Chickpea is a significant cash crop for West Shoa farmers as it does for farmers in Ethiopia. Its production has been declining due to biotic and abiotic factors. One of the most important causes of grain loss in stored chickpea is the damage caused by Pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis (L.). This study was conducted with the objective to evaluate the efficacy of available botanical extract at different rates against Callosobruchus chinensis, under laboratory conditions. The experiment was laid out in a Completely Randomized Design with three replications. The results revealed that there was an increasing trend in parent adult mortality over time, i.e., the highest C. Chinensis parent mortality of 100% were recorded from Guizotia abyssinica oil, Ricinus communis oil, Citrus lemon oil, and Azadiracta indica seed extract at the rates of 100mg, 75mg, and 50mg/kg of Chickpea on the fifth day after exposure to treatments. Phytolaca dodecandra seed, and Eucalyptus globules leaves caused 66.67%, 70.0%, and 71.11% mortality after fifth day exposure at the rates of 50mg, 75mg, and 100mg, respectively. The lower mortality of 58.89% and 51.11% were recorded from ‘Datura stramonium leaves and Schinus molle at a maximum rate on the 5th day of treatment exposure, respectively. It is concluded that the Guizotia abyssinica oil, Ricinus communis seed, and Citrus lemon oil were found to be the most potent bio-insecticides against C. chinensis. Therefore, these three botanicals are recommended as a safe alternative for the control of C. chinensis in stored chickpea.
INTRODUCTION
Fabaceae is a family of annual legume crops that includes the chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) (Mounika et al., 2021). Both in terms of its proportion of the overall area planted to pulses and its function in direct human consumption, it is one of Ethiopia's most important annual crops. In comparison to other crops, the cultivation of chickpeas requires fewer external inputs and requires less labor. Ethiopia is the seventh-largest producer of chickpeas worldwide, accounting for almost 46% of output on the African continent between 1994 and 2006 (Tessema et al., 2015). Two varieties of chickpeas are widely cultivated across the world: the Kabuli, which has a light yellow coating and big seeds, and the Desi, which has smaller seeds and beige testa (Khalil et al., 2007; Kinfe et al., 2015). Only lately have Ethiopian farmers been exposed to new kabuli kinds. In the nation, the Desi variety dominates (more than 80%) in terms of both consumption and area coverage (Kinfe et al., 2015).
In the field, pod borer is the most severe, whereas bruises harm storage (Gahukar & Reddy, 2018). According to estimates, insect pest infestations in sub-Saharan Africa cause between 25 and 40 percent of grain crops to be lost in shops each year (Kimatu et al., 2012; Ahmad et al., 2015). Stored product pests are more significant than field pests because bruchids in stores generate irreversible storage losses (Hajam & Kumar, 2022). On chickpea seeds, C. chinensis eggs are deposited, and the larvae burrow into the seeds to finish developing inside the grain. In order to reduce this issue, farmers are using traditional chemical pesticides, which have been shown to be successful. Nevertheless, the usage of chemical pesticides is not only beyond the farmers' financial means but also carries significant health risks, residues, pollution, and contamination threats (Boudh & Singh, 2018).
The pulse beetle, also called the adzuki beetle (Callosobruchus chinensis), is one of the insect pests that poses the greatest risk to grain that has been stored (Tessema et al., 2015). Because these circumstances encourage the growth of this insect, they harm grains that are kept at 30°C and 70% relative humidity (Srivastava & Subramanian, 2016). Chickpeas suffer significant qualitative and quantitative losses as a result of pulse beetle infestation. Banik (2024) found 32-64% infection of Callosobruchus species in leguminous seeds and 3% in oilseeds. This insect was reported to harm 50-60% of grains in stored state after 6 months of conventional storage (Caswell, 1973; Srivastava & Subramanian, 2016). According to Keneni and Ahmed (2016), insect pest infestations in sub-Saharan Africa cause between 25 and 40 percent of grain crops to be wasted in shops each year. In order to assess the effectiveness of several botanical extracts and their rates against C. chinensis on chickpea, the study was conducted.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Description of the study area
The research was conducted at the Ambo Agricultural Research Center in the Oromia Regional State's West Shewa Zone. At a height of 2225 meters above sea level, the Ambo Agricultural Research Center is situated 115 kilometers west of Addis Ababa. It's situated at latitude 08°57'N and longitude 37°52'E. With typical monthly minimum and maximum temperatures of around 10.30°C and 26.40°C and 1036 mm of rainfall, respectively, the region has a warm, humid environment (Başar et al., 2022; Do et al., 2022; Kariri et al., 2022). Vertisol is the type of soil used in the experiment.
Chickpea grain used for the experiment
Clean and well-sifted chickpea grain of the variety "Kabuli," which was acquired from the Ambo Agricultural Research Center, was used in all studies. It was grown on their farm and frozen at -6°C to kill any living insects. After that, it was sufficiently dried in the open sun without any prior pesticide treatment. Nearly only bigger grains were utilized in the investigation, and the grains were graded by hand. By hand, dirt and broken chickpeas were removed from the grains.
Collection and preparation of plant materials
The materials indicated in Figure 1, eight (8) locally available plants including Oil of Guizotia abyssinica (Nuog) and Oil of Citrus lemon (Lemon) were bought from Ambo local market. And leaves of Schinus molle (pepper tree), Phytolaca dodecandra (Endod), leaveas of Eucalyptus globules (Eucalyptus), oil of Ricinus communis (castor) and Leaves of Datura stramonium (Datura) were collected from compound of Ambo Agricultural research center and Ambo University, respectively. And also seed of Azadiracta indica (neem) was collected from Melkasa Agricultural Research center. These plant materials were air dried in the shade, crushed individually into a fine powder with a mortar and pestle, then sieved to produce homogeneous fine dust particles. Each plant material was stored in a plastic bag in a cool location until treatment was applied (Ekpo et al., 2023; Kwatra et al., 2024). Each pair of seeds was put in a test tube (14.7x2.4 cm) and treated with the plant extracts at varied doses (50mg, 75mg, and 100mg/kg).
|
|
|
Figure 1. Drying different botanicals under shade |
Mass rearing and maintenance of c. chinensis
The mass culture of C. chinensis was carried out on 250 g of sterilized (hot air oven at 80°C for 2 hours) and disinfected (formalin 1%) chickpea seeds (variety: Kabuli) in a glass jar, as seen in Figure 2. In order to achieve a pure culture of the target species, individuals of C. chinensis from the infected stock were taken and released in a glass jar with 250 gm of grains in a male-to-female (1:1) ratio. There was a muslin towel over the container's mouth. Five days later, all of the adults were taken out, and the humidity and temperature needed to produce egg-laying seeds were maintained. For experimental purposes, the recently emerging grownups were employed. Fresh cultures were routinely cultivated on fresh chickpea seeds to promote culture growth and prevent fungal infections. For culture maintenance, the rearing jars were maintained in an incubator between 27 and 30°C and 70 and 75% relative humidity.
|
|
|
Figure 2. Mass Rearing and Maintenance of C. chinensisat under laboratory conditions |
Treatments application and infestation
Three concentration ratios of 50 mg/kg, 75 mg/kg, and 100 mg/kg powder of treatments are included in each jar together with 250 grams of chickpea grains. The containers holding the disinfested grains were shaken and rolled to apply the treatments and mix them evenly. The untreated control was also utilized for comparison, and the standard check was an insecticide, primiphos methyl (Actellic 2%) dust, applied at a dosage of 0.25 mg/kg of seed. 30 recently emerged adult Callosobruchus chinensis (1:1) were then added to each container. Three replications of eight (8) treatments were used in the trials, which were set up using a completely randomized design (CRD).
Data collection
By selecting 50 seeds from each jar, the number of eggs laid on the chickpea seeds 1, 3, and 5 days after treatment application was noted, along with the number of parent adult C. Chinensis deaths that were tallied and eliminated. Since natural mortality is anticipated to occur after the fifth day following insect introduction, all Bruchids, both dead and living, were taken out of the jars and preserved in the same conditions for the emergence of the F1 offspring.
Emergence, mortality and eggs was laid by progeny adults
Beginning 22 days following treatment, the appearance of the progenies was examined once a week. The number of adults who emerged from each therapy was tallied and documented. At weekly intervals, the number of dead and alive adult offspring was noted. Data was collected on fifty (50) seeds from each treatment that had holes, eggs, and healthy grains during the course of three months of storage (Elshorbagy et al., 2022; Verevkina et al., 2024). The information gathered was utilized to assess each botanical's effectiveness against C. chinensis.
Percentage protection
Each treatment's protective effectiveness was determined using the methodology below (Caswell, 1973).
|
|
(1) |
Grain weight loss
On the ninetieth day of treatment, 100 grains were selected at random from each treatment and divided into intact seeds and damaged grains with exit holes. In order to determine the % weight loss, grains with and without exit holes were counted and weighed independently. Using the counted and weighted approach, the percentage of weight reduction was calculated.
|
|
(2) |
Where:
Wμ = weight of undamaged grains
Nμ = number of undamaged grains
Wd = weight of damaged grains
Nd = number of damaged grains
Effect of botanicals on seeds germination
Three months into the experiment, the treated seedlings' germination was evaluated. A random selection of fifty (50) seeds was taken from each jar and put in petri dishes on damp filter paper. To eradicate fungal infection, seeds from each treatment were individually treated with 10% sodium hypochlorite (Chlorox) for one minute (İlhan et al., 2022; Yoong et al., 2022). To prevent external damage to the chickpea grains, the seeds were then washed with potable water to remove the chlorox. A completely randomized design (CRD) including eight treatments and three replications was used for the experiment. The seeds that germinated were noted 7 days after incubating. The percentages of germinated seeds were calculated accordingly.
Statistical analysis
Once the data had been appropriately transformed to normalize variance, analysis of variance was conducted (Wang et al., 2012). The rule of transformation was used to choose appropriate transformation systems based on the kind of data record from various treatments. The proportion of parent mortality was therefore calculated using an arcsine transformation. When capturing data on eggs deposited by parent adults, the square root transformation was utilized. Bruchids, grains containing an egg or eggs, holes per 50 grains, germination, and weight loss %. The SAS software was used for all statistical operations. Using Tukey's studentized range test (HSD), mean separation was performed. The tables' means are all back-transformed data.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Percent mortality of C. chinensis aftertreatment exposures of five days
Result presented in (Table 1) revealed that a significantly (P £ 0.05)differences among the treatments. The maximum mortality of C. chinensis (L.) was observed in Ricinus communis, Guizotia abyssinica and Citrus lemon at all rates (100%) followed by Azadiracta indica and Phytolaca Dodecandra at the rates of 75gm and 100gm/kg of powder (83.35, 83.35; 78.89,82.22%). The minimum mortality recorded by Schinus molle followed by Datura stramonium and Eucalyptus globules Significantly minimum mortality of Callosobruchus chinensis (L) was recorded in untreated control which was (3.33%). Significantly minimum per cent mortality was recorded in untreated control (12.22%). The results showed from first day observation to fifth day observation after treatment exposure the percent mortalities were increased indicted in (Table 1).
Table 1. Percent Mortality of C. chinensis after Exposure of Treatments.
|
Treatments |
Rate |
Percent mortality (%) |
||
|
1st day |
3rd days |
5th days |
||
|
Schinus molle |
50 |
17.78(24.95) ±0.42f |
26.67(31.1) ±0.51oj |
43.33(41.16) ±0.65h |
|
75 |
20.00l (26.57±0.45f |
25.56(30.36) ±0.50j |
48.89(44.36) ±0.69g |
|
|
100 |
25.56(30.37) ±0.51ef |
31.11(33.9) ±0.55i |
51.11(45.63) ±0.71g |
|
|
Datura stramonium |
50 |
24.44(29.63) ±0.49ef |
31.11(33.9) ±0.55i |
50.00(45.0) ±0.7g |
|
75 |
25.56(30.37) ±0.51ef |
40.00(39.2) ±0.63h |
55.56(48.2) ±0.74f |
|
|
100 |
32.22(34.58) ±0.57e |
47.78(43.7) ±0.69g |
58.89(49.9) ±0.76f |
|
|
Eucalyptus globules |
50 |
28.89(32.51) ±0.54e |
45.56 (42.45) ±0.67g |
66.67(55.34) ±82e |
|
75 |
32.22(34.58) ±o.57e |
52.22(46.27) ±0.72f |
70.00(56.78) ±0.83d |
|
|
100 |
33.33(35.26) ±0.58e |
57.78(49) ±0.76e |
71.11(57.48) ±0.84d |
|
|
Phytolaca dodecandra |
50 |
44.44(41.81) ±0.67d |
62.22(52) ±0.78d |
75.56(60.3) ±0.86c |
|
75 |
36.67(37.27) ±0.61d |
70.00(56.78) ±0.83c |
78.89(62.64) ±0.88c |
|
|
100 |
40.00(39.23) ±0.63d |
78.89(62.64) ±0.88a |
82.22(65.0) ±0.9b |
|
|
Citrus lemon |
50 |
54.44(47.55) ±0.74c |
67.78(55.41) ±0.82c |
100.00(90.0) ±1.11a |
|
75 |
52.22(46.27) ±0.72c |
68.89(56.1) ±0.83c |
100.00(90.0) ±1.11a |
|
|
100 |
51.11(45.64) ±0.71c |
71.11(57.48) ±0.84bc |
100.00(90.0) ±1.11a |
|
|
Azadiracta indica |
50 |
58.89(50.12) ±0.77b |
56.67(48.83) ±075jk |
77.78(61.87) ±0.88c |
|
75 |
58.89(50.15) ±0.77b |
66.67(55.34) ±0.82c |
83.33(65.9) ±0.91b |
|
|
100 |
60.00(50.77) ±0.77b |
70.00(56.78) ±0.83bc |
83.33(65.9) ±0.91b |
|
|
Ricinus communis |
50 |
53.33(46.91) ±0.73c |
72.22(58.2) ±084bc |
100.00(90) ±1.00a |
|
75 |
57.78(49.48) ±0.76b |
74.44(59.63) ±0.86ab |
100.00(90) ±1.11a |
|
|
100 |
61.11(51.42) ±0.78b |
76.67(61.11) ±0.87a |
100.00(90) ±1.11a |
|
|
Guizotia abyssinica |
50 |
61.11(51.42) ±0.72b |
74.44(59.63) ±0.86ab |
100.00(90) ±1.11a |
|
75 |
61.41(51.48) ±0.78b |
75.56(60.37) ±0.86b |
100.00(90) ±1.11a |
|
|
100 |
63.33(52.71±0.8b |
78.89(62.64) ±0.88a |
100.00(90) ±1.11a |
|
|
Chemical |
50 |
70.00(56.76) ±84a |
81.11(64.23) ±0.9a |
100.00(90) ±1.11a |
|
Untreated |
50 |
3.33(10.51) ±0.18g |
8.89(17.34) ±0.29k |
12.22(20.46) ±0.34i |
|
Mean |
|
43.37603 |
58.16256 |
77.26513 |
|
CV |
|
9.125412 |
4.678631 |
2.970875 |
|
LSD |
|
6.485262 |
4.458489 |
3.760913 |
Note: Means with the same letter(s) in the same columns are not significantly different for each other.
All treatment effects were significant at P<0.05 (LSD).
Data in the parenthesis represent transformed value
Number of eggs laid per 50 seeds
The findings demonstrated that, in comparison to the 98% eggs on the untreated check, C. chinensis deposited noticeably fewer eggs on seeds treated with Actellic 2% dust and Guizotia abyssinica oil (100 ml) one day following treatment application. These seeds had 2% eggs and 3.33% eggs per 50 seeds, respectively. The results indicated that all the treatments were significantly different from the untreated check one day after treatment application. Eggs counted three days after treatment indicated that Guizotia abyssinica of oil and Actellic 2% dust with 3.67% and 2.33% eggs, respectively. In contrast, the other treatments demonstrated efficacy against C. chinensis, which differed markedly from the untreated check. All botanicals were substantially different from the untreated control, according to eggs produced by C. chinensis five days after treatment application. Additionally, as demonstrated by Table 2, all treatments were noticeably better than the untreated check following treatment application.
Table 2. Mean percent eggs laid per 50 Seed by parent adults on different dat\es after of exposure of treatment
|
Treatments |
Rate |
Percent Eggs laid per 50 Seed (%) |
||
|
1st |
3rd |
5th |
||
|
Schinu smolle |
50 |
68.67(55.9) ±0.8b |
68.67(55.90) ±0.8b |
69.02(56.16) +0.83c |
|
75 |
55.67(48.2) ±0.74c |
57.33(49.05) ±0.75c |
57.07(49) ±0.75d |
|
|
100 |
47.33(44.04) ±0.69d |
47.33(44.04) ±0.68d |
47.33(44.04 ±0.68e |
|
|
Datura stramonium |
50 |
37.33(37.0) ±0.61e |
38.08(38.04) ±0.61e |
38.11(38) ±0.61f |
|
75 |
35(36.6) ±0.59f |
33.67(35.4) ±0.58e |
33.33(35.26) ±0.57g |
|
|
100 |
31.67(34.2) ±0.56g |
31(33.8) ±0.55e |
31(33.8) ±0.55g |
|
|
Eucalyptus globules |
50 |
29(32.6) ±0.53h |
24.33(29.55) ±0.49ef |
41.05(39.8) ±0.64f |
|
75 |
23(28.7) ±0.47i |
23.33(28.8) ±0.48ef |
41.07(39.81) ±0.64f |
|
|
100 |
23.33(28.8) ±0.48i |
22.33(28.2) ±049fg |
22.33(28.2) ±0.47h |
|
|
Phytolaca dodecandra |
50 |
21.67(27.7) ±0.46jj |
18.08(25) ±0.42g |
22(27.97) ±046h |
|
75 |
20.33(26.8) ±0.45jk |
40.67(39.60 ±0.63d |
21(27.27) ±0.45h |
|
|
100 |
19.33(26.1) ±0.43k |
19.33(26.0) ±0.43g |
19.67(26.32) ±0.44h |
|
|
Citrus lemon |
50 |
16(23.6) ±0.4l |
16.33(23.83) ±04g |
16.02(23.5) ±0.4hi |
|
75 |
16.67(24.0) ±0.42l |
14.67(22.5) ±0.38g |
85.67(67.0) ±0.92b |
|
|
100 |
12(20) ±0.34n |
11.33(19.60) ±0.33h |
12.17(20.0) ±0.34i |
|
|
Azadiracta indica |
50 |
19(25.8) ±0.43k |
19.33(26.0) ±0.43g |
52.09(46.14) ±0.34e |
|
75 |
18.33(25.3) ±0.42k |
17.67(24.85) ±0.42g |
39.67(39.0) ±0.61f |
|
|
100 |
17(24.3) ±0.41km |
15.13(22.7) ±0.38g |
17.33(24.0) ±0.41h |
|
|
Ricinus communis |
50 |
8.5(16.9) ±0.29o |
9.17(17.45) ±0.3gh |
8.03(16.4) ±0.28i |
|
75 |
8.16(16.6) ±0.28o |
7.33(15.7) ±0.27h |
8.07(16.42) ±0.28i |
|
|
100 |
4.33(12.0) ±0.2p |
5.37(12.9) ±0.22h |
5.33(13.34) ±0.23i |
|
|
Guizotia abyssinica |
50 |
7(15.3) ±0.26o |
8.25(16.4) ±0.28h |
8.05(16.0) ±0.28i |
|
75 |
5.33(13.34) ±0.23p |
6.33(14.57) ±0.25h |
6.07(14.1) ±.24i |
|
|
100 |
3.33(10.5) ±0.18q |
3.67(11.0) ±0.19hi |
3.67(11.0) ±0.2ij |
|
|
Actelic 5% |
50 |
2.13(8.13) ±0.14q |
2.33(8.7) ±0.15i |
2.67(8.12) ±0.17ij |
|
Untreated |
50 |
91.67(73.2) ±0.95a |
93.67(75.4) ±0.96a |
98(81.9) ±0.9a |
|
CV (%) |
|
4.53 |
27.26 |
10.34 |
|
LSD at 0.05 |
|
1.84 |
7.28 |
5.46 |
Note: Means with the same letter(s) in the same columns are not significantly different for each other.
All treatment effects were significant at P<0.05 (LSD).
Data in the parenthesis represent transformed value
Percent mortality of eggs laid by Parent C. chinensis
One day following the administration of the therapy, 100 mg of Ricinus communis seed and 100 ml of Guizotia abyssinica oil resulted in 95.6% and 96.4% egg mortality, respectively. Apart from Actellic 2% dust, which caused 97.9% mortality, Guizotia abyssinica oil produced a much greater mortality rate than all other treatments. It was discovered that the untreated check and all other remaining treatments differed substantially. Three days after the application of the therapy, observations showed that Guizotia abyssinica oil treatments caused 98.1% of the egg mortality and Actellic 2% dust treatments caused 98.33%, while 75 ml of Guizotia abyssinica oil caused 96.87% of the C. chinensis mortality. And also, all remains botanical treatments showed significantly better than the untreated check, which was (8.33%). After five days of treatment, the maximum mortality rate recorded insimilar way in Guizotia abyssinica oil at the rate of (100ml/kg) and Ricinus communis seed at the rate of 100mg/kg was 96.5% and 95.30%, respectively. The remains treatments were effective as compared with untreated check as showed in (Table 3).
Table 3. Mean percent mortality of parent eggs at different dates after exposure of treatments
|
Treatments |
Rate |
Percent Mortality of eggs (%) |
||
|
1st |
3rd |
5th |
||
|
Schinus molle |
50 |
31.3(34) ±0.55j |
28.05(31.9) ±0.52j |
31.14(33.6) +0.55h |
|
75 |
44.3(41.7) ±0.66i |
42.67(40.7) ± 0.65i |
43.05(41.02) +0.65g |
|
|
100 |
51.67(45.95) ±0.71h |
53.02(46.8) ±0.72h |
53.12(46.71) +0.72f |
|
|
Datura stramonium |
50 |
61.6(51.95) ±0.78g |
62.22(52.07) ±0.78g |
62.12(51.9) +0.78e |
|
75 |
64.8(53.6) ±0.8g |
66.17(54.43) ±0.8f |
66.11(54.33) +0.81d |
|
|
100 |
68.1(55.6) ±0.83f |
68.78(56.03) ±0.82f |
69.11(56.27) +0.83d |
|
|
Eucalyptus globules |
50 |
70.7(57.22) ±0.84f |
72.01(58) ±0.84e |
72.68(58.02) +0.84d |
|
75 |
76.7(61.13) ±0.87e |
77.08(61.4) ±0.87d |
77.5(61.05) +0.87c |
|
|
100 |
77.3(61.51) ±0.8e |
78.16(62.13) ±0.88d |
78.11(62.08) +0.88c |
|
|
Phytolaca dodecandra |
50 |
78.3(62.23) ±0.88e |
78.67(62.5) ±0.88cd |
78.11(62.08) +0.88c |
|
75 |
79.5(63) ±0.89d |
79.67(63) ±0.89cd |
79.03(62.7) +0.89c |
|
|
100 |
80.5(63.8) ±0.89d |
81.03(64) ±0.9cd |
80.14(63.43) +0.89c |
|
|
Citrus lemon |
50 |
83.8(66.26) ±0.91c |
83.57(66) ±0.93c |
84.07(66.02) +0.9bc |
|
75 |
85.2(67.3) ±0.92c |
85.27(67.4) ±0.92c |
86.02(68.05) +0.9bc |
|
|
100 |
88.11(69.7) ±0.93c |
88.48(70) ±0.94bc |
88.02(69.7) +0.93b |
|
|
Azadiracta indica |
50 |
80.8(64) ±0.89d |
80.52(63) ±0.89cd |
81.05(64.03) +0.9c |
|
75 |
81.5(64.52) ±0.9d |
82.05(64.9) ±0.90cd |
81.05(64.03) +0.9c |
|
|
100 |
83(65.6) ±0.91cd |
84.83(67) ±0.92gc |
83.01(65.6) +0.9c |
|
|
Ricinus communis |
50 |
91.2(72.36) ±0.95b |
91.67(73) ±0.95b |
92.12(73.5) +0.95ab |
|
75 |
91.8(73.3) ±0.95b |
92.93(74.6) ±0.96ab |
92.12(73.57) +0.95ab |
|
|
100 |
95.6(77.8) ±0.97a |
95.42(77.6) ±0.97a |
95.02(77.01) +0.97a |
|
|
Guizoti aabyssinica |
50 |
92.6(74) ±0.96b |
92.67(74) ±0.96ab |
92.03(73.6) +0.95ab |
|
75 |
94.2(76) ±0.97a |
96.87(79.8) ±0.98a |
94.11(74.07) +0.96a |
|
|
100 |
96.4(79) ±0.98a |
98.1(82.1) ±0.99a |
96.08(78.46) +0.97a |
|
|
Actelic 5% |
0.25 |
97.9(81.7±0.89a |
98.33(82.6) ±0.99a |
98.01(81.87) +0.98a |
|
Untreated |
|
2.03(8.2) ±0.14k |
8.33(16.78) ±0.3k |
12.06(20.3) +0.34i |
|
Mean |
|
74.97 |
75.39 |
75.7 |
|
CV |
|
1.29 |
1.21 |
1.42 |
|
LSD |
|
4.59 |
3.75 |
4.76 |
Note: Means with the same letter(s) in the same columns are not significantly different for each other.
All treatment effects were significant at P<0.05 (LSD).
Data in the parenthesis represent transformed value
Effect of botanicals on grain damage
In comparison to the untreated check, there were substantially fewer damaged grains in all treated grains. On Actellic 2% dust, Guizotia abyssinica oil, Ricinus communis oil, Citrus lemon oil, Azadirata indica seed, Phytolaca dodecandra seed, Eucalyptus globules leaves, Datura stramonium leaves, and Schinus molle leaves treated grains, considerably fewer eggs were oviposited than on any other treatment. As seen in Figure 3, the quantity of eggs in each treatment was quantitatively less than that of the untreated check. Ricinus communis at 100 ml treated grains, Guizotia abyssinica oil at 100 ml, and Actellic 2% dust had the fewest exit pores. There was a strong positive link between the number of exit holes and the quantity of eggs counted. Grain assessment of 50 randomly chosen seeds per replication after three months, as shown in Figure 1, showed that seeds treated with Actellic 2% dust, Ricinus communis oil at a rate of 100 ml, Guizotia abyssinica oil at rates of 75 ml and 50 ml, Ricinus communis oil at rates of 75 ml and 50 ml, and Citrus lemon oil at a rate of 100 ml had produced fewer grains with exit holes. And also, the other remains treatments like all rates of seed of Azadiractaindica, seed of Phytolaca dodecandra, leaves of Eucalyptus globules, leaves of Datura stramonium and leaves of Schninus molle were significantly different from the untreated check. The result revealed that the maximum number of normal seeds was recorded from Actellic 2% dust,Guizotia abyssinica oil at the rates of 100ml and 75ml, and Ricinus communis oil at the rate of 100ml which showed 48%, 47%, 46%, and 45.33%, respectively (Figure 3).
|
|
|
Figure 3. Mean percent damaged seeds within three months after treatment exposure |
Developmental period of C. chinensis progeny
According to Table 4, the developmental time of C. chinensis ranged from 23.00 days for untreated grains to 35.00 days for grains treated with Guizotia abyssinica. The developmental time of C. chinensis is impacted by all botanicals at all rates in comparison to the untreated check. The developing time was significantly prolonged from 6 to 14 days with Actellic 2% dust and all other treatments.
Infestation level
In comparison to the untreated control, all tested treatments were statistically better and produced a low infestation level against C. chinensis. The percentage of infection level in Cicer arientinum L grains treated with botanicals varied from 16.97% (Pepper tree seed) to 97.9% (Actellic 2% dust). The maximum infestation level was recorded in Schinus molle at the rate of 50mg/kg, while the minumum infestation level was recorded in Actellic 2% dust (97.9%), followed by Guizotia abyssinica and Ricinus communis at all rates (Table 4).
Percent seed germination
After ninety days of the experiment, the germination of Cicer arietinum L. seedlings treated with botanicals was evaluated. In comparison to the untreated control (39%), all of the botanically treated seeds exhibited noticeably greater germination rates, ranging from 67% to 98%. Guizotia abyssinica oil and Actellic 2% dust treated Cicer arientinum Lgrains gave 97.67% and 98% germination, followed by Ricinus communis at the rate of 100ml which was (95.33%).
Table 4. Mean weight loss, protection, Germination, developmental period, andprogeny Emerged within three months
|
Treatments |
Rate |
Developmental period in days |
No. of Progeny Emerged per 50 seeds |
Infestation reduction (%) |
Weight loss (%) |
Germination (%) |
|
|
Schinus molle |
50 |
24.33def |
203.67b |
16.97r |
43.17b |
76.00jkl |
|
|
75 |
24.33def |
186.00c |
24.17q |
40.7c |
73.33kl |
||
|
100 |
25.00de |
173.33d |
29.20p |
38.00d |
74.33ijkl |
||
|
Datura stramonium |
50 |
24.00def |
190.00c |
22.53q |
38.17d |
67.00l |
|
|
75 |
25.00de |
175.00d |
28.57p |
33.33e |
78.67hijkl |
||
|
100 |
25.33de |
165.00e |
32.63o |
27.17g |
81.33hij |
||
|
Eucalyptus globules |
50 |
23.67fg |
156.67f |
36.10n |
28.33f |
75.33kl |
|
|
75 |
24.00def |
148.00g |
39.63m |
26.00h |
81.00hijk |
||
|
100 |
24.3def |
142.00h |
42.10lm |
23.83i |
81.67hij |
||
|
Phytolaca dodecandra |
50 |
24.67def |
138.00hi |
43.70kl |
22.00j |
82.33hijkl |
|
|
75 |
24.33def |
134.00ij |
45.30jk |
20.50k |
84.00ghi |
||
|
100 |
32.67bc |
131.00jk |
46.70j |
20.27kl |
84.00ghi |
||
|
Citrus lemon |
50 |
29.33c |
29.00n |
88.13g |
11.00o |
85.67efg |
|
|
75 |
30.00c |
25.00no |
89.77fg |
8.67p |
87.00ef |
||
|
100 |
31.00bc |
22.67op |
90.73ef |
8.50p |
88.00de |
||
|
Azadiracta indica |
50 |
25.33de |
128.00kl |
47.73ij |
19.13l |
85.00fgh |
|
|
75 |
26.67de |
124.00lm |
49.43hi |
17.53m |
85.67efg |
||
|
100 |
28.33cd |
120.00m |
51.07h |
15.00n |
87.00ef |
||
|
Ricinus communis |
50 |
34.00a |
18.00pq |
92.63de |
7.70pq |
88.00de |
|
|
75 |
35.00a |
15.33qr |
93.73cd |
7.00qr |
89.50cd |
||
|
100 |
35.00a |
15.00qr |
93.87cd |
6.27r |
95.33bc |
||
|
Guizotia abyssinica |
50 |
32.33b |
12.00rs |
95.10bcd |
4.00s |
89.67cd |
|
|
75 |
33.33b |
10.00rst |
95.90abc |
3.60s |
95.33bc |
||
|
100 |
35.00a |
8.00st |
96.73ab |
3.00st |
97.67ab |
||
|
Acetllic 5% |
50 |
34.67a |
5.00t |
97.90a |
1.97t |
98.00a |
|
|
Untreated |
50 |
23.00fg |
245.33a |
0.00s |
68.83a |
39.00m |
|
|
Mean |
|
28.26 |
104.61 |
57.32 |
20.90 |
35.39 |
|
|
CV |
|
3.25 |
3.32 |
2.69 |
3.39 |
4.64 |
|
|
LSD |
|
1.51 |
5.69 |
2.52 |
1.16 |
2.69 |
Note: Means with the same letter(s) in the same columns are not significantly different for each other.
All treatment effects were significant at P<0.05 (LSD).
Percent weight Losses
The percentage of weight loss was recorded in Table 4 at three months. Notably, Guizotia abyssinica at all rates (100 ml, 75 ml, and 50 ml) was found to be very effective in minimizing the percentage of weight loss, i.e., 3%, 3.6%, and 4.0 percent of chickpea seeds. Ricinus communis at all rates (100 ml, 75 ml, and 50 ml) produced results of 6.2%, 7%, and 7.7%, and citrus lemon at rates of 100 ml, 75 ml, and 50 ml demonstrated 8.5%, 8.67%, and 11% of grain weight loss. The untreated control showed the highest percentage of seed weight reduction, whereas the remaining botanicals, including Phytolaca dodecandra, Eucalyptus globules, Datura stramonium, and Azadiracta indica, remained superior to the untreated control (Elshorbagy et al., 2022; Verevkina et al., 2024).
Guizotia abyssinica reported the lowest quantity of C. chinensis, but other botanical remnants were more effective than the untreated control. The outcome was also consistent with the findings of (Banik, 2024), who found that Guizotia abyssinica effectively reduced the percentage of pulse beetle killing in chickpea seeds. Eknath (2022) conducted a similar study and found that Guizotia abyssinica oil was significantly more effective than other botanicals.
At the first, third, and fifth days following treatment exposure, the results showed that Guizotia abyssinica, Ricinus communis seed, and citrus lemon were more successful than the others; still, all treatments outperformed the untreated control. The current result is consistent with the findings of other researchers who have documented the efficacy of vegetable oils that result in significant mortality rates among bruchids. According to earlier research, applying vegetable oils to seeds helps stop insects from attacking grains that have been kept (Upadhyay & Ahmad, 2011). Vegetable oils are penetrated the egg of Bruchids, decrease oviposition and increase adult mortality (Singh et al., 2012). At different concentrations, Guizotia abyssinica oil gave comparable results in reducing longevity of C. maculates (Alemayehu & Getu, 2015).
The minimum egg laid was found in Guizotia abyssinica oil (100ml, 75ml and 50ml) treatment, followed by Ricinus communis seed (100mg, 75mg and 50mg) and Citrus lemon oil (100ml, 75ml and 50ml). Similarly by Mahmoud et al. (2020) also observed Ricinus communis seed effective to reduce fecundity of C. chinensis (Thakur et al., 2023).
Percent of adult emergence of chickpea bruchid within three months after treatments exposure at all rates Guizotia abyssinica was highly effective to minimized adult emergence followed by Ricinus communis seed and Citrus lomen. Similarly, observation carried out by Shaheen et al. (2016) and Alemayehu and Getu (2015) found Guizotia abyssinica oil effective to minimized emergence of C. chinensis.
The results therefore showed a substantial difference in the percentage of germination between chickpea seedlings treated with botanicals after three months. Plant extracts provided protection against insect pests of stored chickpeas and preserved the capacity of seeds to germinate, according to a paper by Hossain et al. (2014). Additionally, Singh et al. (2012) found that coating grains with oil had no effect on Cicer arietinum (L) germination or water absorption.
Guizotia abyssinica at all rates (100ml, 75ml and 50ml) was found highly effective to minimized percent of weight loss. Similarly, an investigation supported by Tabu et al. (2012) showed minimum weight loss percent of seed by Guizotia abyssinica oil.
CONCLUSION
The results showed that the majority of the botanical plant powders tested against C. chinensis have insecticidal qualities that may be used to prevent the disease in chickpea grain that has been stored. The most promising cytotoxic activity against C. chinensis in stored chickpea grain was demonstrated by Guizotia abyssinica, Ricinus communis, and Citrus lemon out of all the botanicals examined. Azadiracta indica seed, Phytolacca dodecandra seed, Eucalyptus globules leaves, Datura stramonium leaves, and Schninus molle which were found effective in controlling their damage on stored chickpea seed. All rates(100ml, 75ml and 50ml) of Guizotia abyssinica, Ricinus communis and Citrus lemon were highly effective which resulted in high adult mortality, while reducing fecundity, grain damage, weight loss, and minimizing progeny emergence. In place of synthetic pesticides, these botanicals can be used as a safe alternative approach, either alone or in integrated pest management (IPM), to control C. chainensis since they are environmentally benign and do not pose any risks to humans or the environment.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The authors thank to Ambo Agricultural Research Center for facilitating laborator for this research study.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None
FINANCIAL SUPPORT: None
ETHICS STATEMENT: None
Ahmad, T., Haile, A., Ermias, A., Etbarek, R., Habteab, S., & Teklai, S. (2015). Eco-friendly approaches for management of bruchid beetle Callosobruchus chinensis (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) infesting faba bean and cowpea under laboratory conditions. Journal of Stored Products and Postharvest Research, 6(3), 25–29.
Alemayehu, M., & Getu, E. (2015). Callosobruchus chinensis (L.)(Coleoptera: Bruchidae) management on stored chickpea using botanicals in Amhara Region, Ethiopia. American Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 8(3), 167–177.
Banik, M. S. (2024). Biology and management of pulse beetle Callosobruchus chinensis in chickpea [Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth].
Başar, P., İlkan, E., & Mutair, F. (2022). Cameron and Quinn's model of organizational culture: a case study in CAC Bank. Journal of Organizational Behavior Research, 7(2), 259–266. doi:10.51847/NsL9E5rPjr
Boudh, S., & Singh, J. S. (2018). Pesticide contamination: environmental problems and remediation strategies. In Emerging and eco-friendly approaches for waste management (pp. 245–269). Springer.
Caswell, G. H. (1973). The storage of cowpea. Samaru Agricultural Newsletter, 15(2), 73–75.
Do, D. T., Nguyen, H., Tran, M. D., Nguyen, N. L., & Nguyen, T. B. T. (2022). A study on determinants influencing performance of accountants of SMEs in Vietnam. Journal of Organizational Behavior Research, 7(1), 58–71. doi:10.51847/h3tbZLBVvs
Eknath, G. M. (2022). Effect of essential oils against pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) under laboratory conditions [Dr. Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth].
Ekpo, G. I., Victor, S. E., Eteng, O. E., Ebena, R., Ofonime, N., Umoh, E. U., Uduak, O. L., Ufot, S., & Eyong, U. (2023). Synergistic action of hesperidin and quercetin modulate the efficacy of CCl4-induced nephrotoxicity in rat model. Bulletin of Pioneering Researches of Medical and Clinical Science, 2(1), 49–57. doi:10.51847/EYAT8W7hWt
Elshorbagy, R. T., Balbaa, A. E. A., Ayad, K. E., Allam, N. M., Eladl, H. M., & Allah, W. R. A. (2022). Cognitive task versus focus of attention on dynamic postural control in recurrent ankle sprains. Journal of Advanced Pharmacy Education and Research, 12(2), 6–10. doi:10.51847/OYUrFadR58
Gahukar, R. T., & Reddy, G. V. (2018). Management of insect pests in the production and storage of minor pulses. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 111(4), 172–183.
Hajam, Y. A., & Kumar, R. (2022). Management of stored grain pest with special reference to Callosobruchus maculatus, a major pest of cowpea: a review. Heliyon, 8(1), e08764.
Hossain, M., Bachchu, M., Ahmed, K., & Haque, M. (2014). Effectiveness of indigenous plant powders as grain protectant against Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) in stored chickpea (Cicer arietinum). Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Research, 39(1), 93–103.
İlhan, N., Telli, S., Temel, B., & Aştı, T. (2022). Investigating the sexual satisfaction mediating role in the relationship between health literacy and self-care of men with diabetes and women's marital satisfaction. Journal of Integrative Nursing and Palliative Care, 3, 19–25. doi:10.51847/sFjL3OLpqg
Kariri, H. D. H., Radwan, O. A., Somaili, H. E., Mansour, M. E. I., Mathkoor, S. A., & Gohal, K. M. M. (2022). The relationship of psychological capital to psychological empowerment among female workers at leadership positions. Journal of Organizational Behavior Research, 7(2), 243–258. doi:10.51847/7IGwvNc6i0
Keneni, G., & Ahmed, S. (2016). Genetic options for combating biotic stresses in cool-season food legumes. Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding, 76(4), 437–450.
Khalil, A. W., Zeb, A., Mahmood, F., Tariq, S., Khattak, A. B., & Shah, H. (2007). Comparison of sprout quality characteristics of desi and kabuli type chickpea cultivars (Cicer arietinum L.). LWT–Food Science and Technology, 40(6), 937–945.
Kimatu, J. N., McConchie, R., Xie, X., & Nguluu, S. N. (2012). The significant role of post-harvest management in farm management, aflatoxin mitigation and food security in Sub-Saharan Africa. Greener Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2(6), 279–288.
Kinfe, E., Singh, P., & Fekadu, T. (2015). Physicochemical and functional characteristics of desi and kabuli chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars grown in Bodity, Ethiopia and sensory evaluation of boiled and roasted products prepared using chickpea varieties.
Kwatra, D., Venugopal, A., & Anant, S. (2024). Studying the efficacy of tolmetin radiosensitizing effect in radiotherapy treatment on human clonal cancer cells. Bulletin of Pioneering Researches of Medical and Clinical Science, 3(2), 22–28. doi:10.51847/Uuhjk0fMC8
Mahmoud, M., Ali, R., & Ramadan, H. (2020). Influence of parent age and some plant extracts on certain biological aspects of pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis L. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Archives of Agriculture Sciences Journal, 3(3), 26–44.
Mounika, T., Sahoo, S., & Chakraborty, D. (2021). Evaluation of some botanicals against Callosobruchus chinensis L. infesting stored chickpea seeds and biochemical analysis of used botanicals. International Journal of Bio-Resource and Stress Management, 12(6), 679–686.
Shaheen, F. A., Crickmore, N., & Husain, M. (2016). Comparative aptness of plant products with chemical-based standard grain protectant against Callosobruchus chinensis L. attacking chickpea grains in storage. International Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and Plantation, 2, 2462–1757.
Singh, A., Khare, A., & Singh, A. (2012). Use of vegetable oils as biopesticide in grain protection: a review. Journal of Biofertilizers & Biopesticides, 3, 1–114.
Srivastava, C., & Subramanian, S. (2016). Storage insect pests and their damage symptoms: an overview. Indian Journal of Entomology, 78(Special), 53–58.
Tabu, D., Selvaraj, T., Singh, S., & Mulugeta, N. (2012). Management of Adzuki bean beetle (Callosobruchus chinensis L.) using some botanicals, inert materials and edible oils in stored chickpea. Journal of Agricultural Technology, 8(3), 881–902.
Tessema, K., Tadesse, F. T., & Kurabachew, H. (2015). Effects of different treatments for the control of Callosobruchus chinensis L. on proximate composition of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in Meskan district, Ethiopia. Journal of Stored Products and Postharvest Research, 6(10), 83–90.
Thakur, D., Kumari, S., & Kumar, R. (2023). Biopesticidal efficacy of Ricinus communis Linnaeus and Achyranthes aspera Linnaeus against bruchid, Callosobruchus maculatus Fabricius (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) infesting blackgram. Journal of Entomological Research, 47(Suppl), 990–995.
Upadhyay, R. K., & Ahmad, S. (2011). Management strategies for control of stored grain insect pests in farmer stores and public warehouses. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 7(5), 527–549.
Verevkina, M., Gasparian, I., Ermakov, M., Kozlikin, A., Pavlenko, E., Pavlenko, A., Tikhonov, E., & Matyukhin, A. (2024). Milk fortification with a complex of iron with ascorbic acid for control of iron deficiency anemia. Journal of Advanced Pharmacy Education and Research, 14(1), 77–83. doi:10.51847/iNNlmykxn5
Wang, Q., Shrestha, D. L., Robertson, D., & Pokhrel, P. (2012). A log‐sinh transformation for data normalization and variance stabilization. Water Resources Research, 48(5), W05514.
Yoong, S. Q., Wang, W., Seah, A. C. W., Kumar, N., Gan, J. O. N., Schmidt, L. T., Lin, Y., & Zhang, H. (2022). Study of the self-care status and factors related to it in heart failure patients. Journal of Integrative Nursing and Palliative Care, 3, 31–35. doi:10.51847/Lqz1ms7fB8
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
