Next Article in Journal
Species-Specific Real-Time PCR Assay for Rapid Identification of Zeugodacus cucurbitae Coquillet (Diptera: Tephritidae) from Other Closely Related Fruit Fly Species
Previous Article in Journal
Ibisia marginata (Fabricius, 1781) (Diptera, Athericidae): Distribution and Perennial Emergence Patterns in Croatia
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 16
Issue 8
10.3390/insects16080817
insects-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Detection of the Early Sensitive Stage and Natural Resistance of Broad Bean (Vicia faba L.) Against Black Bean and Cowpea Aphids

by
Fouad Meradsi
1,2,*,
Adel Lekbir
3,
Oussama A. Bensaci
2,4,
Abdelkader Tifferent
4,
Asim Abbasi
5,
Assia Djemoui
4,
Nazih Y. Rebouh
6,*,
Abeer Hashem
7,
Graciela Dolores Avila-Quezada
8,
Khalid F. Almutairi
9 and
Elsayed Fathi Abd_Allah
9
1
Department of Ecology and Environment, Faculty of Natural and Life Sciences, Batna 2 University, Batna 05000, Algeria
2
Laboratory of Improvement of the Phytosanitary Protection Techniques in Mountainous Agrosystems (LATPPAM), Agronomy Department, Institute of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University Batna 1-Hadj Lakhdar, Batna 05000, Algeria
3
Food Science Laboratory (LSA), Department of Food Engineering, Institute of and Veterinary Agriculture Sciences, University Batna 1-Hadj Lakhdar, Batna 05000, Algeria
4
Agronomy Department, Institute of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, Batna 1 University, Batna 05000, Algeria
5
Department of Entomology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad 38040, Pakistan
6
Department of Environmental Management, Institute of Environmental Engineering, RUDN University, 6 Miklukho-Maklaya St., Moscow 117198, Russia
7
Department of Botany and Microbiology, College of Science, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2455, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
8
Facultad de Ciencias Agrotecnológicas, Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua, Chihuahua 31350, Chihuahua, Mexico
9
Department of Plant Production, College of Food Science and Agriculture, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2460, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2025, 16(8), 817; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects16080817
Submission received: 23 May 2025 / Revised: 29 July 2025 / Accepted: 5 August 2025 / Published: 7 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Insect Behavior and Pathology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Simple Summary

The black aphids are considered the most important insect pest of the broad bean crop, causing damage either directly through sap feeding and indirectly through virus transmission. The objective of the current study was to find out the most susceptible stage of Histal broad bean variety against black aphids. Overall, the results showed that later leaf stages of the crop were more susceptible to black bean aphids than early leaf stages. This study clearly highlights the importance of protecting the most sensitive stage of the bean crop against black bean aphid attacks, in order to minimize crop damage and the transmission of phytoviruses.

Abstract

Broad bean is one of the most important leguminous crops worldwide. However, its productivity is greatly affected by the infestation of Aphis fabae and Aphis craccivora (Hemiptera: Aphididae). The main objective of the current study was to identify the most susceptible phenological stages of the broad bean variety (Histal) against black aphids’ herbivory. This had been achieved through an evaluation of plant resistance mechanisms such as antixenosis and antibiosis. The results regarding an antixenosis test revealed that the four tested phenological stages of V. faba did not have a significant effect on the preference of A. craccivora and A. fabae towards the crop plant. Overall, a slightly higher number of adults settled on the three and four unfolded leaves’ stage of the crop plant. Similarly, the highest number of developed embryos were found in the four leaves’ stage of the crop, and the lowest in the second leaf stage. The adult body size of A. craccivora was slightly larger in the case of the three unfolded leaves. Furthermore, the maximum body size of A. fabae adults was recorded in the case of the first unfolded leaf stage crop. Linear correlations between the biological parameters for both species revealed only one significant relationship between developed and total embryos for A. craccivora. The results of the current study highlight the need to protect broad bean crops against infestations of black aphids, i.e., A. craccivora and A. fabae. This is essential for reducing direct damage and preventing the transmission of phytoviruses. However, future studies should aim to evaluate the susceptibility of all developmental phenological stages of the crop against black aphids to mitigate potential crop losses.

1. Introduction

Broad bean (Vicia faba L., Fabales: Fabaceae) is globally recognized as one of the major large-seeded legume crops, valued for its nutritional composition, culinary versatility, and agronomic benefits [1]. Broad bean fixes atmospheric nitrogen via root symbiosis and provides soil with natural green manures, which significantly enhances the crop yields of successive crops. The crop also diversifies cropping systems, hinders insect pests and diseases, and promotes pollinators by providing them with floral resources [1,2,3]. Broad beans also play a crucial role in promoting food security by providing high protein content, essential vitamins, and mineral nutrients for both human and animal consumption. Moreover, the seeds produced by broad bean are enriched with starch and numerous proteins, which are greatly valued in different food and feed markets, all over the globe [2,3].
Nevertheless, the productivity of V. faba is greatly affected by a number of biotic and abiotic stresses which attack the crop plant during its different phenological stages [4,5]. Among different biotic stressors, various fungal diseases, weeds, parasitic plants such as broomrape, and insect pests are of prime importance, which severely affect crop growth and productivity [6,7,8,9,10,11]. The insect pests most frequently recognized for damaging broad beans include black aphids, specifically Aphis fabae [12,13,14,15] and A. craccivora [16]. Moreover, Bruchus rufimanus [17] and Sitona lineatus also affect crop growth at various plant stages [18,19,20].
Among broad bean insect pests, black aphids are considered most notorious maily due to their diverse reproduction methods, complex life cycle, close association with their hosts, and polyphenism [21,22,23]. Among black aphids, Aphis fabae (black bean aphid) and A. craccivora (cowpea aphid) were among the 14-aphid species which cause greatest damage to different agricultural crops, including broad beans. Moreover, the legume family is ranked as the 9th largest plant family in terms of aphid herbivory [23].
The black bean aphids, A. fabae and A. craccivora, are sap-sucking insect pests which prefer newly grown plant tips to deposit its nymphs. The feeding of both insects is responsible for disrupted plant growth, leaf distortion, phytotoxicity, and honeydew secretion, leading to a potential reduction in photosynthesis Moreover, sap sucking from inflorescence, tender shoots, and pods results in the drying up of tender shoot and the premature fall of flowers, flower buds, and tender pods [21,22]. Moreover, A. fabae is a highly polyphagous pest, with a host range encompassing over 200 plant species worldwide [23]. It can transmit more than 30 plant viruses, including non-persistent viruses affecting beans, peas, beets, crucifers, cucurbits, dahlia, potato, tobacco, tomato, and tulip. Additionally, it can also transmit the persistent Beet Yellow Net Virus (BYNV) and Potato Leaf Roll Virus (PLRV) [23]. Similarly, A. craccivora also has a wide host range within many plant families, including the Fabaceae such as Arachis spp., Colutea spp., Glycine spp., Medicago spp., Melilotus spp., Trifolium spp., and Vicia spp. It attacks around 50 crops from 19 different plant families and is involved in the spread of about 30 plant viruses. These include non-persistent viruses affecting beans, cardamom, groundnuts, peas, beets, cucurbits, and crucifers, as well as the persistent Subterranean clover stunt virus and Peanut mottle virus [23].
The excessive and irrational use of synthetic insecticides, combined with their high application costs, often leads to environmental contamination, harmful effects on insect natural enemies including insect pollinators, and the emergence of resistant insect biotypes. These beneficial insects (natural enemies and pollinators) are crucial not only for the biological control of insect pests but also for the maintenance of natural equilibrium of ecosystems. Additionally, insecticide residues can persist in soils and plant tissues, such as bean pods, which can subsequently pose numerous risks to human health [24,25,26].
Host plant resistance is a vital component of different pest management programs, often acknowledged for its ecological and economic benefits [27]. Plants usually use antibiosis and antixenosis mechanisms to avoid external intruders. Antibiosis is a natural resistance mechanism, which negatively affects the biology or physiology of the arthropod pest; the impact usually translates into reduced insect survival, growth, and reproduction [28,29]. However, in the case of antixenosis, the resistant plant exhibits characters which usually limit insect preference towards that plant. This type of resistant mechanism also affects certain behavioral traits of the targeted pest [30]. In this regard, numerous studies have been undertaken within the integrated pest management (IPM) framework to control pests like A. fabae and A. craccivora [31,32,33,34,35,36,37]. These efforts usually include a selection of resistant crop cultivars, exhibiting both antibiosis and antixenosis mechanisms against targeted insects [11,12,13].
Recently, Nikolova [15] reported that aphids grow and develop rapidly, enabling their populations to quickly exceed economic thresholds (10–15% of plants infested with colonies of wingless or winged individuals). Furthermore, the damage caused by numerous aphid species adversely affect plant photosynthesis, growth, and their physiological functions [38,39,40]. Moreover, the pod formation stage in Vicia faba is highly vulnerable against A. fabae in comparison to the flowering and budding stages [15]. However, we hypothesize that the susceptibility of broad beans towards the infestation of the A. fabae and A. craccivora varies at each developmental stage of the plant. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to pinpoint the most vulnerable phenological stages of the crop plant towards the infestation of black aphids. This knowledge is crucial for safeguarding the broad bean crops during their early critical vegetative phases and mitigating both direct and indirect damages, mainly through phytovirus transmission.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plant

The study was carried out in 2018, using a Histal variety of broad bean, V. faba L. (Fabales: Fabaceae). The Spanish origin variety (Histal) was selected due to its medium–early maturity characters and adaption to a wide range of ecological conditions, especially low temperature. The plant is usually 70–90 cm tall with 4–5 strong, thick stems. The pod is 30–33 cm long and 3 cm wide, giving on average 7–8 seeds [41]. The variety was used for both antibiosis and antixenosis tests. The beans were sown in a greenhouse at the Batna Regional Station of the National Institute for Plant Protection (NIPP). The ecological conditions, including temperature, natural photoperiod, and relative humidity, were maintained inside the greenhouse (18 ± 1 °C; L13: D11 h; and 42 ± 5% RH) [42] for both experimental mechanisms, i.e., antixenosis and antibiosis.
Seeds of the broad bean variety (Histal) were sown in plastic pots (6.5 cm diameter and 8 cm height) at alternate dates to obtain four different phenological stages of the crop (first unfolded leaf to four unfolded leaves), in order to infest them at the same time. The pots were sprinkle irrigated after every two days in order to maintain soil moisture. The weeds were removed manually.

2.2. Aphids

A basic breeding program for aphids was conducted, which involved wingless adults of two species, A. craccivora and A. fabae, collected from broad bean crops planted at the Batna and Biskra regions, respectively, in eastern Algeria. Aphid breeding was conducted under controlled greenhouse conditions with regulated temperature, natural photoperiod, and relative humidity levels [18 ± 1 °C; (L13: D11) h; 42 ± 5% RH] [43]. The collected aphid species were identified and verified by the expert Professor Malik Laamari, Laboratory of Agronomy, Batna 1 University, Algeria.
The first generation of aphids, obtained from collected culture, was used to infest broad bean plants for both antixenosis and antibiosis experiments. Aphids were transferred individually to each healthy plant to prevent clustering. The plants were later covered with muslin cloth to avoid the intrusion of any other insects or natural predators [44].

2.3. Antixenosis Test for A. craccivora and A. fabae

All plants at different phenological stages (first unfolded leaf to four unfolded leaves), were transplanted into a large circular pot measuring 25.5 cm in diameter and 25 cm in height. The plants representing distinct experimental treatments were arranged randomly in a circular formation with their leaves facing towards the center of the circle [43,45,46,47]. After forty days of initial sowing, the broad bean plants were exposed to four apterous aphids (A. craccivora and A. fabae) per crop stage. The aphids were placed in a Petri dish lid (5.7 cm diameter) and released near the circle of all plant leaves [48]. Later, the data regarding the number of aphids settled on each plant stage were recorded after 2 h, 24 h, and 48 h. Similarly, experimental protocol was followed for both insect species using fresh batches of bean plants. The experimental design followed a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD), with four replications.

2.4. Antibiosis

For an antibiosis test, two apterous adults of each aphid species were introduced separately on each bean plant, with a distinct phenological stage [49]. After producing three nymphs, the initial adults used to infest each plant were removed. Once these nymphs reached the adult stage, the females reared on the different phenological stages of bean plant were brought back to the laboratory for measuring the experimental parameter.

Dissection of Aphids

The female adult specimens of A. craccivora, which had not yet begun producing nymphs, were utilized to assess their potential fecundity. Each female was dissected under a stereomicroscope (Nikon, SMZ445, Tokyo, Japan) after being prepared with a drop of methylene blue. The ovarioles were extracted by gently pulling the terminal abdominal segment with a fine needle while securing the head and thorax with another needle. The total number of embryos and the number of mature embryos, identified by the presence of red-pigmented eyes, were counted. Embryos were classified based on size, with those displaying red eye spots being considered as developed ones [50,51,52]. The body size of adults was measured by the protocols defined by Taylor [50], which included a measurement of the specimens from the frons to the base of the cauda multiplied by the greatest width of the abdomen.
Similarly, for A. fabae, both body size and weight (measured with a precision scale of 0.0001 g) were determined. Linear relationships between the biological parameters of the two species were analyzed to assess the strength and significance of correlations [13]. The following parameters were evaluated: developed and total embryos of A. craccivora, developed embryos and adult body size of A. craccivora, total embryos and adult body size of A. craccivora, and adult body size and weight of A. fabae. The antibiosis tests for the two aphid species were conducted separately.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Normality was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test adapted for small samples across all antixenosis and biological parameter tests to determine the appropriate parametric or non-parametric test. The parametric one-way ANOVA was employed for all parameters of antixenosis and antibiosis tests for both species A. fabae and A. craccivora. If significance (p ≤ 0.05) was found, the means of different phenological stages within each factor were compared using the Tukey post-hoc test, following verification of variance homogeneity using the Levene test. A linear correlation model was employed to investigate potential relationships using Pearson’s parametric coefficient, indicating high correlation and significance at p ≤ 0.05 between the biological parameters of developed and total embryos and adult body size for A. craccivora, as well as between the body size and weight for A. fabae. All statistical analyses and graphical representations were processed by SPSS statistical software version 26.0.0.0 [53].

3. Results

3.1. Antixenosis

3.1.1. Test for A. craccivora

The four tested phenological stages of V. faba did not significantly (p > 0.05) affect the A. craccivora preference towards the crop plant at all tested time intervals (Table 1). The results revealed that after 2 and 24 h of the exposure period, the maximum number of adults (3.80) settled on the three unfolded leaves’ stage of crop plants, followed by the four unfolded leaf stage (3.40). A slightly lower number of adults settled on both early leaf stages of crop at both time intervals. The results further showed that after 48 h, a maximum number of adults were observed on the four unfolded leaf stage of the crop (3.20 adults), followed by three unfolded leaves (3.00 adults). However, a minimum number of adults (0.80) were observed on the first unfolded leaf stage of V. faba (Table 1).

3.1.2. Test for A. fabae

The results revealed that the preference of the black bean aphid, A. fabae, towards V. faba was not significantly (p > 0.05) affected by the phenological stage of the crop plant at all three tested time intervals (Table 2). Overall, a slightly higher number of adults settled on the three and four unfolded leaf stage of the crop plant. The maximum number of adults after a 2 h exposure interval was recorded on the four unfolded leaf stage of the plant (3.75). Similarly, a higher number of adults was also recorded on the four unfolded leaf stage (4.75) after a 24 h exposure interval. However, after 48 h, the maximum number of adults (4.25) settled on the three unfolded leaf stage of V. faba (Table 2).

3.2. Antibiosis

3.2.1. Potential Fecundity of A. craccivora

The current study further exhibited that the phenological stages of V. faba did not have a significant (p > 0.05) effect on the progeny production (total and developed embryos) of A. craccivora. The mean number of total embryos varied from 18.91 (three unfolded leaves) to 23.10 (first unfolded leaf) embryos/female. Females fed on the four unfolded leaves’ crop produced 21.50 embryos, out of which the developed ones were 11.50. The lowest developed embryos were recorded in the case of the two unfolded leaves’ crop (Table 3).

3.2.2. Body Size of A. craccivora Adult

The body size of A. craccivora adults did not differ significantly (p > 0.05) when offered leaves of different phenological stages of the V. faba plant (Figure 1). The adult body size was slightly larger in the case of three unfolded leaves (1.48 mm2), followed by four unfolded leaves (1.37 mm2). However, the smallest body size (1.26 mm2) was recorded in the case of insects, which fed on the two unfolded leaf stage of the bean plant (Figure 1).

3.2.3. Body Size of A. fabae Adults

The results showed that the phenological stages of bean plants had a significant (p < 0.05) effect on the body size of A. fabae adults (Table 4). The maximum body size of A. fabae adults was recorded in the case of the first unfolded leaf stage crop (0.83 mm2), followed by the two unfolded leaves’ stage (0.81 mm2). However, adults fed on V. faba having three unfolded leaves had the smallest body size (0.67 mm2) (Table 4).

3.2.4. Body Weight of A. fabae Adults

Unlike body size, the weight of A. fabae adults did not differ significantly (p > 0.05) due to feeding on different phenological stages of bean plants (Figure 2). The results revealed that the maximum body weight of A. fabae adults was recorded in the case of the first unfolded leaf stage crop (1.40 mg), followed by the two unfolded leaves’ stage (1.35 mg). However, adults fed on V. faba having three unfolded leaves had the lowest body weight (1.31 mg) (Figure 2).

3.2.5. Relationships Between Biological Parameters of A. craccivora and A. fabae

For an A. craccivora adult, the results of the linear correlations showed only a positive and significant correlation (r = 0.64; p < 0.01) between the developed and total embryos (Figure 3a). On the other hand, the correlation test showed an absence of linear correlations for the other pairs of parameters: body size-developed embryos and body size-total embryos with a low correlation coefficient (r = 0.17; p > 0.05) (Figure 3b,c). The same test showed no significant relationship (r = 0.17; p > 0.05) between the body size and weight for an A. fabae adult (Figure 3d).

4. Discussion

Several authors had reported that plant resistance against insects is usually mediated through a mechanism of antixenosis [29,42,43,44,45,54,55]. The antixenosis leads to a variety of behaviors; some require stimulation of the sensory organs located in the aphid’s antennae, labium, and legs, while others involve movements of the head and abdomen [56]. Sensory systems such as olfaction, vision, thigmoreception, and gustation play an essential role in host selection [28]. Herbivorous insects perceive the chemicals emitted by plants to determine their precise position [57]. Storer and Van Emden [46] indicated that insects usually use visual and olfactory cues to select their hosts, whereas settling on the host requires olfactory, gustatory, and mechanical stimulation [58].
Aphids usually use different cues to determine their hosts, which mostly include color, allure, and the secondary metabollic contents of crop plants. After initial arrival, the insects take some test bites from their host plant to decide whether to stay or change their host [59]. The results regarding aphids’ attractiveness to the first four phenological stages of bean plants revealed that both aphid species, i.e., A. craccivora and A fabae exhibited enhanced attractiveness towards the three and four leaves’ stages of crop plants. Similar results were noted for both aphid species at all tested time intervals. This difference is probably explained by the physical characteristics of the oviposition site, such as the leaf, texture, color, and shape of the plant [60]. Moreover, various other factors play an important part in the choice of the host plants. Waxes on plant surfaces are complex mixtures of fatty acids, esters, and alkanes, and also contain varying amounts of various secondary metabolites. Phenological stages modify the morphology and composition of plant wax [61]. The composition of the lipids present in the epicuticles may play a role in the plants’ ability to cope with aphids. According to Powell et al. [62], chemical studies of epicuticular lipids had revealed the presence of a set of components that were wrapped up in the bean’s foliage. According to Cai et al. [63], the cultivar KOK 1679, which was resistant to the cereal aphid Sitobion avenae, has a high alkaloid content during the vegetative stage.
Similarly, in order to assess the effect of each stage of V. faba on the two-aphid species, certain biotic parameters such as the potential fecundity [64], body size [13,50], and body weight of insects were also considered [49,54,65,66,67,68]. Together, these factors fall under the umbrella of anitbiosis, referring to the negative impact of the morphological and/or chemical elements of the resistant plant on the biological functions of the arthropod pest [28]. In the current study, the highest number of developed embryos were found in the four leaves’ stage of the crop, which were statistically at par with the second leaf stage. These observed differences could probably be explained by a variation in chemical factors (secondary compounds) at the various phenological stages of the crop, which has negative effects on the aphids, leading to a reduction in their fecundity and fewer developed embryos. On the other hand, the quantity of nutrients for embryo development were insufficient during the two-leaf stage compared with the four-leaf stage. According to Huggett et al. [69], Miscanthus sinensis plants at the two leaves’ stage show significantly lower fecundity than the green corn aphid Rhopalosiphum maidis reared on plants at the five leaves’ stage.
Various researchers had demonstrated that the insect’s biological and demographic parameters, such as the size and the ability to reproduce, were directly linked to the nutritional status of the host plant. In order to protect themselves against attacks by bioaggressors, plants set up natural and artificial defenses [70]. Insect settlement, survival, growth and development, as well as fecundity can be influenced by these defenses [71]. Antibiosis is a method of protecting plants against insect colonization, where they impact insect growth, survival, or reproduction using chemical or morphological elements [28,72].
In the current study, the adult body size of A. craccivora was slightly larger in the case of three unfolded leaves. Furthermore, the maximum body size of A. fabae adults was recorded in the case of the first unfolded leaf stage crop. These results probably confirm the progressive production of toxic substances during the development of the bean plant. Moreover, several authors, such as Brnays and Chapman [61] and Strebler [73], had demonstrated that the insect’s biological and demographic characteristics, such as its size and potential fecundity, were directly linked to the nutritional status of the host plant. The results reported that the weight parameter of adult A. fabae did not differ statistically between the four tested phenological stages of bean plants. The study of linear correlations of the biological parameters of A. craccivora showed only one positive relationship between the number of developed embryos and total embryos. Similar findings had been reported by Meradsi and Laamari [13] and Meradsi [49] for A. fabae. Linear correlation analysis showed no relationship between the body size and weight of A. fabae adults.

5. Conclusions

The findings suggest that the early stages of broad bean are more resistant to black aphid’s attack than the later leaf stages. Although the impact between different leaf stages was non-significant, the early leaf stages might be less attractive due to less surface area and less nutrient contents. Aphids, preferably at the reproduction stage, need a healthy diet; therefore, host plants are selected according to the nutritional content of the leaf and its surface area to avoid overcrowding. Therefore, it is recommended to implement plant protection measures during the sensitive stages of broad bean development for maximum protection against aphid colonization. The control measure usually becomes less effective when the pest population reaches its ETL limit.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.M.; methodology F.M., A.L. and O.A.B.; software, F.M., A.L., A.A. and A.T.; validation, N.Y.R. and O.A.B.; formal analysis, F.M., A.A., A.D., O.A.B., A.L. and N.Y.R.; investigation, A.T. and A.D.; resources, F.M., A.T. and A.D.; data curation, A.A.; writing—original draft preparation, F.M. and N.Y.R.; writing—review and editing, F.M., A.A., A.L., N.Y.R., A.H., G.D.A.-Q., K.F.A. and E.F.A.; visualization, N.Y.R.; supervision, N.Y.R. and O.A.B.; project administration, F.M. and O.A.B.; funding acquisition, A.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The current research was supported by the Ongoing Research Funding program (ORF-2025-134), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to extend their sincere appreciation to the Ongoing Research Funding program (ORF-2025-134), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper, and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

References

  1. Mínguez, M.I.; Rubiales, D. Chapter 15 in Faba bean. In Crop Physiology Case Histories for Major Crops; Sadras, V.O., Calderini, D.F., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2021; pp. 452–481. ISBN 9780128191941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Goyoaga, C.; Burbano, C.; Cuadrado, C.; Romero, R.; Guillamo’n, E.; Varela, A.; Pedrosa, M.M.; Muzquiz, M. Content and distribution of protein, sugars and inositol phosphates during the germination and seedling growth of two cultivars of Vicia faba. J. Food Compo. Anal. 2011, 24, 391–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Dhull, S.B.; Kidwai, M.K.; Noor, R.; Chawla, P.; Rose, P.K. A review of nutritional profile and processing of faba bean (Vicia faba L.). Legume Sci. 2022, 4, e129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Temirbekova, S.K.; Kulikov, I.M.; Ashirbekov, M.Z.; Afanasyeva, Y.V.; Beloshapkina, O.O.; Tyryshkin, L.G.; Zuev, E.V.; Kirakosyan, R.N.; Glinushkin, A.P.; Potapova, E.S.; et al. Evaluation of Wheat Resistance to Snow Mold Caused by Microdochium nivale (Fr)Samuels and I.C. Hallett under Abiotic Stress Influence in the Central Non-Black Earth Region of Russia. Plants 2022, 11, 699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bond, D.A.; Jellis, G.J.; Rowland, G.G.; Le Guen, J.; Robertson, L.D.; Khalil, S.A.; Li-Juan, L. Present status and future strategy in breeding faba beans (Vicia faba L.) for resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses. Euphytica 1994, 73, 151–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Boutagayout, A.; Nassiri, L.; Bouiamrine, E.; Belmalha, S. Mulching effect on weed control and faba bean (Vicia faba L. Minor) yield in Meknes region, Morocco. E3S Web Conf. 2020, 183, 04002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Pérez-de-luque, A.; Eizenberg, H.; Grenz, J.H.; Sillero Avila, C.; Sauerborn, J.; Rubiales, D. Broomrape management in faba bean. Field Crops Res. 2010, 115, 319–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Stoddard, F.L.; Nicolas, A.H.; Rubiales, D.; Thomas, J.; Villegas-Fernandez, A.M. Intregrated pest management in faba bean. Field Crops Res. 2010, 115, 308–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Maalouf, F.; Khalil, S.; Ahmed, S.; Akintunde, A.N.; Kharrat, M.; El Shama’a, K.; Hajjar, S.; Malhotra, R.S. Yield stability of faba bean lines under diverse broomrape prone production environments. Field Crops Res. 2011, 124, 288–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rachef, S.A.; Ouamer, F.; Ouffroukh, A. Inventaire des ravageurs de la fève en Algérie (Identification et caractérisation). Rech. Agron. 2005, 9, 36–43. [Google Scholar]
  11. Laamari, M.; Hebbel, S. Les principaux insects ravageurs de la fève dans la region de Biskra. Rech. Agron. 2006, 10, 72–78. [Google Scholar]
  12. Laamari, M. Etude Écobiologique des Pucerons des Cultures dans Quelques Localités de l’Est Algérien. Ph.D. Thesis, Ecole Nationale des Sciences Agronomiques (ENSA), Alger, Algeria, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  13. Meradsi, F.; Laamari, M. Population dynamics and biological parameters of Aphis fabae Scopoli on five broad bean cultivars. Int. J. Biosci. 2016, 9, 58–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Nikolova, I. Stability of Vicia faba L. cultivars and responsible traits for Aphis fabae Scopoli, 1763 preference. Acta Agric. Slov. 2023, 119, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Nikolova, I. Sensitivity of faba bean (Vicia faba L.) cultivars to Aphis fabae Scopoli infestation and plant parameters responsible for low susceptibility to the pest. Agric. Biol. 2023, 58, 142–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Saleh, H.A.; Khorchid, A.M.; Ammar, M.I. Population Fluctuations of Two Aphids and Their Main Predators in Broad Bean plants in Qalyubiya Governorate. Egypt. Acad. J. Biolog. Sci. 2021, 14, 29–36. [Google Scholar]
  17. Mezani, S. Bioécologie de la Bruche de la fève Bruchus rufimanus Both. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) dans des Parcelles de Variétés de fèves Différentes et de Féverole dans la Région de Tizi-Rached (Tizi-Ouzou). Master’s Thesis, Université Mouloud Maameri, Tizi-Ouzou, Algeria, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  18. Nielson, B.S. Yield responses of Vicia faba in relation to infestation levels of Sitona lineatus L. (Col., Curculionidae). J. Appl. Entomol. 2009, 110, 398–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Almogdad, M.; Tamošiūnas, K.; Semaškienė, R. Changes in Sitona lineatus abundance in faba beans as influenced by the air temperature and rainfall in the three decades. Zemdirbyste 2020, 107, 139–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wijerathna, A.; Evenden, M.; Reid, P.; Tidemann, B.; Carcamo, H. Management of Pea Leaf Weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and Development of a Nominal Threshold in Faba Beans. J. Econ. Entomol. 2021, 114, 1597–1606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dedryver, C.A.; Le Ralec, A.; Fabre, F. The conflicting relationships between aphids and men: A review of aphid damage and control strategies. Comptes Rendus Biol. 2010, 333, 539–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bennour, C.; Ben Belgacem, A.; Ben Nasr, H. A review of the management of Aphis fabae Scopoli (Hemiptera: Aphididae). J. Oasis Agric. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 3, 32–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Blackman, R.L.; Eastop, V.F. Taxonomic issues. In Aphids as Crop Pests; van Emden, H.F., Harrington, R., Eds.; CABI: London, UK, 2007; pp. 1–29. [Google Scholar]
  24. Straub, C.S.; Faselt, J.A.; Keyser, E.S.; Traugott, M. Host plant resistance promotes a secondary pest population. Ecosphere 2020, 11, e03073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bueno, A.D.F.; Carvalho, G.A.; Santos, A.C.D.; Sosa-Gómez, D.R.; Silva, D.M.D. Pesticide selectivity to natural enemies: Challenges and constraints. Ciênc. Rural. 2017, 47, e20160829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gomes, H.D.O.; Menezes, J.M.C.; da Costa, J.G.M.; Coutinho, H.D.M.; Teixeira, R.N.P.; do Nascimento, R.F. A socio-environmental perspective on pesticideuse and food production. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 197, 110627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. El-Defrawi, G.; El-Gantiry, A.M.; Weigand, S.; Khalil, S.A. Screening of faba bean (Vicia faba L.) for resistance to Aphis craccivora Koch. Arab. J. Plant Prot. 1991, 9, 138–141. [Google Scholar]
  28. Smith, C.M. Plant Resistance to Arthropods: Molecular and Conventional Approaches; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2005; p. 423. [Google Scholar]
  29. Tolmay, V.L.; van der Westhuizen, M.C.; van Deventer, C.S. A six-week screening method for mechanisms of host plant resistance to Diuraphis noxia in wheat accessions. Euphytica 1999, 107, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bosland, P.W.; Ellington, J.J. Comparaison of Capsicum annum and C. pubescens for antixenosis as a means of aphid resistance. Hort. Sci. 1996, 31, 1017–1018. [Google Scholar]
  31. Barzman, M.; Bàrberi, P.; Nicholas, A.; Birch, E.; Boonekamp, P.; Dachbrodt-Saaydeh, S.; Graf, B.; Hommel, B.; Jensen, J.E.; Kiss, J.; et al. Eight principles of integrated pest management. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 1199–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Shannag, H.K.; Obeidat, W.M. Interaction between plant resistance and predation of Aphis fabae (Homoptera: Aphididae) by Coccinella septempunctata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Ann. Appl. Biol. 2008, 152, 331–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Khaliq, S.A.; ALhamawndy, Z.; Al-Ghadban, A.M.; Al-Asadi, M.A.A. Predatory Efficiency of the Eleven-Point Ladybird Coccinella undecimpunctata against Aphis fabae and A. gossypii. Indian J. Ecol. 2021, 17, 357–360. [Google Scholar]
  34. Nordey, T.; Boni, S.B.; Agbodzavu, M.K.; Mwashimaha, R.; Mlowe, N.; Ramasamy, S.; Deletre, E. Comparison of biological methods to control Aphis fabae Scopoli (Hemiptera: Aphididae) on kalanchoe crops in East Africa. Crop Prot. 2021, 142, 105520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Gc, G.; Arjyal, C. Field Evaluation of Native B. thuringiensis Isolates Against Aphids (Aphis fabae). Tribhuvan Univ. J. Microbiol. 2020, 7, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hama, J.R.; Al Mamun, M.; Fomsgaard, I.S.; Vestergård, M. Root uptake of umbelliferone enhances pea’s resistance against root-knot nematodes. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2024, 199, 105418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Acheuk, F.; Lakhdari, W.; Abdellaoui, K.; Belaid, M.; Allouane, R.; Halouane, F. Phytochemical study and bioinsecticidal effect of the crude ethonolic extract of the Algerian plant Artemisia judaica L. (Asteraceae) against the black bean aphid, Aphis fabae Scop. Agric. For. 2017, 63, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Cahon, T.; Caillon, R.; Pincebourde, S. Do Aphids alter leaf surface temperature patterns during early infestation? Insects 2018, 9, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Du, J.-L.; Wu, D.G.; Li, J.Q.; Zhan, Q.W.; Huang, S.C.; Huang, B.H.; Wang, X. Effects of aphid disoperation on photosynthetic performance and agronomic traits of different sorghum varieties. Pak. J. Bot. 2021, 53, 2275–2285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Fuentes, S.; Tongson, E.; Unnithan, R.R.; Gonzalez, V.C. Early detection of aphid infestation and insect-plant interaction assessment in wheat using a low-cost electronic nose (E-nose), near-infrared spectroscopy and machine learning modeling. Sensors 2021, 21, 5948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Semillas Fito. Available online: https://www.semillasfito.fr/productos/hort%C3%ADcolas/leguminosas/habas/histal/ (accessed on 24 June 2025).
  42. Castro, A.M.; Ramos, S.; Vasicek, A.; Worland, A.; Giménez, D.; Clúa, A.A.; Suárez, E. Identification of wheat chromosomes involved with different types of resistance against greenbug (Schizaphis graminum, Rond.) and the Russian wheat aphid (Diuraphis noxia, Mordvilko). Euphytica 2001, 118, 321–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Castro, A.M.; Vasicek, A.; Manifiesto, M.; Giménez, D.O.; Tacaliti, M.S.; Dobrovolskaya, O.; Röder, M.S.; Snape, J.W.; Börner, A. Mapping antixenosis genes on chromosome 6A of wheat to greenbug and to a new biotype of Russian wheat aphid. Plant Breed. 2005, 124, 229–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Laamari, M.; Khelfa, L.; Coeur d’Acier, A. Resistance source to cowpea aphid (Aphis craccivora Koch) in broad bean (Vicia faba L.) Algerian landrace collection. Afr. J. biotechnol. 2008, 7, 2486–2490. [Google Scholar]
  45. Hesler, L.S.; Tharp, C.I. 2005. Antibiosis and antixenosis to Rhopalosiphum padi among triticale accessions. Euphytica 2005, 143, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Storer, J.R.; van Emden, H.E. Antibiosis and antixenosis of chrysanthemum cultivars to the aphid Aphis gossypii. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1995, 77, 307–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Castro, A.M.; Vasicek, A.; Ramos, S.; Worland, A.; Suárez, E.; Muňoz, M.; Giménez, D.; Clúa, A.A. Different types of resistance against greenbug, Schizaphis graminum Rond, and the Russian wheat aphid, Diuraphis noxia Mordvilko, in wheat. Plant Breed. 1999, 118, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Budak, S.; Quisenberry, S.S.; Ni, X. Comparison of Diuraphis noxia resistance in wheat isolines and plant introduction lines. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1999, 92, 157–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Meradsi, F. Evaluation de la Résistance Naturelle chez Quelques Cultivars Locaux de fève au Puceron Noir de la fève Aphis fabae Scopoli, 1763 (Homoptera, Aphididae). Ph.D. Thesis, Université Batna 1, Batna, Algeria, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  50. Taylor, L.R. Longevity, fecundity and size; control of reproductive potential in a polymorphic migrant, Aphis fabae Scop. J. Anim. Ecol. 1975, 44, 135–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Leather, S.R.; Wellings, P.W. Ovariole number and fecundity in aphids. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1981, 30, 128–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Llewellyn, M.; Brown, V.K. A general relationship between adult weight and the reproductive potential of aphids. J. Anim. Ecol. 1985, 54, 663–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. SPSS IBM Statistics. SPSS for Windows, Version 26.0.0.0; SPSS Inc.: Chicago, IL, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  54. Lage, J.; Skovmand, B.; Andersen, S.B. Resistance categories of synthetic hexaploid wheats resistant to the Russian wheat aphid (Diuraphis noxia). Euphytica 2004, 136, 291–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hesler, L.S.; Dashiell, K.E.; Lundgren, J.G. Characterization of resistance to Aphis glycines in soybean accessions. Euphytica 2007, 154, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Renard, S.; Calatayud, P.A.; Pierre, J.S.; Le Ru, B. Recognition behavior of the cassava mealybug Phenacoccus manihoti Matile-Ferrero (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) at the leaf surface of different host plants. J. Insect Behav. 1998, 11, 429–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bengtsson, M.; Jaastad, G.; Knudsen, G.; Kobro, S.; Bäckman, A.C.; Pettersson, E.; Witzgall, P. Plant volatiles mediate attraction to host and non-host plant in apple fruit moth, Argyresthia conjugella. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2006, 118, 77–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ameline, A.; Couty, A.; Dugravot, S.; Campan, E.; Dubois, F.; Giordanengo, P. Plant-selection behaviour after biotic and abiotic damage inflicted to potato plants. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2007, 123, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Döring, T.F. How aphids find their host plants, and how they don’t. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2014, 165, 3–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lundgren, J.; Fergen, J.; Riedell, W. The influence of plant anatomy on oviposition and reproductive success of the omnivorous bug Orius insidiosus. Anim. Behav. 2008, 75, 1495–1502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bernays, E.A.; Chapman, R.F. Host-Plant Selection by Phytophagous Insects; Chapman & Hall: New York, NY, USA, 1994; p. 312. [Google Scholar]
  62. Powell, G.; Maniar, S.P.; Pickett, J.A.; Hardie, J. Aphid responses to non-host epicuticular lipids. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1999, 91, 115–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Cai, Q.N.; Zhang, Q.W.; Cheo, M. Contribution of indole alkaloids to Sitobion avenae (F.) resistance in wheat. J. Entomol. Nematol. 2004, 128, 517–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Traicevski, V.; Ward, S.A. The effect of paste and current hosts on reproductive investment by the adult cowpea aphid Aphis craccivora. Ecol. Entomol. 2002, 27, 601–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Brough, C.N.; Dixon, A.F.G. Reproductive investment and the inter-ovariole differences in embryo development and size in virginoparae of the vetch aphid, Megoura viciae. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1989, 52, 215–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Annan, I.B.; Schaefers, G.A.; Tingey, W.M.; Tjallingii, W.F. Effects of treatments for electrical penetration graph recordings on behaviour and biology of Aphis craccivora (Aphididae). Physiol. Entomol. 1997, 22, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Sauge, M.H.; Kervella, J.; Pascal, T. Settling behaviour and reproductive potential of the green peach aphid Myzus persicae on peach varieties and a related wild Prunus. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1998, 89, 233–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lebbal, S. Contribution à l’étude de la Résistance Naturelle de la fève au puceron noir de la luzerne Aphis craccivora (Homoptera: Aphididae). Master’s Thesis, Université Batna 1, Batna, Algeria, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  69. Huggett, D.A.J.; Leather, S.R.; Walters, K.F.A. Suitability of the biomass crop Miscanthus sinensis as a host for the aphids Rhopalosiphum padi (L.) and Rhopalosiphum maidis (F.), and its susceptibility to the plant luteovirus Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus. Agric. For. Entomol. 1999, 1, 143–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zhang, P.; Jiang, Y.; Schwab, F.; Monikh, F.A.; Grillo, R.; White, J.C.; Guo, Z.; Lynch, I. Strategies for Enhancing Plant Immunity and Resilience Using Nanomaterials for Sustainable Agriculture Environ. Sci. Technol. 2024, 58, 9051–9060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hayot, C. Effet du fonds Génétique sur l’expression d’un Gène Majeur de Résistance au puceron vert chez le Pêcher dans la Descendance F2 Pamirskij X Rubira. Master’s Thesis, ENITA de Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  72. Painter, R.H. Resistance of plants to insects. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 1958, 3, 267–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Strebler, G. Les Médiateurs Chimiques, Leur Incidence sur la Bioéologie des Animaux; Technique et documentation-Lavoisier: Paris, France, 1989; p. 246. [Google Scholar]
Insects 16 00817 g001
Figure 1. Body size (mm2) of A. craccivora adults reared on four different phenological stages of V. faba (mean ± SE). The bars followed by the same letters were not significantly different at (p ≤ 0.05). Vertical bars indicate SE.
Figure 1. Body size (mm2) of A. craccivora adults reared on four different phenological stages of V. faba (mean ± SE). The bars followed by the same letters were not significantly different at (p ≤ 0.05). Vertical bars indicate SE.
Insects 16 00817 g001
Insects 16 00817 g002
Figure 2. Weight (mg) of A. fabae adult reared on four different phenological stages of V. faba (mean ± SE). The bars followed by the same letters were not significantly different at (p ≤ 0.05). Vertical bars indicate SE.
Figure 2. Weight (mg) of A. fabae adult reared on four different phenological stages of V. faba (mean ± SE). The bars followed by the same letters were not significantly different at (p ≤ 0.05). Vertical bars indicate SE.
Insects 16 00817 g002
Insects 16 00817 g003aInsects 16 00817 g003b
Figure 3. Linear correlations between number of developed and total embryos of A. craccivora (a), number of developed embryos and body size (mm2) of A. craccivora (b), total number of embryos and body size (mm2) of A. craccivora (c), body size (mm2) and weight (mg) of A. fabae (d).
Figure 3. Linear correlations between number of developed and total embryos of A. craccivora (a), number of developed embryos and body size (mm2) of A. craccivora (b), total number of embryos and body size (mm2) of A. craccivora (c), body size (mm2) and weight (mg) of A. fabae (d).
Insects 16 00817 g003aInsects 16 00817 g003b
Table 1. Aphis craccivora adults settled on four different phenological stages of V. faba (mean ± SE).
Table 1. Aphis craccivora adults settled on four different phenological stages of V. faba (mean ± SE).
Phenological Stages2 h24 h48 h
First unfolded leaf0.60 ± 0.6 a0.40 ± 0.24 a0.80 ± 0.37 a
Two unfolded leaves3.00 ± 0.89 a2.80 ± 0.73 a2.20 ± 0.73 a
Three unfolded leaves3.80 ± 0.66 a3.80 ± 1.15 a3.00 ± 0.89 a
Four unfolded leaves3.40 ± 1.2 a3.40 ± 1.2 a3.20 ± 1.24 a
p0.080 ns0.078 ns0.235 ns
F2.7022.7291.572
Df3/123/123/12
ns: not significant; the means followed by the same letters in the same column were not significantly different at p ≤ 0.05.
Table 2. Aphis fabae adults settled on four different phenological stages of V. faba (mean ± SE).
Table 2. Aphis fabae adults settled on four different phenological stages of V. faba (mean ± SE).
Phenological Stages2 h24 h48 h
First unfolded leaf3.25 ± 1.65 a2.50 ± 1.19 a3.00 ± 1.22 a
Two unfolded leaves2.75 ± 1.03 a2.75 ± 1.37 a3.00 ± 1.22 a
Three unfolded leaves2.75 ± 0.85 a3.00 ± 1.22 a4.25 ± 1.65 a
Four unfolded leaves3.75 ± 0.75 a4.75 ± 1.31 a3.50 ± 1.19 a
p0.908 ns0.605 ns0.898 ns
F0.1800.6370.195
Df333
ns: not significant; the means followed by the same letters in the same column were not significantly different at p ≤ 0.05.
Table 3. Total embryos and developed embryos of A. craccivora females fed on four phenological stages of V. faba (mean ± SE).
Table 3. Total embryos and developed embryos of A. craccivora females fed on four phenological stages of V. faba (mean ± SE).
Phenological StagesTotal EmbryosDeveloped Embryos
First unfolded leaf23.10 ± 1.47 a10.50 ± 0.68 a
Two unfolded leaves19.30 ± 1.37 a8.70 ± 0.68 a
Three unfolded leaves18.91 ± 1.46 a9.18 ± 0.60 a
Four unfolded leaves21.50 ± 2.83 a11.50 ± 1.05 a
p0.230 ns0.062 ns
F1.512.687
df33
ns: not significant; the means followed by the same letters in the same column were not significantly different at p ≤ 0.05.
Table 4. Body size (mm2) of A. fabae adults reared on four different phenological stages of V. faba (mean ± SE).
Table 4. Body size (mm2) of A. fabae adults reared on four different phenological stages of V. faba (mean ± SE).
Phenological StagesBody Size (mm2)
First unfolded leaf0.83 ± 0.04 a
Two unfolded leaves0.81 ± 0.05 a
Three unfolded leaves0.67 ± 0.04 b
Four unfolded leaves0.70 ± 0.03 ab
p0.03 *
F2.997
Df3
*: significant at p ≤ 0.05; the means followed by the different letters in the same column were significantly different at p ≤ 0.05.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Meradsi, F.; Lekbir, A.; Bensaci, O.A.; Tifferent, A.; Abbasi, A.; Djemoui, A.; Rebouh, N.Y.; Hashem, A.; Avila-Quezada, G.D.; Almutairi, K.F.; et al. Detection of the Early Sensitive Stage and Natural Resistance of Broad Bean (Vicia faba L.) Against Black Bean and Cowpea Aphids. Insects 2025, 16, 817. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects16080817

AMA Style

Meradsi F, Lekbir A, Bensaci OA, Tifferent A, Abbasi A, Djemoui A, Rebouh NY, Hashem A, Avila-Quezada GD, Almutairi KF, et al. Detection of the Early Sensitive Stage and Natural Resistance of Broad Bean (Vicia faba L.) Against Black Bean and Cowpea Aphids. Insects. 2025; 16(8):817. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects16080817

Chicago/Turabian Style

Meradsi, Fouad, Adel Lekbir, Oussama A. Bensaci, Abdelkader Tifferent, Asim Abbasi, Assia Djemoui, Nazih Y. Rebouh, Abeer Hashem, Graciela Dolores Avila-Quezada, Khalid F. Almutairi, and et al. 2025. "Detection of the Early Sensitive Stage and Natural Resistance of Broad Bean (Vicia faba L.) Against Black Bean and Cowpea Aphids" Insects 16, no. 8: 817. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects16080817

APA Style

Meradsi, F., Lekbir, A., Bensaci, O. A., Tifferent, A., Abbasi, A., Djemoui, A., Rebouh, N. Y., Hashem, A., Avila-Quezada, G. D., Almutairi, K. F., & Abd_Allah, E. F. (2025). Detection of the Early Sensitive Stage and Natural Resistance of Broad Bean (Vicia faba L.) Against Black Bean and Cowpea Aphids. Insects, 16(8), 817. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects16080817

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop