Advertisement

Activité biologique des poudres de cinq plantes et de l’huile essentielle d’une d’entre elles sur Callosobruchus maculatus (F.)

  • Abdellah Kellouche
  • Noureddine SoltaniEmail author
Article

Abstract

Powders from dry leaves of four plant species: Ficus carica (Moraceae), Eucalyptus globulus (Myrtaceae), Olea europaea (Oleacea) and Citrus limon (Rutaceae), were evaluated under controlled conditions (30 ± 1°C and 70 ± 5% RH), for their biological activity against Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae), and were compared to a powder from cloves of myrtle Syzygium aromaticum (Myrtaceae) and to eugenol (the essential oil from cloves). Once mixed with seeds of chickpea Cicer arietinum at doses of 1 to 5% (w/w), all the five powders significantly reduced adult longevity. Among these tested botanicals, clove powder was the most toxic as adult survival in treated seeds was less than 24 h, even at the lowest dosage of 1%. The powders from dry leaves also reduced fecundity while that from cloves completely inhibited oviposition in C. maculatus. Indeed, the mean number of eggs laid in chickpea seeds treated with powders from dry leaves of the four plant species above varied from 273.2 ± 30.3 to 373.8 ± 58.2 against 401.8 ± 37.9 in the control (untreated seeds). At the highest dose of 5%, all powders significantly reduced the number of emerging adults: 149.3 ± 46.7 in treatment with O. europaea, 139.8 ± 25.1 with E. globulus, 82.8 ± 48.1 with C. limon, 31.5 ± 20.5 in treatment with F. carica and 0.0 ± 0.0 with S. aromaticum. Tests with lower doses (0,1–0,5%) of clove powder revealed that from the dose of 0.2% and above, C. maculatus adults died before laying eggs. Treatments with eugenol at 5 μl/50 g seeds (v/w), significantly reduced adult longevity (1 ± 0.0 day), the number of eggs laid (0.0 ± 0.0 egg) and adult emergence rate (0.0 ± 0.0 adult), compared to the control used in this test where these parameters are respectively 7.00 ± 0.8 days, 1134.4 ± 204.2 eggs and 745.6 ± 144.9 adults of the first generation.

Key words

biological activity Callosobruchus maculatus Syzygium aromaticum eugenol powders Ficus carica Eucalyptus globulus Olea europaea Citrus limon 

Résumé

L’activité biologique sur la survie, la fécondité et le nombre de descendants des adultes de la bruche Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae), a été évaluée dans des conditions de laboratoire (30 ± 1°C et 70 ± 5% HR) en utilisant des poudres de feuilles séchées de quatre plantes: Ficus carica (Moraceae), Eucalyptus globulus (Myrtaceae), Olea europaea (Oleaceae), Citrus limon (Rutaceae). L’effet de ces poudres de feuilles a été comparé à celui de la poudre des boutons floraux séchés (clous de girofle) du myrte Syzygium aromaticum (Myrtaceae) et de l’eugénol (principal composé de l’huile essentielle des clous de girofle). Une fois mélangée avec les graines de pois chiche Cicer arietinum (Leguminosae) à des doses de 1 à 5%, chacune des poudres de cinq plantes réduit significativement la longévité des adultes. De toutes ces poudres végétales testées, celle de clous de girofle est la plus toxique puisque même à la plus faible dose (1%), les adultes vivent moins de 24 h comparativement au témoin dont la survie moyenne est de 7,0 ± 0,8 jours. Les poudres des feuilles réduisent aussi la fécondité des femelles alors que celle de clous de girofle inhibe complètement les pontes. En effet, le nombre moyen d’œufs pondus sur les graines de pois chiche est de 401,8 ± 37,9 dans les lots non traités, tandis celui-ci varie de 273,2 ± 30,3 à 373,8 ± 58,2 dans les lots traités avec les poudres de feuilles. Enfin, tous les produits appliqués à la dose de 5% réduisent de manière hautement significative, le nombre moyen de descendants. Celui-ci est en effet de 330,3 ± 31,9 dans le témoin contre 149,3 ± 46,7 dans les traitements avec l’olivier, 139,8 ± 25,1 avec l’eucalyptus, 82,8 ± 48,1 avec le citronnier, 31,5 ± 20,5 avec le figuier et de 0,0 avec le girofle. La poudre de clous de girofle évaluée même à des doses très faibles (0,1 à 0,5%) montre qu’à la dose 0,2% et plus, la survie moyenne des adultes est réduite à moins de 24 h et que les femelles meurent avant qu’elles ne pondent. Mélangé avec des graines à des doses de 1 à 5 μl/50 g de niébé, l’eugénol est très toxique vis-à-vis de la bruche. A la dose de 5 μl/50 g de graines, l’eugénol réduit fortement la longévité des adultes (1,0 ± 0,0 jours), le nombre d’œufs pondus (0,0 ± 0,0) et celui des descendants (0,0 ± 0,0), en comparaison du témoin où ces valeurs sont respectivement, 7,00 ± 0,8 jours, 1134,4 ± 204,2 oeufs et 745,6 ± 144,9 descendants.

Mots clés

activité biologique Callosobruchus maculatus Syzygium aromaticum eugénol poudres Ficus carica Eucalyptus globulus Olea europaea Citrus limon 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Références

  1. Bellakhdar J. (1997) La pharmacopée Marocaine Traditionnelle. Le Fennec, Casablanca. 477 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Brunetton J. (1997) Pharmacognosie, Phytochimie des Plantes Médicinales. Technique et Documentation, Lavoisier, Paris. 915 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Desphande R. S., Adhikary P. R. et Tipnis H. P. (1974) Stored grain pest control agents from Nigella sativa and Pogostemon heyneanus. Bull. Grain Technol. 12, 232–234.Google Scholar
  4. Desphande R. S. et Tipnis H. P. (1977) Insecticidal activity of Ocimum basilicum L. Pesticides 11, 11–12.Google Scholar
  5. Dharmasena C. M. D. and Subasinghe S. M. C. (1986) Resistance of mung bean Vigna radiata spp. Trop. Agric. 142, 1–6.Google Scholar
  6. Don Pedro K. N. (1989) Effects of fixed vegetable oils on oviposition and adult mortality of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) on cowpea. Internat. Pest Contr. 31, 34–37.Google Scholar
  7. Don Pedro K. N. (1996a) Investigation of single and joint fumigant insecticidal action of citrus peel oil components. Pestic. Sci. 46, 79–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Don Pedro K. N. (1996b) Fumigant toxicity of citrus peel oils against adult and immature stages of stored insect pests. Pestic. Sci. 47, 213–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Finney D. J. (1971) Probit analysis (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press, London.Google Scholar
  10. Gbolade A. A. et Adebayo T. A. (1994) Protection of stored cowpea from Callosobruchus maculatus using plants products. Insect Sci. Appl. 15, 185–189.Google Scholar
  11. Hall F. R. et Menn J. J. (1999) Biopecticides: Present status and future prospects, pp. 1–10. In Methods in biotechnology (5): Biopecticides Ed. by R R. Hall and J. J. Menn. Totowa New Jersey, Human Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hill J. et van Schoonhoven A. (1981) Effectiveness of vegetable oil fractions in controlling the Mexican bean weevil on stored beans. J. Econ. Entomol. 74, 478–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ivbijaro M. E (1990) The efficacy of seed oils Azadirachta indica A. Juss and Piper guineense Schum and Thonn on control of Callosobruchus maculatus (E). Insect Sci. Appl. 11, 149–152.Google Scholar
  14. Keita S. M., Vincent C., Schmidt J. P., Arnason J. T. et Belanger A. (2001) Efficacy of essential oil of Ocimum basilicum L. and O. gratissimum L. applied as an insecticidal fumigant and powder to control Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 37, 339–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Khaire V. M., Kachare B. V. et Mote U. N. (1992) Efficacy of different vegetable oils as grain protectants against pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis L. in increasing storability of pigeonpea. J. Stored Prod. Res. 28, 153–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lale N. E. S. (1991) The biological effects of three essential oils on Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J. Afr. Zool. 105, 357–362.Google Scholar
  17. Mahgoub S. A. (1992) Neem seed extracts and powders as grain protectants to cowpea seeds against the cowpea weevil, Callosobruchus maculatus Fab. Egypt J. Agric. Res. 70, 487–497.Google Scholar
  18. Nwanze K., Horber E. et Pitts C. (1975) Evidence of oviposition preference of Callosobruchus maculatus for cowpea varieties. Environ. Entomol. 4, 409–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Obeng-Ofori D. et Reichmuth C. H. (1997) Bioactivity of eugenol, a major component of Ocimum suave (Wild.) against four species of stored-product Coleoptera. Int. J. Pest Manag. 43, 89–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ofuya T. I. (1990) Oviposition deterrence and ovicidal properties of some plants powders against Callosobruchus maculatus in stored cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) seeds. J. Agric. Sci. 115, 343–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Onu I. et Sulyman A. (1997) Effect of powdered peels of Citrus fruits on damage by Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) to cowpea seeds. J. Subst. Agric. 9 (4), 85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Raja N., Albert S., Ignacimuthu S. et Dorn S. (2001) Effect of plant volatile oils in protecting stored cowpea Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walpers against Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) infestation. J. Stored Prod. Res. 37, 127–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rajapakse R. H. S. (1996) The effect of four botanicals on the oviposition and adult emergence of Callosobruchus maculatus F. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Entomon 21, 211–215.Google Scholar
  24. Rajapakse R. H. S., Senanayake S. G. J. N. et Ratnasekera D. (1998) Effect of four botanicals on oviposition, adult emergence and mortality of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) infesting cowpea, Vigna unguiculata L. Walp. J. Entomol. Res. 22, 117–122.Google Scholar
  25. Ramzan M. (1994) Efficacy of edible oils against pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus (E). J. Insect Sci. 7, 37–39.Google Scholar
  26. Regnault-Roger C. et Hamraoui A. (1995) Fumigant toxic activity and reproductive inhibition induced by monoterpenes on Acanthoscelides obtectus (Say) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae), a bruchid of kidney bean, Phaseolus vulgaris (L.). J. Stored Prod. Res. 31, 291–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sanon A., Garba M., Auger J. et Huignard J. (2002) Analysis of the insecticidal activity of methylisothio-cyanate on Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) and its parasitoid Dinarmus basalis (Rondani) (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 38, 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schmidt G. H., Risha E. M. et Nahal A. K. M. (1991) Reduction of progeny of some stored-products Coleoptera by vapours of Acorus calamus oil. J. Stored Prod. Res. 27, 121–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Seck D., Sidibe B., Handruge E. et Gaspar C. (1991) Protection of stores of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp at farm level: the use of different formulations of neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss) from Senegal. Med. Fac. Landbouwwet. Univ. Gent 56, 1217–1224.Google Scholar
  30. Seek D., Lognay G., Haubruge E., Wathelet J. P., Marlier M., Gaspar M. et Severin M. (1993) Biological activity of the shrub Boscia senegalensis (Pers.) Lam. Ex Poir (Capparaceae) on stored grain insects. J. Chem. Ecol. 19, 377–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shaaya E., Ravid U., Paster N., Juven B., Zisman U. et Pissarev V. (1991) Fumigant toxicity of essential oils against four major stored-product insects. J. Chem. Ecol. 17, 499–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shaaya E., Kostjukovski M., Eilberg J. et Sukprakarn C. (1997) Plant oils as fumigants and contact insecticides for the control of stored-product insects. J. Stored Prod. Res. 33, 7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Singh S. R. et Jackai L.E.N. (1985) Insect pests of cowpeas in Africa: their life cycle, economic importance and potential for control, pp. 217–231. In Cowpea Research Production and Utilization (Edited by S. R. Singh et K. O. Rachie). John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  34. Singh S. R., Luse L. A., Leuschner K. et Nangju D. (1978) Groundnut oil treatment for the control of Callosobruchus maculatus (E). J. Stored Prod. Res. 14, 77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Southgate B. J. (1958) Systematic notes of species of Callosobruchus of economic importance. Bull. Entomol. Res. 49, 591–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Southgate B. J. (1965) Pulse bruchids of Africa, Proc. 12th Int. Entomol. Congr. (1964) London.Google Scholar
  37. Tunç I., Berger B. M., Erler F. et Dagli F. (2000) Ovicidal activity of essential oils from five plants against two stored-product insects. J. Stored Prod. Res. 36, 161–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Varma B. K. et Pandey O. P. (1978) Treatments of stored greengram seed with edible oils for protection from Callosobruchus maculatus (E). Indian J. Agric. Sci. 48 (2), 72–75.Google Scholar
  39. Warui M. (1984) Bruchid infestation of cowpea varieties in the field. Insect Sci. Appl. 5, 283–286.Google Scholar
  40. Zidan Z. H., Gomaa A. A., Afifi F. A., Farn E. Z. et Ahmed S. M. S. (1993) Bioresidual activity of certain plant extracts on some grain insects, in relation to seed viability. Arab Univ. J. Agric. Sci. 1, 113–123.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ICIPE 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire d’Entomologie, Département de BiologieUniversité M. Mammeri, Faculté des Sciences Biologiques et des Sciences AgronomiquesTizi OuzouAlgérie
  2. 2.Laboratoire de Biologie Animale Appliquée, Département de Biologie, Faculté des SciencesUniversité Badji - MokhtarAnnabaAlgérie

Personalised recommendations