




































 

 

 
37 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

INSECTICIDE SPRAYING REGIME TO CONTROL INSECT PEST OF COWPEA: 
MANAGEMENT AND MONITORED APPLICATION OF CYPERMETHRIN IN LOMAMI 
PROVINCE, DR CONGO   

 

Remy Tshibingu 
Mukendi1+ 
Antoine Lubobo 
Kanyenga2  
Louis Longanza 
Baboy3 
David Mugisho 
Bugeme4 
Adrien Mbuyi Kalonji5 
Théodore 
Mushambanyi  
Munyuli6 

 

1Department of Crop Science, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University  
Notre Dame de Lomami, Lomami Province, Central DR Congo. 

 
2,3,4Department of Crop Science, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University 
de Lubumbashi, Haut-Katanga Province, Southern DR Congo. 
5Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Regional Nuclear Energy 
Center, Kinshasa (CRENK), P.O. Box 868, Kinshasa XI, Democratic 
Republic of Congo; Unit of Phytopathology, University of Kinshasa, Kinshasa 
XI, Democratic Republic of Congo. 
6National Center for Research in Natural Sciences (CRSN / Lwiro), D.S 
Bukavu, South Kivu Province, Democratic Republic of Congo; Uninversity 
du Cinquantaire, East DR Congo. 
 

 
(+ Corresponding author) 

 ABSTRACT 
 
Article History 
Received: 18 January 2019 
Revised: 25 February 2019 
Accepted: 29 March 2019 
Published: 9 May 2019  
 
 
 

Keywords 
Chemical spraying regime 
Cowpea  
Insect pest 
Yield components 
DR Congo. 

 
Cowpea is one of the most important grain legumes growing in Lomami province, DR 
Congo. Despite the high potential for production in this region, insect pests are the 
main problems of cowpea producers. They most often belong to the following 
categories: pod borers (Maruca vitrata), pod-sucking bug (PSB) complex of which 
Riptortus dentipes and Apium varium. A study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of 
three spray regimes of Cypermethrin on the density of M. vitrata, A. varium and R. 
dentipes and the performance of yield components of cowpea. Trials were conducted at 
three different sites, one controlled (INERA) and two peasant sites (Mpiana and 
Yamba). Three genetically improved varieties called Mujilanga, CNGKASC2-1-1-T, 
and CNGKASA7-2-M of cowpea were used. The tests were conducted using a split-plot 
device with three repetitions. Results demonstrate that Cypermethrin is effective 
against insect pests of cowpea, the population of all target pest were found to decrease 
in the plot treated to the untreated plot. Application of insecticide three times recorded 
the highest increased grain yield between 93 and 169 %. The average yield for spray 
regime recorded 689.1 kg, 651.8 kg and 553.3 kg for D1, D2 and D3 sprays. Famers 
can use two or three spray regimes of Cypermethrin to manage the pest, this option 
may reduce the cost, in order to achieve a sustainable level of agricultural and a high 
level of environmental and human health protection in cowpea field in DR Congo.  
 

Contribution/Originality: This study is one of the very few studies which have investigated the chemical 

spraying regime to a cowpea insect pest in the field in the central part of DR Congo. The results finding that insect 

pest were below the economic threshold and grain yield is highly significant with the tree or two sprayings of 

Cypermethrin.  

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Insects’ pests of crops occupy a prominent place following the direct and indirect damage they cause to seasonal 

crops in the province of Lomami, Democratic Republic of Congo (D.R.C). Several authors have reported that 

everywhere in the world especially in the tropics and subtropical insects pest are recurrent problems on the crops 

Current Research in Agricultural Sciences 
2019 Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 37-53 
ISSN(e): 2312-6418 
ISSN(p): 2313-3716 
DOI: 10.18488/journal.68.2019.61.37.53 
© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 
 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 

https://www.doi.org/10.18488/journal.68.2019.61.37.53


Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(1): 37-53 

 

 
38 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

[1-4]. The direct consequences of arthropod pest are destroyed about 25 % of world's annual crop production [5] 

losses crops production quantitatively and qualitatively and reduce overall the value merchant [6]. 

In this context, they supply sufficient and healthy food to become a major problem in all areas of food 

production in the country. The repercussions of this situation at the overall level of the DRC are characterized by 

malnutrition (36% of the population), poverty (3%), underweight in children under 5 years (23.4%) especially in 

rural areas and in the end severe food insecurity for more than 6.4 million people [7].  

The scarcity of animal protein or the high price of this product aggravates the malnutrition and food insecurity. 

To break with these situations, it is necessary to give a high priority to the production of food legumes as a partial 

solution of the protein-rich food supply in the DRC or malnutrition and food crisis. Cowpea is one of the food 

legumes that play an important role in human nutrition in Africa and Asia because of the high protein content.  The 

biological value of its dry seeds contains 26.61% protein, 3.98% fat, 56.24% carbohydrate, 8.60% moisture, 3.84 ash, 

1.38% crude fiber, 1. 51% crude energy and 54.85% nitrogen in a crude extract [8].  

Among the essential amino acids are lysine, tryptophan and methionine [9, 10]. Cowpea seeds are easy to 

handle, transport and store. It plays an important role in the supply of nitrogen to the soil in cereal crops (maize, 

millet, sorghum) [11] and as green manure to maintain soil productivity [12]. Because of its strengths, it must 

make available this food. Efforts will have to be directed in improving its yield per unit area while substantially 

reducing losses due to pests.  

In the study area, cowpea production is more practiced by small-scale producers (60%), working on reduced 

areas whose yield is equivalent to about 1/5 of those obtained by farmers in major production areas worldwide.  

The National Institute of Statistics (INS) report in the DRC supports that agricultural production of dominant 

crops based on roots and tubers, cereals, pulses and other industrial plants, fruit and vegetable crops are often made 

according to a system of rain-fed production of substance and contributes to more or less 40.3% of GDP and 

occupies about 70% of the population [13].  This system is subject to hazards of all kinds that affect the 

performance of agriculture [14].  These alarming signals show that the ultimate challenge facing agriculture in the 

world and in Lomami province in particular is to increase production in order to provide food products without 

disruption. 

However, according to Mukendi, et al. [15] the cowpea yield is low in several production areas to meet the 

need for food in the DRC. It is mainly insect pests that are the main agents that cause losses in cowpea yield in the 

DRC [16]. Thus, more and more the presence and the management of insects on the cowpea cultivation affect the 

farmers (modality of control), the consumers (quantity offered and quality of the product) and the merchant (out of 

stock).  This culture offers great potential for food security, generates income and reduces poverty in Lomami 

province. Domestic production was estimated at 68,094 Tones, 48% of which was produced in the agricultural area 

of Lomami [16]. At the African and world level, Nigeria and Niger are the largest producers with less than 50% of 

production [17]. Outside Africa, this crop is cultivated in Asia and the Americas [18]. 

Although it has many agronomic, socio-economic and nutritional advantages, its production in the countryside 

is hampered by various challenges. The plan of management of pest and pesticide (PGPP) of 2018 estimates that 

several animal and plant pests, as well as fungal diseases, are rampant in cowpea farming in this agricultural area as 

reported by farmers.  The study report was done by Mukendi, et al. [19] in Ngandajika territory confirms that 

insect pests are to be largely responsible for cowpea yield loss. They most often belong to the following categories: 

(i) pod borers (Maruca vitrata), pod-sucking bug (PSB) complex of which Riptortus dentipes and Anoplocnemis curvipes, 

thripidae Megaluropthrips sjostedti are the most damaging; (ii) aphids (Aphis craccivora), (iii) beetles (Ootheca, medyia) 

ect. 

Insects pests pose the greatest threat to cowpea production and attack this crop from germination to storage 

[20, 21] ranging from plant leaf attack, stem mining, plant collapse, flower suckers, seed mummification and pods, 

internal rots, damaged seeds, and a high proportion of poor quality cowpea seed.  Indirectly, they transmit diseases 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(1): 37-53 

 

 
39 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

causing significant damage to crops [22]. Therefore, adequate measures to evade and protect cowpea enemies in the 

field are imperative to capitalize on the benefits of this crop.  All the time, obtaining a good yield and avoiding 

infestation by insect pests rely either on the use of resistant varieties or on the use of chemical molecules.  

Theoretically, according to Li, et al. [23] the use of productive and pest-tolerant varieties is compatible with 

the use of insecticides. Omolehin, et al. [24] claim that pesticides are unique sources of protection among pest. 

They do not directly affect productivity but serve to eliminate the factors that directly reduce the productivity of 

the crop. This method achieves high yields, although efforts are intensified to reduce the amount of chemical 

insecticides used worldwide through the introduction of IPM. Adeola, et al. [25] stated that pesticide treatments 

will probably remain the most important component of crop protection programs in the foreseeable future of 

agriculture, even in the face of new control methods exploiting the genetic resistance of plants and biological 

control.  

However, the effectiveness of pesticides depends mainly on their level of use in relation to the market price. 

This is in practice through the use of the recommended and approved molecules for use in cowpea cultivation in the 

country. But the choice of a molecule that offers the characteristics of efficiency and used security are lacking at the 

level of producers for this region of DR Congo.  Pesticides are often used indiscriminately by users who do not 

know how to read the labels or the recommended use rates. It is therefore agreed that farmers can acquire the 

technical knowledge of pesticide use by adjusting the level of use in relation to the price in the market.  This 

method must inevitably go through the evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of existing chemical molecules 

by researchers following the standards of integrated pest management.  However, these methods are until now 

limited, unclear and needs further investigations in cowpea crops at Lomami province, DR Congo. Although the use 

of pesticides is much more widespread in market gardening to control pests and diseases anarchically, which can 

endanger human, animal and environmental health. 

Generally, the control of insect pests in the field by the farmers of Ngandajika agricultural zone, particularly in 

the province of Lomami is not directed, only the chance of nature and providence is the rule observed. This attitude 

suggests a control through natural enemies. Overall, the damage is highly variable, as cowpea pests in cultivation 

vary greatly between field and year. However, the poor yield obtained in their fields suggests that this so-called 

natural control itself does not allow them to provide adequate protection as pointed out by Kamara, et al. [6]. Thus, 

the yields are low between 50 and 250 kg / ha [19] and in some cases zero yield. In fact, in all cowpea areas, the use 

of insecticides has been the mainstay of pest control and it is considered the most effective and dependable once 

insects have exceeded the economic injury level [11, 25]. Although some data can be gathered from general studies 

on pesticides used at the African level, in the DRC in particular, it is difficult to have global data about their use in 

the control of cowpea pests. If they still exist, this information is not available to researchers as a baseline. This 

state reflects a lack of knowledge at the level of research and peasants with regard to the management pest by use of 

chemical molecules in this area of production.  

However, in most cowpea production systems against the pest complex, chemical control alone or in the 

context of an integrated pest management program is required. Therefore, the effectiveness of chemical control on 

cowpea pests would be considered essential to put in place in order to provide a solid foundation for further 

scientific research on the efficiency and effectiveness of chemical control in Lomami province.  The results of this 

work will provide a basis of judicious use of chemical pesticide application on cowpea crop and can be found an 

option in integrated pest management programs. This argument would help increase the yield of more leguminous 

thus contributing to household and DRC food security. 

 

2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS 

What are effects of spraying regime with Cypermethrin on population of insect pests (R. dentipes, M. vitatra and 

A. varium) and yield components of cowpea? 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(1): 37-53 

 

 
40 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

2.1. Goal 

The objective of this study is to apprehend within the framework of a sustainable agriculture, the performance 

of the reduction of the frequencies of the chemical treatment in the protection against A. varium, M. vitrata and R. 

dentipes insects pests of cowpea. Specifically, the aim is to evaluate the efficacy of three spray regime of 

Cypermethrin on density of M. vitrata, A. varium and R. dentipes and the performance of yield components of cowpea 

under chemical control.  

 

2.2. Hypotheses 

To achieve this goal, we have developed hypotheses about the frequency of application that is thought to be 

appropriate for controlling insect pests of cowpea. These assumptions were made as follows: 

1. There is a relationship between spraying frequencies of Cypermethrin and density of A. varium, R. dentipes 

and M. vitrata in cowpea field 

2. There is a relationship between spraying of Cypermethrin at the sensitive stage of cowpea and components 

yield of cowpea.  

 

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS 

The study was conducted in the South Central Ecological Zone of DRC in the Lomami province, Ngandajika 

Territory. The territory has a subtropical climate of the Aw4 type according to the Köppen classification, with an 

average annual temperature of 25 °C and has a bimodal rainfall distribution. The first rains are mid-August with 

peaks in November and the second rains begin in mid-January to mid-May. This allows to realize two seasons of 

cultures in a year. However, the annual rainfall varies between 1200 and 1800 mm and a growing season of 140 - 

120 days respectively for season A and season B. The dominant rainfed crops are sown at the beginning of 

September and the harvest at the end of December.  Soils in the territory are variable and generally have fertile and 

infertile places. The soil type is a ferralsol according to the INEAC classification [26].  

The organic matter content is low and the nutrient macros such as nitrogen and phosphorus are limited in 

some places. The results of soil analysis in Ngandajika area by Muyayabantu, et al. [27] confirms this 

observation.Trials were conducted at three different sites Figure 1 one controlled and two peasant sites. The 

controlled environment is located at the Station of the National Institute for Agricultural Research and Research 

(INERA) of Ngandajika which has been used for experiments.In peasant environment it is the village of Mpiana and 

the village of Yamba Figure 1. These are areas of older agricultural exploitation, more advanced in the process of 

artificialization of the natural environment by deforestation, erosions, significant parasite pressure. The selection of 

these sites is linked to the proximity of the agricultural research center, the nucleus of agricultural innovation in the 

region. The accessibility of farmers from two villages to the research station was considered necessary to facilitate 

interactions between farmers and researchers during the experimental phase.  

The research center of INERA Ngandajika is located at (6º 45 South latitude, 23º 57' longitude and 790 m of 

altitude). The Mpiana site is located at (6° 36 'South latitude, 23 ° 56' East longitude, 685 m altitude) 28 km from 

the INERA center while the Yamba site is located at (6° 46 'South latitude and 24 ° 01' East longitude at 700 m 

altitude) at 11 km from agronomic research center. Both sites are historically well known for the production of 

rainfed crops and cowpeas. These sites face the problem of infestation of the cowpea culture by different insect pests 

that there is reason to approach the method of chemical control which is practiced without adequate knowledge in a 

peasant environment. 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(1): 37-53 

 

 
41 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 
Figure-1. Study Sites. 

         Source: authors’ illustration based on data obtained with Global Position System.  

 

The soil of these 3 sites (INERA, Yamba and Mpiana) of studies presents a sand-clay texture with heavy clay. 

It is of red to ocher red color, and of good structure.  

The clay fraction is small and varies by locality. The soil pH varies from 5.2 to 6.8. 

Three genetically improved varieties of cowpea were used in this study. These are Mujilanga, CNGKASC2-1-

1-T, CNGKASA7-2. These genotypes have presenting a yield stability and are less or resistance to the devastating 

bugs in Ngandajika zone according to the results of exploratory survey makes by Mukendi, et al. [16] of which the 

test of yield in field under chemical control didn't make the object of assessment again in Ngandajika. These are 

fixed lines within the legume antenna at the INERA Ngandajika research station using ecotypes from IITA and 

INERA.  

All these varieties have an erect growth habit, with an average vegetative cycle of 3 months and a smooth 

texture with brown seeds. The phytosanitary applications were carried out in medium volume treatment (12.5 l / 

500 m 2) from 25 days in the crop cycle where it is estimated that the plant will start the initiation of flower buds, a 

period of great attractiveness insects by the plant when pod-like insects have been seen feeding on young shoots, 

peduncles and green pods in development.  

The evaluation of the effectiveness of the Cypermethrin 10 CE chemical treatment (12.5 ml / 10 l) in the 

experiment was done in three frequencies on the divided plots according to the following schedule: 

(i) One application at 25 days of growth; 

(ii) Two applications on the 25th day after sowing then on the 35th day of growth;  

(iii) Three applications that begin on the 25th, 35th and 50th days of development and; 

(iv) A parcel without insecticide application or control. 

The application rates of insecticides were based on the three critical periods in cowpea growth and 

development, i.e. growing, blooming and pod development.  

The first chemical spraying with Cypermethrin at 25 days after sowing was recommended by Egho and 

Enujeke [28]. It has been used to estimate the rational use of pesticides in cowpea cultivated in Ngandajika.  



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(1): 37-53 

 

 
42 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

For each spraying regime, an insecticide formulation was applied with Unispray-Us-16, 15-liter manual 

pressure sprayer manufactured by Bloom Industrial Plastics Pvt Ltd'. 

The coverage of the mixture at each application is 12.5 l / 500 m2 as recommended [29]. 

The tests were conducted using a split-plot device [30] with three repetitions.  

The size of the main plots is 3m x 14.6 m and the subplots are 3 m x 2.4 m. Seeding was done at 60 cm x 20 cm 

spacing’s as recommended by Mukendi, et al. [15]; Mukendi, et al. [31]. Each line had 16 stand, 14 of which were 

inland, and each plot had 4 lines, a density of 128 plants per experimental plot at the rate of 2 plants per stand.  

The tests were carried out in pure culture. No basic fertilization was applied. The effects of chemical insecticide 

application on economically important pests of cowpea and the assessment of yield were observed. 

          

4. MEASURED VARIABLES 

Density of pest populations (R. dentipes, M. vitrata and A. varium) 

Insect sampling started at the initiation of flower buds, a period of great attractiveness of insects by the plant 

and was carried out every week. Plants in the selected area were carefully examined by carefully returning the 

leaves, flowers and pods for evaluation. This operation was conducted between 07h30 and 10h00 hours, when the 

insects were relatively less active and flew less when disturbed. Evaluation of insect density was physically counted 

at each visualization during the cowpea crop cycle. 

The number of adult R. dentipes bugs when observed, were counted separately in the middle two rows of each 

sub-plot each week between 8 and 10 hours but pooled before data analysis because their food-related damage could 

not be distinguished on the time of data collection. 

Similarly, monitoring of the density of M. vitrata larvae was estimated weekly from the flowering period to the 

maturity of the pods. His field observation was made by inspection of the plant showing M. vitrata on the flowers 

and pods or a quick visual examination of each plant was done to search for the insect, but also by the collection of 

the 10 flowers in each random plot, open on-site and examined for presence of entry or exit holes, M vitatra larvae 

and / or the presence of excreta.  

The infestation was evaluated once a week between 8h00 and 12h00 from the beginning of flowering. Counts 

were expressed in number of M vitatra per 10 flowers. A visual examination was performed on mature pods to 

determine the extent of damage caused by M vitatra. A. varium was also counted in the two middle rows when the 

insects were observed in the field. 

 

4.1. Damage to Pods 

The mature pods were harvested from all plots. During harvest, the infested pods were separated from the 

healthy pods and their number and recorded. The presence of insect pests was used to evaluate pod damage 

(shriveling, twisting, stunting, constriction, and entry / exit holes of lepidopteran bugs on pods) assessed by 

examining 20 pods selected randomly from ten plants per sampling area. The damage was then expressed as a 

percentage of the total number of pods assessed per plot. 

The determination of grain yields was made on each plot at harvest. All 10-plant pods were randomly selected 

from the middle two rows to determine various yield parameters and injury. The data collected included the 

number of pods per plant, the number of pods per peduncle, the pod length, the number of seeds per pod, and the 

weight of the one hundred seeds. The grains obtained after threshing the pods were sun-dried to a moisture content 

of 12%. Cowpea grains from each plot were weighed and the results were extrapolated in kilograms per hectare (kg 

/ ha) for each treatment. The weight of pods and seeds was determined using a sensitive weighing scale. The 

formula of Ahmed, et al. [32], Sujatha and Bharpoda [33] was used to calculate the percentage increase in yield 

over control. 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(1): 37-53 

 

 
43 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

% increase over control                        (1) 

4.2. Data Analysis 

All data were exposed to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the R3.5 software. To normalize the data and 

stabilize the variances before any analysis, the mean numbers of insect pests as well as the average proportions 

underwent a transformation Log10 (x + 1) (2) and square root √x + 0.5 (3), where x = numbers of insects, or x = 

percentage of damaged seeds. Comparison of treatments, and in case of significant difference, the Tukey HD test 

was used to separate the averages. All these analyzes were performed at the 5% level. 

 

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

Field efficacy data for the frequency of application of Cypermetrin against R. dentipes, A. varium and M. vitatra 

of cowpea in tree locations are presented in the Table 1. 

 
Table-1. Density of pest pressure of cowpea (R. dentipes, M. vitatra, A. varium) in tree locations. 

 
  

R. dentipes M. vitatra A. varium 
     SITES     

Genotypes Doses INERA MPIANA INERA INERA MPIANA YAMB
A 

INERA YAMBA 

V1 

D0 7,3 ± 8,9 11 ± 0,0 17,6 ± 5,0 1,6 ± 0,5 1,7 ± 0,5 0,6 ± 1,5 17,6±5,
0 

2,6 ±1,5 
D2 4,0 ± 2,0 9,3 ± 0,5 9,3 ± 2,5 0,0 ± 0,0 1,2 ± 0,3 0,6 ± 1,5 9,3±2,5 6,0 ± 2,6 

D3 1,0 ± 0,0 4,3 ± 2,3 2,0  ± 1,7 0,0 ± 0,0 0,8 ± 0,4 0,3 ± 0,7 2,0± 1,7 5,0 ± 4,0 
D1 3,0 ± 2,0 9,7 ± 3,0 8,6 ± 3,5 1,6 ± 1,5 1,4 ± 0,8 1,0 ± 1,3 8,6± 3,5 7,0 ± 5,0 

V2 

D0 5,6 ± 4,3 8,3 ± 1,1 15,6 ± 8,3 1,0 ± 0,5 1,2 ± 0,2 1,6 ± 0,5 15,6±8,
3 

1,3 ±1,5 

D2 3,6 ± 4,3 7,3 ± 3,7 11,0 ± 5,2 0,3 ± 0,7 1,0 ± 0,6 0,8 ± 0,0 11,0±5,
2 

5,3 ± 4,9 

D3 0,6 ± 0,7 5,0 ± 3,6 6,6 ± 2,3 0,0 ± 0,0 0,4 ± 0,4 1,9 ± 0,5 6,6± 2,3 8,0 ± 1,7 

D1 5,0 ± 2,5 6,3 ± 1,1 10,0 ± 5,2 0,3 ± 0,5 1,0 ± 0,4 1,0 ± 1,3 10,0±5,
2 

4,3 ± 5,7 

V3 

D0 4,3 ± 1,2 10,0 ±1,7 9,6 ± 6,0 1,6 ± 2,9 1,6 ± 0,4 0,6 ± 1,1 9,6± 6,0 5,6 ± 2,0 

D2 3,0 ± 3,0 7,0 ± 1,7 7,3 ± 4,7 0,0 ± 0,0 1,0 ± 0,8 0,6 ± 0,5 7,3± 4,7 7,6 ± 4,1 

D3 0,0 ± 0,0 4,3 ± 4,5 4,6 ± 1,52 0,0 ± 0,0 0,2 ± 0,3 0,4 ± 0,0 4,6±1,5
2 

3,0 ± 3,6 

D1 4,0 ± 1,0 5,7 ± 3,7 5,6 ± 1,52 0,0 ± 0,0 1,2 ± 0,5 0,3 ± 0,8 5,6±1,5
2 

3,0 ± 2,6 

Mean of Sites 
 

3,4 ± 3,5b 7,60± 3,1a 9,0±5,6a 0,5 ± 1,1b 1,1±0,6a 0,8±0,9b 9,0±5,6a 4,9±3,6b 

Mean V1   7,36±5,5a   0,94±0,9b   4,8±5,6a 

Mean V2   7,05±5,1a
b 

  0,93±0,9b   5,1±6,0a 

Mean V3   5,11±3,2b   0,66±1,0a   3,8±4,1a 
Mean D0   9,48±5,9b   1,37±1,0a   5,85±7,4a 

Mean D1   6,55±3,7b   0,65±0,6a
b 

  5,18±4,9ab 

Mean D2   3,48±3,4c   0,46±0,7b   3,25±3,24
b Mean D3   6,51±3,4b   0,88±1,0a

b 
  4,29±4,6b 

p-Sites 
  

0.00169 
  

0.0015   0.000 

p-Genotype 
  

3.36e-07 
  

0.0015   0.672 

p-Dose 
  

6.82e-10 
  

0.0165   0.000 

S x G 
  

0,1532 
  

0,183   0,2062 
S x D 

  
8,8E-01 

  
0,197   4,25E-05 

G x D 
  

0,4853 
  

0,658   0,6708 

S x D x G 
  

0,5145 
  

0,954   0,3846 
 

The average density of A. varium cowpea pest during the observation period with the application of 

Cypermethrin shows that the population varies between 3.4 to 9.0 individuals between the 3 sites; 3.5 to 5.1 

individuals between the 3 varieties and 3.2 to 5.8 between doses of insecticides. These results indicated that all 

treatments reduced the pest population compared to untreated controls throughout the observation period.  

Insecticide doses applied in two and three frequencies during the crop cycle significantly affect density A. 

varium compared to untreated plots. 

 The lowest density was observed at two frequencies with 3.2 to 5.8 on untreated plants in the trial. Similarly, 

the site factor showed the existence of a very significant difference (p = 0.000) with respect to the density of A. 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(1): 37-53 

 

 
44 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

varium. But the genotype factor does not show any significant effect compared with the infestation of A. varium (p = 

0.6).  

There was significant interaction between site and regime spray (S x D) (p = 0.000) for A. varium density at 

each Cypermethrin spray rate. However, the interactions S x G, G x D and S x G x D were not significant. The 

density of R. dentipes had shown populations of 3.4 to 8.6 between sites, 5.1 to 7.6 for varieties and 3.4 to 9.4 

individuals for pesticide frequencies. The pressure exerted by this insect was stronger between the sites, the 

varieties and the doses of pesticides. The differences observed were very significant (p = 0.001). Referring to the 

pesticide frequency two applications showed a very low density of R. dentipes 3.2 to 9.4 individuals counted on non-

pesticide treated plots in the study.  

 
Table-2. Effects of insecticide spray regimes on seed aborted and pod damage. 

  

% Seed damage 
 

% aborted seed 
 

   SITES   

Genotypes Doses INERA MPIANA YAMBA INERA MPIANA YAMBA 

V1 

D0 46,5 ± 0,7 40,9 ± 1,5 72,3 ± 6,5 30,4± 1,7 21,3 ± 2,2 65,0 ± 2,0 

D2 29,7 ± 1,1 14,8 ± 1,3 83,3 ± 4,0 22,5± 1,0 10,6 ± 1,3 22,3 ±  5,0 

D3 28,7 ± 1,2 9,0 ± 2,0 77,3 ± 1,8 13,5± 3,0 12,6 ± 1,3 16,6 ± 2,4 

D1 32,5 ± 0,8 13,1 ± 1,7 72,0 ± 1,5 21,1± 1,6 18,4 ± 4,3 30,7  ± 3,6 

V2 

D0 26,7 ± 3,5 23,0 ± 2,5 73,6 ± 8,8 13,7± 1,9 12,5 ± 1,8 18,4 ± 0,5 

D2 13,9 ± 2,5 24,1 ±1,8 84,6 ± 6,1 7,96± 1,7 21,3 ± 0,6 26,8 ± 1,6 

D3 20,1 ± 1,4 19,6 ± 5,3 75,9 ± 3,6 19,0± 2,2 11,1 ± 1,3 16,7 ± 1,7 

D1 14,0 ± 4,9 21,3 ± 1,3 53,0±39,1 24,7± 1,9 20,4 ± 0,9 23,8 ± 2,4 

V3 

D0 40,7 ± 3,4 16,5 ± 0,5 85,9 ± 6,9 30, ± 1,9 21,1 ± 1,9 28,4 ± 6,4 

D2 7,8 ± 1,7 25,1 ± 4,9 72,0±10,8 14,9± 1,4 10,7  ± 1,5 21,0 ± 1,1 

D3 8,4 ± 3,0 15,7 ± 2,8 83,0 ± 4,8 13,3± 1,3 19,5 ± 1,7 40,6 ± 6,4 

D1 26,3 ± 1,3 47,5 ± 16 72,3 ± 2,4 14,5± 1,0 16,5 ± 1,8 18,4 ± 0,7 

Mean Sites 

 

24,6±11,8b 22,5±11,8c 75,4±13,5a 18,8±7,1b 16,3 ± 4,7c 27,4±13,6a 

Mean V1 
  

43,36±26,03a 
  

23,78±14,2a 
 

Mean V2 
  

37,52±27,61a 
  

18,05±14,2a 
 

Mean V3 
  

41,8±29,22a 
  

21,81±8,6 
 

Mean D0 
  

47,37±23,9a 
  

26,87±15,3a 
 

Mean D1 
  

39,52±30,2a 
  

17,57±6,6bc 
 

Mean D2 
  

37,53±30,4a 
  

18,16±8,8c 
 

Mean D3 
  

39,15±25,2a 
  

20,96±5,1ab 
 

p-Sites 

  

0.00169 

  

0.0497 

 p-Genotype 

  

0.2091 

  

0.3732 

 p-Dose 

  

0.23152 

  

0.0033 

 S x G 
  

0,000216 
  

5,88E-11 
 S x D 

  

3,10E-06 

  

6,38E-09 

 G x D 

  

0,00017 

  

2,00E-16 

 S x D x G 

  

0,00016 

  

2,00E-16 

 
 

 

The genotype effect shows that V3 is less infested with 5.1 individuals than the two varieties V1 (7.3 

individuals) and V2 (7.0 individuals). However the significant interaction was between the site and the doses used 

were detected for the number of R. dentipes. While no significant interaction between the site and the genotype, 

genotype x dose and site x genotype x doses was detected on the density of R. dentipes. In the same period, the 

population of M vitatra was very significantly affected by the site effect, the genotype effect and the dose effect of 

pesticides (p = 0.001) Table 1. The results further show that interaction effects for M. vitatra density with respect to 

S x G, S x D, D x G and S x G x D are without significant differences.With regard to the density of M. vitatra 

observed in the table of result-2, it emerges that the sites showed a very significant difference (p = 0.001). The 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(1): 37-53 

 

 
45 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Mpiana site appears to have had a very strong 1.1 individual density compared to both individual INERA 0.5 and 

Yamba 0.8 individual sites.  Similarly for the pesticide dose effect, application at two frequencies seems to have 

fewer individuals 0.46 against 1.37 individuals in the control plot that received no dose of cypermethrin. Variance 

analysis supports the existence of a very significant effect (p = 0.001). The genotype effect with respect to M. vitatra 

infestation seems to be strongly evidenced by the existence of a very significant difference (p = 0.0001). The V3 

genotype showed a low rate of individual%. Vitatra 0.6 to. 0.9 individual on the V1 and V2. 

Table 2 shows the effects of pesticide regimes on the percentage of seed damaged and seed aborted during the 

study at the three sites represented by INERA, Mpiana and Yamba. The observation with respect to the average 

percentage of damaged seeds in pods in this study showed different levels of damage in relation to Cypermethrin 

spray rates at the three sites. The percentage of seed damaged according to the ANOVA model, the preliminary 

results of the data show that the site has very significant averages, varying between 22.5 % (Mpiana) and 75.4 % 

(Yamba) (p = 0.001) as recorded in Table 2. While the dose effect averaging between 37.53% (D2) and 47.3% (D0) 

and the genotype effect showed variability that was 37.5% (V2) and 43.3% (V1), but the analysis of the variance did 

not significant (p = 0.2) for the genotype and the dose effect, respectively. However, the interaction phenomenon, 

reveals that the S x G, S x D, G x D and S x G x D have very significant effects of the number of damaged seeds (p 

= 0.0001).  

Similarly, the percentage of seeds aborted per pod in this study Table 2 shows significant effects (p = 0.049), 

16.3% at Mpiana site against 27.4% at Yamba site. But pesticide doses were very significant (p = 0.003). However, 

the genotype effect does not show a significant effect (p = 0.37) compared to the percentage of seed aborted in this 

study. While the interactions between S x G, S x D, G x D and S x G x D were very significant (p = 0.0000) Table 

2. Podpedo: pod per peduncle, podplant, pod per plant, pod length: pod height seedpod: seed per pod: genotype, D: 

dose spray, S: site, p: plus value,  Analysis of variance for yield components of cowpea under doses spray in three 

locations as shown in Table 3.  The effect of insecticide spray regimes on the yield components of cowpea in this 

study were significantly (p = 0.001) between sites. We also note that the number of pods per peduncle between 

genotype, dose spray and the interactions between the effects involved in the study were no significant Table 3.The 

observation of the number of pods per plant showed significant effects by site, genotypes, doses spray and 

interaction G x D factors Table 3. But interactions between S x G, S x D and S x D x G were no significant effects 

on pods per plant. 

 The site factor was significant (p = 0.049), Mpiana had a higher number of seed pods (12), followed by INERA 

site 8 pod / plant and at Yamba site 4 pods / plant. The genotypes showed very significant differences between 

them (p = 0.001). V1 had 8.8 pod per plant, V2 with 7.7 pods per plant and V3 had 8.1 pods per plant in this study. 

The doses applied in this experiment also show the existence of a very significant difference (p = 0.000). 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(1): 37-53 

 

 
46 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Table-3. Effect of yield components of the cowpea. 

Sites Genotype Doses Podpedo Pod Plant Pod length Seed pod Yield Kg/ha 

INERA 

V1 

D0 1,3 ± 0,57 5,333 ± 1,52 15,5 ± 0,15 11,6 ± 0,57 318,4 ± 42,90 
D2 1,3 ± 0,57 9,67 ± 2,89 18,4 ± 1,41 13,6 ± 0,57 775,5 ± 106,3 
D3 1,0 ± 0,00 10,00 ± 2,65 16,6 ± 0,15 12,6 ± 0,57 750,0 ± 347,0 
D1 1,3 ± 0,57 6,67 ± 3,06 18,4 ± 0,15 13,6 ± 0,57 679,1 ± 314,0 

V2 

D0 1,3 ± 0,57 7,00 ± 1,73 15,4 ± 0,26 13,6 ± 0,57 442,1 ± 166,9 
D2 1,3 ± 0,57 8,00 ± 2,65 16,2 ± 0,15 11,6 ± 1,15 773,0 ± 236,0 
D3 2,3 ± 0,57 8,33 ± 2,89 16,8 ± 0,10 12,3 ± 1,52 1081 ± 237,0 
D1 1,3 ± 0,57 7,66 ± 1,52 15,4 ± 0,36 11,6 ± 0,57 490,7 ± 160,2 

V3 

D0 1,3 ± 0,57 5,66 ± 0,57 15,6 ± 0,57 13,6 ± 0,57 537,0 ± 154,7 
D2 1,0 ± 0,00 9,66 ± 1,52 16,8 ± 2,05 13,6 ± 0,57 1023,0 ± 262,0 
D3 1,3 ± 0,57 9,33 ± 3,06 15,2 ± 0,10 11,6 ± 0,57 745,3 ± 81,40 
D1 1,3 ± 0,57 8,66 ± 0,57 16,4 ± 0,10 13,6 ± 0,57 699,0 ± 306,0 

Mean Site 
  

1,3±0,5b 8,0±2,4b 16,42±1,2b 12,8±1,1b 692,8 ± 273,9b 

Mpiana 

V1 

D0 1,0 ± 0,00 8,66 ± 1,15 15,5 ± 0,00 12,6 ± 0,57 633,0 ± 83,7 
D2 1,6 ± 0,57 15,67 ± 6,43 17,5 ± 0,00 13,6 ± 0,57 925,0 ± 52,3 
D3 1,6 ± 0,57 18,33 ± 4,62 18,0 ± 0,00 16,0 ± 0,00 895,1 ± 48,7 
D1 1,3 ± 0,57 9,66 ± 0,57 18,0 ± 0,00 15,6± 0,57 862,0 ± 29,3 

V2 

D0 1,3 ± 0,57 9,66 ± 0,57 18,3 ± 0,28 13,6 ± 0,57 529,0 ± 69,5 
D2 1,3 ± 0,57 10,00± 0,00 18,5 ± 0,00 12,6 ± 0,57 917 ± 32,1 
D3 1,0± 0,00 13,67 ± 3,21 17,9 ± 0,11 11,6 ± 0,57 759,5 ±138,7 
D1 1,6 ±  0,57 11,67 ± 2,89 16,2 ± 0,52 13,6 ± 0,57 958,0 ± 241 

V3 

D0 1,3 ± 0,57 10,66 ± 1,15 16,5 ± 0,00 14,6 ± 0,57 451,6 ± 63,2 

D2 1,7 ± 0,57 13,00 ±1,00 17,5 ± 0,00 12,6 ± 0,57 1101,0 ± 281 
D3 1,0± 0,00 11,67 ± 2,31 17,0 ± 0,05 12,3 ± 0,57 838,2 ± 114,8 

D1 1,7 ± 0,57 11,66 ± 0,57 15,5 ± 0,00 10,3± 0,57 721,5 ± 96,4 
Mean Site 

  
1,3±0,4b 12,02±3,5a 17,2±1,0a 13,3±1,6b 799,2 ±225,2a 

Yamba 

V1 

D0 1,00 ± 0,00 2,66 ± 0,57 16,2 ± 0,20 14,0 ± 1,00 130,8 ± 59,3 
D2 1,00 ± 0,00 7,00 ± 0,00 17,5 ± 0,50 17,0 ± 0,15 265,6 ± 29,6 
D3 1,33 ± 0,57 7,00 ± 0,00 17,6 ± 0,26 18,0 ± 0,40 302,6 ± 52,0 
D1 1,00 ± 0,00 6,00 ± 0,00 16,4 ± 0,10 16,1 ± 0,10 253,6 ± 30,0 

V2 

D0 2,00 ± 0,00 3,33 ±  0,57 14,9 ± 0,20 15,0 ±1,00 82,4 ± 22,6 
D2 1,66 ± 0,57 4,00  ± 1,00 16,2 ± 0,17 16,0 ± 1,00 207,3 ± 14,28 
D3 1,66 ± 0,57 5,00 ± 1,00 16,4 ± 0,25 15,6 ± 1,52 218,3 ± 70,9 
D1 1,66 ± 0,57 4,33 ± 0,57 15,4 ± 0,15 15,6± 0,57 125,4 ± 24,7 

V3 

D0 1,00 ± 0,00 4,00 ± 0,00 14,0 ± 0,73 13,3 ± 0,57 131,2 ± 33,9 
D2 2,00 ± 0,00 4,33 ± 1,52 16,6 ± 0,26 14,3 ± 0,57 214,1 ± 59,0 
D3 1,33 ± 0,57 4,66 ± 0,57 16,8 ± 0,30 16,6 ± 0,57 277,0 ± 60,2 
D1 1,00 ± 0,00 4,66 ± 0,57 15,4 ± 0,20 15,0 ± 1,00 192,1 ± 64,6 

Mean Sites 
 

1,38±0,4b 4,75±1,4c 16,1±1,0b 15,5±1,4a 200,04±78,04c 
Mean V1  1,25± 0,4a 8,88±4,8c 17,15±1,08a 14,56±1,9a 565,88±297,31a 
Mean V2  1,55± 0,5a 7,72±3,4a 16,48±1,1a 13,61±1,7a 548,58±365,13a 
Mean V3  1,33± 0,4a 8,16±3,4a 16,13±1,1a 13,5±1,6a 577,63±346,35a 
Mean D0  1,29 ± 

± 
±0,46a 

6,33±2,8b 15,79±1,1b 13,59±1,1a 361,71±210,2b 
Mean D1  1,44 ± 

± 
±0,50a 

9,03±4,2a 17,25±1,0a 13,93±1,7a 689,14±380a 
Mean D2  1,40 ± 

0,57a 
9,77±4,7a 16,94±0,8ab 14,11±2,4a 651,83±324a 

Mean D3  1,37 ± 
0,49a 

7,88±2,9a 16,36±1,1ab 13,93±1,9 553,31±315,1a 
p-Sites 

 
0.0016 0.0497 0.0016 0.0016 0.04978707 

p-Genotypes 
 

0.7361 0.0016 0.2091 0.3730 0.7794932 
p-Doses 

 
0.6086 0.0003 0.0165 0.9130 0.00094 

S x G 
 

0,0891 0,5193 3,00E-08 4,41E-06 0,2463 
S x D 

 
0,2597 0,376 1,35E-06 6,67E-09 0,00563 

G x D 
 

0,6877 0,003 4,06E-08 8,81E-11 0,38737 
S x D x G 

 
0,0645 0,471 1,66E-08 7,89E-09 0,07277 

     Source: own research (2016). 

 

Similarly, pod height and number of seeds in pod were significantly affected by the locations (p = 0.001). The pod 

height varied from 16.1 cm at the Yamba site to 17.1 cm Mpiana. The table of means Table 3 revealed that Mpiana 

location had the highest mean pod height of 17.1 cm. There were no significant difference among the genotype 

effect for the pod height (p = 0.20) and seed size per pod (p = 0.37) Table 4. Highly significant difference among pod 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(1): 37-53 

 

 
47 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

height and seed size were revealed between interactions for G x D, S x G, S x D and S x D x G Table 3. But the 

number of seeds are not influenced by the dose spray, the results was no significant (p = 0.91).  

Cowpea grain yield ranged from 200 to 792 kg among different locations in the study Table 4. The analysis of 

variance showed a significant difference (p= 0.049). The average yields are 692.8 kg / ha; 799.2 kg / ha and 200 kg 

/ ha respectively for INERA, Mpiana and Yamba. Effect of doses spray on the yield parameter of three cowpea 

varieties reported in Table 4, shows that there was a highly significant difference between yield per genotype (p = 

0.0009). But there was no significant difference between the genotype effect (p = 0.77). 

However, no significant differences were found among interactions between G x D, S x G and S x D x G for 

grain yield Table 3. But there was a significant difference among grain yield for interaction S x D (p=0.005). The 

doses spray with Cypermetrin showed that the average yields recorded give 361.7, 689.1, 651.8 and 553.3 kg / ha 

respectively with D0, D1, D2, and D3. 

 
Table-4. Increase yield over control (%). 

 Increase yield over control (%) 
Site INERA 0 spray 1Spray 2Spray 3Spray Means 

CNGKASC2-1-1-T 00 113 142 187 147.3 

CNGKASE2-0-T 00 40 88 125 84.3 

CNGKASC5-1-1A-M 00 53 112 196 120.3 

Mean 00 42.3 114 169  

SITE MPIANA      

CNGKASC2-1-1-T 00 21 39 50 36.6 

CNGKASE2-0-T 00 59 85 143 95.6 

CNGKASC5-1-1A-M 00 25 69 87 60.3 

Mean 00 35 64.3 93.3  

SITE YAMBA      

CNGKASC2-1-1-T 00 80 103 103 95.3 

CNGKASE2-0-T 00 81 86 141 102.6 

CNGKASC5-1-1A-M 00 52 151 164 122.3 

Mean 00 71 113.3 135  

         Source: own research (2016). 

 

The efficacy of spray regimes of Cypermethrin against insect pests of cowpea reflected on seed yield Table 3 as 

well as percent increase in yield over treatments plot than untreated plot Table 4 of cowpea grain seed for each 

location. In each location, three spray regimes of Cypermethrin increased grain yield of all cowpea genotypes used. 

In INERA, application of insecticide three times increased mean general of grain yield by 169 %. In Mpiana, mean 

general of increased grain yield with three times of spray Cypermethrin was 93.3%. However in Yamba site three 

spray of Cypermethrin recorded the highest increased grain yield for 135%.  

 

6. DISCUSSION 

Generally, the phytosanitary treatments aim to minimize the economic loss caused by insects’ pests in full 

culture by insecticidal effect or insect repellent. This study was conducted to examine the effect of insecticide 

spraying frequencies on density of cowpea insects’ pest. Our experimental results demonstrate that plots that 

received no insecticide dose harbor a higher density of economically important pests of cowpea than on plots that 

received chemical treatment.  This important presence of A. varium, M. vitrata and R. dentipes played a significant 

role in substantially reducing cowpea yield and yield components in this study.  The unconditional presence of these 

three insects’ R. dentipes M. vitrata and A. varium in the three sites reveals that these pests recruitment under natural 

field conditions have the importance as a pest of economic interest in the Ngandjika area of the DRC. This 

observation is in agreement with Mukendi, et al. [19]; Ezeaku, et al. [9] and Kamara, et al. [6]. 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(1): 37-53 

 

 
48 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

The effectiveness of Cypermetrin in controlling this three pests monitored in cowpea culture showed that tree 

spraying frequencies are essential to keep pests below the threshold of economic. This result is in agreement with 

Egho and Enujeke [28]. In another experiment, Ahmed, et al. [32] found that tree spray regimes for SAMPEA 7 

control heavy infestation by pod sucking bugs.  

It is possible to dispense with the application of the first dose at 25 days if the entomophauna complex of 

cowpeas is not present in the phenological period. Regarding R. dentipes, a heteropterous (bug) very polyphagous 

usually seen resting on foliage or feeding on young shoots and green pods. This pest is mobile that passes quite 

easily from one crop to another. The various damage observed are sucking the sap from the developing young 

shoots and green pods causing seed deformation, premature seed drying seed abortion and pod shivelling with 

resulting economic loss of seed green stump bites that show internal rot, seed mummification, and a high 

proportion of poor quality cowpea seed [34] as is the case in cotton [35]. As for M vitrata, it is one of the most 

serious pests of the attacking cowpea, flower buds, flowers, pods as Jayasinghe, et al. [36]. With regard to the 

results of application of Cypermethrin, whatever the number of sprays in the control of R. dentipes, M vitrata and A. 

varium, it appears that cypermethrin seems to be effective on the pest. A result similar has also been found in 

previous studies of R. dentipes by Degri, et al. [34]. 

Our results corroborate with the Sharma [37] observations that seem to demonstrate that 10 to 15 days apart 

in the application of Cypermethrin are efficient against M. vitrata. [38] showed in soybean similar results with 

Tefluenzuron, Flubendiamine, Chlorantraniliprole + lambda-cyhalothrin and chloropyrifos on M. vitrata.  

Frequency of pesticide application generally affected the reduction of insect infestations and led to increases in 

cowpea yield. The present results are consistent with those of Ezeaku, et al. [9], Dzemo, et al. [39], Elizabeth, et al. 

[40] who reported that the efficient use of insecticides against insect pests of cowpea is beneficial.  The degree of 

pest control with Cypermethrin results in reduced of damage to the cowpea pods including the newly developing 

young shoots, peduncles and green pods. This is in line with the results reported by Toffa, et al. [41], Degri, et al. 

[34]. In this study, applications of Cypermethrin at 35 and 50 days of sowing resulted in differences in the yield 

between 361 than 689 kg either a gain of 64% and 169% indistinctly of the sites and varieties. Our results 

corroborate with the Egho [42] who the Cypermethrin application proved effective in controlling insect pests, 

judging from the yields per ha-1 (517.90 kg ha-1 to 822.20 kg ha-1). Ajeigbe, et al. [43] who reported that Mono + 

Cyper + Cyper (Monocrotophos as 1st spray, Cypermethrin as 2nd and 3rd sprays) produced the highest grain 

yields which were significantly higher than yields obtained from 7 and 4 other treatments, respectively. 

Our results are similar to those of Kamara, et al. [6] who found in their studies that pesticide application at the 

flowering stage increases yield by 72%, while application at flowering and pod formation show an increase of 126%.  

Our assumption is that control pest in the flowering phase and post flowering phase is essential if we want to obtain 

a good yield of cowpea crop. This observation is confirmed by the results of Dzemo, et al. [39] who observed that 

plots treated concomitantly with sowing, flowering and before pod formation did not differ significantly with plots 

treated once at flowering and twice at pod formation. This indicates that control at the flower phase and pods 

should be considered as potential because it limits very significantly the density of the insects and the damage on 

the yield components. Thus, in the present study, the use of Cypermethrin in 3 frequencies has made the control 

more efficient and considerably enhanced the grain yields obtained than those from the unsprayed control plots. 

The findings of this study are supported by Ogah [44] who reported that the control post flowering insect pests 

significant increase in grain yields. 

M vitrata which despite its very short life cycle has a high reproductive potential, which allows it to maintain its 

species. The treatment made during the flowering phase, a period that often coincides with the explosion phase of 

M. vitrata, allowed its control in this study. This observation corroborates with the studies of Grigolli, et al. [38], 

Oghiakhe, et al. [45]. In addition, Cypermethrin is a pyrethrinoide, a stable, broad spectrum activity that works for 

2 to 3 weeks, by contact and ingestion on a large number of insects at low doses. The low density results obtained 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(1): 37-53 

 

 
49 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

from the insects in the treated plots confirm the effectiveness of Cypermethrin in protecting cowpeas in the field 

against the insects R. dentipes M. vitrata and A. varium which attack the flowers and pods. Compared to earlier 

practices of spraying 8-10 times a chemical insecticide in the insect pest control process in several cowpea 

production areas, reduction in 3 spray frequencies with Cypermethrin from flowering, and pod formation The 

theory of Sexton, et al. [46] concludes that the reduction in the number of frequencies is of critical importance from 

the point of view of cost reduction, environmental risks. However, our results corroborate with the findings of 

Ezeaku, et al. [9] who used cypermethrin and Dimethoate. They are in agreement with Egho [42]; Egho and 

Enujeke [28] who used in his study molecules based on Cypermethrin; Chlorpyrifos 480g / l E.C., Chlorpyrifos 475 

+ Cypermethrin 47.5, Dimethoate 400, Imidacloprid 70 WG to control cowpea pests. Oyewale, et al. [47] reported 

that Cymbush 10 EC effectively controlled insect pests during flowering. Dzemo, et al. [39] used Lambda 

Cyhalothrin; Liao and Lin [48] tested height insecticides the result reported that Deltametrin and carbaryl 

appeared more effective because increased the pod yield and reduced the heavy losses caused by M. testulalis. [49] 

making use of six Lambda-cyhalothrin on flower trhrips, pod bores and pod sucking bugs. The results showed that 

infestations of all target pest were significantly lower and offered the best protection resulting in higher grain yield. 

The different chemical molecules used alone or as a mixture seem to be the promising control agents against insects 

in different stages of growth and reproduction of cowpea. There were significantly better than untreated plots. The 

findings of these studies corroborate with the results obtained with simple Cypermethrin in the control of 

economically important pests of cowpea. 

The results of this study clearly indicate that insect infestations during flowering and pod formation are factors 

that limit the production of sufficient cowpea in the production area. This observation is in agreement with Sujatha 

and Bharpoda [33] which showed that cowpea is more vulnerable to insects during the reproductive stage than at 

the vegetative stage. Application of insecticide treatments at these stages effectively controls M. vitrata R. dentipes 

and A. varium infestation and ensures optimum pod yield. It is assumed that the first spray protects the flowers 

against M vitrata infestation, leading to a drastic drop in the M vitrata population and a low percentage of damaged 

pods in the line by Oyewale, et al. [49]. This proves the effectiveness of Cypermethrin. This observation is in 

agreement with Sani and Umar [50]. While the second and third treatments have affected the maintenance below 

the economic threshold of the population of pests of economic importance compared to the untreated plots 

indistinctly of production sites and varieties. This led to a lower percentage of pod damage and seed abortion 

compared to the control. These results corroborate with Ahmed, et al. [32]; Oyewale, et al. [49]. 

The results of this study clearly indicate that insecticide application remains an effective strategy to control 

cowpea insect pests in the field. 

The combination of this spraying regime can be used in conjunction with other pest management options to 

significantly improve cowpea seed yields as a source of vegetable protein in local diets, and to generate disposable 

income for subsistence farmers. 

 

7. CONCLUSION 

This study confirmed that pests (A. varium, M. vitatra and R. dentipes) were a major impediment to cowpea 

production in Ngadajika, Lomami province. The spraying regime of Cypermethrin have considerable potential for 

managing the pest of cowpea. The population of all target pest were found to decrease in plot control to untreated 

plot. Higher grain yield were recorded in plot with Cypermethrin treatments. 

Hence, famers can use two or three spray regimes of Cypermethrin for effective pest control because the insect 

pests are maintain below the economic threshold. All spraying regimes reduced insect populations compared to the 

untreated control. Plots treated with Cypermethrin also recorded the highest yields of cowpea seed. Innovative of 

monitoring programs and thresholds for spray have been developed and can serve alternative pest management 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(1): 37-53 

 

 
50 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

options for reducing the cost, in oder to achieve a sustainable level of agricultural and a high level of environmental 

and human health protection in cowpea field in DR Congo. 

 

Funding: This study received no specific financial support.    
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.  
Contributors/Acknowledgement: The research findings are the part of the research work of PhD 
Program of the first author to be submitted to the Department of Crop Science (Faculty of Agriculture) 
University of Lubumbashi, Southern part of DR Congo. We are very grateful to Mr. Theodore Tshilumba 
Mukadi, and to Mr. Maurice Mpoyi to have helped a lot in the field monitoring and data collection. The 
authors thank Mr Olivier Mulamba responsible for INERA Ngandajika to have availed cowpea gemplasm 
and to have allowed experiments to be conducted at Ngandajika INERA research station. 

 

REFERENCES 

[1] A. E. B. Adegbidi, "Elaboration of the agricultural production plan for farmers in rainfed agriculture in Benin: An 

analysis of the incidence of rainfall in the cotton zone of North Benin," University of PhD Thesis, Groningen, 2003. 

[2] J. T. Mehinto, P. Atachi, M. Elégbédé, M. Elégbédé, and M. Tamo, "Comparative efficacy of insecticides of different 

kinds in the management of cowpea insects in central Benin," Journal of Applied Biosciences, vol. 84, pp. 7695-7706, 

2014.Available at: https://doi.org/10.4314/jab.v84i1.1. 

[3] W. Zhang, E. Katoa, F. Bianchib, P. Bhandarya, G. Gortc, and W. Werf, "Farmers’ perceptions of crop pest severity in 

Nigeria are associated with landscape, agronomic and socio-economic factors," Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 

vol. 259, pp. 159-167, 2018.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2018.03.0044. 

[4] T. Brévault, A. Renou, J. F. Vayssières, G. Aùadji, F. Assogba-Komlan, M. D. Diallo, H. De Bon, K. Diarra, A. 

Hamadoun, J. Huat, P. Marnotte, P. Menozzi, P. Prudent, J. Y. Rey, D. Sall, P. Silvie, S. Simon, A. Sinzogan, V.  Soti, 

M. Tamo, and P. Clouvel, "Divecosys: Bringing together researchers to desing ecologically-based pest management for 

small-scale farming systems in West Africa," Crop Protection, vol. 66, pp. 53-60, 2014.Available at: 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2014.08.017. 

[5] P. A. Whetstone and B. D. Hammock, "Delivery methods for peptide and protein toxins in insect control," Toxicon, vol. 

49, pp. 576-596, 2007.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxicon.2006.11.009. 

[6] A. Y. Kamara, D. Chikoye, L. O. Omoigui, and I. Y. Dugje, "Influence of insecticide spraying regimes and cultivar on 

insect pests and yield of cowpea in the dry savannas of North-Eastern Nigeria," Journal of Food, Agriculture & 

Environment, vol. 5, pp. 154-158, 2007. 

[7] USAID, "DRC food for peace climate risk profil and USAID carpe climate risk profil," USAID Fact Sheet, p. 6, 2018. 

[8] R. O. Oyewale and L. J. Bamaiyi, "Management of cowpea insect pests," Scholars Academic Journal of Biosciences, vol. 5, 

pp. 217- 226, 2013. 

[9] I. E. Ezeaku, B. N. Mbah, and K. P. Baiyeri, "Response of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) walp) genotypes to sowing 

dates and insecticide spray in South Eastern Nigeria," The Journa l of Animal & Plant Sciences, vol. 27, pp. 239-245, 

2017. 

[10] I. A. Ekpo, R. B. Agbor, A. N. Osuagwu, E. C. Okpako, and B. E. Ekanem, "Evaluation of eight cowpea (Vigna 

unguiculata L. Walp) species for yield and associated traits," International Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences and 

Technology, vol. 12, pp. 1-7, 2012. 

[11] J. A. N. Asiwe, S. Nokoe, L. E. N. Jackai, and F. K. Ewete, "Does varying cowpea spacing provide better protection 

against cowpea pests?," Crop Protection, vol. 24, pp. 465-471, 2005.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2004.09.014. 

[12] S. Rahman, U. Ibrahim, and F. Ajayi, "Effect of defoliation at different growth stages on yield and profitability of 

cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.)," EJEAFCche, vol. 7, pp. 3248-3254, 2008. 

[13] INS, Annual statistics of DR Congo. Ministry of plan and modernity revolution. Kinshasa: National Institute of Statistics. 

Democratic Republic of Congo, 2015. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2014.08.017


Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(1): 37-53 

 

 
51 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

[14] E. N. Mbah, A. L. Onwusika, and M. N. Okeke, "Promoting climate change adaptation measures for improving 

productivity among smolders in Taraba state, Nigeria," International Journal of Climate Research, vol. 2, pp. 19-25, 2017. 

[15] T. Mukendi, R. Ndayinsenga, V., M. B. Mutamba, M. D. Kabongo, K. J. Ngoie, L. L. Baboy, and T. M. Munyuli, 

"Agronomic evaluation of 12 cultivars of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp) in Kabinda zone, Lomami province in 

DR CONGO," International Journal of Current Research, vol. 9, pp. 55492 – 55496, 2017. 

[16] T. R. Mukendi, L. L. Baboy, L. A. Kanyenga, and M. T. Munyuli, "Response of twelve cowpea genotypes (Vigna 

unguiculata L. Walp) to pest attack pressures under field and controlled environmental conditions of Lomami 

province, central part of democratic republic of Congo," Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, vol. 6, pp. 13-21, 

2018. 

[17] S. Nteranya and D. Bergvinson, Oilseeds and cowpeas. In feeding Africa, an action plan for African agricultural 

transformation. October 21 – 23, Dakar, Senegal, 2015. 

[18] S. Cholin, M. S. Uma, B. Suma, and P. M. Salimath, "Stability analysis for yield components over seasons in cowpea 

[(Vigna unguiculata L. (Walp.)," Electronoc Journal of Plant Breeding, vol. 6, pp. 1392-1395, 2010. 

[19] T. R. Mukendi, P. Tshilenge, C. Kabwe, and T. M. B. Munyuli, "Efficacy of medicinal plants in the lute against 

Ootheca mutabilis Sahlb. (Chrysomelidae) in Niébé Champ (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) In RD Congo," Lebanese 

Science Journal, vol. 15, pp. 51 – 72, 2014. 

[20] J. A. N. Asiwe, S. Nokoe, L. E. N. Jackai, and F. K. Ekwete, "Does varying cowpea spacing provide better protection 

against cowpea pest?," Crop Protection, vol. 24, pp. 465 – 471, 2005.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2004.09.014. 

[21] S. K. Patel, B. H. Patel, D. M. Korat, and M. R. Dabhi, "Seasonal incidence of major insect pests of cowpea, Vigna 

unguiculata (Linn.) Walpers in relation to weather parameters," Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 23, pp. 

497-499, 2010. 

[22] A. P. Ou&edraogo, B. J. Batieno, F. Traore, J. B. Tignegre, B. L. Huynh, P. A. Roberts, and J. T. Ou&edraogo, 

"Screening of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) lines for resistance to three Aphids (Aphis craccivora Koch) 

strains in Burkina Faso," African Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 13, pp. 1487-1495, 2018.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.5897/ajar2018.13241. 

[23] Z. Li, M. J. Stout, and D. R. Ring, "Density–yield relationships for rice water weevil on rice for different varieties and 

under different water management regimes," Crop Protection, vol. 23, pp. 543-550, 2004.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2003.10.012. 

[24] R. A. Omolehin, S. S. Adeola, B. Ahmed, E. O. Ebukiba, and O. B. Adeniji, "Economics of insecticides usage among 

Cowpea farmers in Kaduna State, Nigeria," American Journal of Experimental Agriculture, vol. 1, pp. 353-362, 

2011.Available at: https://doi.org/10.9734/ajea/2011/540. 

[25] S. S. Adeola, R. A. Omolehin, B. E. N. Ahmed, and O. B. Adeniji, "Socio-economic determinants of insecticides usage in 

cowpea production in Kaduna State, Nigeria," Journal of Agriculture and Social Research, vol. 11, pp. 1-7, 2011. 

[26] Ministry of the Plan, Monograph of Kasai Oriental. Kinshasa: DRC, 2005. 

[27] G. Muyayabantu, K. Nkongolo, and B. Kadiata, "Analysis of soil nutrient dynamic and residual effect following organic 

and inorganic fertilizations of an oxisol," Journal of Plant Nutrition, vol. 35, pp. 1-29, 2012. 

[28] E. O. Egho and E. C. Enujeke, "Minimising insecticide application in the control of insect pests of cowpea (Vigna 

Unguiculata (L) WALP) in Delta State, Nigeria," Sustainable Agriculture Research, vol. 1, pp. 87 -95, 2012.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.5539/sar.v1n1p87. 

[29] T. M. B. Munyuli, S. Kyamanywa, and G. C. Luther, "Effects of cropping system and insecticide application on the 

incidence of arthropod parasitoids of cowpea insect pests in Uganda and Democratic Republic of the Congo " Tunisian 

Journal of Plant Protection, vol. 4, pp. 76-90, 2009. 

[30] V. R. Kizungu, Analysis of over-dispersed data by the exact inferential analysis. Test the impact of traditional cultural practices 

on the density of arthropods in DR. Congo: European Academic Edition Press, 2012. 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(1): 37-53 

 

 
52 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

[31] R. T. Mukendi, B. T. Mutamba, D. M. Kabongo, T. M. Tshilumba, M. B. Mpoyi, and T. M. Munyuli, "Varietal 

evaluation of some cowpea genotypes (Vignaunguiculata (L.) Walp) in agro-ecological conditions of Kabinda, Lomami 

province, Republic Democratic Congo," Africa Science, vol. 13, pp. 24 - 31, 2017. 

[32] I. A. Ahmed, A. S. Kutama, A. Salamatu, Y. Aminu, and T. A. Maryam, "The preponderance of pod sucking bugs of 

cowpea and their control using botanical and synthetic insecticides in Samaru, Nigeria," Standard Research Journal of 

Agricultural Sciences, vol. 2, pp. 001-006, 2014. 

[33] B. Sujatha and T. M. Bharpoda, "Evaluation of insecticides against sucking pests grown during Kharif," International 

Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, vol. 6, pp. 1258-1268, 2017.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.610.150. 

[34] M. M. Degri, V. T. Maina, and H. A. Sharah, "Control of pod sucking bug Riptortus dentipes (Hemiptera: Alydidae) of 

cowpea with aqueous plant extract and cymbush super EC in Maiduguri, Nigeria," Journal of Health, Medicine and 

Nursing, vol. 2, pp. 8-12, 2013. 

[35] P. Tozoou, W. Poutouli, P. K. Akantetou, B. Ayeva, N. A. Nadio, M. E. Bokobana, B. Bonfoh, and K. K. Koba, 

"Evaluation of bedbug damage (heteroptera) on green cotton capsules according to chemical treatments in Togo," 

Cames Review, vol. 2, pp. 28 - 34, 2014. 

[36] R. C. Jayasinghe, W. D. Premachandra, and R. Neilson, "A study on vitruvian Maruca infestation of Yard-long beans 

(Vigna unguiculata subsp. Sesquipedalis the)," Heliyo, vol. 1, p. e00014, 2015.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2015.e00014. 

[37] H. C. Sharma, "Bionomics, host plant resistance, and management of the legume pod borer, Maruca vitrata - a review," 

Crop Protection, vol. 17, pp. 373-386, 1998.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0261-2194(98)00045-3. 

[38] J. F. J. Grigolli, A. L. F. Lourençao, and C. J. Avila, "Field efficacy of chemical pesticides against Maruca vitrata 

fabricius (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) Infesting Soybean in Brazil," American Journal of Plant Sciences, vol. 6, pp. 537-544, 

2015.Available at: https://doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2015.64058. 

[39] W. Dzemo, D. A. S. Niba, and J. A. N. Asiwe, "Effects of insecticide spray application on insect pest infestation and 

yield of cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] in the Transkei, South Africa " African Journal of Biotechnology, vol. 9, 

pp. 1673-1679, 2010.Available at: 10.5897/AJB10.1859. 

[40] S. Elizabeth, R. Bashir, A. Gidado, R. Sani, and O. Adeniji, "Investigation on production constraints and adoption of 

inorganic insecticides and spraying regime in management of cowpea (Vigna uncuiculata L. Walp) insects in Mubi 

zone, Nigeria," Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, vol. 6, pp. 11-20, 2014.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.5897/jaerd12.120. 

[41] M. J. Toffa, P. Atachi, M. Elégbédé, O. K. D. Kpindou, and M. Tamò, "Comparative efficacy of insecticides of different 

kinds in the management of Cowpea insects in Central Benin," Journal of Applied Biosciences, vol. 84, pp. 7695-7706, 

2014. 

[42] E. O. Egho, "Management of major field insect pests and yield of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L) walp) under calendar 

and monitored application of synthetic chemicals in Asaba, Southern Nigeria," African Journal of General Agriculture, 

vol. 6, pp. 177-186, 2010. 

[43] H. A. Ajeigbe, R. S. Adamu, and B. B. Singh, "Yield performance of cowpea as influenced by insecticide types and their 

combinations in the dry savannas of Nigeria," African Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 7, pp. 5930-5938, 

2012.Available at: https://doi.org/10.5897/ajar12.431. 

[44] E. O. Ogah, "Field evaluation of plant extracts in the management of megalurothrips sjostedti and Maruca vitrata of 

Cowpea in Southeastern Nigeria," World Essays Journal, vol. 1, pp. 11-17, 2013. 

[45] S. Oghiakhe, L. Jackai, and W. Makanjuola, "Evaluation of cowpea genotypes for field resistance to the legume pod 

borer, Maruca testulalis, in Nigeria," Crop Protection, vol. 14, pp. 389-394, 1995.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-2194(95)98918-l. 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 6(1): 37-53 

 

 
53 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

[46] S. E. Sexton, Z. Lei, and D. Zilberman, "The economics of pesticides and pest control," International Review of 

Environmental and Resource Economics, vol. 1, pp. 271-326, 2007.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000007. 

[47] R. Oyewale, L. Bamaiyi, A. Oparaeke, and R. Adamu, "Evaluation of four insecticide formulations for the management 

of insect pests of cowpea," African Journal of Food Science and Technology, vol. 5, pp. 180-188, 2014. 

[48] C. Liao and C. Lin, "Occurrence of the legume pod borer, Maruca testulalis Geyer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) on cowpea 

(Vigna nguiculata Walp) and its insecticides application trial," Plant Protection Bulletin-Taipei, vol. 42, pp. 213-222, 

2000. 

[49] R. Oyewale, L. Bello, G. Idowu, H. Ibrahim, and A. Isah, "Rate of insecticide formulations on the damage assessment, 

yield and yield components of Cowpea," International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, vol. 3, pp. 841-

850, 2014. 

[50] I. Sani and K. M. Umar, "Biology and management of legume flower thrips ( Megalurothrips sjostedti ) ( 

Thysanoptera: Thripidae ), a major insect pest of Cowpea: A review," Annals of Experimental Biology, vol. 5, pp. 14-17, 

2017. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Current Research in Agricultural Sciences shall not be responsible or 
answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. 

 


