Resistência a bruquídeos, composição em ácidos graxos e qualidade de cozimento das sementes em genótipos de grão-de-bico

Athiepacheco, Ivânia; Bolonhezi, Scheilla; Sartori, Maria Regina; Turatti,; Paula, Dalmo Cesar de; Lourenção, André Luiz

doi:10.1590/S0006-87051994000100007

Resumos

O presente trabalho teve por objetivos: (a) verificar possíveis diferenças entre seis genótipos de grão-de-bico (Cicer arietinum L.), selecionados no Instituto Agronômico, quanto à suscetibilidade ao ataque de Callosobruchus phaseoli (Gyllenhal), C. maculatus F. e Acanthoscelides obtectus (Say), pragas de armazenamento dessa fabácea; (b) relacionar as diferenças em suscetibilidade com a composição química das sementes, e (c) avaliar a qualidade de cozimento das sementes dos genótipos com características agronômicas mais promissoras para o cultivo. Foram utilizadas sementes do cv. IAC-Marrocos e dos genótipos IAC-Sonora, IAC-Sonora-FE, IAC-GB2, IAC-GB3 e IAC-GB4 de grão-de-bico, as quais foram infestadas separadamente com as três principais espécies de insetos, obtendo-se o número de ovos por fêmea (Callosobruchus), a percentagem de ovos que se desenvolveram até adulto, o período de desenvolvimento de ovo a adulto e a perda de peso das sementes por inseto desenvolvido, parâmetros utilizados para avaliação dos genótipos, cuja composição em ácidos graxos foi determinada, procurando-se relacionar as diferenças obtidas com as diferenças em suscetibilidade. Verificaram-se diferenças de resistência ao ataque de bruquídeos entre os genótipos estudados. O IAC-GB2 foi o menos favorável ao desenvolvimento de C. maculatus, C. phaseoli e A. obtectus. A resistência de grão-de-bico a bruquídeos pode estar relacionada com componentes do tegumento que conferem coloração mais escura e/ou com a composição em ácido linoléico, influindo na oviposição e na alimentação e/ou biologia das larvas. Foi observada diferença na qualidade de cozimento entre os genótipos estudados. O IAC-Sonora apresentou qualidade de cozimento significativamente superior ao IAC-GB2.

armazenamento; Insecta; Bruchidae; Callosobruchus maculatus; Callosobruchus phaseoli; Acanthoscelides obtectus; grão-de-bico; Cicer arietinum; resistência a insetos; qualidade de cozimento; ácidos graxos; ácido linoléico

The bruchids have been observed as the most important species in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) storage. Nevertheless, many authors reported in some genotypes of Fabacea differences in susceptibility to bruchids attack, suggesting the use of resistant cultivars as a method to avoid infestation during storage. The Instituto Agronômico of Campinas (IAC), State of São Paulo, Brazil, has been selecting chickpeas genotypes suitable to local conditions. The main objective of this research was to verify the occurrence of resistance to Callosobruchus phaseoli (Gyllenhal), C. maculatus F. and Acanthoscelides obtectus (Say) in six chickpeas genotypes during storage. The genotypes were: cv. IAC-Marrocos, IAC-Sonora, IAC Sonora-FE, IAC-GB2, IAC-GB3 and IAC-GB4. Each of them was infested by insects of the three main species. The differences in resistance were evaluated by: (a) the percentage of eggs developed until adult phase, (b) period from egg to adult, (c) loss of weight in seeds per insect developed and (d) the number of eggs per female, the last one was applied only for Callosobruchus species. The seeds chemical composition, fat acids, was evaluated in order to establish a relationship with the seeds resistance or susceptibility. The cultivars IAC-Marrocos and IAC-GB2 showed evidences of resistance to bruchids. IAC-Sonora and IAC-Sonora-FE, which have the best agricultural characteristics, had their seeds cooking quality analyzed. Differences in bruchids attack were observed among the six chickpeas genotypes. IAC-GB2 was the less susceptible to C. maculatus, C. phaseoli and A. obtectus. The resistance to bruchids in chickpea may be related to tegument components as pigments, in dark tegument genotypes, and to the presence of linoleic acid, affecting oviposition and also larval feeding and/or larval biology. Cooking quality differed among genotypes. Cooking quality of IAC-Sonora was significatively higher than that of IAC-GB2.

storage; Insecta; Bruchidae; Callosobruchus maculatus; Callosobruchus phaseoli; Acanthoscelides obtectus; chickpea; Cicer arietinum; resistance to insects; cooking quality; fat acids; linoleic acid

IV. TECNOLOGIA DE PÓS-COLHEITA

Resistência a bruquídeos, composição em ácidos graxos e qualidade de cozimento das sementes em genótipos de grão-de-bico

Resistance to bruchids, fat acid composition and grain texture in genotypes of chickpea

Ivânia Athiepacheco^I; Scheilla Bolonhezi^I; Maria Regina Sartori^I; Jane Menegaldo Turatti^II; Dalmo Cesar de Paula^I; André Luiz Lourenção^III

^ISeção de Armazenamento e Beneficiamento do Instituto de Tecnologia de Alimentos (ITAL), Avenida Brasil, 2.880, Caixa Postal 139, 13073-001 Campinas (SP)

IISeção de Lípides e Prótides, ITAL

^IIISeção de Entomologia Fitotécnica, Instituto Agronômico (IAC), 13001-970 Campinas (SP)

RESUMO

O presente trabalho teve por objetivos: (a) verificar possíveis diferenças entre seis genótipos de grão-de-bico (Cicer arietinum L.), selecionados no Instituto Agronômico, quanto à suscetibilidade ao ataque de Callosobruchus phaseoli (Gyllenhal), C. maculatus F. e Acanthoscelides obtectus (Say), pragas de armazenamento dessa fabácea; (b) relacionar as diferenças em suscetibilidade com a composição química das sementes, e (c) avaliar a qualidade de cozimento das sementes dos genótipos com características agronômicas mais promissoras para o cultivo. Foram utilizadas sementes do cv. IAC-Marrocos e dos genótipos IAC-Sonora, IAC-Sonora-FE, IAC-GB2, IAC-GB3 e IAC-GB4 de grão-de-bico, as quais foram infestadas separadamente com as três principais espécies de insetos, obtendo-se o número de ovos por fêmea (Callosobruchus), a percentagem de ovos que se desenvolveram até adulto, o período de desenvolvimento de ovo a adulto e a perda de peso das sementes por inseto desenvolvido, parâmetros utilizados para avaliação dos genótipos, cuja composição em ácidos graxos foi determinada, procurando-se relacionar as diferenças obtidas com as diferenças em suscetibilidade. Verificaram-se diferenças de resistência ao ataque de bruquídeos entre os genótipos estudados. O IAC-GB2 foi o menos favorável ao desenvolvimento de C. maculatus, C. phaseoli e A. obtectus. A resistência de grão-de-bico a bruquídeos pode estar relacionada com componentes do tegumento que conferem coloração mais escura e/ou com a composição em ácido linoléico, influindo na oviposição e na alimentação e/ou biologia das larvas. Foi observada diferença na qualidade de cozimento entre os genótipos estudados. O IAC-Sonora apresentou qualidade de cozimento significativamente superior ao IAC-GB2.

Termos de indexação: armazenamento, Insecta, Bruchidae, Callosobruchus maculatus, Callosobruchus phaseoli, Acanthoscelides obtectus, grão-de-bico, Cicer arietinum, resistência a insetos, qualidade de cozimento, ácidos graxos, ácido linoléico.

ABSTRACT

The bruchids have been observed as the most important species in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) storage. Nevertheless, many authors reported in some genotypes of Fabacea differences in susceptibility to bruchids attack, suggesting the use of resistant cultivars as a method to avoid infestation during storage. The Instituto Agronômico of Campinas (IAC), State of São Paulo, Brazil, has been selecting chickpeas genotypes suitable to local conditions. The main objective of this research was to verify the occurrence of resistance to Callosobruchus phaseoli (Gyllenhal), C. maculatus F. and Acanthoscelides obtectus (Say) in six chickpeas genotypes during storage. The genotypes were: cv. IAC-Marrocos, IAC-Sonora, IAC Sonora-FE, IAC-GB2, IAC-GB3 and IAC-GB4. Each of them was infested by insects of the three main species. The differences in resistance were evaluated by: (a) the percentage of eggs developed until adult phase, (b) period from egg to adult, (c) loss of weight in seeds per insect developed and (d) the number of eggs per female, the last one was applied only for Callosobruchus species. The seeds chemical composition, fat acids, was evaluated in order to establish a relationship with the seeds resistance or susceptibility. The cultivars IAC-Marrocos and IAC-GB2 showed evidences of resistance to bruchids. IAC-Sonora and IAC-Sonora-FE, which have the best agricultural characteristics, had their seeds cooking quality analyzed. Differences in bruchids attack were observed among the six chickpeas genotypes. IAC-GB2 was the less susceptible to C. maculatus, C. phaseoli and A. obtectus. The resistance to bruchids in chickpea may be related to tegument components as pigments, in dark tegument genotypes, and to the presence of linoleic acid, affecting oviposition and also larval feeding and/or larval biology. Cooking quality differed among genotypes. Cooking quality of IAC-Sonora was significatively higher than that of IAC-GB2.

Index terms: storage, Insecta, Bruchidae, Callosobruchus maculatus, Callosobruchus phaseoli, Acanthoscelides obtectus, chickpea, Cicer arietinum, resistance to insects, cooking quality, fat acids, linoleic acid.

Texto completo disponível apenas em PDF.

Full text available only in PDF format.

Recebido para publicação em 23 de outubro de 1993 e aceito em 9 de fevereiro de 1994.

ADJADI, O.; SINGH, B.B. & SINGH, S.R. Inheritance of bruchid resistance in cowpea. Crop Science, Madison, 25:740-742, 1985.
AMERICAN OIL CHEMISTS' SOCIETY (A.O.C.S.). Official method Bc 3-49. In: OFFICIAL methods and recommended practices of the American Oil Chemists' Society. 4.ed. s.l.p., American Oil Chemists' Society, 1989. Section B, v.l.
AMERICAN OIL CHEMISTS' SOCIETY (A.O.C.S.). Official method Ce 1-62. In: OFFICIAL methods and recommended practices of the American Oil Chemists' Society. 4.ed. s.l.p., American Oil Chemists' Society, 1989. Section C, v.l.
APPLEBAUM, S.W. & GUEZ, M. Comparative resistance of Phaseolus vulgaris beans to Callosobruchus chinensis and Acanthoscelides obtectus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae): the differential digestion of soluble heteropolysaccharide. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, The Hague, 15:203-237, 1972.
BAKER, T.A.; NIELSEN, S.S.; SHADE, R.E. & SINGH, B.B. Physical and chemical attributes of cowpea lines resistant and susceptible to Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Journal of Stored Products Research, Elmsford, 25(1):1-8, 1989.
BRAGA, N.R. Grão-de-bico: IAC avalia introdução no Estado de São Paulo. O Agronômico, Campinas, 38(2):137-138, 1986.
BREWER, I.N. & HORBER, E. Evaluating resistance to Callosobruchus chinensis Linn, in different seed legumes. In: INTERNATIONAL WORKING CONFERENCE ON STORED PRODUCT ENTOMOLOGY, 3., Manhattan, 1984. Proceedings. XXX Manhattan, 1984. p.435-443.
BS684: Section 2.35:1980 - ISO 5508-1978. In: BRITISH STANDARD INSTITUTION. BS684: part 0:1982. British standard methods of analysis of fats and fatty oils. Londres, British Standards Institution, 1982.
CHAVAN, J.K.; KADAM, S.S. & SALUNKHE, D.K. Biochemistry and technology of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) seeds. CRC Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, Cleveland, 25(2):107-158, 1986.
DHARNE, P.K.; SALUNKHE, G.N. & AJRI, D.S. Studies on susceptibility of pigeon-pea (Cajanus cajan L.), varieties to pulse beetle (Callosobruchus chinensis L.). Research Reporter, Rahuri, 1(1):96-98, 1985.
EPPINO, P.B. & MORALLO-REJESUS, B. Physicochemical properties of mungbean (Vigna radiata L.) (Wilczek.) seeds in relation to weevil resistance. Philippine Entomologist, Laguna, 6(5/6):607-620, 1983.
FUJII, K.; ISMIMOTO, M. & KITAMURA, K. Patterns of resistance to bean weevils (Bruchidae) in Vigna radiata - mungo - Sublobata complex inform the breeding of new resistant varieties. Applied Entomology and Zoology, Tokio, 24(1):126-132, 1989.
GATEHOUSE, A.M.R.; GATEHOUSE, J.A.; DOBIE, P.; KILMINSTER, A.M. & BOUTLER, D. Biochemical basis of insect resistance in Vigna unguiculata. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, London, 30:948-958, 1979.
GATEHOUSE, A.M.R.; HOWE, D.S.; FLEMMING, J.E.; HILDER, V.A. & GATEHOUSE, J.A. Biochemical basis of insect resistance in winged bean (Psophocarpus tetra gonolobus) seeds. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, London, 55:63-74, 1991.
HAMED, K.; KNALIQUE, K; AFZAL, M.; TAHIR, M. & MALIK, B.A. Variability in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Genotypes for resistance to Callosobruchus maculatus F. (Bruchidae). Journal of Stored Products Research, Oxford, 25(2):97-99, 1989.
HAMED, M.; KHATTAK, S.V. & SATTAR, A. Pulse susceptibility to Callosobruchus maculatus (F) (Bruchidae: Coleoptera) in Pakistan. Tropical Pest Management, London, 34(1):31-34, 1988.
KATIYAR, P.N. & KHARE, B.P. Relative susceptibility of twenty germplasms of gram to pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis L. Bulletin of Grain Technology, Uttar Pradesch, 21(1):31-36, 1983.
KHATTAK, S.U.; ALAM, M.; KHALIL, S.K. & HUSSAIN, N. Response of chickpea cultivars to the infestation of pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis (L). Pakistan Journal Zoology, Tokio, 23(1):51-55, 1991.
MINNEY, P.H.B.; ANGHARAD, M.R.; PHILIP, D.; DENDY, J.; CARDONA, C. & GATEHOUSE, A. Biochemical bases of seed resistance to Zabrotes subfasciatus (Bean weevil). Phaseolus vulgaris (Common Bean); a mechanism for arcelin toxicity. Journal of Insect Physiology, New York, 36(10):757-767, 1990.
PIERGIOVANNI, A.R.; GATTA, C.D.; NG, Q.N.; SINGH, B.B.; SINGH, S.R.; & PERRINO, P. Fatty acid composition and insect resistance in Vigna unguiculata seeds. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, London, 52:47-53, 1990.
RAI, PC. & SINGH, J. Relative susceptibility of chickpea (Cicer arietinum). Varieties to pulse beetle (Callosobruchus chinensis). Indian Journal of Agricultural Science, New Delhi, 59(2):135-136, 1989.
REDDEN, R.J.; SINGHI, S.R. & LUCKEFAHR, M.J. Breeding for cowpea resistance to bruchids at IITA. Protection Ecology, Netherlands, 7(4):291-303, 1984.
ROSSETTO, C.J. Resistência de milho a pragas da espiga, Hellicoverpa zea (Boddie), Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky e Sitotroga cerealella (Oliver). Piracicaba, 1972. 144p. Tese (Doutorado) - ESALQ-USP, 1972.
SARTORI, M.R. Conservação da qualidade tecnológica durante o armazenamento. In: ZIMMERMANN, M.J. de O.; ROCHA, M. & YAMADA, T., eds. Cultura do feijoeiro: fatores que afetam a produtividade. Piracicaba, POTAFÓS, 1988. p. 359-371.
SARTORI, M.R. Technological quality of dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Stored under nitrogen. Manhattan, 1982. 60p. Tese (Doutorado) - Kansas State University, 1982.
SCHOONHOVEN, A.V. & CARDONA, C. Low levels of resistance to the Mexican bean weevil in dry beans. Journal of Economic Entomology, Washington, D.C., 75(4):567-569, 1982.
SCHOONHOVEN, A.V; CARDONA, C. & VALOR, J. Resistance to the bean weevil and the Mexican bean weevil (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Noncultivated common bean accessions. Journal of Economic Entomology, Washington, D.C., 76(6): 1255-1259, 1983.
SIMMONDS, M.S.J.; BLANEY, W.M. & BIRCH, A.N.E. Legume seeds: the defenses of wild and cultivated species of Phaseolus against attack by bruchid beetles. Annals of Botany, London, 63:177-184, 1989.
SINGAL, S.K. Relative resistance of some genotypes of chickpea Cicer arietinum L., to pulse beetle. Callosobruchus chinensis L. Research and Development Reporter, New York, 4(2):204-207, 1987.
SINGAL, S.K. Relative susceptibility of some genotypes of cowpea, Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. to pulse beetles, Callosobruchus chinensis (L). Bulletin of Grain Technology, Uttar Pradesh, 24(3): 219-223, 1986.
SINGH, O.P; ALI, S.I.; DHAMDHERE, S.V. & GUPTA, M.D. Response of pigeonpea varieties to pulse beetle damage. Indian Journal of Plant Protection, 12(1):77-79, 1984.
SINGH, U.; SUBRAHMANYAM, N. & KUMAR, J. Cooking quality and nutritional atributes of some newly developed cultivars of chickpea (Cicer arietinum). Journal of the Science Food and Agriculture, London, 55:37-46, 1991.
TALEKAR, N.S. & LIN, Y.H. Two sources with differing modes of resistance to Callosobruchus chinensis in mungbean. Journal of Economic Entomology, Washington, D.C., 5(74):639-642, 1981.
THINGBAIJAM, B.D.; PAWAT, R.R.; KHATRI, A.K. & CHAVDHARY, B.S. Preferences of some gram varieties in relation to development of and damage by Callosobruchus chinensis (Linn). J.N.K.V.V. Research Journal, Jabalpur, 17(3/4):198-204, 1983.

Datas de Publicação

Publicação nesta coleção
16 Out 2007
Data do Fascículo
1994

Histórico

Aceito
09 Fev 1994
Recebido
23 Out 1993

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

[1] ADJADI, O.; SINGH, B.B. & SINGH, S.R. Inheritance of bruchid resistance in cowpea. Crop Science, Madison, 25:740-742, 1985.

[2] AMERICAN OIL CHEMISTS' SOCIETY (A.O.C.S.). Official method Bc 3-49. In: OFFICIAL methods and recommended practices of the American Oil Chemists' Society. 4.ed. s.l.p., American Oil Chemists' Society, 1989. Section B, v.l.

[3] AMERICAN OIL CHEMISTS' SOCIETY (A.O.C.S.). Official method Ce 1-62. In: OFFICIAL methods and recommended practices of the American Oil Chemists' Society. 4.ed. s.l.p., American Oil Chemists' Society, 1989. Section C, v.l.

[4] APPLEBAUM, S.W. & GUEZ, M. Comparative resistance of Phaseolus vulgaris beans to Callosobruchus chinensis and Acanthoscelides obtectus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae): the differential digestion of soluble heteropolysaccharide. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, The Hague, 15:203-237, 1972.

[5] BAKER, T.A.; NIELSEN, S.S.; SHADE, R.E. & SINGH, B.B. Physical and chemical attributes of cowpea lines resistant and susceptible to Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Journal of Stored Products Research, Elmsford, 25(1):1-8, 1989.

[6] BRAGA, N.R. Grão-de-bico: IAC avalia introdução no Estado de São Paulo. O Agronômico, Campinas, 38(2):137-138, 1986.

[7] BREWER, I.N. & HORBER, E. Evaluating resistance to Callosobruchus chinensis Linn, in different seed legumes. In: INTERNATIONAL WORKING CONFERENCE ON STORED PRODUCT ENTOMOLOGY, 3., Manhattan, 1984. Proceedings. XXX Manhattan, 1984. p.435-443.

[8] BS684: Section 2.35:1980 - ISO 5508-1978. In: BRITISH STANDARD INSTITUTION. BS684: part 0:1982. British standard methods of analysis of fats and fatty oils. Londres, British Standards Institution, 1982.

[9] CHAVAN, J.K.; KADAM, S.S. & SALUNKHE, D.K. Biochemistry and technology of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) seeds. CRC Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, Cleveland, 25(2):107-158, 1986.

[10] DHARNE, P.K.; SALUNKHE, G.N. & AJRI, D.S. Studies on susceptibility of pigeon-pea (Cajanus cajan L.), varieties to pulse beetle (Callosobruchus chinensis L.). Research Reporter, Rahuri, 1(1):96-98, 1985.

[11] EPPINO, P.B. & MORALLO-REJESUS, B. Physicochemical properties of mungbean (Vigna radiata L.) (Wilczek.) seeds in relation to weevil resistance. Philippine Entomologist, Laguna, 6(5/6):607-620, 1983.

[12] FUJII, K.; ISMIMOTO, M. & KITAMURA, K. Patterns of resistance to bean weevils (Bruchidae) in Vigna radiata - mungo - Sublobata complex inform the breeding of new resistant varieties. Applied Entomology and Zoology, Tokio, 24(1):126-132, 1989.

[13] GATEHOUSE, A.M.R.; GATEHOUSE, J.A.; DOBIE, P.; KILMINSTER, A.M. & BOUTLER, D. Biochemical basis of insect resistance in Vigna unguiculata. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, London, 30:948-958, 1979.

[14] GATEHOUSE, A.M.R.; HOWE, D.S.; FLEMMING, J.E.; HILDER, V.A. & GATEHOUSE, J.A. Biochemical basis of insect resistance in winged bean (Psophocarpus tetra gonolobus) seeds. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, London, 55:63-74, 1991.

[15] HAMED, K.; KNALIQUE, K; AFZAL, M.; TAHIR, M. & MALIK, B.A. Variability in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Genotypes for resistance to Callosobruchus maculatus F. (Bruchidae). Journal of Stored Products Research, Oxford, 25(2):97-99, 1989.

[16] HAMED, M.; KHATTAK, S.V. & SATTAR, A. Pulse susceptibility to Callosobruchus maculatus (F) (Bruchidae: Coleoptera) in Pakistan. Tropical Pest Management, London, 34(1):31-34, 1988.

[17] KATIYAR, P.N. & KHARE, B.P. Relative susceptibility of twenty germplasms of gram to pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis L. Bulletin of Grain Technology, Uttar Pradesch, 21(1):31-36, 1983.

[18] KHATTAK, S.U.; ALAM, M.; KHALIL, S.K. & HUSSAIN, N. Response of chickpea cultivars to the infestation of pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis (L). Pakistan Journal Zoology, Tokio, 23(1):51-55, 1991.

[19] MINNEY, P.H.B.; ANGHARAD, M.R.; PHILIP, D.; DENDY, J.; CARDONA, C. & GATEHOUSE, A. Biochemical bases of seed resistance to Zabrotes subfasciatus (Bean weevil). Phaseolus vulgaris (Common Bean); a mechanism for arcelin toxicity. Journal of Insect Physiology, New York, 36(10):757-767, 1990.

[20] PIERGIOVANNI, A.R.; GATTA, C.D.; NG, Q.N.; SINGH, B.B.; SINGH, S.R.; & PERRINO, P. Fatty acid composition and insect resistance in Vigna unguiculata seeds. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, London, 52:47-53, 1990.

[21] RAI, PC. & SINGH, J. Relative susceptibility of chickpea (Cicer arietinum). Varieties to pulse beetle (Callosobruchus chinensis). Indian Journal of Agricultural Science, New Delhi, 59(2):135-136, 1989.

[22] REDDEN, R.J.; SINGHI, S.R. & LUCKEFAHR, M.J. Breeding for cowpea resistance to bruchids at IITA. Protection Ecology, Netherlands, 7(4):291-303, 1984.

[23] ROSSETTO, C.J. Resistência de milho a pragas da espiga, Hellicoverpa zea (Boddie), Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky e Sitotroga cerealella (Oliver). Piracicaba, 1972. 144p. Tese (Doutorado) - ESALQ-USP, 1972.

[24] SARTORI, M.R. Conservação da qualidade tecnológica durante o armazenamento. In: ZIMMERMANN, M.J. de O.; ROCHA, M. & YAMADA, T., eds. Cultura do feijoeiro: fatores que afetam a produtividade. Piracicaba, POTAFÓS, 1988. p. 359-371.

[25] SARTORI, M.R. Technological quality of dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Stored under nitrogen. Manhattan, 1982. 60p. Tese (Doutorado) - Kansas State University, 1982.

[26] SCHOONHOVEN, A.V. & CARDONA, C. Low levels of resistance to the Mexican bean weevil in dry beans. Journal of Economic Entomology, Washington, D.C., 75(4):567-569, 1982.

[27] SCHOONHOVEN, A.V; CARDONA, C. & VALOR, J. Resistance to the bean weevil and the Mexican bean weevil (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Noncultivated common bean accessions. Journal of Economic Entomology, Washington, D.C., 76(6): 1255-1259, 1983.

[28] SIMMONDS, M.S.J.; BLANEY, W.M. & BIRCH, A.N.E. Legume seeds: the defenses of wild and cultivated species of Phaseolus against attack by bruchid beetles. Annals of Botany, London, 63:177-184, 1989.

[29] SINGAL, S.K. Relative resistance of some genotypes of chickpea Cicer arietinum L., to pulse beetle. Callosobruchus chinensis L. Research and Development Reporter, New York, 4(2):204-207, 1987.

[30] SINGAL, S.K. Relative susceptibility of some genotypes of cowpea, Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. to pulse beetles, Callosobruchus chinensis (L). Bulletin of Grain Technology, Uttar Pradesh, 24(3): 219-223, 1986.

[31] SINGH, O.P; ALI, S.I.; DHAMDHERE, S.V. & GUPTA, M.D. Response of pigeonpea varieties to pulse beetle damage. Indian Journal of Plant Protection, 12(1):77-79, 1984.

[32] SINGH, U.; SUBRAHMANYAM, N. & KUMAR, J. Cooking quality and nutritional atributes of some newly developed cultivars of chickpea (Cicer arietinum). Journal of the Science Food and Agriculture, London, 55:37-46, 1991.

[33] TALEKAR, N.S. & LIN, Y.H. Two sources with differing modes of resistance to Callosobruchus chinensis in mungbean. Journal of Economic Entomology, Washington, D.C., 5(74):639-642, 1981.

[34] THINGBAIJAM, B.D.; PAWAT, R.R.; KHATRI, A.K. & CHAVDHARY, B.S. Preferences of some gram varieties in relation to development of and damage by Callosobruchus chinensis (Linn). J.N.K.V.V. Research Journal, Jabalpur, 17(3/4):198-204, 1983.