2012
DOI: 10.1017/s1742758412000318
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Demographic parameters of cowpea aphid Aphis craccivora (Homoptera: Aphididae) on different Botswana cowpea landraces

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
7
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
1
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These values are very similar to those found in this research on the BRS Guariba cultivar, thus demonstrating its resistance and ability to affect the reproductive potential of A. craccivora. Obopile and Ositile (2010) and Machacha et al (2012) obtained intrinsic growth rate values (0.13 and 0.22) close to those found in this study, demonstrating that the genotypes that showed to be resistant to black aphid were able to negatively affect the reproduction of A. craccivora and, consequently, several demographic parameters. Jalalipour et al 2017 The nutritional quality and specific metabolic types of each cowpea cultivar were possibly important factors for direct interference on the demographic parameters evaluated, causing a positive or negative effect on insect biology, directly reflecting on fecundity, survival and population development (Asiwe, 2009, Panizzi andParra, 2009).…”
Section: Table 2 Demographic Parameterssupporting
confidence: 83%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…These values are very similar to those found in this research on the BRS Guariba cultivar, thus demonstrating its resistance and ability to affect the reproductive potential of A. craccivora. Obopile and Ositile (2010) and Machacha et al (2012) obtained intrinsic growth rate values (0.13 and 0.22) close to those found in this study, demonstrating that the genotypes that showed to be resistant to black aphid were able to negatively affect the reproduction of A. craccivora and, consequently, several demographic parameters. Jalalipour et al 2017 The nutritional quality and specific metabolic types of each cowpea cultivar were possibly important factors for direct interference on the demographic parameters evaluated, causing a positive or negative effect on insect biology, directly reflecting on fecundity, survival and population development (Asiwe, 2009, Panizzi andParra, 2009).…”
Section: Table 2 Demographic Parameterssupporting
confidence: 83%
“…Regarding the interval between generations (T), no significant differences were observed among treatments (P < 0.05) ( Table 2). In this case, none of the cultivars used were able to affect the T value of the black aphid, where the average period of one generation of A. craccivora varies from 6 to 9 days (Machacha et al, 2012). As for the time to double the population (T D ), BRS Guariba treatment significantly differed (P < 0.05) from the others, for which the black aphid presented higher T D (4.55 days), that is, in practical field conditions, it would take this time to double its population in number, unlike BRS Nova Era treatment, which would take only 1.20 days, thus demonstrating the susceptibility of the cultivar to the pest (Table 2).…”
Section: Table 2 Demographic Parametersmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…It is used as human food due to its high protein content [ 1 ] and also as livestock feed to make silage and hay. Cowpea is the third most important crop in Botswana after maize, Zea mays L., and grain sorghum, Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench (both Poaceae) [ 2 ]. Production of cowpea in Botswana is about 300–355 kg/ha.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…bras., Brasília, v.54, e00230, 2019 DOI: 10.1590/S1678-3921.pab2019.v54.00230 least favorable genotypes for aphids. Various studies report that some cowpea genotypes negatively impacted A. craccivora demographic parameters, including a decrease of intrinsic growth rate (Obopile & Ositile, 2010;Machacha et al, 2012;Aliyu & Ishiayaku, 2013). However, r m values found by these authors were lower than those obtained in the present study, which can be attributed to environmental conditions and differences between the studied cowpea genotypes.…”
Section: Genotypementioning
confidence: 99%