Nutrient Components and Relation with Resistance Potential of Field Pea Genotypes Seeds to ‘<i>Callosobruchus chinensis</i> L.’ Under Laboratory Conditions

Deressa Tesfaye; Dugasa Gerenfes

doi:doi:10.11648/j.sf.20210201.12

| Peer-Reviewed

Nutrient Components and Relation with Resistance Potential of Field Pea Genotypes Seeds to ‘Callosobruchus chinensis L.’ Under Laboratory Conditions

Deressa Tesfaye, Dugasa Gerenfes

Published in Science Frontiers (Volume 2, Issue 1)

Received: 31 March 2021 Accepted: 25 May 2021 Published: 31 May 2021

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Field pea (Pisum sativum L.) is among the major food crops grown globally for its high protein content. However there is no detailed nutrient composition profile and recently challenged with a storage pest, Callosobruchus chinensis L. This study was carried out to know the nutrient composition and quantify the damage caused by the pest and identify the sources of resistance in the genotypes in Ethiopia. The study was conducted at Kulumsa Agricultural Research Center (KARC) in Ethiopia, during 2019. Nutrients were estimated in laboratory analysis and callosobruchus chinensis L. was used to challenge 26 field pea genotypes under no choice condition, in the laboratory. Results showed a significant differences (p<0.01) in all measured traits. However, the highest nutrient composition and less susceptibility values were recorded by the Pisum var. abyssinicum landraces (collections) number 1 to 10 those are mostly grey and grey/green seed color while the lowest nutrient composition and highest susceptibility values were obtained from the pisum sativum L. those are improved, introduced and crossed genotypes number 11 to 26 with white, creamy, dun, light green, mottled and brown. Within this fpcoll-30/07 had the lowest SI (4.06), followed by fpcoll-42/07 (4.47), fpcoll-2/07 (4.77) and fpcoll-31/07 (4.94) whereas Burkitu, Tegegnech and PDFPT P-313 MILKY had the highest SI (>10) (Table 4). Genotypes; fpcoll-1/07, fpcoll-2/07, fpcoll-28/07, fpcoll-29/07, fpcoll-30/07, fpcoll-31/07, fpcoll-40/07, fpcoll-41/07, fpcoll-42/07/ had high values (ppm) for; ca, k, mg, and zn, whereas all improved, introduced crossed line of considered field peal genotypes had low values (ppm) for the above nutrients. In general there is a possibility that promising field pea genotypes in both high nutrient composition and less susceptibility could be used in a future breeding system.

Published in	Science Frontiers (Volume 2, Issue 1)
DOI	10.11648/j.sf.20210201.12
Page(s)	8-16
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Collosobruchus chinensis L., Field Pea, Traits and Genotypes

References

[1]	A. O. A. C. (2000). Official Methods of Analysis. Association of Official Chemistry. 14th ed, Association of Official Analytical Chemists., Arlington. VA.
[2]	Amusa, O. D, Adebayo, L. O., Kehinde, B. and Omoche, O. 2013. Evaluation of four cowpea lines for bruchid (Callosobruchus maculatus) tolerance. Journal of Natural Sciences Research 3 (13): 2225–3186.
[3]	Argaye Bereda, S., 2018. Evaluation of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Genotypes Managed under Different Soil Fertility Levels for Adzuki bean beetle (Callosobruchus chinensis L.) Resistance in Ethiopia (MSc. dissertation, Jimma University).
[4]	Aslam, M., Shaheen, F. A., Abbas, M. A. and Saba, A., 2006. Management of Callosobruchus chinensis Linnaeus through use of resistance in stored chickpea varieties. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2 (1): 82-84.
[5]	Ben-Ze’ev, N. and Zohary, D., 1973. Species relationships in the genus.
[6]	Bereda, S. A., 2018. Evaluation of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Genotypes Managed under Different Soil Fertility Levels for Adzuki bean beetle (Callosobruchus chinensis L.) Resistance in Ethiopia.
[7]	Berhane, G., Berhanu, A., 2016. Review: Distribution and productivity of Dekoko (Pisum sativum var. abyssinicum A. Braun) in Ethiopia. Global Journal of Science FrontResearch, 16: 45-57.
[8]	Central Agricultural Census Commission, 2018/19. Ethiopian Agricultural Sample Enumeration, Statistical Report on Farm Management Practices. Livestock and Farm Implements. Part II. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 63-153p.
[9]	Dobie, P., 1977. The contribution of the Tropical Stored Products Centre to the study of insect resistance in stored maize. Journal of Stored Products Research, 14: 87-93.
[10]	El-Hamid, M. A., El-Bramawy, S., El-Sayed, S. and El-Hendawy W. I. 2008. Assessing the suitability of morphological and phenological traits to screen (sesame genotypes for fusarium wilt and charcoal rot disease resistance. Journal of plant Protection Research 48 (4): 397-410.
[11]	Faostat, F. A. O., 2017. Crops. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available online at.
[12]	Gevina, S., Kennedy, J. S., Mohan, S. and Senthil, N. 2016. Development and damage assessment of the storage beetle, Callosobruchus Maculatus. under normal and controlled conditions. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on controlled atmosphere and Fumigation in stored products (CAF2016). Winnipeg, Canada. pp. 25-31. www.researchgate.net.
[13]	Girma, B., 2003. The state of grain marketing in Ethiopia. In Proceedings of the EDRI/IFPRI 2020 Network policy forum on toward sustainable food security in Ethiopia: Integrating the Agri-Food Chain.
[14]	Goa, Y. and Ashamo, M., 2014. Evaluation of field pea (Pisum sativum L.) genotypes performance for yield and yield components at five growing environments of southern Ethiopia. Current Res. Agric. Sc, 1 (3), pp. 65-76.
[15]	Gowda, C. L. L. and Kaul, A. K., 1982. Pulses in Bangladesh, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, FAO, UN, 172p.
[16]	Habtamu, S. and Million, F., 2013. Multivariate analysis of some Ethiopian field pea (Pisum sativum L.) genotypes. International Journal of Genetics and Molecular Biology, 5 (6), pp. 78-87.
[17]	Hiiesaar, K., Švilponis, E., Metspalu, L., Jõgar, K., Mänd, M., Luik, A. and Karise R. 2009. Influence of neem-azal T/S on feeding activity of colorado potato beetles (Leptinotarsa Decemlineata Say). Agronomy Resesearch 7 (1): 251–256.
[18]	Hill, D. S., 1990. Pests of stored product and their control, 1st edition, Cambridge University press London, 780p.
[19]	Homan, R. and Yubak, D., 2011. Eco-friendly management of pulse beetle. Journal of Agriculture and Environment, 12: 81-90.
[20]	Kapila, R. K., Naryal, S. and Dhiman, K. C., 2012. Analysis of genetic diversity among gardenand field-pea genotypes of higher Indian Himalayas. Journal of plant biochemistry and biotechnology, 21 (2): 286-291.
[21]	Keneni, G., Assefa, F., Imtiaz, M., Bekele, E., 2013. Genetic diversity for attributes of biological nitrogen fixation in Abyssinian field pea (Pisum sativum var. abyssinicum) germplasm accessions. Ethiopian Journal Agriculture. Appl. Sci. Technol. 4: 1-20.
[22]	Keneni, G., Bekele, E., Getu, E., Imtiaz, M., Dagne, K. and Assefa, F., 2012. Genetic Gain for Adzuki Bean Beetle (Callosobruchus chinensis L.) Resistance in Ethiopian Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Genotypes. East African Journal of Sciences, 6 (1), pp. 43-54.
[23]	Khattak, S. U. K., Hamed, M., Khatoon, R. and Mohammad, T., 1987. Relative susceptibility of different mung bean varieties to Callosobruchus maculatus F. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Journal of stored products research, 23 (3): 139-142
[24]	Kimatu, J. N., McConchie, R., Xie, X. and Nguluu, S. N., 2012. The significant role of postharvest management in farm management, aflatoxin mitigation and food security in Sub-Saharan Africa. Greener Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2 (6): 279-288.
[25]	Lambrides CJ, Imrie BC, 2000. Susceptibility of mungbean varieties to the bruchid species Callosobruchus maculatus (F.), C. phaseoli (Gyll.), C. chinensis (L.), and Acanthoscelides obtectus (Say.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 51 (1): 85-89.
[26]	Lemma, T., 1990. The biology and control of the Adzuki bean beetle (Callosobruchus chinensis L.) on chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). (MSc Thesis, Alemaya University, Ethiopia).
[27]	Lephale, S., Addo-Bediako, A. and Ayodele, V. 2012. Susceptibility of seven cowpea cultivars (Vigna unguiculatus) to cowpea beetle (Callosobruchus Maculatus). Agricultural Science Research Journals 2 (2): 65–69. http://www.resjournals.com/ ARJ.
[28]	Mensah, G., 1986. Infestation potential of Callosobruchus maculatos (Fab.)(Coleoptera: Bruchidae) on cowpea cultivars stored under subtropical conditions. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science, 7 (06): 781-784.
[29]	Musa, A. K. and Adeboye, A. A. 2017. Susceptibility of some cowpea varieties to the seed beetle Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Journal of Agricultural Sciences 62 (4): 351-360.
[30]	Osman, N., Rohani, I. and Abang, B. A. 1991. Damage assessment on stored mungbean (Vigna Radiata) L. Wilczek and Soybean (Glycine max) L. Merr infested with the common bean weevil, Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) Pertanika 14 (l): 27-30.
[31]	Shaheen, F. A., Khaliq, A. and Aslam, M., 2006. Resistance of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars against pulse beetle. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 38 (4): 1237.
[32]	Shahidur, R., Chilot, Y., Befekadu, B. and Solomon, L., 2010. Pules value chain in Ethiopia; constraints and opportunities for enhancing exports. International Food Policy Research Institute.
[33]	Somta, P., Ammaranan, C., Ooi, P. A. C. and Srinives, P., 2007. Inheritance of seed resistance to bruchids in cultivated mungbean (Vigna radiata, L. Wilczek). Euphytica, 155 (1), pp. 47-55.
[34]	Soumia, P. S. 2015. Factors for resistance in mung bean, Vigna radiata against Callosobruchus spp. Division of Entomology Indian Agricultural Research Institute New Delhi-110012, India.
[35]	Tefera, T., Mugo, S. and Likhayo, P. 2011. Effects of insect population density and storage time on grain damage and weight loss in maize due to the maize weevil Sitophilus zeamais and the larger grain borer Prostephanus truncatus. African Journal of Agricultural Research 6 (10): 2249-2254. http://www.academicjournals.org/AJAR (ISSN 1991-637X 2).
[36]	Tesfaye Gutu, D. E. R. E. S. S. A., 2019. Evaluation of field pea (Pisum Sativuml.) genotypes managed under different soil sertility levels for adzuki bean beetle (Callosobruchus chinensis L.) resistance (M. sc, Jimma University).
[37]	Wakeyo, g. k., 2012. Genetic potential and limitations of Ethiopian chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Germplasm for improving attributes of symbiotic nitrogen fixation, phosphorus uptake and use efficiency, and adzuki bean beetle (callosobruchus chinensis L.) Resistance (doctoral dissertation, Addis Ababa University).

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Deressa Tesfaye, Dugasa Gerenfes. (2021). Nutrient Components and Relation with Resistance Potential of Field Pea Genotypes Seeds to ‘Callosobruchus chinensis L.’ Under Laboratory Conditions. Science Frontiers, 2(1), 8-16. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sf.20210201.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Deressa Tesfaye; Dugasa Gerenfes. Nutrient Components and Relation with Resistance Potential of Field Pea Genotypes Seeds to ‘Callosobruchus chinensis L.’ Under Laboratory Conditions. Sci. Front. 2021, 2(1), 8-16. doi: 10.11648/j.sf.20210201.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Deressa Tesfaye, Dugasa Gerenfes. Nutrient Components and Relation with Resistance Potential of Field Pea Genotypes Seeds to ‘Callosobruchus chinensis L.’ Under Laboratory Conditions. Sci Front. 2021;2(1):8-16. doi: 10.11648/j.sf.20210201.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.sf.20210201.12,
  author = {Deressa Tesfaye and Dugasa Gerenfes},
  title = {Nutrient Components and Relation with Resistance Potential of Field Pea Genotypes Seeds to ‘Callosobruchus chinensis L.’ Under Laboratory Conditions},
  journal = {Science Frontiers},
  volume = {2},
  number = {1},
  pages = {8-16},
  doi = {10.11648/j.sf.20210201.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sf.20210201.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.sf.20210201.12},
  abstract = {Field pea (Pisum sativum L.) is among the major food crops grown globally for its high protein content. However there is no detailed nutrient composition profile and recently challenged with a storage pest, Callosobruchus chinensis L. This study was carried out to know the nutrient composition and quantify the damage caused by the pest and identify the sources of resistance in the genotypes in Ethiopia. The study was conducted at Kulumsa Agricultural Research Center (KARC) in Ethiopia, during 2019. Nutrients were estimated in laboratory analysis and callosobruchus chinensis L. was used to challenge 26 field pea genotypes under no choice condition, in the laboratory. Results showed a significant differences (pPisum var. abyssinicum landraces (collections) number 1 to 10 those are mostly grey and grey/green seed color while the lowest nutrient composition and highest susceptibility values were obtained from the pisum sativum L. those are improved, introduced and crossed genotypes number 11 to 26 with white, creamy, dun, light green, mottled and brown. Within this fpcoll-30/07 had the lowest SI (4.06), followed by fpcoll-42/07 (4.47), fpcoll-2/07 (4.77) and fpcoll-31/07 (4.94) whereas Burkitu, Tegegnech and PDFPT P-313 MILKY had the highest SI (>10) (Table 4). Genotypes; fpcoll-1/07, fpcoll-2/07, fpcoll-28/07, fpcoll-29/07, fpcoll-30/07, fpcoll-31/07, fpcoll-40/07, fpcoll-41/07, fpcoll-42/07/ had high values (ppm) for; ca, k, mg, and zn, whereas all improved, introduced crossed line of considered field peal genotypes had low values (ppm) for the above nutrients. In general there is a possibility that promising field pea genotypes in both high nutrient composition and less susceptibility could be used in a future breeding system.},
 year = {2021}
}

Copy | Download

TY - JOUR
T1 - Nutrient Components and Relation with Resistance Potential of Field Pea Genotypes Seeds to ‘Callosobruchus chinensis L.’ Under Laboratory Conditions
AU - Deressa Tesfaye
AU - Dugasa Gerenfes
Y1 - 2021/05/31
PY - 2021
N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sf.20210201.12
DO - 10.11648/j.sf.20210201.12
T2 - Science Frontiers
JF - Science Frontiers
JO - Science Frontiers
SP - 8
EP - 16
PB - Science Publishing Group
SN - 2994-7030
UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sf.20210201.12
AB - Field pea (Pisum sativum L.) is among the major food crops grown globally for its high protein content. However there is no detailed nutrient composition profile and recently challenged with a storage pest, Callosobruchus chinensis L. This study was carried out to know the nutrient composition and quantify the damage caused by the pest and identify the sources of resistance in the genotypes in Ethiopia. The study was conducted at Kulumsa Agricultural Research Center (KARC) in Ethiopia, during 2019. Nutrients were estimated in laboratory analysis and callosobruchus chinensis L. was used to challenge 26 field pea genotypes under no choice condition, in the laboratory. Results showed a significant differences (pPisum var. abyssinicum landraces (collections) number 1 to 10 those are mostly grey and grey/green seed color while the lowest nutrient composition and highest susceptibility values were obtained from the pisum sativum L. those are improved, introduced and crossed genotypes number 11 to 26 with white, creamy, dun, light green, mottled and brown. Within this fpcoll-30/07 had the lowest SI (4.06), followed by fpcoll-42/07 (4.47), fpcoll-2/07 (4.77) and fpcoll-31/07 (4.94) whereas Burkitu, Tegegnech and PDFPT P-313 MILKY had the highest SI (>10) (Table 4). Genotypes; fpcoll-1/07, fpcoll-2/07, fpcoll-28/07, fpcoll-29/07, fpcoll-30/07, fpcoll-31/07, fpcoll-40/07, fpcoll-41/07, fpcoll-42/07/ had high values (ppm) for; ca, k, mg, and zn, whereas all improved, introduced crossed line of considered field peal genotypes had low values (ppm) for the above nutrients. In general there is a possibility that promising field pea genotypes in both high nutrient composition and less susceptibility could be used in a future breeding system.
VL - 2
IS - 1
ER -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Deressa Tesfaye

Kulumsa Agricultural Research Center (KARC), Asella, Ethiopia
Dugasa Gerenfes

Kulumsa Agricultural Research Center (KARC), Asella, Ethiopia

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Deressa Tesfaye, Dugasa Gerenfes. (2021). Nutrient Components and Relation with Resistance Potential of Field Pea Genotypes Seeds to ‘Callosobruchus chinensis L.’ Under Laboratory Conditions. Science Frontiers, 2(1), 8-16. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sf.20210201.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Deressa Tesfaye; Dugasa Gerenfes. Nutrient Components and Relation with Resistance Potential of Field Pea Genotypes Seeds to ‘Callosobruchus chinensis L.’ Under Laboratory Conditions. Sci. Front. 2021, 2(1), 8-16. doi: 10.11648/j.sf.20210201.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Deressa Tesfaye, Dugasa Gerenfes. Nutrient Components and Relation with Resistance Potential of Field Pea Genotypes Seeds to ‘Callosobruchus chinensis L.’ Under Laboratory Conditions. Sci Front. 2021;2(1):8-16. doi: 10.11648/j.sf.20210201.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.sf.20210201.12,
  author = {Deressa Tesfaye and Dugasa Gerenfes},
  title = {Nutrient Components and Relation with Resistance Potential of Field Pea Genotypes Seeds to ‘Callosobruchus chinensis L.’ Under Laboratory Conditions},
  journal = {Science Frontiers},
  volume = {2},
  number = {1},
  pages = {8-16},
  doi = {10.11648/j.sf.20210201.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sf.20210201.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.sf.20210201.12},
  abstract = {Field pea (Pisum sativum L.) is among the major food crops grown globally for its high protein content. However there is no detailed nutrient composition profile and recently challenged with a storage pest, Callosobruchus chinensis L. This study was carried out to know the nutrient composition and quantify the damage caused by the pest and identify the sources of resistance in the genotypes in Ethiopia. The study was conducted at Kulumsa Agricultural Research Center (KARC) in Ethiopia, during 2019. Nutrients were estimated in laboratory analysis and callosobruchus chinensis L. was used to challenge 26 field pea genotypes under no choice condition, in the laboratory. Results showed a significant differences (pPisum var. abyssinicum landraces (collections) number 1 to 10 those are mostly grey and grey/green seed color while the lowest nutrient composition and highest susceptibility values were obtained from the pisum sativum L. those are improved, introduced and crossed genotypes number 11 to 26 with white, creamy, dun, light green, mottled and brown. Within this fpcoll-30/07 had the lowest SI (4.06), followed by fpcoll-42/07 (4.47), fpcoll-2/07 (4.77) and fpcoll-31/07 (4.94) whereas Burkitu, Tegegnech and PDFPT P-313 MILKY had the highest SI (>10) (Table 4). Genotypes; fpcoll-1/07, fpcoll-2/07, fpcoll-28/07, fpcoll-29/07, fpcoll-30/07, fpcoll-31/07, fpcoll-40/07, fpcoll-41/07, fpcoll-42/07/ had high values (ppm) for; ca, k, mg, and zn, whereas all improved, introduced crossed line of considered field peal genotypes had low values (ppm) for the above nutrients. In general there is a possibility that promising field pea genotypes in both high nutrient composition and less susceptibility could be used in a future breeding system.},
 year = {2021}
}

Copy | Download