Pulse Beetle, Callosobruchus Maculatus Fabr. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) Management by Physical Means

Pulse Beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus Fabr. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) Management by Physical Means

Nayan Roy 1* , Monali Mukherjee 2, Shreya Mondal 2, Debarati Biswas 2 and Debaspriya Das 2 1 Assistant Professor, Department of Zoology, Ecology Research Unit M. U. C. Women’s College, Burdwan 2 Student, Department of Zoology, M. U. C. Women’s College, Burdwan *Email: [email protected]

Abstract: Stored grain insect pests have become one of the major limiting factor for reducing nutritional quality and quantity of grains in the storages worldwide . The pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus Fabr. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae), is one the most serious postharvest pest threat to stored legumes in tropical and subtropical regions. Today, for their control by using eco-friendly and sustainable methods over the traditional chemical control are very crucial. In our study we try to find the potency of different physical methods for control of the notorious beetle by using five common pulses eg., chana [ Cicer arietinum ], kabuli chana [Cicer arietinum ], moong [ Vigna radiata ], goat pea [ Vigna unguiculata ] and motor [ Pisum sativum ] separately. The efficacy of the different physical means for control of the beetle can be arranged in the order of short UV (254nm)> freezing (<0°C)> silica gel (CaSO 4)> heating (60±1°C)> long UV (366nm)> sodium sulfate (Na 2SO 4)> table salt (NaCl) treatment with various susceptibility. All the treatments including control as well as most effective combined treatments showed similar pattern of susceptibility towards the grain infection by the pulse beetle, C. maculates , in the order of chana > moong > motor > goat pea > kabuli chana in terms of GD, WL and RD (%). The RGDR, RWLR and RDRR (%) were significantly differed (p<0.005) in all the five pulses when treated with the three best treatments i.e., short UV (254nm), freezing (<0°C) and silica gel (CaSO 4) along with their integrated combination over the control. The ROR and RAER (%) of the pulse beetle, C. maculates , were significantly differed (p<0.001) only in the three best treatments i.e., short UV (254nm), freezing (<0°C) and silica gel (CaSO 4) treatments along with their integrative action over the control on the five selected pulses. Ultimately, in all potentially significant treatments, the integrative combined treatments always showed significantly (P<0.0001) higher potency over the other best individual treatments against the notorious pulse beetle, C. maculatus , for protection of the selected pulses as well as other pulses in respect to their susceptibility in the household and stored conditions.

Key words: eco-friendly, sustainable methods, physical methods, Callosobruchus maculatus.

[Article History: Received on 24.04.2017, Accepted on 02.09.2017] [14]

JAST-a peer reviewed multidisciplinary research journal Vol.-03, Issue-01

1. Introduction: Pulses constitute the major source of protein and minerals as well as play a vital socio- economic role in the diet of common people of developing countries including India. They contain 20-30% of the protein which is almost 3 times higher than that found in cereals. The pulses are important crop of rainfed agriculture in the semi arid tropics and subtropics. It is cultivated either as a sole crop or intercropped with cereals or other legumes. Unfortunately, in storage, pulses suffer enormous losses due to bruchid attack, which infestation starts either in the field on the maturing pod and is carried to the stores with the harvested crops or it originates in the storage itself [1-6]. Qualitative and quantitative losses occur in the seeds by mainly three species of pulse beetles, viz., Callosobruchus chinensis Linn., C. analis Fab., and C. maculatus Fab. in India and Bangladesh as the pests of stored pulses [7-11]. The cowpea weevil, Callosobruchus maculatus Fab. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), is a major pest of economically important leguminous grains, such as cowpeas, lentils, green gram, black gram and other pulse grains in tropical and subtropical countries [9-11]. The damage caused by this pest to leguminous seeds is mostly due to its larvae feeding inside the seed which results in weight loss, decreased germination potential, decrease in nutritional and aesthetic quality of the seeds, diminished market value of the seeds and the infested seeds become unfit for human consumption [10-13]. The life cycle of the holometabolic bruchid starts by laying eggs on the surface of the seeds through larvae, pupa and finally adults [14-17]. In India the insect breeds freely from March to November and hibernates in the larval stage during winter. The pest causes maximum damage during February to August when all its developmental stages exist simultaneously. It took one and half month to complete its life cycle, which could take longer under unfavourable conditions depending on the food supply, temperature and humidity [5, 18]. But host preferences are known to vary genetically within and among beetle populations [19-22]. The usual technique of protecting the pulses from this insect are mostly based on using synthetic insecticides and fumigants [13, 23-25]. But continuous uses of insecticides are hazardous on beneficial organisms in both fields and storages and cause environmental pollution [23-25]. However, the present trend is towards alternative non-toxic control methods that pose no threat to the health of operator or consumer, and which are environment friendly [26-42]. In addition, pressure from the international consumer groups to reduce the chemicals used in food products makes a nonchemical insect control practice highly desirable [39, 42]. Thus, repellents, fumigants, feeding deterrents and insecticides of natural origin are all rational alternatives to synthetic [29-30, 34-35, 42-43]. It has also provoked undesirable effects, including toxicity to nontarget organisms and fostered environmental and human health concerns [33, 40-42]. Other non-residual treatments such as mechanical impact, irradiation, biological control or different physical control are suitable for high quality commodities [31, 36-37, 39-44]. There are several uses of modified atmospheres (MA) as a non-toxic and environmentally benign alternative to fumigation for the control of insects in stored products [45]. Today, integrated management of these insects is considered the most effective approach for their control. The aim of this study was to evaluate the potency of different physical methods separately and in combination for management of the beetle, C. maculates , through relative reduction in damage of the respective pulses in both household and storage conditions.

2. Materials and Methods: 2.1. Maintenance of stock culture: Stock culture of the pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus Fabr.(Coleoptera: Bruchidae) was initiated by collecting the adult beetles from the infested pulses from FCI (Chinsurah, 22°53' N, 88°23' E, Hooghly, West Bengal, India) store house. The culture was further maintained in glass bottle of 2l capacity under laboratory condition [15] Pulse Beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus Fabr. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) Management by Physical Means Author: N.Roy et al.

(27±1°C, 65±5% RH and a photoperiodism of 12:12 [L:D]) containing five common pulses eg., chana [ Cicer arietinum ], kabuli chana [ Cicer arietinum ], moong [ Vigna radiata ], goat pea [ Vigna unguiculata ] and motor [ Pisum sativum ] separately. The mouth of the container was covered with a muslin cloth. Fresh pulses were provided periodically for the development of beetles. The culture so maintained was used throughout the period of investigations in 2015-16.

2.2. Pure culture: Pure culture of the beetles was developed by infesting insect free five common pulses eg., chana [ Cicer arietinum ], kabuli chana [ Cicer arietinum ], moong [ Vigna radiata ], goat pea [ Vigna unguiculata ] and motor [ Pisum sativum ] separately with freshly emerged single mating pair. The culture was maintained in the glass bottle of 1l capacity on insect free five types of grains in same laboratory conditions. Mouth of such containers was covered with muslin cloth. The cultures were used to study the potency of different physical means separately as well as in their combination in management of the beetle pest.

2.3. Management of the pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus Fabr. by different physical means: Bioefficacy of different physical means [short UV (254nm), long UV (366nm), freezing (<0°C), heating (60±1°C), silica gel (CaSO 4), sodium sulfate (Na 2SO 4), table salt (NaCl) treatment] along with their combination having optimum potency against the pulse beetle, C. maculatus Fabr., relative to normal condition (control) was evaluated separately in the selected five common pulses eg., chana [ Cicer arietinum ], kabuli chana [ Cicer arietinum ], moong [ Vigna radiata ], goat pea [ Vigna unguiculata ] and motor [ Pisum sativum ] having 6-8% moisture content under laboratory condition.

2.4. Efficacy of different physical treatments: For grain damage (GD%), weight loss (WL%) and damage rate (DR%) estimation, 100 intact grains with 20 pairs of pulse beetles were taken into plastic bottle of 250 g capacity, open top of the plastic bottle was covered with muslin cloth and fastened with rubber band and kept in the incubator for 30, 60 and 90 days. Each treatment was replicated three times for the five types of grains seperately.

2.5. Potency of integrative treatments: The evaluation of the three best treatments along with their integrated [short UV(254nm) + freezing(<0°C) + silica gel (CaSO 4)] treatment on the pulse beetle, C. maculatus Fabr., in relative grain damage reduction (RGDR%), relative weight loss reduction (RWLR%) and relative damage rate reduction (RDRR%) along with relative oviposition reduction (ROR%) and relative adult emergence reduction (RAER%) were investigated in the same laboratory condition.

2.6. Statistical analysis: The data were analyzed through one way ANOVA by using SPSS 11.0 and Excel stat 2007.

3. RESULTS: The grain damage (GD%), weight loss (WL%) and damage rate (DR%) of five common pulses eg., chana [ Cicer arietinum ], kabuli chana [ Cicer arietinum ], moong [ Vigna radiata ], goat pea [Vigna unguiculata ] and motor [ Pisum sativum ] by the pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus Fabr.(Coleoptera: Bruchidae) was investigated separately with different physical treatments [short UV (254nm), long UV (366nm), freezing (<0°C), hot air oven heating (60±1°C), silica ‘JAST’-2017, Vol.-03, Issue-01 [16]

JAST-a peer reviewed multidisciplinary research journal Vol.-03, Issue-01 gel (CaSO 4), sodium sulfate (Na 2SO 4), table salt (NaCl)] along with control and the best three integrated combined [short UV(254nm) + freezing(<0°C) + silica gel (CaSO 4)] treatment for three months with three observations each (Fig. 1-9). Three best treatments along with their integrated combined [short UV(254nm) + freezing(<0°C) + silica gel (CaSO 4)] treatments were also considered for the estimation of relative grain damage reduction (RGDR%), relative weight loss reduction (RWLR%) and relative damage rate reduction (RDRR%) along with oviposition and adult emergence reduction (%) on the selected five common grains (eg., chana, kabuli chana, moong, goat pea and motor) for eco-friendly and sustainable management of the pulse beetle, C. maculatus (Fig. 10-14).

The GD, WL and RD (%) by the pulse beetle, C. maculates , were significantly higher (p<0.005) in chana (75.95%) followed by moong (63.34%), motor (54.37%), goat pea (36.45%) and kabuli chana (29.75%) in control treatment (Fig. 1). The effect of different treatments show different pattern of effective responses on the selected grains (Fig. 2-8). The most effective responses in integrated combination were significantly differed (p<0.005) from individual treatments on the selected grains (Fig. 9). All the treatments including control as well as most effective combined treatments showed similar pattern of susceptibility towards the grain infection by the pulse beetle, C. maculates , in the order of chana > moong > motor > goat pea > kabuli chana (Fig. 1-9) in terms of GD, WL and RD (%). The RGDR, RWLR and RDRR (%) were significantly differed (p<0.005) in all the five pulses when treated with the three best treatments i.e., short UV (254nm), freezing (<0°C) and silica gel (CaSO 4) treatments along with their integrated combination over the control (Figure 10-12). The RGDR and RWLR % was significantly differed (F 3,16 =6.869; p=0.003 and F 3,16 =8.690; p=0.001, respectively) in the said best treatments along with their combination (Fig. 10 &11). Similarly the RDRR % was also significantly differed (F 3,16 =8.714; p=0.001) in the said best treatments along with their combination on the selected pulses (Fig. 12).

0 0

% G r a i n D a m a g e

9 0

% W a i g h t L o s s

8 0

% D a m a g e R a t e

6 0

0 4

% Damage %

3 0

2 0

1 0

Chana kabuli chana Moong Goat pea Mator

Figure 1. Grain damage (%), Weight loss (%) and Damage rate (%) of five common grains (Chana, Kabuli chana, Moong, Goat pea and motor) by 20 pairs of pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus Fabr.(Coleoptera: Bruchidae) reared on 100 intact grains separately as control. Data expressed as means ±SE of five observations for three months.

[17] Pulse Beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus Fabr. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) Management by Physical Means Author: N.Roy et al.

6 0

% G r a i n D a m a g e

% W a i g h t L o s s

% D a m a g e R a t e

3 0

2 0

% Damage %

1 0

Chana kabuli chana Moong Goat pea Mator

Figure 2. Grain damage (%), Weight loss (%) and Damage rate (%) of five common grains (Chana, Kabuli chana, Moong, Goat pea and motor) by 20 pairs of pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus Fabr.(Coleoptera: Bruchidae) reared on 100 intact grains separately with short UV (254nm) treatment for 10 minutes. Data expressed as means ±SE of five observations for three months.

8 0

% G r a i n D a m a g e

% W a i g h t L o s s

6 0

% D a m a g e R a t e

3 0

% Damage %

2 0

1 0

Chanakabuli chanaMoong Goat pea Mator

Figure 3. Grain damage (%), Weight loss (%) and Damage rate (%) of five common grains (Chana, Kabuli chana, Moong, Goat pea and motor) by 20 pairs of pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus Fabr.(Coleoptera: Bruchidae) reared on 100 intact grains separately with long UV (366nm) treatment for 10 minutes. Data expressed as means ±SE of five observations for three months.

‘JAST’-2017, Vol.-03, Issue-01 [18]

JAST-a peer reviewed multidisciplinary research journal Vol.-03, Issue-01

% G r a i n

D a m a g e

6 0

% W a i g h t L o s s

3 0

% Damage %

2 0

1 0

Chana kabuli chana Moong Goat pea Mator

Figure 4. Grain damage (%), Weight loss (%) and Damage rate (%) of five common grains (Chana, Kabuli chana, Moong, Goat pea and motor) by 20 pairs of pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus Fabr.(Coleoptera: Bruchidae) reared on 100 intact grains separately with freezing (<0°C) treatment. Data expressed as means ±SE of five observations for three months.

8 0

% G r a i n

D a m a g e

% W a i g h t L o s s

6 0

3 0

% Damage %

2 0

1 0

Chana kabuli chana Moong Goat pea Mator

Figure 5. Grain damage (%), Weight loss (%) and Damage rate (%) of five common grains (Chana, Kabuli chana, Moong, Goat pea and motor) by 20 pairs of pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus Fabr.(Coleoptera: Bruchidae) reared on 100 intact grains separately with heating (60±1°C) treatment for 10 minutes. Data expressed as means ±SE of five observations for three months.

[19] Pulse Beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus Fabr. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) Management by Physical Means Author: N.Roy et al.

6 0

% G r a i n

1 4

D a m a g e

% W a i g h t L o s s

2 0

0 0

8 0

6 0

% Damage %

2 0 0

Chana kabuli chana Moong Goat pea Mator

Figure 6. Grain damage (%), Weight loss (%) and Damage rate (%) of five common grains (Chana, Kabuli chana, Moong, Goat pea and motor) by 20 pairs of pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus Fabr.(Coleoptera: Bruchidae) reared on 100 intact grains separately with silica gel (CaSO 4) treatment. Data expressed as means ±SE of five observations for three months.

0 0

% G r a i n

9 0

D a m a g e

8 0

% W a i g h t L o s s

6 0

0 4

% Damage %

3 0

2 0

1 0

Chana kabuli chana Moong Goat pea Mator

Figure 7. Grain damage (%), Weight loss (%) and Damage rate (%) of five common grains (Chana, Kabuli chana, Moong, Goat pea and motor) by 20 pairs of pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus Fabr.(Coleoptera: Bruchidae) reared on 100 intact grains separately with sodium sulphate (Na 2SO 4) treatment. Data expressed as means ±SE of five observations for three months.

‘JAST’-2017, Vol.-03, Issue-01 [20]

JAST-a peer reviewed multidisciplinary research journal Vol.-03, Issue-01

9 0

% G r a i n

8 0

D a m a g e

% W a i g h t L o s s

6 0

3 0

% Damage %

2 0

1 0

Chana kabuli chana Moong Goat pea Mator

Figure 8. Grain damage (%), Weight loss (%) and Damage rate (%) of five common grains (Chana, Kabuli chana, Moong, Goat pea and motor) by 20 pairs of pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus Fabr.(Coleoptera: Bruchidae) reared on 100 intact grains separately with table salt (NaCl) treatment. Data expressed as means ±SE of five observations for three months.

% G r a i n

4 5

D a m a g e

% W a i g h t L o s s

3 0

2 0

% Damage %

1 5

5 0

Chana kabuli chana Moong Goat pea Mator

Figure 9. Grain damage (%), Weight loss (%) and Damage rate (%) of five common grains (Chana, Kabuli chana, Moong, Goat pea and motor) by 20 pairs of pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus Fabr.(Coleoptera: Bruchidae) reared on 100 intact grains separately with the integrated combined [short UV(254nm) + freezing(<0°C) + silica gel (CaSO 4)] treatment. Data expressed as means ±SE of five observations for three months.

[21] Pulse Beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus Fabr. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) Management by Physical Means Author: N.Roy et al.

2 0

0 0

8 0

d a

o m b i n e d

i n

6 0

i l i a g e l

i v

r e e z i n g

l a

2 0

R e

h o r t U V

h a n a k a b u l i o o n g G o a t p e a a t o r

M M

h a n a c

Figure 10. Relative grain damage reduction (%) of five common grains (Chana, Kabuli chana, Moong, Goat pea and motor) by 20 pairs of pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus Fabr.(Coleoptera: Bruchidae) reared on 100 intact grains separately with the three best treatments along with integrated combined [short UV(254nm) + freezing(<0°C) + silica gel (CaSO 4)] treatment. Data expressed as means ±SE of five observations for three months.

2 0

0 0

l o

8 0

o m b i n e

6 0

i l i a g e l

r e e z i n g

R e

2 0

h a n a k a b u l i h a n a o o n g G o a t p e a a t o r

M M c

Figure 11. Relative weight loss reduction (%) of five common grains (Chana, Kabuli chana, Moong, Goat pea and motor) by 20 pairs of pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus Fabr.(Coleoptera: Bruchidae) reared on 100 intact grains separately with the three best treatments along with integrated combined [short UV(254nm) + freezing(<0°C) + silica gel (CaSO 4)] treatment. Data expressed as means ±SE of five observations for three months.

‘JAST’-2017, Vol.-03, Issue-01 [22]

JAST-a peer reviewed multidisciplinary research journal

Vol.-03, Issue-01

o m b i n e

i l i a g e l

l a

R e

h a n a k a b u l i h a n a o o n g G o a t p e a a t o r

M M c

Figure 12. Relative reduction in damage rate (%) of five common grains (Chana, Kabuli chana, Moong, Goat pea and motor) by 20 pairs of pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus Fabr.(Coleoptera: Bruchidae) reared on 100 intact grains separately with the three best treatments along with integrated combined [short UV(254nm) + freezing(<0°C) + silica gel (CaSO 4)] treatment. Data expressed as means ±SE of five observations for three months.

2 0

)

(

0 0

i o

8 0

h o r t U V

6 0

r e e z i n g

i l i a g e l

i p

o m b i n e d

v 2 0

R e

h a n a k a b u l i o o n g G o a t p e a a t o r

M M

h a n a c

Figure 13. Relative oviposition reduction (%) on five common grains (Chana, Kabuli chana, Moong, Goat pea and motor) by 20 pairs of pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus Fabr.(Coleoptera: Bruchidae) reared on 100 intact grains separately with the three best treatments along with integrated combined [short UV(254nm) + freezing(<0°C) + silica gel (CaSO 4)] treatment. Data expressed as means ±SE of five observations for three months.

[23] Pulse Beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus Fabr. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) Management by Physical Means Author: N.Roy et al.

2 0

0 0

)

8 0

h o r t U V

(

6 0

r e e z i n g

t l

a i l i a g e l

o m b i n e d

2 0

R e

h a n a k a b u l i h a n a o o n g G o a t p e a a t o r

M M c

Figure 14. Relative adult emargence reduction (%) from five common grains (Chana, Kabuli chana, Moong, Goat pea and motor) by 20 pairs of pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus Fabr.(Coleoptera: Bruchidae) reared on 100 intact grains separately with the three best treatments along with integrated combined [short UV(254nm) + freezing(<0°C) + silica gel (CaSO 4)] treatment. Data expressed as means ±SE of five observations for three months.

The ROR and RAER (%) of the pulse beetle, C. maculates , were significantly differed (p<0.001) only in the three best treatments i.e., short UV (254nm), freezing (<0°C) and silica gel (CaSO 4) treatments along with their integrative action over the control on the five selected pulses (Fig. 13-14). The ROR % was significantly differed (F 3,16 =14.193; p<0.0001) in the said best treatments along with their combination (Fig. 13). Similarly the RAER % was also significantly differed (F 3,16 =37.748; p<0.0001) in the said best treatments along with their combination on the selected pulses against C. maculatus (Fig. 14). Ultimately, in a nut shell, all potentially significant treatments, the integrative combined treatments always showed significantly (P<0.0001) higher potency over the other best individual treatments (Fig. 10-14) against the notorious pulse beetle, C. maculatus , for protection of the selected pulses as well as other pulses in respect to their susceptibility in the household and stored conditions.

4. Discussion: The pulse beetle C. maculatus is a major pest of economically important leguminous grains [7- 11]. Prevention of food losses during postharvest storage without creating environmental problems is therefore, of paramount economic importance. Throughout the world synthetic chemical pesticides have become a common practice among the farmers and stockholders to control the storage pests of pulses [1, 3-6]. It is now widely known that, the persistent use of these insecticides in granaries of small-scale farmers has led to a number of problems such as killing of non-target species, user hazards, toxic residues in food, development of genetic resistance in the treated pest, increased cost of application and the destruction of the balance of the ecosystem [13, 24-25]. Hence, search for the alternative method of pulse beetle control utilizing some non-toxic, environment friendly and human health hazard free methods are required [32-35, 37-42, 47-49]. The growing awareness of hazards of excessive use of pesticides globally had led researchers for safer and more environment friendly alternatives for pest control under storage [26-27, 30-32, 39-43]. As an alternative control method, ‘JAST’-2017, Vol.-03, Issue-01 [24]

JAST-a peer reviewed multidisciplinary research journal Vol.-03, Issue-01 botanical compounds and their constituents have been successfully used against this pest [29-30, 33-35, 37-38]. Few study using UVC irradiation, microwave as an alternative to chemical fumigants for controlling different stored grain pests were also determined [26, 41, 44, 50]. The efficacy of nanostructured silica clearly demonstrated as seed protecting agent for the control of C. maculates [46]. In our study we were also find some environment friendly alternatives (physical means) for control of the beetle, C. maculates on five common pulses eg., chana [ Cicer arietinum ], kabuli chana [ Cicer arietinum ], moong [ Vigna radiata ], goat pea [ Vigna unguiculata ] and motor [ Pisum sativum ]. Our investigation with different physical treatments [short UV (254nm), long UV (366nm), freezing (<0°C) hot air oven heating (60±1°C), silica gel (CaSO 4), sodium sulfate (Na 2SO 4), table salt (NaCl)] along with control represented best three means as integrated control measure [short UV(254nm) + freezing(<0°C) + silica gel (CaSO 4)] for eco-friendly and sustainable management of the pulse beetle. Ultimately it can be clearly suggest that, the integrative combined treatment has a great potency for sustainable storage of the pulses from the notorious pest, C. maculatus , in household as well as stored conditions.

5. Conclusion: Thus the best three physical treatments in combination [short UV (254nm) + freezing (<0°C) + silica gel (CaSO 4)] can be used as an alternative and ecologically sustainable management of the pulses for IPM against the notorious pulse beetle, C. maculates, in both household and stored conditions. As the integrative measures are safe (chemical free) and benign to our environment it may also provide a sustainable alternative for the control of other storage insect pests in near future.

Acknowledgements: This project was carried out by the help of Department of Zoology, M. U. C. Women`s College, Burdwan. We would like to thank all the teachers and technical staffs who help us in this project for their support and encouragement.

References: [1] K. M. Dick and P. F. Credland, ‘Egg production and development of three strains of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae)’, Journal of Stored Products Research, 20: 221-227 (1984). [2] N. O. Oigiangbe and A. O. Onigbinde, ‘The association between some physico-chemical characteristics and susceptibility of cowpea (Vigna unguilata (L.) Walp) to C. maculates (F.)’, Journal of Stored Products Research, 32(1): 7-11 (1996). [3] E. T. Zannou, I. A. Glitho, J. Huignard and J. P. Monge, ‘Life history of flight morph females of Callosobruchus maculatus F.: evidence of a reproductive diapause’, Journal of Insect Physiology, 49: 575-582 (2003). [4] F. Kazemi, A. A. Talebi, Y. Fathipour and S. Farahani, ‘A Comparative study on the effect of four leguminous species on biological and population growth parameters of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae)’, Advances in Environmental Biology, 3(3): 226-232 (2009). [5] M. B. Devi and N. V. Devi, ‘Biology and morphometric measurement of cowpea weevil, Callosobruchus maculatus fabr. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in green gram’, Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, 2 (3): 74-76 (2014). [6] A. Umar and J. M. Turaki, ‘Comparative studies on the biology of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) on soya beans and bambara groundnut’, Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, 2 (4): 58-61 (2014). [7] A. K. Raina, ‘Callosobruchus spp. infesting stored pulses (grain legumes) in India and a comparative study of their biology’, Indian Journal of Entomology, 32: 303-310 (1970). [8] D. P. Giga and R. H. Smith, ‘Intraspecific competition in the bean weevils Callosobruchus maculatus and Callosobruchus rhodesianus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae)’, Journal of Applied Ecology, 28: 918-929 (1991). [9] O. C. Umeozor, ‘Effect of the Infection of Callosobruchus maculates (Fab.) on the weight loss of stored cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp)’, Journal of Applied Sciences & Environmental Management, 9(1): 169-172 (2005). [10] N. R. Jat, B. S. Rana and S. K. Jat, ‘Estimation of losses due to pulse beetle in chickpea’, The Bioscan, 8: 861-863 (2013). [11] A. M. Augustine, J. E. Idoko and A. O. Adepoju, ‘Ovipositional response of seed beetle Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) Coleoptra: Chrysomelidae on some selected varieties of cowpea, Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.’, International Journal of Research in Agriculture and Forestry, 3(5): 28-34 (2016)..

[25] Pulse Beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus Fabr. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) Management by Physical Means Author: N.Roy et al.

[12] M. Aslam, ‘Pest status of stored chickpea beetle, Callosobrachus chinensis L. on chickpea’, Journal of Entomology, 1: 28-33 (2004). [13] A. S. Atwal and G. S. Dhaliwal, ‘Agricultural pests of South Asia and their management’ 5th ed. pp.505, Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, India, (2005). [14] T. I. Ofuya, ‘Effect of larval infestation on the choice of seed for oviposition by C. maculates (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae)’, Insect Science and Application, 10: 437-440 (1989). [15] 15. R. Mitchell and C. Thanthianga, ‘The fecundity and oviposition behavior of a South Indian strain of Callosobruchus maculatus’, Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 44: 15-21 (1990). [16] U. M. Savalli and C. W. Fox, ‘The effect of male size, age and mating behavior on sexual selection in the beetle Callosobruchus maculatus’, Ethology, Ecology and Evolution, 11(1): 49-60(1999). [17] S. Paukku and J. S. Kotiaho, ‘Cost of reproduction in Callosobruchus maculatus: effects of mating on male longevity and the effect of male mating status on female longevity’, Journal of Insect Physiology, 51: 220-1226 (2005). [18] B. Bhattacharya and T. C. Banerjee, ‘Development and energy flow in the pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) fed on Khesari seeds’, Entomon, 27: 287-95 (2002). [19] T.S. Jr. Bellows, ‘Analytical models for laboratory populations of Callosbruchus chinensis and C. maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae)’, Journal of Animal Ecology, 51: 263-287 (1982). [20] Y. J. Chiu and F. J. Messina, ‘Effect of experience on host preference in Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae): variability among populations’, Journal of Insect Behavior, 7: 503-515 (1994). [21] D. R. S. Barbosa, L. da Silva Fontes, P. R. R. Silva, J. A. Neves, A. F., de Melo and A. B. Esteves Filho, ‘Microwave radiation to control Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) larvae in cowpea cultivars’, Austral Entomology, doi: 10.1111/aen.12214 (2016).

[22] O. A. Gbaye, E. A. Oyeniyi and O. B. Ojo, ‘Resistance of Callosobruchus maculatus (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) populations in Nigeria to Dichlorvos’, Jordan Journal of Biological Sciences, 9(1): 41-46 (2016). [23] S. Chander, S. K. Singal and J. P. Bhanot, ‘Role of grain protectants in integrated pest management of pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) infesting green gram, Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek’, Research Crops, 8: 458- 462 (2007). [24] T. Yamane, ‘Biorational control methods for protection of stored grain legumes against bruchid beetles’, Agricultural Sciences, 4: 762-766 (2013). [25] Md. A. Hossain, Md. A. Alim, K. S. Ahmed and Md. A. Haque, ‘Insecticidal potentials of plant oils against Callosobruchus chinensis (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) in stored chickpea’, Journal of Entomological Society of Iran, 34(3): 47-56 (2014). [26] T. C. H. Yang and G. A. Sacher, ‘Effects of X-irradiation on some physiological properties of a developing Tribolium’, In: Argonne National Laboratory Annual Report, pp. 49-50 (1969). [27] W. Quarles and P. S. Winn, ‘Diatomaceous earth and stored product pests’, IPM Practitioner, 18: 1–10 (1996). [28] F. K. Dhulia, A. J. Patel and I. S. Patel, ‘Efficacy of various vegetable oils for protection of green gram (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek) against pulse beetle in storage’, Pest Management Ecology and Zoology, 7: 177-179 (1999). [29] M. C. Bhargava and B. L. Meena, ‘Efficacy of some vegetable oils against pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) on cowpea, Vigna unguiculata (L.)’, Indian Journal of Plant Protection, 30: 46-50 (2002). [30] K. S. Ahmed, T. Itino and T. Ichikawa, ‘Duration of developmental stages of Callosobruchus chinensis L. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) on azuki bean and the effects of neem and sesame oils at different stages of their development’, Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 6: 932-935 (2003). [31] V. Charles, H. Guy, P. Bernard, and F. L. Francis, ‘Management of agricultural insects with physical control methods’, Annual Review of Entomology, 48:261-81 (2003). [32] S. Singh and G. Sharma, ‘Pulse beetle management through solar energy in stored green gram seeds’, Seed Research, 31(1): 84-89 (2003). [33] A. S. Yadav, N. S. Bhaduria and S. S. Jakhmola, ‘Efficacy of edible/non-edible oils against Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) in green gram’, Indian Journal of Entomology, 66: 364-381 (2004). [34] J. Alice, R. P. Sujeetha, N. Mathurani and L. Nadarajan, ‘Effect of indigenous plant products and oils against the pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) on stored blackgram’, Asian Journal of Biological Sciences, 2: 203-204 (2007). [35] L. J. Bamaiyai, I. S. Ndams, W. A. Toro and S. Odekina, ‘Laboratory evaluation of mehogany (Khaya senegalensis Desv.) seed oil and seed powder for the control of Callosobruchus maculatus F. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) on stored cowpea’, Journal of Entomology, 4: 237-242 (2007). [36] S. I. Faruki, D. R. Das, A. R. Khan and M. Khatun, ‘Effects of ultraviolet (254nm) irradiation on egg hatching and adult emergence of the flour beetles, Tribolium castaneum, T. confusum and the almond moth, Cadra cautella’, Journal of Insect Science, 7(36): 1-6 (2007). ‘JAST’-2017, Vol.-03, Issue-01 [26]

JAST-a peer reviewed multidisciplinary research journal Vol.-03, Issue-01 [37] A. Prakash, J. Rao and V. Nandagopal, ‘Future of botanical pesticides in rice, wheat, pulses and vegetables pest management’, Journal of Biopesticides, 1(2):154-169 (2008). [38] N. Haghtalab, N. Shayesteh and S. Aramideh, ‘Insecticidal efficacy of castor and hazelnut oils in stored cowpea against Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae)’, Journal of Biological Sciences, 9: 175- 179 (2009). [39] A. Abduz Zahir, A. Bagavan, C. Kamaraj, G. Elango and A. Abdul Rahuman, ‘Efficacy of plant-mediated synthesized silver nanoparticles against Sitophilus oryzae’, Journal of Biopesticide, 5: 95-102 (2012). [40] J. Alice, R. P. Sujeetha and N. Srikanth, ‘Effect of hot and cold treatments for the management of Pulse beetle Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab) in pulses’, IOSR Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science (IOSR-JAVS), 3(3): 29-33 (2013). [41] R. Sedaghat, A. Asghar and T. S. Moharramipour, ‘Effects of ultraviolet irradiation on life table of cowpea weevil, Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae)’, J. Entomol. Res. Soc., 16(2): 01-12 (2014). [42] A. Kedia, B. Prakash, P. K. Mishra, P. Singh and N. K. Dubey , ‘ Botanicals as eco friendly biorational alternatives of synthetic pesticides against Callosobruchus spp. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae)—a review’, J. Food Sci. Technol., 52(3):1239-1257 (2015). [43] N. K. Dubey, B. Srivastava and A. Kumar, ‘Current status of plant products as botanical pesticides in storage pest management. Journal of Biopesticides, 1(2):182-186 (2008). [44] D. Sen, P. Dey, K. Pal, R. Mondal, A. Sain and N. Roy, ‘Potency of UV Irradiation in Management of Rice Weevil, Sitophilus oryzae L.’, JAST –A reviewed multidisciplinary research journal, 2(1): 61-67 (2016). [45] J. P. Ingabire, A. Hategekimana, K. Bhuvaneswari, S. Mohan and S. Ganapathy, ‘Management of pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculates (F) population by nitrogen based modified atmosphere’, Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, 1(5): 48-52 (2013). [46] G. Arumugam, V. Velayutham, S. Shanmugavel and J. Sundaram1, ‘Efficacy of nanostructured silica as a stored pulse protector against the infestation of bruchid beetle, Callosobruchus maculates (Coleoptera: Bruchidae)’, Appl. Nanosci. 6: 445-450 (2016). [47] J. U. Mollah and W. Islam, ‘Comparative efficacy of indigenous plant extracts as the surface protectant of black gram seeds in storage for the control of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.)’, Bangladesh Journal of Zoology, 33: 199-205 (2005). [48] A. Doumma, ‘Effects of sun exposition on population of bruchids in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.)) storage system in Niger’, Pest Management of Horticultural Ecosystems, 12(1):5-7 (2006). [49] M. E. Ojebode, C. O. Olaiya, A. E. Adegbite, K. O. Karigidi and T. O. Ale, ‘Efficacy of some plant extracts as storage protectants against Callosobruchus maculatus’, J. Biotechnol. Biomater., 6: 217. doi:10.4172/2155- 952X.1000217 (2016). [50] M. Calderon, W. A. Bruce and L. G. Leecsh, ‘Effect of UV radiation on eggs of Tribolium castaneum’, Phytoparasitica, 13: 145-147 (1985).

[27]