Bruchid pest management in pulses: past practices, present status and use of modern breeding tools for development of resistant varieties

Abstract

Bruchids (Callosobruchus spp.) are recognised as the most detrimental storage pest of pulses, especially in the tropics and subtropics. They invade matured pods as well as seeds during storage and, to some extent, farming fields, in turn reducing the net yield of the crops. Several approaches including cultural, biological, physical and chemical control measures have been implemented with the aim of managing these pests, but none of these have been successful across time and space. Recently, transgenic-and marker-assisted breeding approaches have appeared as promising tools for the successful management of these pests. Although some efforts have been made on the development of bruchid-resistant transgenic crops, the cultivars developed are yet to be commercialised worldwide because of various limitations. In contrast, marker-assisted breeding involving the identification of DNA-based markers linked to host resistance against bruchids, have shown some success in the quest for the development of bruchid-resistant cultivar(s). DNA markers linked to bruchid resistance have been identified in various grain legumes, particularly in the genus Vigna, and include mung bean (Vigna radiata), azuki bean (Vigna angularis), rice bean (Vigna umbellata), cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) and black gram (Vigna mungo). After their validation in different genetic backgrounds, these markers could be utilised for marker-assisted selection and breeding ventures to protect pulse crops. The present study discusses the pros and cons of different approaches for the successful management of the bruchid pests in pulses. The review also highlights about the integrative approach aided with molecular interventions to improve productivity by avoiding losses incurred due to bruchids, and to attain sustainable yields for major pulse crops.

Identification of Novel Sources of Resistance to Seed Weevils (Bruchus spp.) in a Faba Bean Germplasm Collection

“…The seed coat can also hamper penetration into the seed because it contains biochemical defense barriers (alkaloids, polyphenols, lectins, proteinase inhibitors, α-amylase inhibitors, etc.) involved in the reduction of fertility and/or oviposition, the increase of development time and/or mortality of larvae or adults (Mishra et al, 2018). The accessions “QUASAR,” “109.669,” and “223303” that showed a low % EH but high % SD, could trigger very early and/or intense antibiosis mechanisms that prevent the larvae that have managed to penetrate the seed coat from developing inside (Macel and Dam, 2018).…”

“…Biological control has been attempted by using predators and parasitoids (Titouhi et al, 2017) or by applying plant essential oil treatments (Jemâa, 2014; Amzouar et al, 2016; Titouhi et al, 2017). In addition, agronomical and cultural practices have also been applied (Keneni et al, 2011; Mishra et al, 2018). Nonetheless, their effectiveness is limited and their use in large production areas implies a considerable economic investment.…”

“…However, no resistant faba bean cultivars have been developed so far. Bruchid resistance has been studied in other legume crops where wild relatives are the main source of resistance (Aznar-Fernández et al, 2017; Mishra et al, 2018). Nonetheless, some sources of resistance have also been identified in cultivated species such as in Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper (black gram) (Dongre et al, 1996), Cicer arietinum L. (chickpea) (Athiepacheco et al, 1994; Shaheen et al, 2006), Phaseolus vulgaris L. (common bean) (Ishimoto and Chrispeels, 1996; Goossens et al, 2000), Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.…”

Antioviposition and Reduction of Callosobruchus chinensis Pic. 1902 (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) Emergence on Phaseolus vulgaris by Dioscorea sansibarensis Powder and Its Chemical Composition

“…Several studies have demonstrated Callosobruchus chinensis attacks on P. vulgaris in silos, stacks, and barns throughout the world causing qualitative and quantitative damage by both larvae and the adults [3]. C. chinensis accounts for 60% loss of weight and 66.3% loss of protein content of P. vulgaris [4].…”

“…Studies are being conducted on strategies to reduce common bean damage and losses caused by C. chinensis [4]. Farmers use banned and highly toxic synthetic insecticides in their quest to protect agricultural products, including stored bean seeds.…”