International Journal of Tropical Insect Science Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 212–218, 2011 q icipe 2011
doi:10.1017/S1742758411000324
Potential use of Sesbania pachycarpa (Fabaceae: Papilionoideae) as a refugia for the legume pod borer Maruca vitrata (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) Ibrahim Baoua1, Niango Malick Ba2*, Tolulope A. Agunbiade3, Venu Margam4, Cle´mentine L. Binso-Dabire´2, Sanon Antoine5 and Barry R. Pittendrigh3 1
Intitut de Recherches Agronomique du Niger (INRAN), Maradi, Niger, 2 Institut de l’Environnement et de Recherches Agricoles (INERA), Station de Kamboinse´, 01 BP 476, Ouagadougou 01, Burkina Faso, 3 Department of Entomology, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, IL, USA, 4Department of Entomology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA and 5Laboratory of Fundamental and Applied Entomology, University of Ouagadougou, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso (Accepted 6 October 2011; First published online 12 December 2011)
Abstract. Deployment of cowpea with Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt-cowpea), to control Maruca vitrata Fab., must be preceded by the development of an insect resistance management (IRM) plan to ensure a sustainable use of the in-plant protection offered by the transgenic variety. One of the components of a resistance management plan involves the use of wild or cultivated host plants as refugia. In West Africa, wild refugia have the potential to be a major component of such an IRM strategy. In the current study, we examined the occurrence of M. vitrata on three cultivated cowpea varieties and one wild alternative host, Sesbania pachycarpa D.C. Our results indicate that M. vitrata population overlapped on the wild host and cowpea. The overall insect population on S. pachycarpa represents 9 –13% of the population on cultivated cowpea. Based on these findings, we suggest that S. pachycarpa may contribute as a refuge for M. vitrata population in case of deployment of Bt-cowpea. Key words: Maruca vitrata, Sesbania pachycarpa, resistance management, Bt-cowpea
Introduction Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata [L.] Walp.) is an important food and protein source in sub-Saharan Africa (Murdock et al., 2008). Burkina Faso and Niger, two of the main cowpea-producing countries in Africa, in the year 2008 produced 537,600 tonnes (DPSAA, 2010) and 1,569,000 tonnes (FAOSTAT, 2008), respectively. The average yield ranged from 210 kg/ha in Niger to 625 kg/ha in Burkina Faso *E-mail:
[email protected]
(computed from FAOSTAT data, 2008) compared with the potential of 2 tonnes/ha (Singh et al., 1997). This gap is due to numerous factors, including biotic and abiotic stresses limiting the potential of cowpea production. Insect pests are the most severe biotic constraints for cowpea production (Singh et al., 1990). Among them, the legume pod borer Maruca vitrata (Fabricius) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) is a key pest in the West African region, causing yield losses of 20 – 80% (Singh et al., 1990). Development of pest-resistant varieties has always been a priority, but the lack of M. vitrata
Maruca alternate host as insect refuge
resistance in the available cowpea germplasm has prevented the successful development of highly resistant cultivars. Genes conferring resistance to M. vitrata were found to exist in some wild Vigna species (Jackai et al., 1996), but attempts made to transfer these genes to cultivated cowpea have so far been unsuccessful (Fatokun, 2002). The recent transformation of cowpea with Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt-cowpea) expressing the Cry1Ab toxin for the control of M. vitrata appears to be promising (Popelka et al., 2006; Chaudhury et al., 2007; Adesoye et al., 2008). The sustainability of such a new technology relies on an effective, preventive insect resistance management (IRM) plan. Currently, viable IRM plans are based on a high dose of the expressed toxin to kill all the heterozygotes and create a non-transgenic spatial refuge. The refuge areas allow susceptible individuals a place to escape selection pressure by the treatments by lowering the proportion of homozygous-resistant genotypes in the population (Onstad, 2008). Alternative host plants of the target pest can also serve as a so-called ‘natural refuge’. Scouting for the wild host plant of M. vitrata in West Africa revealed several wild leguminous plants (Tamo et al., 2002; Arodokoun et al., 2003). One of these plants, Sesbania pachycarpa D.C. (Fabaceae: Papilionoideae) is widely distributed in West Africa (Berhaut, 1976; Merlier and Montegut, 1982; Bakasso and Zongo, 2000). Sesbania pachycarpa is a weedy species growing near cowpea fields and used by Sahelian farmers in West Africa for diverse purposes including the making of roofs, fences, mats and medicines (Ndoye et al., 1990). Thus this study aims to investigate the occurrence of M. vitrata on S. pachycarpa, to determine if the latter can act as an effective refuge for cowpea. Materials and methods
213
We monitored M. vitrata on cultivated cowpeas and S. pachycarpa using a randomized complete block design including four treatments and four replications. The treatments included three varieties of early, intermediate and late cowpea flowering plants and a plot of S. pachycarpa. In Burkina Faso, the varieties used included KVx 404-8-1 (60 days), KVx 61-1 (70 days) and Moussa local (85 days), which represented the early, intermediate and late maturing varieties, respectively, while in Niger the varieties included IT 97k-499-38 (60 days), TN-25687 (90 days) and Dan-Dame (100 days) for the early, intermediate and late maturing varieties, respectively. Replicates for each treatment were planted in a 16 m by 4.4 m plot, using two seeds in each planting spot with an intra-row spacing of 0.4 m and inter-row spacing of 0.8 m. A total of 21 lines of twelve spots were planted per treatment for each replication. A space of 2 m was left between the treatments and between adjacent blocks. Mineral fertilizers were applied to the entire plot before planting according to the recommended scheme of each country (100 kg/NPK 15-15-15 per ha in Burkina Faso and 50 kg/ha diammonium phosphate in Niger).
Infestation of flowers by M. vitrata At flowering, all the flowers of one randomly chosen line were collected twice a week and placed into plastic vials containing 70% ethanol and examined for the presence or absence of M. vitrata larvae. For S. pachycarpa, additional observations were carried out on young shoots and shoot-tips because M. vitrata larvae are reported to occur on shoot-tips of Sesbania species (Huang et al., 2002, 2003). Maruca vitrata larvae were detected by the presence of webbing and excreta in the damaged holes of attacked organs. Data on flower infestation were taken until harvest.
Study sites The study was carried out in Burkina Faso and Niger. In Burkina Faso, the trial was conducted at Farako-ba in the Sudanian zone (latitude: 118110 N, longitude: 048180 W). The total rainfall was 1120 mm in 2008 and 864 mm in 2009. In Niger, the experiment was conducted at Maradi in the Sahelian zone (latitude: 138460 N, longitude: 078080 E). The total rainfall was 370.3 and 447.4 mm in 2008 and 2009, respectively. The Niger location is a suspected non-endemic zone and the Burkina Faso location is a known endemic zone for M. vitrata (Ba et al., 2009). Experimental design and layout The study was carried out over two consecutive rainy seasons in 2008 and 2009 at both locations.
Adult M. vitrata light trap catches To demonstrate the presence of adult M. vitrata in the region (i.e. potentially capable of laying eggs on the plants under investigation), during the time of the larval observations, we also monitored the flight of the adult moths using one light trap per location. The light trap was located 1 km away from the experiment. The light traps utilized a 500-W mercury vapour white incandescent bulb positioned above a wire mesh cage (1.38 £ 1.38 m base and 1.93 m height), which rested on a metal support set 2.43 m above ground level. At each location, the trap was emptied daily and all M. vitrata adults were collected and placed into plastic vials containing 70% ethanol.
214
I. Baoua et al. Kvx404 Kvx61-1 Mou ssa local Sesbania
50 N u m ber of M. vitrata larvae
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Sep t-04
Sep t-09
Sep t-14
Sep t-19
Sep t-24
Sep t-29
Oct-04
Dates
Fig. 1. Maruca vitrata larval infestation on three cowpea varieties (Kvx404, Kvx61-1 and Moussa local) and Sesbania pachycarpa during the 2008 growing season in Farako-ba, Burkina Faso
Data analysis ANOVA was performed for the number of M. vitrata larvae on each of the cowpea varieties and S. pachycarpa using SAS software (version 8, 2001). For each year, a comparison was made between the varieties and the separation of the means was done using the Student – Newman –Keuls test at 5% significance level. Results Infestation of flowers by M. vitrata In Burkina Faso in 2008, the overall population of M. vitrata larvae was significantly higher on the early and intermediate maturing varieties of
cowpea compared with the late maturing variety and S. pachycarpa (F 6.12; df 3; P 0.003) (Fig. 1). The same trend was observed in 2009 (F 6.97; df 3; P 0.0057) (Fig. 2). The percentage of the M. vitrata population for each plot from S. pachycarpa ranged from 20 to 40% of each of the cowpea varieties for the same areas. The M. vitrata populations overlapped in all of the three varieties and S. pachycarpa for the overall season regardless of the year. In Niger in 2008, M. vitrata larvae occurred mainly on the intermediate maturing variety of cowpea with significant numbers (F 16.53; df 3; P 0.036) compared with the other cowpea varieties and S. pachycarpa (Fig. 3). In 2009, the early maturing cowpea variety had significantly higher numbers of M. vitrata larvae compared with the other cowpea varieties (Fig. 4). No M. vitrata larva
160
Kvx404 Kvx61-1 Mou ssa local Sesbania
N u m ber of M. vitrata larvae
140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Sep t-04
Sep t-09
Sep t-14
Sep t-19
Sep t-24
Sep t-29
Oct-04
Dates
Fig. 2. Maruca vitrata larval infestation on three cowpea varieties (Kvx404, Kvx61-1 and Moussa local) and Sesbania pachycarpa during the 2009 growing season in Farako-ba, Burkina Faso
Maruca alternate host as insect refuge
215
20 IT 97 k 499-38 TN 256-87 Dan Dam e Sesbania
18 N u m ber of M. vitrata larvae
16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Au g-11
Au g-16
Au g-26
Au g-31
Sep t-5
Sep t-10
Sep t-15
Sep t-20
Dates
Fig. 3. Maruca vitrata larval infestation on three cowpea varieties (IT 97k 499-38, TN 256-87 and Dan Dame) and Sesbania pachycarpa during the 2008 growing season in Maradi, Niger
45
IT 97 k 499-38 TN 256-87 Dan Dam e Sesbania
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5
-3 Se 1 pt Se 5 pt -1 Se 0 pt -1 Se 5 pt -2 Se 0 pt -2 Se 5 pt -3 O 0 ct -0 5
-2 6
ug A
-2 1
ug
ug
-1 1
0 A
Regardless of the year, M. vitrata larvae and adults were more abundant in the experimental location in Burkina Faso compared with the one in Niger. The observed differences in the incidence of the pest may be explained by the rainfall pattern, the site in Burkina Faso being located in the Sudanian zone, which is more humid than the Niger site (located in the Sahelian zone). This is in accordance with previous studies in Burkina Faso, which demonstrated that M. vitrata is more active in the Sudanian zone (Ba et al., 2009). Based on our current findings, we may consider M. vitrata as a minor pest of cowpea in the Maradi region, at least during the two cropping seasons of our study. Under these circumstances, it appears very unlikely that Bt-cowpea will be deployed in this region. Thus the discussion on the potential of Sesbania to act as a refuge will focus on findings from Burkina Faso.
N u m ber of M. vitrata larvae
Discussion
A
The number of M. vitrata adults captured in the light trap showed inter-year variability in both countries (Figs 5 and 6). The duration of the flight period extended from early August to late October. In Burkina Faso, a total of 4216 M. vitrata adults were caught in the light trap in 2008 and 3134 adults were caught likewise in 2009. In Niger, the overall capture increased from 53 adults in 2008 to 170 adults in 2009.
ug
Adult M. vitrata light trap catches
The use of refugia of non-sprayed or nontransgenic plants is considered central to managing resistance to pesticides in arthropods (Gould, 1998). Refugia can be comprised of non-transgenic plants, the primary host for the targeted insect pest, and perhaps any other significant host of the insect pest. Weeds that are alternative hosts to arthropod pests can serve as a food source that does not reinforce the selection of resistance genes. Models based on studies on maize suggest that increased habitat diversity, which could include weedy vegetation, should reduce the rate of spread of rotation-resistant western corn rootworm (Onstad et al., 2003). Several studies reported
A
was recorded on S. pachycarpa throughout the growing season.
Dates
Fig. 4. Maruca vitrata larval infestation on three cowpea varieties (IT 97k 499-38, TN 256-87 and Dan Dame) and Sesbania pachycarpa during the 2009 growing season in Maradi, Niger
216
I. Baoua et al. 500
N u m ber M. vitrata ad u lts
450 400
2008 2009
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 Ju ly-1 Ju ly-5 Ju ly-9 Ju ly-13 Ju ly-17 Ju ly-21 Ju ly-25 Ju ly-29 Au g-2 Au g-6 Au g-10 Au g-14 Au g-18 Au g-22 Au g-26 Au g-30 Sep t-3 Sep t-7 Sep t-11 Sep t-15 Sep t-19 Sep t-23 Sep t-27 Oct-1 Oct-5 Oct-9 Oct-13 Oct-17 Oct-21 Oct-25
0
Days
Fig. 5. Adult Maruca vitrata catches in the light trap in Farako-ba, Burkina Faso, in 2008 and 2009
the utilization of wild host refuge for resistance management in transgenic crops (Zhang and Tang, 2000; Tan et al., 2001; Wu et al., 2004; Abney et al., 2007; Jackson et al., 2008). Our results obtained in Burkina Faso indicate that larvae of M. vitrata were consistently present in S. pachycarpa during the rainy season and overlapped on this host and cultivated cowpea, demonstrating that S. pachycarpa may host a substantial proportion of the M. vitrata population available to attack cowpea fields. In fact, the percentage of the M. vitrata population collected from S. pachycarpa ranged from 9 to 13% compared with the population observed on the three cowpea varieties together. Up to 13% of the M. vitrata population being hosted by S. pachycarpa may probably not be sufficient to meet the requirement 35
N u m ber M. vitrata ad u lts
30
of 20– 30% recommended for non-transgenic crop refugia (Gould, 1998; Nibouche et al., 2007) if a single Bt-gene is used in transgenic cowpea. However, it may be more than sufficient for a two-toxin pyramided cowpea. However, S. pachycarpa represents only one potential wild alternative host. Other wild alternative hosts, combined with S. pachycarpa, may provide for a sufficient refugia; a hypothesis that remains to be tested. It is also recommended for the refugia crop to be located close to the transgenic crop to maintain effective inter-mating among susceptible and resistant individuals. Based on these considerations, S. pachycarpa may act at least as a partial refugia in the West African agro-ecosystem. For such an unstructured refuge strategy there is,
2008 2008 2009 2009
25 20 15 10 5
Ju ly-1 Ju ly-5 Ju ly-9 Ju ly-13 Ju ly-17 Ju ly-21 Ju ly-25 Ju ly-29 Au g-2 Au g-6 Au g-10 Au g-14 Au g-18 Au g-22 Au g-26 Au g-30 Sep t-3 Sep t-7 Sep t-11 Sep t-15 Sep t-19 Sep t-23 Sep t-27 Oct-1 Oct-5 Oct-9 Oct-13 Oct-17 Oct-21 Oct-25 Oct-29
0
Days
Fig. 6. Adult Maruca vitrata catches in the light trap in Maradi, Niger, in 2008 and 2009
Maruca alternate host as insect refuge
however, the need to further investigate all M. vitrata host plants and identify the area covered by each of the plants compared with cowpea. Another consideration that needs to be addressed is related to the gene flow within M. vitrata populations as a function of the host plant. The above issues have been reported as critical in unstructured refuge strategy based on wild host (Bourguet et al., 2000; Tan et al., 2001; Vialatte et al., 2005). Future work should place emphasis on the survival of M. vitrata larvae on S. pachycarpa in comparison with their survival on cowpea. It is the relative numbers of adults emerging from the two species that will determine, along with the relative area, the value of S. pachycarpa as a wild refuge for IRM. Conclusion The study has demonstrated that S. pachycarpa is a potential natural refugia for M. vitrata and so could be part of an IRM strategy for Bt-cowpea farmers in selected areas of West Africa. This weed is an alternative host plant for M. vitrata, which grows abundantly in the wild in these countries. In areas where M. vitrata is endemic, encouraging the growth of S. pachycarpa may be a cost-effective way to provide an important refuge to delay the onset of resistance in this pest population. Acknowledgements This study was made possible through the support provided to the Dry Grains Pulses Collaborative Research Support Program (CRSP) by the Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture, and Trade, US Agency for International Development, under the terms of Grant No. EDH-A-00-07-00005 supporting work by B.R.P. (PI), I.B. (co-PI) and C.L.B.-D. (co-PI). The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the US Agency for International Development or the US government. The authors are grateful to technicians Herve and Mayaki who collected the field data. References Abney M. R., Sorenson C. E. and Bradley J. R. Jr (2007) Alternate crop hosts as resistance management refuges for tobacco budworm, Heliothis virescens, (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in North Carolina. The Journal of Cotton Science 11, 35 – 39. Adesoye A., Machuka J. and Togun A. (2008) Cry1Ab trangenic cowpea obtained by nodal electroporation. African Journal of Biotechnology 7, 3200– 3210. Arodokoun D. Y., Tamo` M., Cloutier C. and Adeoti R. (2003) Importance of alternative host plants for the
217
annual cycle of the legume pod borer, Maruca vitrata Fabricius (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in Southern and Central Benin. Insect Science and Its Application 23, 103– 113. Ba N. M., Margam V. M., Dabire-Binso C. L., Sanon A., McNeil J., Murdock L. L. and Pittendrigh B. R. (2009) Seasonal and regional distribution of the cowpea pod borer, Maruca vitrata Fabricius (Lepidoptera: Crambidae), in Burkina Faso. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science 29, 109–113. Bakasso Y. and Zongo J. D. (2000) A study of genetic variability in Sesbania pachycarpa DC in Burkina Faso. Agronomie 20, 431– 438. Berhaut J (ed) (1976) Flore illustre´e du Se´ne´gal. Tome 5, Clairafrique, Dakar, Se´ne´gal. 658 pp. Bourguet D., Bethenod M. T., Trouve C. and Viard F. (2000) Host-plant diversity of the European corn borer Ostrinia nubilalis: what value for sustainable transgenic insecticidal Bt maize? Proceedings of the Royal Society London B: Biological Sciences 267, 1177– 1184. Chaudhury D., Madanpotra S., Jaiwal R., Saini R., Kumar P. A. and Jaiwal P. K. (2007) Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated high frequency genetic transformation of an Indian cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.) cultivar and transmission of transgenes into progeny. Plant Science 172, 692– 700. DPSAA (2010) Contrystat Burkina Faso. Available at: http://www.countrystat.org/bfa (accessed 16 June 2011). FAOSTAT (2008) World cowpea production. Available at: http://faostat.fao.org (accessed 18 September 2008). Fatokun C. A. (2002) Breeding cowpea for resistance to insect pests: attempted crosses between cowpea and Vigna vexillata, pp. 52 – 61. In Challenges and Opportunities for Enhancing Sustainable Cowpea Production (edited by C. A. Fatokun, S. A. Tarawali, B. B. Singh, P. M. Kormawa and M. Tamo`). Proceedings of the 3rd World Cowpea Conference held at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Ibadan, Nigeria, 4 – 8 September 2000. Ibadan: IITA. Gould F. (1998) Sustainability of transgenic insecticidal cultivars: integrating pest genetics and ecology. Annual Review of Entomology 43, 701– 726. Huang C. C., Peng W. K. and Talekar N. S. (2002) Larval population changes in the bean pod borer, Maruca vitrata (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) on Sesbania cannabina on an AVRDC Farm, Tainan, Taiwan. Formosan Entomologist 22, 271– 278. Huang C. C., Peng W. K. and Talekar N. S. (2003) Characteristics of infestation by the bean pod borer, Maruca vitrata (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) on Sesbania cannabina. Formosan Entomologist 23, 1 – 11. Jackai L. E. N., Padulosi S. and Ng Q. (1996) Resistance to the legume pod borer, Maruca vitrata Fabricius, and the probable modalities involved in wild Vigna. Crop Protection 15, 753– 761. Jackson R. E., Bradley J. R., van Duyn J., Leonard B. R., Allen K. C., Luttrell R., Ruberson J., Adamczyk J., Gore J., Hardee D. D., Voth R., Sivasupramaniam S., Mullins J. W. and Head G. (2008) Regional assessment
218
I. Baoua et al.
of Helicoverpa zea populations on cotton and noncotton crop hosts. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 126, 89 – 106. Merlier H. and Montegut J. (1982) Adventices Tropicales. ORSTOM-GERDAT-ENSH, Montpellier. 490 pp. Murdock L. M., Coulibaly O, Higgins T. J. V., Huesing J. E., Ishiyaku M. F. and Sithole-Niang I (2008) Cowpea: legume grains and forages, pp. 23 – 56. In A Compendium of Transgenic Crop Plants (edited by C. Kole and T. C. Hall). Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. Ndoye I., Tomekpe K., Dreyfus B. and Dommergues Y. R. (1990) Sesbania and Rhizobium symbiosis: nodulation and nitrogen fixation, pp. 31 – 38. In Perennial Sesbania Species in Agroforestry Systems (edited by B. Macklin and D. O. Evans). Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association, Waimanalo, Hawaii. Nibouche S., Guerard N., Martin P. and Vaissayre M. (2007) Modelling the role of refuges for sustainable management of dual-gene Bt cotton in West African smallholder farming systems. Crop Protection 26, 828–836. Onstad D. W. (2008) Major issues in insect resistance management, pp. 1–16. In Insect Resistance Management: Biology, Economics and Prediction (edited by D. W. Onstad). Academic Press, Burlington, Massachusetts. Onstad D. W., Crowder D. W., Isard S. A., Levine E., Spencer J. L., O’Neal M., Ratcliffe S., Gray M. E., Bledsoe L. W., Di Fonzo C. D, Eisley B. and Edwards C. R. (2003) Does landscape diversity slow the spread of rotationresistant western corn rootworm (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)? Environmental Entomology 32, 992–1001. Popelka J. C., Gollasch S., Moore A., Molvig L. and Higgins T. J. V. (2006) Genetic transformation of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) and stable transmission to progeny. Plant Cell Reports 25, 304– 312. SAS (2001) SAS Version 8 for Windows. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina. Singh B. B., Chambliss O. L. and Sharma B. (1997) Recent advances in cowpea breeding, pp. 30 – 49. In Advances
in Cowpea Research (edited by B. B. Singh, D. R. MohanRaj, K. E. Dashiell and L. E. N. Jackai). International Institute of Tropical Agriculture and Japan International Center for Agricultural Sciences, Ibadan. Singh S. R., Jackai L. E. N., Dos Santos J. H. R. and Adalla C. B. (1990) Insect pests of cowpea, pp. 43 – 89. In Insect Pests of Tropical Food Legumes (edited by S. R. Singh). John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Chichester. Tamo M., Arodokoun D. Y., Zenz N., Tindo M., Agboton C. and Adeoti R. (2002) The importance of alternative host plants for the biological control of two key cowpea insect pests, the pod borer Maruca vitrata (F.) and the flower thrips Megalurothrips sjostedti (Thrybom), pp. 81 – 93. In Proceedings of the 3rd World Cowpea Research Conference, Ibadan, Nigeria, 5 – 10 September 2000 (edited by C. A. Fatokun, S. A. Tarawali, B. B. Singh, P. M. Kormawa and M. Tamo`.) IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria. Tan S., Chen X., Li D. and Zhang H. (2001) Can other host species of cotton bollworm be non-Bt refuges to prolong the effectiveness of Bt-cotton? Chinese Science Bulletin 46, 1804– 1807. Vialatte A., Dedryver C. A., Simon J. C., Galman M. and Plantegenest M. (2005) Limited genetic exchanges between populations of an insect pest living on uncultivated and related cultivated host plants. Proceedings of the Royal Society London B: Biological Sciences 272, 1075– 1082. Wu K., Feng H. and Guo Y. (2004) Evaluation of maize as a refuge for management of resistance to Bt cotton by Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) in the Yellow River cotton-farming region of China. Crop Protection 23, 523– 530. Zhang T. and Tang C. (2000) Commercial production of transgenic Bt insect-resistant cotton varieties and the resistance management for bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera Hubner). Chinese Science Bulletin 45, 1249– 1257.
