Potential of Botanicals to Control Callosobruchus maculatus (Col.: Chrysomelidae,Bruchinae),a Major Pest of Stored Cowpeas in Burkina Faso: A Review

Abstract

Cowpea is an essential food legume in the tropics and particularly for sub-Saharan African populations. Postharvest grain storage, however, is a major constraint for crop expansion and year-round availability due to the cowpea weevil, Callosobruchus maculatus F., the main storage pest of cowpeas in West Africa. The use of chemicals for cowpea storage is a common practice which represents, however, a risk for consumers, environment, and could also exacerbate pest control. In Burkina Faso, since the early 2000s, several scientific investigations have focused on the control of C maculatus using botanicals considered as promising and safe alternatives to chemicals. The aim of this review is to take stock of the research conducted and to identify the potential candidates on which future studies in this field will focus. The set of data analyzed show that several plants materials, including powders, crushed plants and essential oils (EO), were active against eggs, larvae, and adults of C maculatus, through dose-dependent mortality responses. However, EO extracted from native aromatic plants have yielded the most promising results, specifically EO from Ocimum canum appeared as the best candidate control agent. Other potentially interested EO tested included Hyptis suaveolens, Hyptis spicigera, and Lippia multiflora. Based on these results, attempts to optimize the use of EO for cowpea storage were conducted in laboratory and field conditions. Side effects of botanicals toward the main biological control agent, the ectoparasitoid Dinarmus basalis have also been highlighted. The results are discussed in a view of practical use of botanicals and EO as safe alternatives for Integrated Pest Management in stored cowpeas in Africa and developing countries.

Keywords

Botanicals cowpea storage essential oils safe control methods IPM

Introduction

In West Africa, cowpea, Vigna unguiculata L. Walp., is a very difficult commodity to preserve, which compromises its optimal use as a nutritional supplement and as a considerable source of income for the most vulnerable populations.^1–4

Cowpea postharvest storage is constrained due to pod or seed infestation by bruchids among which Callosobruchus maculatus Fab. is the major pest.^5,6 Bruchids’ attacks begin in the fields so that at harvest the seed infestation rate reaches 1% to 5%.⁶ However, this apparently low rate allows a residual larval population to develop and maintain in the stored seeds, causing significant losses after a few months of storage.^7,8 Losses are mainly due to the consumption of cowpea seed cotyledons by larvae, resulting in reduced seed weight, molding, increased seed perforation, and decreased seed germination.⁹ Cowpea storage is mainly done by farmers after harvest and traders who collect large quantities to supply the distribution channels. Keeping the cowpea for a long time makes it possible to benefit better because the prices increase gradually from the harvest time until the next production season.¹⁰ In view of these economic issues, the actors of the cowpea sector, and especially the traders, use all the means they consider effective to safeguard their stocks.^11,12

Storage methods include the use of insecticides as common as they are considered by some to be cheaper and more effective than existing alternatives.^12–14 Unfortunately, many side effects are associated with the use of chemicals which are hazardous to humans and environment,¹⁵ and which also exacerbate insect pest control due to resistance development.¹⁶ To address these chemical side effects, the search for alternatives has become a major challenge for scientific research and for consumer and environmental organizations.^17,18 Several fields of research have been explored since the early 2000s in Burkina Faso, including mainly biological control, hermetic storage, and plant extracts. Although several natural enemies of C maculatus have been identified in both cowpea fields and stores,⁶ biological control has remained at the experimental stage with the identification of 2 potential natural enemies, the oophagous trichogram parasitoid Uscana lariophaga Steph.¹⁹ and the pteromalid larval ectoparasitoid Dinarmus basalis Rond.^20,21 Research on hermetic storage has led to the development of triple bagging technology with PICS bags.²² This technology is currently being widely used as an alternative to synthetic insecticides.¹²

Studying the effects of insecticidal or repellent plants for cowpea storage in Burkina Faso has received much attention. The numerous results obtained, although variable, indicate that there is a potential to be valued after several years of research mainly prospective. To achieve this, an analytical synthesis of the results and a reframing of the research are needed to optimize the practical use of plants that have already proved their effectiveness. The present review of the potential of the plants to control C maculatus is in this context. It summarizes the research undertaken since the 2000s, focusing on the best plant candidates on which research perspectives should now focus.

Economic Importance of Callosobruchus maculatus Fab

Callosobruchus maculatus Fab. is a beetle that belongs to the family Chrysomelidae and to the subfamily Bruchinae.²³ This insect is commonly known as cowpea weevil or bean beetle because several stored legumes are attacked.²⁴ Females lay eggs on seed coat and larvae develop exclusively inside the seeds, at the expense of grain endosperm and embryo, and are responsible for cowpea damage.⁸ Several generations of flightless form C maculatus can therefore overlap in stocks during cowpea postharvest storage in West Africa.⁸ The infested seeds become increasingly hollow resulting in weight loss and perforation, adult insect emergence holes at the end of larval growth. Therefore, C maculatus is considered as the most important storage pest of cowpea throughout the tropics.²⁵

The quantities of cowpeas lost annually are high despite the fact that precise data are not available, mostly expressed as percentages.²⁶ These losses were estimated annually at 2.4% per ton of cowpea pods in storage in Niger.²⁷ In Nigeria, losses ranging from 10% to 50% during storage were also reported.²⁸ Moreover, farm storage for 6 months was accompanied by 70% seed infestation and about 30% weight loss and virtually unfit for consumption.²⁹ These losses are correlated with economic losses as seed quality is an important determinant of market prices.¹⁰ For a good assessment of economic losses, a model based on cowpea weight loss caused by individual C maculatus in the establishment of an economic injury level of C maculatus on cowpea has been developped.²⁶ However, reliable data on economic losses on cowpea due to C maculatus are rare and deserve further investigation.

Side Effects of Synthetic Insecticides Used for Grain Preservation

Synthetic insecticides have played a historical role in agriculture development in general and particularly in the postharvest grain storage.^17,30,31 However, their use by farmers is criticized worldwide.^32,33 Although the importance of insecticides in storage pest control has been clearly established,³³ it remains that in the African context, the misuse of chemicals exposes human populations to health hazards^12,34,35 and negatively affects the environment.^36,37

Health risks are mostly correlated with lack of training and information for insecticide users, poor selection of insecticides, overdose when applying, and inadequate use of protective equipment when handling pesticides.^12,38–40 To illustrate this, a survey of cowpea traders in Burkina Faso found that 77% of the insecticides used were neither registered nor intended for food preservation.¹² Similarly results from another study showed that traders consider the insecticide-treated grains to be fit for resale and therefore safe for consumption if they no longer spot traces of applied chemicals on the treated grains and to a lesser degree if they do not perceive the odor of the pesticidal materials on it.¹¹ Thus, there is no due regard for waiting period vis-à-vis the dosages applied with no reasonable allowance, made for effective biodegradability of these chemicals to less harmful constituents. The effects of exposure to pesticides include development of many cancers as well as the risk of genotoxic, immunotoxic, and neurotoxic and adverse reproductive effects and an increased incidence of psychiatric and dermatologic conditions.^41,42

Environmental risks are mainly related to the storage and application of insecticides in inappropriate locations and also to empty packaging disposed of in environment after use.^12,43

One of the major problems caused by the excessive use and/or misuse of synthetic insecticides is the advent of resistant strains within the treated pest populations, which results in the difficulty of controlling such insects. Resistance to various insecticides has been reported in several stored-product insects in the world.^44–46 The most frequently cited insect species include Sitophilus zeamais, Sitophilus oryzae, Rhyzopertha dominica, Tribolium castaneum, and Oryzaephilus surinamensis. All of these pests are known to be resistant to phosphine used in the fumigation of grain stocks. Previous studies reported on a population of T castaneum that was 119 times more resistant to phosphine and 3 populations of R dominica that were 254, 910, and 1519 times more resistant than the susceptible population found in insects collected from commercial grain storage structures in Oklahoma.⁴⁶ Studies of C maculatus resistance to chemicals are rare, but the frequency and overdose of the use of fumigants in cowpea storage are factors favoring resistance to this type of insecticide.¹² Authors studying resistance of C maculatus to pirimiphos-methyl in 3 zones in Nigeria concluded that insect age and origin influence their susceptibility to that insecticide.⁴⁵ Diverse levels of resistance to dichlorvos were also observed in Nigerian populations of C maculatus depending on their origin.⁴⁷ All these potential side effects make it imperative to search for alternatives to chemicals.

Plant Species With Insecticidal Potential to Control C maculatus in Burkina Faso

The use of plant material for grain preservation and particularly cowpea is considered as a promising alternative to synthetic insecticides for several decades.⁴⁸ Plant material may produce volatile chemicals that repel or confuse the adult beetles, eventually preventing invasion or causing emigration from treated stocks.⁴⁸ Some other plants produce secondary metabolites that directly affect development and reproduction of storage pests. In this respect, several studies have been conducted on the effects of plants with insecticidal potential to control the cowpea beetle.^48–57 In Burkina Faso, several plant species have been involved in these studies since the early 2000s (Table 1 and related references). Extensive studies were conducted on 6 plant species from 3 families including Capparaceae, Lamiaceae, and Verbenaceae, through bioassays on C maculatus, cowpea storage trials and side effects of botanicals on biological control agents (Table 1).

Table 1.

Plants material used in experiments for C maculatus control from the 2000s to the present in Burkina Faso.

Plant species tested	Family name	Plant material used	Experiments	References
Boscia senegalensis Lamarck	Capparaceae	Crushed fresh leaves, synthetic methyl isothiocyanate	Bioassays, storage trials, side effects on parasitoids	58-60
Cleome viscosa L.	Capparaceae	Crushed fresh plants	Bioassays, storage trials	52
Hyptis spicigera Lam	Lamiaceae	Plant powder; essential oils	Bioassays, behavioral studies, side effects on parasitoids, storage trials	51, 53, 54, 57, 61-64
Hyptis suaveolens L. Poit.	Lamiaceae	Plant powder; essential oils	Bioassays, side effects on parasitoids, storage trials	53, 54, 57, 61-64
Ocimum canum Sims	Lamiaceae	Plant powder; essential oils	Bioassays, storage trials	53, 54, 57, 64
Lippia multiflora Moldenke	Verbenaceae	Plant powder; essential oils	Bioassays, storage trials	53, 54, 57, 64

Potential of Botanicals to Control C maculatus

The results achieved from the evaluation of the insecticidal and/or repellent potential of the plants tested against C maculatus can be grouped into 2 parts: bioassays and cowpea storage trials. Three major types of plant materials including powders or crushed plant material and essential oils (EO) have also been tested.

Results from bioassays

The overall results on the effects of powders or crushed plants and of the EO tested are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2.

Overall biological activity of powders, crushed plant material, and essential oils from plants tested against several stages of Callosobruchus maculatus from the 2000s to the present in Burkina Faso.^{51,52,60,61,64}

Plant material tested	Dose-dependent toxicity				Repellence
Plant material tested	Adults	Oviposition	Eggs	Larvae and pupae	Adults
Powders	− Except Ocimum canum (++)	+	++	−	++
Crushed plant material	+++	++	++	+	nd
Essential oils	+++	+++	++	Variable	+++

“−” no effect; “+” low effect; “++” high effect; “+++” very high effect; “nd” effect not determined.

The powders and crushed plants generally have little effect on mortality of C maculatus adults, with some exceptions.

Fresh crushed leaves of Boscia senegalensis and Cleome viscosa resulted in dose-dependent mortality, with 100% mortality reached in 24 hours of exposure to 4 and 76.9 g/L for B senegalensis and C viscosa, respectively.^52,60 Interestingly, both plant species belong to the same family of Capparaceae, which may explain their particular efficacy in the raw state. It has been shown that the active compound of the leaves of B senegalensis is methyl isothiocyanate (MITC), a compound very toxic to insects.⁵⁸ Ocimum canum dry powder causes more than 90% mortality of C maculatus adults at a dose of 3 g/L, with total mortality at 10 g/L after 24-hour exposure.⁶⁴ This result is all the more surprising given that, under the same experimental conditions, powders from other Lamiaceae (Hyptis spicigera, Hyptis suaveolens) and Verbenaceae (Lippia multiflora) have been reported having no effect on adults even at the highest doses tested.^51,61,64

However, the powders and crushed leaves of all the plants tested exhibited ovicidal and inhibitory effects on the egg-laying of C maculatus females.^{51,52,60,61,64} The ovicidal effect, as well as the inhibition of egg-laying, is dose-dependent and appears to be more important with fresh crushed leaves of B senegalensis and C viscosa. A total mortality of the eggs exposed to 24 g/L of crushed B senegalensis leaves was observed,⁶⁰ whereas the same result was obtained only at a dose of 76.9 g/L after 48-hour exposure to crushed C viscosa.⁵² The dry powders of O canum, H spicigera, H suaveolens, and L multiflora have >50% ovicidal effects at 48 hours of exposure without ever reaching 100%.^51,61,64

It has also been shown that plant powder can exert a repellent effect on C maculatus adults.^51,61 Studies conducted in Y-olfactometer with very low doses of powder of H spicigera and H suaveolens made it possible to obtain respective repulsion indexes of 0.63 and 0.56 (P > .05). Finally, there were no significant effects on the larvae and pupae of C maculatus exposed to doses ranging from 1 to 10 g/L of powders, except an unusual increase in the duration of development time. Under the experimental conditions (temperature varied 26°C-28° C and relative humidity was in average 30%), development time increased from 34.5 ± 0.3 days in the absence of plants to, respectively, 54.7 ± 6.6 and 63.9 ± 2.8 days in the presence of 20 g/L powder of H spicigera and H suaveolens.⁶¹ However, a larvicidal effect was demonstrated using 4 g/L of crushed B senegalensis leaves on both young (L2) and elder (L4) larvae.⁶⁰

More significant effects were obtained from testing the EO of several aromatic plants on adult survival, egg-laying inhibition, survival of eggs, larvae and nymphs, and finally repulsion of adult C maculatus.^{51,53,54,61,64} Thus, all the EO tested were found to be toxic to adults with LC50 values of 0.23, 1.30, 5.53, and 6.44 μg/L, respectively, for O canum, H suaveolens, H spicigera, and L multiflora.^53,54 Under the same conditions, the LC50 values were higher on the eggs of C maculatus (LC50 ranged from 14.27 to 31.69 g/L), which reflects a greater tolerance of eggs compared to adults. It is surprising that the toxicity of the same EO varies completely depending on the developmental stage of the exposed insect. It has been shown, for example, that the most effective EO on eggs is L multiflora (LC50 = 14.27 μg/L), whereas it is the least toxic for adults.⁵⁴

Studies analyzing the toxicity of EO on the larval stages and nymphs of C maculatus showed differential mortality on these preimaginal stages, decreasing on older stages and generally lower than that obtained on adults.^51,61,64 As with plant powders tested, sublethal doses of EO have been shown to have inhibitory effects on egg-laying, developmental lengthening, and adult C maculatus repulsion.^51,61 The repellency indexes calculated for H spicigera and H suaveolens, respectively, of 0.78 and 0.92 are significantly higher than those obtained with the powder of the same plants (P < .05).⁶¹ The biological activity of EO is generally due to a set of volatile compounds mainly comprising mono- and sesquiterpenes (Table 3).

Table 3.

Major chemical compounds found in different plant materials tested in Burkina Faso.

Plant species	Plant material tested	Major components	References
Boscia senegalensis	Crushed leaves	Sulfur containing compounds (methyl isothiocyanate)	58
Cleome viscosa	Crushed leaves	Flavonoid; phenols	65
Ocimum canum	Powder	nd
	Essential oils	1-8 cineole; camphor; cis-, trans-piperitol	66
Hyptis suaveolens	Powder	nd
	Essential oils	β-caryophyllene; sabinene; 1,8-cineole	67
Hyptis spicigera	Powder	nd
	Essential oils	α-pinene; β-caryophyllene	68
Lippia multiflora	Powder	nd
	Essential oils	Thymol; p-cymene; thymol acetate	69

Also, the question of persistence of essential oils arises and necessarily affects their potential to sustainably control insect pests. Authors studying the persistence of EO and the effect of temperature on the maintenance of their biological activity showed a difference in the persistence of EO in hermetic natural conditions, O canum being the most persistent and remaining 100% active for at least 14 days.⁵⁴ Hyptis suaveolens, H spicigera, and L multiflora are comparatively less persistent (<14 days) and their biological activity decreases gradually from the fourth day after application. However, it was also shown that O canum EO, the most active of all tested EOs, when exposed for 6 to 12 days under warm thermoperiod conditions (50: 35°C, 10 hours: 14 hours) lost its biological activity.^53,54 These results should be taken into account when considering the use of EO in granaries or stores exposed to sunlight, which is common in the Sahelian zone. Some environmental factors such as temperature and light are known to influence the degradation of EO.^70,71

Cowpea storage trials

Laboratory bioassays do not take into account the actual conditions of cowpea storage. To mitigate this limit some studies have also addressed long-term storage issues in conditions as close as possible to on-farm storage, either in a controlled laboratory environment^53,57,59 or on-farm.⁵²

Such studies have yielded variable results which tend to confirm some potential of protecting stored cowpeas using crushed C viscosa and B senegalensis.^52,59 The introduction of 5 to 25 g/kg of crushed C viscosa into batches of 20 kg cowpea stocks at the beginning of storage has been shown to reduce the impact of C maculatus by 36% to 87% after 4 months of storage.⁵² Similarly, the introduction of 500 g of B senegalensis crushed leaves in granaries at the beginning of storage has made it possible to protect batches of 3 kg of cowpeas for at least 3 months. However, in the latter case, if storage lasted for 6 months, this effect no longer appeared suggesting a loss of activity after the first 3 months of storage.⁵⁹ These results should serve as the basis for optimizing the use of C viscosa and B senegalensis to protect stored cowpeas. The interest of such results based on the use of raw plant material is that this practice could be easier to adopt by farmers and end users.

Storage trials were also conducted using EO.^53,57 These studies have shown that several factors can affect the effectiveness of EO in stored cowpeas. Thus, the efficacy of H spicigera and L multiflora EO is dependent on the amount of cowpea seed treated, whereas this factor does not influence the activity of O canum and H suaveolens EOs.⁵⁷ Using up to 7 applications of EO over a 4-month period of cowpea storage, these authors also showed that the efficiency of EOs does not depend on the number of applications but on its specificity so on their chemical composition. It was also shown that not all cowpea storage containers potentiate the activity of EOs as plastic containers are more suitable than aluminum ones. Finally, the aromatization of powders of kaolin, starch, and diatomaceous earth with EO made it possible to obtain insecticidal powders just as effective as pure EO.⁵⁷

Side Effects on Biological Control Agents

Plants with insecticidal activities are often wrongly considered to have no adverse effects on humans and nontarget animals without this being verified. Because their use is considered as an alternative to hazardous synthetic insecticides, it should be verified that these plants have no side effects or that, where they exist, they can be mitigated. In addition, any approach to controlling insect pests should also be part of an integrated management strategy.⁵⁹ It is the reason why most of the plants tested in Burkina Faso against C maculatus have also been evaluated on D basalis, an ectoparasitoid of bruchid larvae known as an excellent biological control agent.^20,21

In general, the results demonstrate important unexpected effects of powders and EO of plants tested on D basalis populations^53,58 (Table 4). Specifically, it has been shown that the EO of O canum, H spicigera, H suaveolens, and L multiflora have a significant acute toxicity to adults of D basalis and this effect was greater than that obtained on the host, C maculatus.⁵³ Similarly, it was demonstrated that D basalis was more affected by treatment using MITC, a sulfur-containing compound released by B senegalensis leaves than its host C maculatus.⁵⁸ From this latter result, it can be assumed that the introduction of B senegalensis leaves releasing MITC in the storage systems will reduce the density of the parasitoid population and so increase the seed losses by permitting the development of the bruchid population.

Table 4.

Diversity of side effects of different plant materials on Dinarmus basalis, an ectoparasitoid or bruchid larvae/pupae.^53,58,62,63

Type of experiments	Plant materials	Side effects
Type of experiments		Toxicity	Parasitism ability	Postembryonic development	Behavior
LC₅₀ determination	Methyl isothiocyanate(Boscia senegalensis)	Adults and larvae
	Essential oils of Ocimum canum, Hyptis spicigera, Hyptis suaveolens, and Lippia multiflora	Adults and larvae
Sublethal doses applied	Powders and essential oils of H spicigera and H suaveolens		Reduction	Inhibition	Repellence and habituation process

Gray boxes = no data available.

Investigating the role of plant material–based treatments in the behavior of parasitoids, studies have been conducted to determine the influence of sublethal doses of powders and EO of H suaveolens on host location behavior by D basalis females.⁶² Olfactometer studies showed that sublethal doses of volatiles emitted by the powders and EO were repellent for naive females D basalis, ie, females which had previously developed in the absence of H suaveolens volatiles. Their reproductive activity was consequently reduced. However, females, which had been exposed to sublethal doses of H suaveolens volatiles during their postembryonic development, were no longer repelled or only partially repelled by the plant volatiles.⁶² A habituation process may be involved in the behavior of these D basalis females. The role of such a habituation process on the survival of parasitoids and the integrated management of treated stocks remains to be more precisely determined.

Previous studies also investigated whether grain protectants from H spicigera and H suaveolens (Lamiaceae) disturb parasitism and postembryonic growth of the parasitoid. They concluded that both plant species exert acute toxicity on D basalis larvae and also act as growth inhibitors.⁶³ The same authors also showed that when cowpeas containing bruchid larvae were treated before being placed in the presence of D basalis females, the rate of parasitism decreased on average up to 24% and 47% in the presence of leaf dry powder and EO from H spicigera and H suaveolens, respectively.

Finally, the few cowpea storage trials conducted under natural conditions of grain infestation showed some incompatibility of the use of B senegalensis crushed leaves with that of parasitoids D basalis as biological control agent.⁵⁹ Indeed, in situations of simultaneous combination of both control components, one did not obtain a summation of the impact of each of them considered separately.⁵⁹ The results obtained in this section show globally that the parasitoid D basalis is more sensitive than its host C maculatus to the plant materials used to protect cowpeas. However, it is interesting to note that because storage devices are generally confined environments, the survival and behavior of D basalis will depend on its ability to adapt and exploit its hosts. The habituation process demonstrated that D basalis is capable of adaptation in an environment treated with plant material, suggesting possibilities for integrated pest management combining plant-based treatment with releases of parasitoids D basalis.⁶² However, the conditions for such a harmonious combination are not yet known and therefore deserve to be determined. This is all the more important because in natural conditions, cowpea seeds harvested and stored often contain both bruchids and parasitoids, which makes possible a direct effect of the insecticidal plants introduced into the granaries on the parasitoid population.

Perspectives for Optimizing Botanicals for Cowpea Storage

The results presented in this review show that there is an interesting potential to be exploited from the tested plant materials. The use of plant powders as raw material seems uninteresting, except for those of 2 plant species: C viscosa and B senegalensis. However, their optimal use relay on a more accurate determination of effective doses for large-scale storage. The advantage of such a practice is that it is already known to cowpea producers and that an optimal use strategy, if available, could easily be adopted. However, if the efficacy doses are very high, as shown by some laboratory results, this will have a damaging effect on the management of natural resources, ie, availability of plants in nature, unless a plant production strategy is developed and extended.

In keeping with the numerous previous studies,^50,72,73 EO have a double advantage in that they are not only more effective than raw plant materials but also are in low doses. The biological activity of these oils is mainly based on their chemical composition and probably on a synergy of action between the numerous compounds contained in each of them. One of the most effective EO is that of O canum which has been remarkable in all the studies conducted. It is mostly composed of 1,8-cineole,⁶⁷ a compound with previously known biological activity against many storage insect pests.⁷⁴ Further investigations should be conducted with this EO to optimize its potential. The option of aromatizing powder media does not seem to affect the biological activity of the EO. This procedure makes it possible to obtain insecticidal powders which can be used as synthetic insecticides. Such formulations reduce the volatility of the EO and increase their persistence. Further studies in this area should make it possible to identify the best candidate powders for aromatization. It is also important to continue research on the chemical composition of the EO tested to identify the active compounds as well as to assess their safety for humans and animals. Thus, depending on the chemical composition of each EO, it could be easy to anticipate whether it is appropriate for the preservation of foodstuffs. The chemical composition of an EO is very complex and subject to many variables related to plant organs used, harvest seasons, climatic and edaphic conditions, chemotypes.⁷⁵ A review referring to 230 aromatic plants from a wide geographic distribution shows that the main compounds of EO are terpenoids (mono- and sesquiterpenes) to which are added some aromatic compounds.⁷⁶ However, the biological activity of an EO is usually attributed to one or more dominant compounds.⁷⁶ Studies on the long-term effects of EO on treated insects will better help to manage the development of possible resistance in pests treated with EOs. Finally, the socio-economics of botanicals and EOs are of great interest and deserve to be clarified as this will determine their availability and accessibility to users.

Conclusions

Studies conducted in Burkina Faso since 2000s on the insecticidal and/or insect-repellent potential of 6 plant species belonging to 3 different plant families have produced numerous results. The issues covered by these studies included the evaluation of the biological activity of powders, crushed leaves and EO on C maculatus, major pest of stored cowpeas and its parasitoid D basalis, induced repellent effects, and treatment of cowpea seeds in laboratory experimental storage situations and on a large scale. Plant material proved to be insecticides, active on C maculatus adults and eggs, with effects depending on plant species, material, and doses used. They were also repellent and inhibited egg-laying. The best candidates for use as raw plant material (powders or crushed plants) are Cleome viscosa and Boscia senegalensis, both plant species belonging to the Capparaceae family. However, the conditions for their optimal use remain to be determined. The best C maculatus control potentialities are offered by EO extracted from the 4 aromatic plants species tested. These highly volatile compounds could be formulated as insecticidal powders obtained by aromatizing starch, kaolin, or diatomaceous earth. Studies are still needed to optimize the use of EO, specifically addressing the persistence of aromatized powders, their safety to humans and nontarget organisms, their potential for inducing resistance in the pest, and their contribution to implementation of a global integrated management strategy to preserve stored cowpeas.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the organizers of the second conference on pesticidal plants held on 6-9 February in Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, for facilitating the writing of this review previously delivered as an oral presentation at this conference.

Author Contributions

The idea for this review and the drafting plan were proposed by AS who presented a first version of this paper to the second conference on pesticidal plants held on 6-9 February in Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe. All co-authors participated in the compilation of the scientific information and the finalization of the manuscript.

Declaration of conflicting interests:

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding:

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Akinkurolere

Adedire

Odeyemi

. Laboratory evaluation of the toxic properties of forest Anchomanes, Anchomanes difformis against pulse beetle Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Insect Sci. 2006;13:25–29.

Nouhouheflin

Coulibaly

Adegbidi

. Impact des nouvelles technologies de culture du niébé sur la production, les revenus et leur distribution au Bénin. In: Jamin

Seiny Boukar

Floret

eds. Savanes Africaines: des espaces en mutation, des acteurs face à de nouveaux défis. Montpellier: Prasac, N’Djamena, TCHAD; 2003. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00142905/document.

Ouédraogo

. Impact économique des variétés améliorées du niébé sur les revenus des exploitations agricoles du plateau central du Burkina Faso. Tropicultura. 2003;21:204–210.

Tchiagam

JBN

Bell

Nassourou

Njintang

Youmbi

. Genetic analysis of seed proteins contents in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.). Afr J Biotech. 2011;10:3077–3086.

Adedire

Obembe

Akinkurolere

Oduleye

. Response of Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Bruchinae) to extracts of cashew kernels. J Plant Dis Protect. 2011;118:75–79.

Sanon

Dabiré

LCB

Ouedraogo

Huignard

. Field occurrence of bruchid pests of cowpea and associated parasitoids in a sub humid zone of Burkina Faso: importance on the infestation of two cowpea varieties at harvest. Plant Pathol J. 2005;4:14–20.

Murdock

Seck

Ntoukam

Kitch

Shade

. Preservation of cowpea grain in sub-Saharan Africa—Bean/Cowpea CRSP contributions. Field Crop Res. 2003;82:169–178.

Ouédrao go

Sou

Sanon

et al . Influence of temperature and humidity on populations of Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera Bruchidae) and its parasitoids Dinarmus basalis (Pteromalidae) in two zones of Burkina Faso. Bull Entomol Res. 1996;86:695–702.

Deshpande

Makanur

Deshpande

Sateesh

Salimath

. Quantitative and qualitative losses caused by Callosobruchus maculatus in cowpea during seed storage. Plant Arch. 2011;11:723–731.

10.

Langyintuo

Lowenberg-DeBoer

Faye

et al . Cowpea supply and demand in West and Central Africa. Field Crop Res. 2003;82:215–231.

11.

Dahiru

Abdullahi

Bukar

. Pesticides use among grain merchants in Mubi grain markets of Adamawa state, Nigeria. Agrosearch. 2014;14:1–13.

12.

Zongo

Ilboudo

Waongo

et al . Risques liés à l’utilisation d’insecticides au cours du stockage du niébé (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.), dans la région centrale du Burkina-Faso. Rev CAMES. 2015;3:25–31.

13.

Guèye

Badiane

Ndiaye

Mbaye

Diouf

Ndiaye

. La protection des stocks de maïs au Sénégal: enquêtes sur les pratiques d’utilisation des pesticides et plantes à effet insecticide en milieu paysan. ITA Échos. 2003;3:12.

14.

Guèye

Seck

Whatelet

Lognay

. Lutte contre les ravageurs des stocks de céréales et de légumineuses au Sénégal et en Afrique occidentale: synthèse bibliographique. Biotechnol Agron Soc Environ. 2003;15:183–194.

15.

Carvalho

. Agriculture, pesticides, food security and food safety. Environ Sci Policy. 2006;9:685–692.

16.

Lale

NES

. Stored-products entomology and acarology in Tropical Africa. Maiduguri, Nigeria: Mole Publications; 2002:204.

17.

Arthur

. Grain protectants: current status and prospects for the future. J Stored Prod Res. 1996;32:293–302.

18.

Mvumi

Sthaters

. Challenges of grain protection in sub-Saharan Africa: the case of diatomaceous earths. Paper presented at: Proceedings of Food Africa Internet-based Forum; March 31-April 11, 2003:6. Available at: http://foodafrica.nri.org; http://www.envirobase.info/PDF/R8179_challengesof_grainprotection_proceedings.pdf

19.

Spitzen

van Huis

. Effect of host quality of Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) on performance of the egg parasitoid Uscana lariophaga (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). Bull Entomol Res. 2005;95:341–347.

20.

Sanon

Ouédraogo

Tricault

Credland

Huignard

. Biological control of bruchids in cowpea stores by release of Dinarmus basalis (Hym.: Pteromalidae) adults. Environ Entomol. 1998;27:717–725.

21.

Amevoin

Sanon

Apossaba

Glitho

. Biological control of bruchids infesting cowpea by the introduction of Dinarmus basalis (Rondani) (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) adults into farmers’ stores in West Africa. J Stored Prod Res. 2007;43:240–247.

22.

Sanon

Dabiré-Binso

. Triple-bagging of cowpeas within high density polyethylene bags to control the cowpea beetle Callosobruchus maculatus F. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J Stored Prod Res. 2011;47:210–215.

23.

Kergoat

Delobel

Le Ru

Silvain

. Seed beetles in the age of the molecule: recent advances on systematics and host-plant association patterns. In: Jolivet

Santiago-Blay

Schmitt

, eds. Research on Chrysomelidae. Vol 1. Leiden: Brill; 2008:59–86.

24.

Onyido

Zeibe

Okonkwo

et al . Damage caused by the Bean Bruchid, Callosobruchus maculatus (Fabricius) on different legume seeds on sale in Awka and Onitsha Markets, Anambra State, South Eastern Nigeria. Afric Res Rev. 2011;5:116–123.

25.

Park

Kim

Ahn

. Insecticidal activity of asarones identified in Acorus gramineus rhizome against three coleopteran stored-product insects. J Stored Prod Res. 2003;39:333–342.

26.

Umeozor

. Effect of the infection of Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.) on the weight loss of stored Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp). J Appl Sci Environ Mgt. 2005;9:169–172.

27.

Alzouma

. Reproduction et développement de Bruchidius atrolineatus (Pic.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) aux dépens des cultures de Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. (Légumineuse: Papilionacée) Dans Un Agrosystème Sahélien Au Niger [Thèse de doctorat]. Tours: University of Tours;1987:162.

28.

Caswell

. A review of the work done in the entomology section of the Institute for Agricultural Research on the pests of stored grain. Zaria, Nigeria: Institute for Agricultural Research, Ahmadu Bello University; 1980. Samaru Miscellaneous Paper 99.

29.

Singh

Jackai

LEN

. Insect pests of cowpea in Africa; their life cycle, economic importance, and potential for control. In: Singh

Rachie

, eds. Cowpea Research, Production, and Utilization. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 1985:217–231.

30.

Ogendo

Hagstrum

. Alternatives to Pesticide in Stored Products IPM. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2004:437.

31.

Mbata

GNT

Fadamiro

. Parasitism by Pteroma luscerealellae (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) on the Cowpea weevil, Callosbruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae): host density, temperature effects, and host finding ability. Biol Cont 2005;33:286–292.

32.

Ngowi

AVF

Mbise

Ijani

ASM

London

Ajayi

. Smallholder vegetable farmers in Northern Tanzania: pesticides use practices, perceptions, cost and health effects. Crop Protect. 2005;26:1617–1624.

33.

Williamson

Ball

Pretty

. Trends in pesticide use and drivers for safer pest management in four African countries. Crop Protect. 2008;27:1327–1334.

34.

Idrissi

Aït

Ouammi

Rhalem

Soulaymani

. Intoxication aigüe par les pesticides: Données du Centre Anti Poison du Maroc (1989-2007). Toxicol Maroc. 2010;4:5–7.

35.

Kpatinvoh

Adjou

Dahouenon-Ahoussi

Konfo

TRC

Atrevy

Sohounhloue

. Problématique de la conservation du niébé (Vigna unguiculata (L), Walp) en Afrique de l’Ouest: étude d’impact et approche de solution. J Anim Plant Sci. 2016;31:4831–4842.

36.

Fields

White

NDG

. Alternatives to methyl bromide treatments for stored-product and quarantine insects. Ann Rev Entomol. 2002;47:331–359.

37.

Pazou

EYA

Boko

Van Gestel

CAM

et al . Organochlorine and organophosphorous pesticide residues in the Ouémé river catchment in the Republic of Benin. Environ Int. 2006;32:616–623.

38.

Hammer

Carson

Ridley

. Antimicrobial activity of essential oils and other plants extract. J Appl Microbiol. 1990;86:985–990.

39.

Ngamo

Hance

. Diversité des ravageurs des denrées et méthodes alternatives de lutte en milieu tropical. Tropicultura. 2007;25:215–220.

40.

Soumanou

Adjou

. Sweet fennel (Ocimum gratissimum) oils. In: Preedy

, ed. Essential Oils in Food Preservation, Flavor and Safety. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press; 2016:765–773.

41.

Alavanja

Dosemeci

Samanic

et al . Pesticides and lung cancer risk in the agricultural health study cohort. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;160:876–885.

42.

Sanborn

Cole

Kerr

Vakil

Sanin

Bassil

. Systematic Review of Pesticide Human Health Effects: Pesticides Literature Review. Toronto, ON: Ontario College of General Physicians; 2004:186.

43.

Ahouangninou

Fayomi

Martin

. Évaluation des risques sanitaires et environnementaux des pratiques phytosanitaires des producteurs maraîchers dans la commune rurale de Tori-Bossito (Sud-Bénin). Cah Agric. 2011;20:216–222.

44.

Leontieva

Benkovskaya

Udalov

Poscryakov

. Insecticide resistance level in Leptinotarsa decemlineata say population in the South Ural. Resist Pest Mgmt. 2006;15:25–26.

45.

Odeyemi

Gbaye

Akeju

. Resistance of Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.) to pirimiphos methyl in three zones in Nigeria. Paper presented at: 9th International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection; Lorini

et al , eds. October 15-18, 2006; Sao Paulo:324–329.

46.

Opit

Phillips

Aikins

Hasan

. Phosphine resistance in Tribolium castaneum and Rhyzopertha dominica from stored wheat in Oklahoma. J Econ Entomol. 2012;105:1107–1114.

47.

Gbaye

Oyeniyi

Ojo

. Resistance of Callosobruchus maculatus (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) populations in Nigeria to dichlorvos. Jordan J Biol Sci. 2016;9:41–46.

48.

Boeke

Baumgart

van Loon

JJA

van Huis

Dicke

Kossou

. Toxicity and repellence of African plants traditionally used for the protection of stored cowpea against Callosobruchus maculates. J Stored Prod Res. 2004;40:423–438.

49.

Ileke

Olotuah

. Bioactivity of Anacardium occidentale (L) and Allium sativum (L) powders and oils extracts against cowpea bruchid, Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.) [Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae]. Int J Biol. 2012;4: 96–103.

50.

Keita

Vincent

Schmit

Arnason

Belanger

. 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. 2001;37:339–349.

51.

Sanon

Ilboudo

Dabiré

BLC

Nébié

CHR

Dicko

Monge

J-P

. Effects of Hyptis spicigera Lam. (Labiatae) on the behaviour and development of Callosobruchus maculatus F. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae), a pest of stored cowpeas. Int J Pest Manag. 2006;52:117–123.

52.

Dabiré

LCB

Sanon

. Effects of crushed fresh Cleome viscosa L. (Capparaceae) plants on the cowpea storage pest, Callosobruchus maculatus Fab. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Int J Pest Manag. 2008;54:319–326.

53.

Ilboudo

. Contribution à l’étude de l’activité biologique des huiles essentielles contre Callosobruchus maculatus Fab. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) en vue de leur utilisation optimale en protection des stocks de niébé au Burkina Faso [Thése Unique]. Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso: Université de Ouagadougou; 2009:114.

54.

Ilboudo

Dabiré

LCB

Nébié

RCH

et al . Biological activity and persistence of four essential oils towards the main pest of stored cowpeas, Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J Stored Prod Res. 2010;46:124–128.

55.

Ekeh

Onah

Atama

Ivoke

Eyo

. Effectiveness of botanical powders against Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) in some stored leguminous grains under laboratory conditions. African J Biotech. 2013;12:1384–1391.

56.

Asawalam

Anaeto

. Laboratory evaluation of five botanicals as protectants against cowpea bruchid Callosobruchus maculatus F. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) on stored cowpea. Adv Med Plant Res. 2014;2:41–46.

57.

Ilboudo

Dabiré-Binso

LCB

Sankara

Nébié

RCH

Sanon

. Optimizing the use of essential oils to protect stored cowpeas from Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchinae) damage. Afri Entomol. 2015;23:94–100.

58.

Sanon

Garba

Auger

Huignard

. Analysis of the insecticidal activity of methylisothiocyanate on Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) and its parasitoid Dinarmus basalis (Rondani) (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). Environ Entomol. 2008;38:129–138.

59.

Sanon

Sou

Dabiré

Ouedraogo

Huignard

. Combining Boscia senegalensis Lamarck (Capparaceae) leaves and augmentation of the larval parasitoid Dinarmus basalis Rondani (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) for bruchid control in stored cowpeas. J Entomol. 2005;2:40–45.

60.

Doumma

Alfari

Sembène

et al . Toxicity and persistence of Boscia senegalensis Lam. (Ex Poir.) (Capparaceae) leaves on Callosobruchus maculatus Fab. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Int J Biol Chem Sci. 2011;5:1562–1570.

61.

Sanon

. Effets des plantes du genre Hyptis sur le complexe bruches-parasitoïdes et rôle dans la protection des stocks de niébé. 2005:52. Rapport Scientifique IFS: University of Ouagadougou.

62.

Sanon

Dabiré

LCB

Huignard

Monge

. Influence of Hyptis suaveolens (Lamiaceae) on the host location behaviour of the parasitoid Dinarmus basalis (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). Environ Entomol. 2006;35:718–724.

63.

Sanon

Dabiré-Binso

Nébié

RCH

Monge

. Side effects of grain protectants on biological control agents: how Hyptis plant extracts affect parasitism and larval development of Dinarmus basalis. Phytoparasitica. 2011;39:215–222.

64.

Ilboudo

. Effets de broyats et d’huiles essentielles de quatre plantes aromatiques sur les stades adultes et pré-imaginaux de Callosobruchus maculatus Fab. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso: Université de Ouagadougou; 2004:58. Mémoire de DEA.

65.

Tripti

Neeraj

Preeti

. A review on Cleome viscosa: an endogenous herb of Uttarakhand. Int J Pharm Res Rev. 2015;4:25–31.

66.

Bassolé

IHN

Nébié

Savadogo

Ouattara

Barra

Traoré

. Composition and antimicrobial activities of the leaf and flower essential oils of Lippia chevalieri and Ocimum canum from Burkina Faso. African J Biotech. 2005;4:1156–1160.

67.

Nébié

RCH

. Etude des huiles essentielles de quelques plantes aromatiques du Burkina Faso. Production, composition chimique, propriétés insecticides [Thése de doctorat]. Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso: Université de Ouagadougou; 2006:175.

68.

Kini

Kam

Aycard

Gaydou

Bombard

. Chemical composition of the essential oil of Hyptis spicigera Lam. J Essent Oil Res. 1993;5:219–221.

69.

Nébié

RCH

Sérémé

Bélanger

Yaméogo

Sib

. Etude des plantes aromatiques du Burkina Faso. Caractérisations chimique et biologique des Huiles Essentielles de Lippia multiflora Moldenke. J Soc Ouest Afr Chim. 2002;13:27–37.

70.

Isman

. Plant essential oils for pest and disease management. Crop Protect. 2000;19:603–608.

71.

Miresmailli

. Assessing the efficacy and persistence of a rosemary oil-based miticide/insecticide for use on greenhouse tomato [master’s thesis]. Vancouver, BC, Canada: University of British Colombia; 2005:124–147.

72.

Ketoh

Glitho

Huignard

. Susceptibility of the bruchid Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) and its parasitoid Dinarmus basalis (Rond.) (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) to three essential oils. J Econ Entomol 2002;95:174–182.

73.

Tapondjou

Adler

Bouda

Fontem

. Efficacy of powder and essential oil from Chenopodium ambrosioides leaves as postharvest grain protectants against six-stored product beetles. J Stored Prod Res. 2002;38:395–402.

74.

Obeng-Ofori

Reichmuth

Bekele

Hassanali

. Biological activity of 1,8-cineole, a major component of essential oil of Ocimum kenyense (Ayobeingira) against stored product beetles. J Appl Ent. 1997;121:237–243.

75.

Couic-Marinier

Lobstein

. Composition chimique des huiles essentielles. Actual Pharmaceut. 2013;52:22–25.

76.

Zoubiri

Baaliouamer

. Potentiality of plants as source of insecticide principles. J Saudi Chem Soc. 2014;18:925–938.