18.9 and 37.0°C. Kamboinse Belongs to the Sudano-Sahelian with mide-range temperatures (from 16.0 to 39.3°C) and Pobé-Mengao to the Sahelian zone with temperatures ranged between 14.3 and 42.4°C (Direction Générale de la Météorologie du Burkina Faso, 2016) (Figure 1).

 

 

The Sahelian zone is located in the North. It is the zone with the lowest rainfall in the country. The Sudano-Sahelian zone comprises of the most extensive climatic zone as it extends over all of the central part of the country. The Sudanian zone occupies the southern part of the country, where the rainy season lasts from 5 to 6 months. More details features of these climatic zones are displayed in Table 1.

 

 

The collection of aphids took place in October 2013. The stocks of insects brought from the fields were kept in rearing cages on susceptible line KVX 396-4-5-2D. The screening test for resistance was done with the offspring of the wild-type strain. Each strain was kept in a separate cage from the others to avoid mixing the 3 strains.

The experimental design was a Randomized Complete Block Design with three (3) blocks, five (5) replications each. Plants in each block were infested with only one of the three (3) aphid strains. The screening was done inside transparent plastic buckets. Seven days seedlings were used for this screening. The infestation consisted of taking a sample of five aphids and depositing them with a brush on each plant. Plants were regularly watered by direct water supply to the foot and remained under parasitic pressure throughout the duration of the test. For this, the upper part of each bucket was covered with insect (aphids)-proof tissue held by small wooden beams. The set was hermetically tied up using elastic ribbons. The bucket bases have been provided with small holes to facilitate the evacuation of irrigation water.

Data collection

Observations were made every three days and consisted of measuring some parameters: i) The number of trifoliate leaves; ii) The number of plants surviving; iii) The dynamics of the aphid populations using six scores ranged from 0 to 5(0 = No aphid, 1=1 to 5 aphids, 2 = 5 to 20 aphids, 3 = 20 to 100 aphids, 4 = 100 to 500 aphids, 5 = more than 500 aphids). This method of collection was inspired by that of Souleyman et al. (2013).

Data analysis

The raw data of one month after infestation and data of the (Area under the Infestation Progress Curve (AUIPC) were used for analyses. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the area under the infestation progress curve (AUIPC) was conducted to check first, whether the difference among lines based on their ability to slow down the multiplication of aphids is significant then, whether the difference among aphids strains is significant and finally to check the existence of line-strain interaction. SAS 9.4 software was used to analyze the data. The formula used to compute the AUIPC is:

(Shaner et Finney, 1977)

Xi = Degree of infestation at the ith observation

Xi + 1 = Degree of infestation at the (i+1)th observation

Ti = Time in days for the ith observation

Ti + 1 = Time in days for the (i+1)th observation     

n= Total number of observations

The raw data of one month after infestation was summarized to get the variables (Degree of infestation, Survival rate and the number of trifoliate leaves) means for each line. Using the same raw data, correlation analysis through the principal component analysis was conducted prior to the lines classification to investigate the relationship among variables in order to select the relevant variables. These selected variables were analyzed to determine the resistant lines. XLSTAT 7.1 was used to compute the data.

Hierarchical clustering analysis with three classes was conducted to identify which line is resistant, moderately resistant or susceptible using the raw data of one month after infestation with only the most important variables selected before. XLSTAT 7.1 was also used for this analysis.

 

 

 

 


 RESULTS

Summary of variables mean values

Prior to more precise classification, Figure 2 is displaying the average performance of the lines under aphid’s infestation. It represents the mean values of number of leaves, degree of infestation and survival rate one month after infestation. Line IT97K-556-6 has shown the highest survival rate (93%), the lowest degree of infestation (1.4) and an average number of leaves (11). Inversely, line No2300 has shown the lowest survival rate (33%), a degree of infestation (3.6) and a low number of leaves (4). The figure is also showing that line KN-1 has recorded the highest number of leaves (20), a good survival rate (87%) and an average degree of infestation (2).

 

 

Similarity tests

In Table 2 the results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the area under the infestation progress curve (AUIPC) are presented. These results are showing that the  differences  among  lines  (P  = 0.001) and aphid strains (P = 0.007) were highly significant, while the interaction strain-line was not significant (P = 0.448).

 

 

Correlation test

These mean values were used to establish correlations among variables displayed in Table 3. These results are showing that the variable “number of leaves” was positively correlated with the “survival rate” and negatively correlated with the “degree of infestation” while the “survival rate” was negatively correlated with the  “degree of infestation”.

 

 

Lines classification

Using the Hierarchical clustering three categories of lines (resistant, moderately resistant and susceptible) have been found (Figures 3, 4 and 5). Screened with the aphids’ strain of Kamboinsé the lines were regrouped as follows: No2300, NS-1 and NS-Farakoba were susceptible, BC27 and SARC-1-57-2 were moderately resistant   and   IT97K-556-6,   KN-1,   KVX295-2-124-99,  

 

 

 

 

SARC1-91-1 were resistant (Figure 3). Screened with the aphids’ strain of Bobo-Dioulasso, CB27, IT97K-556-6 and SARC1-91-1 were resistant. B301, KN-1, NS-1, NS-Farako Bâ and SARC-1-57-2 were moderately resistant and KVX295-2-124-99 and No2300 were susceptible (Figure 4). As far as the strain of Pobé-Mengao is concerned IT97K-556-6, KN-1, KVX295-2-124-99 and SARC-1-57-2 were resistant, B301 and SARC1-91-1 were moderately resistant and CB 27, N°2300, NS-1 and NS-Farako Bâ were susceptible (Figure 5). Table 4 is a summary of Figures 2, 3 and 4. It is showing the lines status based on their level of resistance to aphids.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 DISCUSSION

This preliminary analysis showed that line IT97K-556-6 is the highest resistant lines since it recorded the highest survival  rate, the lowest  degree of   infestation and an average number of leaves. Line No2300 by having the lowest survival rate (33%), a degree of infestation (3.6) and a low number of leaves (4) was considered to be the most susceptible line. It can also be noted that line KN1 has shown a better performance than expected.

The analysis of the AUIPC shows that the difference among lines is highly significant (P = 0.001). The capacity of multiplication of aphids depends upon the genotype of the line on which they develop. These results are in accordance with those of Laamari et al. (2008); Obopile and Ositile (2010) and Aliyu and Ishiyaku (2013). The difference among lines with regard to the area under the infestation progress curve is due to the capacity of some lines to slow down the development and multiplication of aphids by "antibiosis" (Teetes, 2007; Alabi et al., 2012; Omoigui et al., 2017). Thus, IT97K-556-6 has exhibited the highest level of antibiosis. It was the least favorable to the development of aphids and NS- 1 was  the most  favorable. According  to  Teetes  (2007), this antibiosis activity often results in increased mortality or reduced longevity and reproduction of the insect.

The difference among aphids strains was highly significant (P = 0.007) suggesting that there is more than one aphids biotypes in Burkina Faso. The number of leaves being positively correlated with the survival rate and negatively correlated with the degree of infestation, these two variables were the best suited to classify the lines. For instance, the most resistant lines are those with the highest survival rate and the lowest degree of infestation, and the most susceptible lines are those with the lowest survival rate and the highest degree of infestation.

The summarized results of the clustering is showing that IT97K-556-6, SARC1-91-1, KVX295-2-124- 99 and KN-1 are resistant to aphids; B301, CB27, and SARC-1-57-2 are moderately resistant while N°2300 NS-1 NS-Farako Bâ are susceptible. These results are consistent with those of Kusi et al. (2010) who identified SARC-1-57-2 and SARC1-91-1 as resistant to aphids. IT97K-556-6 is the most resistant line to all the three strains of aphids with an average survival rate equal to 93.33% and a degree of infestation equal to 1.4. However, it was identified as moderately resistant by Souleyman et al. (2013). This nuance could be explained by the difference in aphid  strains  used  or differences in the climate of the two study areas. N°2300 is the most susceptible. It was susceptible to all the three strains of aphids with an average survival rate equal to 33.33% and a degree of infestation equal to 3.6.

According to IITA-SAFGRAD (1981) KN1 is adapted to different agro-climatic zones of Burkina Faso, but not resistant to cowpea insects. The present study showed that this line is resistant to aphids, the difference might be explained by a change in  the  aphids biotype  used.  The biotype ‘K’ or aphid’s biotype of Kamboinsé was used for the screening (IITA-SAFGRAD, 1981). It may also be due to a physiological or even genetic change in the line. Moreover, in this study the confinement of aphids increased the parasitic pressure on plants. This pressure would have been able to induce an excessive compensatory response (Kusi, 2010) in KN1 physiological response, which was manifested by a much greater production  of  leaves. This  compensatory  response,  combined with the antibiosis activity developed by the line, gave it an unexpected resistance to aphids.

 


 CONCLUSION

Cowpeas are of vital importance to the livelihood of several millions of people in Africa where it provide food and cash income. However, high yields in cowpea are seriously militated by insect pests like Aphis craccivora. Host plant resistance is an efficient and environmentally friendly way of controlling them.

The present study has shown that the speed of aphids’ multiplication depends upon the genotype on which they develop. So the line IT97K-556-6 has exhibited the highest level of antibiosis.  The screening test showed significant differences among lines. It was possible to identify four resistant lines (IT97K-556-6, SARC1-91-1, KVX295-2-124-99 and KN-1) and three moderately resistant (B301, CB27, and SARC-1-57-2) which may be used in breeding program to develop resistant lines or improve existing lines that are susceptible to A. craccivora. The study also showed significant differences among aphids’ strains suggesting that there are more than one aphids’ biotypes in Burkina Faso.

 


 CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

The authors have not declared any conflict of interests.

 


 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Authors gratefully appreciate the Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) for sponsoring this work. We also thank Dr Patrice Savadogo and Pr J. N. Ayertey for reading and correcting this document. We are thankful to all the technicians at the laboratories of Genetics and Entomology at INERA.

 



 REFERENCES

Alabi OY, Aziza E, Omoloye AA (2012). Preliminary evaluation of selected cowpea varieties for resistance to cowpea aphid, Aphis craccivora. Nigerian Journal of Ecology 12:45-55.

 

Aliyu H, Ishiyaku MF (2013). Identification of novel resistance gene sources to cowpea aphids (Aphis craccivora Koch) in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.). Pakistan Journal of Sciences 16(15):743-746.
Crossref

 

Bata HD, Singh BB, Singh SR, Ladeinde TAO (1987). Inheritance of resistance to aphid in cowpea. Crop Science 27:892-894.
Crossref

 

Blackman RL, Eastop VF (2000). Aphids on the world's crops: An identification and information guide. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester 414 pp.

 

Direction générale de la météorologie (2016). Direction Générale de la Météorologie du Burkina Faso. 

View

 

Dogimont C, Bendahmane A, Chovelon V, Boissot N (2010). Host plant resistance to aphids in cultivated crops: genetic and molecular bases, and interactions with aphid populations. Comptes Rendus Biologies 333(6-7):566-573.
Crossref

 

Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database (FAOSTAT) (2016).

View

 

Gómez C (2004). COWPEA: Post-Harvest Operations. AGST/FAO: Danilo Mejía, PhD, FAO (Technical).71p. 

View

 

Huynh BL, Ehlers JD, Ndeve A, Wanamaker S, Mitchell RL, Close TJ, Roberts PA (2015). Genetic mapping and legume synteny of aphid resistance in African cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.) grown in California. Molecular Breeding 35:36.
Crossref

 

IITA-SAFGRAD (1981). Rapport annuel, entomologie du niébé. pp. N61-N109. Naturelles. Université de Bordeaux III. Tl, 318p.

 

Kusi F, Obeng-Ofori D, Asante SK, Padi FK (2010). New sources of resistance in cowpea to the cowpea aphid (Aphis craccivora Koch) (Homoptera: Aphididae). Journal of the Ghana Science Association 12(2):95-104.
Crossref

 

Laamari M, Khelfa L, Coeur d'Acier A (2008). Resistance source to cowpea aphid (Aphis craccivora Koch) in broad bean (Vicia faba L.) Algerian landrace collection. African Journal of Biotechnology 7:2486–2490.

 

Langyintuo AS, Lowenberg-Deboer J, Faye M, Lambert D, Ibro G, Moussa B, Kergna A, Kushwaha S, Musa S, Ntoukam G (2003). Cowpea supply and demand in West and Central Africa. Field Crop Research 82:215-231.
Crossref

 

Legume Phylogeny Working Group (LPWG) (2017). A new subfamily classification of the Leguminosae based on a taxonomically comprehensive phylogeny. Taxon 66 (1):44-77.
Crossref

 

Obeng-Ofori D (2007). Pests of grain legumes. In: Major pests of food and selected fruit and industrial crops in West Africa, D. Obeng-Ofori (ed.) The City publishers Ltd, Accra pp. 81-112.

 

Oladejo AS, Boukar O, Fatokun CA, Fatokun IO (2017). Genetic analysis of thrips resistance in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata [L.] Walp.) Euphytica pp. 213:216.

 

Omoigui LO, Ekeuro GC, Kamara AY, Bello LL, Timko MP, Ogunwolu GO (2017). Identification of new sources of resistance to cowpea Vigna unguiculata accessions. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 64(5):901-911.
Crossref

 

Obopile M, Ositile B (2010). Life table and population parameters of cowpea aphid, Aphis craccivora Koch (Homoptera: Aphididae) on five cowpea, Vigna unguiculata (L. Walp) varieties. Journal of Pest Science 83:9-14.
Crossref

 

Pallo FJP, Sawadogo N (2010). Essai de corrélation entre les caractéristiques du climat, de la végétation et des sols au Burkina Faso. International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences 4(5):1839-1850. ISSN 1991-8631.

 

Pathak PP, Krishna SS (1991). Post embryonic development and reproduction in Crocyra cephalonica (station) (Lepidotera: Pyralidae) on exposure to Eucalyptus and Neem seed oil volatiles. Journal of Chemical and Ecology 17:2553-2558.
Crossref

 

Shaner G, Finney RE (1977). The effect of nitrogen fertilization in the expression of slow-mildewing resistance in Knox wheat. Phytopathology 67)1051-1056.
Crossref

 

Souleymane A, Aken'Ova ME, Fatokun CA, Alabi OY (2013). Screening for resistance to cowpea aphid (Aphis craccivora Koch) in wild and cultivated cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.) accessions. International Journal of Science, Environment and Technology 2:611-21.

 

Teetes GL (2007). Plant Resistance to Insects: A Fundamental Component of IPM. In: Radcliffe, E. B., Hutchison, W., D, Cancelado, R., E (Eds.), Radcliffe's IPM World Textbook. University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.

 

Thottapilly G, Rossel HW, Reddy DVR, Morales FJ, Green SK, Makkouh KM (1990). Vectors of Virus and Mycoplasm diseases: an overview. Insect Pests of Tropical Food Legumes. S. R. Singh. Eds. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd. pp. 323-342.

 




          */?>