<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">AS</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Agricultural Sciences</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2156-8553</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/as.2023.148069</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">AS-127057</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Biomedical&amp;Life Sciences</subject><subject> Earth&amp;Environmental Sciences</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Plants Extracts and a Mycoinsecticide in Cowpea Yield Improvement in Guinean Savanah and Sahelian Savanah Agro-Ecological Zones of Cameroun
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Raoul</surname><given-names>Borkeum Barry</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Katamssadan</surname><given-names>Haman Tofel</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Jean</surname><given-names>Wini Goudoungou</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>François</surname><given-names>Ndosinvian Vandi</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Manuele</surname><given-names>Tamò</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>4</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Albert</surname><given-names>Ngakou</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Elias</surname><given-names>Nchiwan Nukenine</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Ngaoundere, Ngaoundéré, Cameroon</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Life Sciences, Higher Teacher Training College, University of Bertoua, Bertoua, Cameroon</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff4"><addr-line>International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Cotonou, Benin</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Bamenda, Bamenda, Cameroon</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>08</day><month>08</month><year>2023</year></pub-date><volume>14</volume><issue>08</issue><fpage>1038</fpage><lpage>1052</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>3,</day>	<month>July</month>	<year>2023</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>15,</day>	<month>August</month>	<year>2023</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>18,</day>	<month>August</month>	<year>2023</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Cowpea yield improvement is done by adding agricultural inputs. The use of natural substances as pesticides is being encouraged to fight against cowpea field pests. The pesticidal potentials of 
  <em>Azadirachta indica and Boswellia dalzielii</em> water extracts, 
  <em>Metarhizium anisopliae</em>, alone and in combination with plant extracts, and a commercial synthetic pesticide (Decis
  <sup>&amp;#174;</sup>) were tested in field on two varieties of cowpeas, 
  <em>Vigna unguiculata</em> in two agroecological zones (Guinean Savanah and Sahelian Savanah) of Cameroon. The field trials were carried out in a full randomized block design including nine treatments and a control. Four replications were made concerning the different treatments and control. At the flowering stage, the cowpea field was sprayed three times with different pesticidal formulations at the interval of five days. The number of ramifications per plant, and that of pods per block and seed yield were determined. The pesticide formulations considerably (p &lt; 0.0001) improved cowpea yield in the two agro-ecological zones. The production parameters were highly influenced by variety and agroecological zone. The extracts and their combinations were as effective as synthetic pesticide (Decis
  <sup>&amp;#174;</sup>). Bafia variety treated with the combination of 
  <em>M. anisopliae</em> and 
  <em>A. indica</em> recorded the highest ramification rate (37.03 &#177; 1.59) in Maroua (Sahelian Savanah). The same variety also produced more important pods number (90.50 &#177; 16.66) in Ngaoundere (Guinean Savanah) with the binary combination of two plants used in this experiment. The highest seed yield (44.23 &#177; 2.31) was recorded in Ngaoundere with B125 variety treated with the combination of the three pesticidal formulations separately (
  <em>A. indica</em>,
  <em> B. dalzielii</em>, 
  <em>M. anisopliae</em>). The plant products used in this work, 
  <em>M. anisopliae</em> and their mixtures could supersede the synthetic pesticides considering environmental issue in cowpea crop protection. Then, such formulations would not only improve crop productivity but also preserve environment from the pollution due to the use of synthetic residual chemicals.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>&lt;i&gt;Azadirachta indica</kwd><kwd> Boswellia dalzielii</kwd><kwd> Metarhizium anisopliae</kwd><kwd> Vigna unguiculata&lt;/i&gt;</kwd><kwd> Varieties</kwd><kwd> Yield</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Cereals and pulses remained the most consumed grains in Sub-Saharan Africa especially in Cameroon. Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp) is among these consumed grains and one of the highly used pulses in human nutrition in Cameroon. This legume is cultivated and consumed across the ten regions of the country and the neighboring countries. The country’s cowpea production raised from 40,000 (1997) to 198,201 tons (2017) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref1">1</xref>] . Whereas the production is increasing, cowpea grain yield in farmer’s fields is decreasing. All the parts of these plants are used for human or livestock nutrition. Grain and cowpea leaf are highly used in human dietary; these plant parts are rich and cheap sources of high-quality protein (25% - 32%) and vitamins [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref2">2</xref>] . Immature pods and peas are recognized as legumes; however populations in different localities of Cameroon prefer using cowpea to prepare several snacks and main dishes. This legume permits to compensate the cereals during lacking or insufficiency due to the poor harvest or cereal shortage; then in human nutrition, cowpea becomes a supplement to cereals [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref3">3</xref>] . Cowpea is endowed with several benefitial nutritional properties; its shoots and leaves are rich sources of calcium, phosphorous and vitamin B [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref4">4</xref>] . The young leaves are very helpful in some parts of Sub-Sahara Africa (SSA) especially in drought-prone regions to overcome the “hungry period” [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref5">5</xref>] . Cowpea generates income and cash for some farmers, since it is one of the first agricultural products to reach the market each year [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref6">6</xref>] . The freshly harvested leaves are sold as vegetables in local markets. The leaves and stems are important source of food for livestock and roots improve the soil fertility by fixing atmospheric nitrogen through symbiosis with nodule bacteria [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref7">7</xref>] .</p><p>The growth and production of cowpea crop is seriously hampered by numerous biotic factors including insect pests [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref8">8</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref9">9</xref>] . Yield losses range from 10% to 100% due to the activities of wide range of insect pests, which attack cowpea crop in the field at different growth stages [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref10">10</xref>] . Cowpea pests colonize the plant from seedling to mature grain. The pest sucks leaf sap and deposits honeydew on the leaves. This sucking activity results in nutrient drain which causes direct reduction of plant productivity, the pods’ number and seeds’ size are reduced [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref11">11</xref>] . The pest is considered also an important vector of virus on cowpea [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref12">12</xref>] . Currently, exploration of biopesticides is gaining momentum by the agricultural industries in formulating some novel bio-agents for the management of the crop pests.</p><p>Extracts of many plants could be used as an alternative to synthetic insecticides [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref13">13</xref>] . Azadirachta indica is known as endowed by insecticide properties [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref14">14</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref15">15</xref>] , it is the same case for Boswellia dalzielii [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref16">16</xref>] . However, the fungus Metarhizium anisopliae has shown insecticidal properties [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref17">17</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref18">18</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref19">19</xref>] . These properties confer to these natural products the potentialities to be used as alternative to synthetic pesticides. In order to increase effectiveness of these substances, their different combinations can be explored since the combination of B. dalzielii and A. indica extracts with M. anisopliae fungus has not yet been tested on cowpea production parameters. The efficacy of pesticides can be influenced by crop variety and agroecological zone, so the determination of their effect could be very interesting in the framework of integrated pest control. Therefore, the effect of natural substances, A. indica, B. dalzielii and M. anisopliae and their combinations on cowpea production was investigated in two agro-ecological zones of Cameroon (Central Africa) regarding two local cowpea varieties.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials and Methods</title><p>The experiment was carried out in the Guinean Savannah (Dang-Ngaoundere) and the Sahelian Savannah (Beguele-Maroua) agro-ecological zones of Cameroon. Field work was conducted during two consecutive years (2014 and 2015), and the different dates of work sessions in field are summarized in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>. Two cowpea varieties: B125 and Bafia were used. The local Bafia was obtained from the sample cultivated locally during subsequent work, and the B125 was provided by the Institut de la Recherche Agricole pour le D&#233;veloppement (IRAD) of Maroua-Cameroon. The B125 variety is an early maturity variety with cycle of 75 days, whereas the Bafia variety is an intermediate variety with cycle of 85 to 95 days.</p><p>Experimental device and treatments</p><p>The plants were cultivated on flat surface of 57.75 &#215; 25 m<sup>2</sup>. The field was constituted by the plots of 4.5 &#215; 1.5 m<sup>2</sup> for the B125 and 4.5 &#215; 2.25 m<sup>2</sup> for the Bafia variety separated by the interval of 4 m. Seeds were sown at 50 cm between and 50 cm within the lines, and 75 cm between and 50 cm within the lines respectively for B125 (early maturity) and Bafia (intermediate variety). Insecticidal substances were separately sprayed using a manual gauge sprayer for each of them and the same procedure was employed for their combinations. The spraying of pesticides substances was done early in the morning between 6 and 8 am, three times at five (5) days interval, starting from the first flower appearance.</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Cropping calendar</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Sites</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Sowing</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Spraying</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Maturity</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Ngaoundere</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >26.07.2014</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >B125: 54-59-64 DAS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.10.2014 (86 DAS)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bafia: 64-69-74 DAS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >03.11.2014 (100 DAS)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >01.08.2015</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >B125: 54-59-64 DAS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30.10.2015 (90 DAS)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bafia: 59-64-69 DAS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.11.2015 (104 DAS)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Maroua</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >23.08.2014</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >B125: 55-60-65 DAS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >06.11.2014 (75 DAS)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bafia: 65-70-75 DAS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.11.2014 (91 DAS)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >24.08.2015</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >B125: 49-54-59 DAS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >04.11.2015 (75 DAS)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bafia: 64-69-74 DAS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.11.2015 (87 DAS)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>DAS: Day after Sowing.</p><p>The full randomized blocks design was used in this field work; it made up with 9 treatments replicated four times each. The different treatments were: T1 (control representing plots without treatment); T2 (plots treated with A. indica leaves water extract); T3 (plots treated with B. dalzielii leaves water extract); T4 (plots treated with solution of M. anisopliae); T5 (plots treated with the combination of M. anisoplia + A. indica); T6 (plots treated with the combination M. anisopliae + B. dalzielii); T7 (plots treated with the combination A. indica + B. dalzielii); T8 (plots treated with the ternary combination of the three bioinsecticides M. anisopliae + A. indica + B. dalzelii); T9 (the plots treated with the commercial insecticide Decis&#174; used as reference).</p><p>Preparation of insecticidal formulations</p><p>The water extracts of A. indica and B. dalzielii leaves, was obtained using the method recommended by Sahel People Service [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref20">20</xref>] . In this issue, 5 L of solution was obtained by macerating 1 kg of fresh leaves in 5 L of water during 12 hours. The mixture was filtered and the liquid fraction is collected. The treatment solution is made by diluting the solution obtained after filtration at proportion of 1/10 with water and filtered through a 0.4 mm mesh tissue. The concentration used for treatment was 20 g/L. The M. anisopliae solution was obtained using the method described by Ngakou et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref16">16</xref>] which required the mixture of 50 g of M. anisopliae with 700 mL of kerosene and 300 mL of cotton seed oil. Then the solution of M. anisopliae was prepared at 10 g/L for this work. The sample of M. anisopliae used in experiment was obtained from IITA Cotonou-Benin, while Deltamethrin-based synthetic insecticide (Decis&#174;) was bought from a phytosanitary store and applied at the recommended dose of 0.2 mL/L of water.</p><p>Assessed parameters</p><p>The average ramifications number per plant, the average pod number per plot and yield per plot (seeds dry weight) were assessed. The determination of ramification number was performed one day before pod maturity on 10 randomly selected plants on the 2 middle rows [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref21">21</xref>] . Pods of 10 randomly selected plants from the 2 middle rows were counted, and for the yield, the weight of dry seeds from these pods was determined [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref16">16</xref>] using a KERN electronic scale (max: 1000 g; d: 0.1 g).</p><p>Data analysis</p><p>The number of ramifications and pods, and the yield were subjected to the analysis of variance (ANOVA) to bring out the effect of different factors (variety, period, zone) on different parameters (ramification, pod production and yield). The Student-Newman-Keuls test was employed to compare the different treatments and T-test to compare means of two modalities of the same factor. The whole statistical analysis was carried by using the SAS system. The Microsoft Office Excel 2010 was used to draw the diagrams.</p></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><p>Influence of insecticide formulation on ramifications production</p><p>In general (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>), the highest ramification production was observed in Maroua, (t = 61.98; p &lt; 0.0001). In the same agro-ecological zone, Bafia variety produced more ramifications than B125 variety (t = 10.93; p &lt; 0.0001). There were recorded more ramifications in 2015 than 2014 (t = 10.80; p &lt; 0.0001).</p><p>In Ngaoundere (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>), insecticidal products significantly (p &lt; 0.0002) improved the ramifications production on Bafia variety which wase not the case for B125 variety (p = 0.1405) in 2014. Compared to negative control, the binary combination of the two plants (A. indica + B. dalzielii) considerably improved ramifications production as far as the chemical, Decis&#174; used as the positive control. The production of ramifications was lesser in A. indica, M. anisopliae and M. anisopliae + A. indica treatments than negative control. In 2015, all different insecticidal treatments significantly improved (p = 0.0240) ramification production of B125 variety. Among them, M. anisopliae + B. dalzielii was the formulation inducing the highest ramification production. Except synthetic insecticide and binary combination A. indica + B. dalzielii, all the other insecticidal treatments</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Production of ramifications as influenced by pesticides treatments</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Sites</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="7"  >Years</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Treatments</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >2014</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >2015</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >B125</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bafia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >t-value</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >B125</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bafia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >t-value</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="12"  >Ngaoundere</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Control</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.80 &#177; 0.21<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.13 &#177; 0.30<sup>ba </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.2073*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.85 &#177; 0.15<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.00 &#177; 0.20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.4696<sup>ns</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >A. indica</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.83 &#177; 0.25<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.45 &#177; 0.24<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.6858*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.18 &#177; 0.18<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.65 &#177; 0.19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.9602*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >B. dalzielii</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.70 &#177; 0.20<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.13 &#177; 0.26<sup>ba </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.2109*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.38 &#177; 0.19<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.00 &#177; 0.24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.0408*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M. anisopliae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.15 &#177; 0.19<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.50 &#177; 0.26<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.9442*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.28 &#177; 0.19<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.94 &#177; 0.19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.0994*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M + B</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.08 &#177; 0.20<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.40 &#177; 0.36<sup>ba</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9033<sup>ns</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.58 &#177; 0.19<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.05 &#177; 0.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.5842*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M + A</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.73 &#177; 0.20<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.58 &#177; 0.19<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0193<sup>ns</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.28 &#177; 0.17<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.05 &#177; 0.15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.4849*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >A + B</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.37 &#177; 0.21<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.78 &#177; 0.25<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.5783***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.88 &#177; 0.17<sup>dc </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.63 &#177; 0.13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.8614*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M + A + B</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.83 &#177; 0.21<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.32 &#177; 0.33<sup>ba </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.0684*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.20 &#177; 0.18<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.72 &#177; 0.16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.8820*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >D&#233;cis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.25 &#177; 0.22<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.85 &#177; 0.28<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.1273*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.80 &#177; 0.15<sup>d </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.82 &#177; 0.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2090<sup>ns</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Means</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.86 &#177; 0.07</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.12 &#177; 0.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.5856**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.16 &#177; 0.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.88 &#177; 0.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.0829***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >F</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.54<sup>ns</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.92***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.24*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.89<sup>ns</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >p-value</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1405</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0002</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0240</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5288</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="12"  >Maroua</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Control</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.75 &#177; 0.70<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.75 &#177; 0.82<sup>ba </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0<sup>ns</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.58 &#177; 0.59<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.88 &#177; 1.53<sup>d </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.3857***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >A. indica</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.98 &#177; 0.51<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.65 &#177; 0.89<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.1517***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.68 &#177; 0.93<sup>cb </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34.63 &#177; 1.43<sup>ba </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.6475***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >B. dalzielii</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.40 &#177; 0.69<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.03 &#177; 0.94<sup>ba </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.6253***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.13 &#177; 0.88<sup>cb </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.90 &#177; 1.74<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.2983***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M. anisopliae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.30 &#177; 0.83<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.86 &#177; 0.83<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.0050*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.97 &#177; 1.00<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.73 &#177; 1.15<sup>dc </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.6872***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M + B</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.55 &#177; 0.63<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.80 &#177; 1.18<sup>ba </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.1201*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.58 &#177; 1.06<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30.55 &#177; 1.61<sup>bc </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.0229***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M + A</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.87 &#177; 0.98<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.23 &#177; 0.87<sup>ba </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.4112*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.87 &#177; 1.02<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.03 &#177; 1.59<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.4377***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >A + B</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.90 &#177; 0.69<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.58 &#177; 0.91<sup>ba </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.7482**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.15 &#177; 1.23<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.80 &#177; 1.48<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.1016***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M + A + B</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.65 &#177; 0.47<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.63 &#177; 0.75<sup>ba </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.2470***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.33 &#177; 1.10<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.98 &#177; 1.54<sup>bc </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.1957***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >D&#233;cis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.90 &#177; 0.83<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.80 &#177; 1.15<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.7358***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.78 &#177; 0.84<sup>cb </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.98 &#177; 1.31<sup>d </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.9071***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Means</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.02 &#177; 0.24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.40 &#177; 0.32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.5744***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.77 &#177; 0.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.05 &#177; 0.55</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49.8975***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >F</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.63<sup>ns</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.12**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.99***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.72***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >p-value</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.002</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >˂0.0001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >˂0.0001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>C: negative control; A: A. indica; B: B. dalzielii; M: M. anisopliae; M + B: M. anisopliae + B. dalzielii; M + A: M. anisopliae + A. indica; A + B: A. indica + B. dalzielii; M + A + B: M. anisopliae + A. indica + B. dalzielii; D: Decis. ns: p &gt; 0.05; *: p &lt; 0.05; **: p &lt; 0.001; ***: p &lt; 0.0001. For each cowpea variety values of the same column affected by the same upper-case letter are not significantly different between treatments at the indicated level of probability (Student-Newman-Keuls test).</p><p>improved the production of ramifications more than negative control. The different treatments significantly affected Bafia variety ramification in 2014 (p = 0.0002) but not in 2015 (p = 0.5288).</p><p>In 2014 in Sahelian Savannah (Maroua), the insecticidal treatments and control recorded the same performance on B125 variety (p = 0.1165). It was the contrary on Bafia variety (p = 0.0021). With 25% more ramifications produced, A. indica treatment was the most effective. This treatment induced much ramification production than D&#233;cis. In 2015 (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>), insecticidal treatments significantly induced more ramification production than control on the two cowpea varieties, B125 (p &lt; 0.0001); Bafia (p &lt; 0.0001). 20% more ramification production induced by A. indica and B. dalzielii treatment, these two treatments were more effective than Decis&#174;. The other bio-insecticidal treatments during the two years of experiment in the same way induced higher ramification compared to the reference pesticide. In the Savannah Sahelian zone, within the two years experiment (2014 and 2015), the ternary combination (M. anisopliae + A. indica + B. dalzielii) was very effective, and most effective especially with B125 variety in the second year (year 2015).</p><p>Insecticide formulation effect on pods production</p><p>In general, the pods productions varied according to sites, varieties and years (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>). This pod production was higher in Ngaoundere than Maroua (t = 5.58; p &lt; 0.0001). Even the pods production of B125 was higher than that of Bafia, this difference was not significant (t = 0.88; p = 0.3794). The production was higher in 2014 than 2015 (t = 2.12; p = 0.0350).</p><p>Different treatments differently affected the pods productions in Ngaoundere and Maroua, and this production varied according to the varieties (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>). Concerning Ngaoundere, the results show that there was not significant different (p = 0.8554) amongst the treatments on pod production of B125 variety in 2014. That was not the case concerning Bafia variety (p = 0.0492), where the used bio-pesticides differently improved pod production, that production was higher than negative control. On this variety, plots treated with the mixture of A. indica + B. dalzielii produced pods as far as synthetic insecticide. The combination of M. anisopliae + A. indica + B. dalzielii induced the lesser pod production. There</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Production of pods as influenced by pesticides treatments</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Sites</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="7"  >Years</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Treatments</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >2014</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >2015</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >B125</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bafia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >t-value</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >B125</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bafia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >t-value</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="12"  >Ngaoundere</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Control</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.25 &#177; 5.42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.25 &#177; 8.13<sup>d </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2506<sup>ns</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.75 &#177; 3.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.67 &#177; 5.61</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.5447***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >A. indica</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.00 &#177; 6.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50.75 &#177; 21.48<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9266<sup>ns</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.25 &#177; 3.68</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.25 &#177; 4.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.2074***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >B. dalzielii</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.50 &#177; 9.31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64.25 &#177; 25.17<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.4455*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42.75 &#177; 3.75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.00 &#177; 10.17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.1388**</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M. anisopliae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.75 &#177; 10.13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34.50 &#177; 8.68<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.8721<sup>ns</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.50 &#177; 7.44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.75 &#177; 5.72</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.0668*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M + B</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30.25 &#177; 9.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >67.50 &#177; 5.33<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.3762***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.75 &#177; 8.56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.75 &#177; 3.71</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.4132*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M + A</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.75 &#177; 5.65</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48.50 &#177; 13.00<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.9682*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40.25 &#177; 9.87</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.25 &#177; 3.73</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.5002***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >A + B</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.25 &#177; 4.48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >90.50 &#177; 16.66<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.5423***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40.00 &#177; 1.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.25 &#177; 3.47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.6157***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M + A + B</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.00 &#177; 13.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49.33 &#177; 21.96<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.2705<sup>ns</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30.50 &#177; 10.81</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.00 &#177; 12.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2181<sup>ns</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >D&#233;cis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.75 &#177; 11.60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >107.75 &#177; 24.06<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.3364***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >58.75 &#177; 5.30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.00 &#177; 9.29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.1262***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Means</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.06 &#177; 2.80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60.11 &#177; 6.62</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11,26***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39.17 &#177; 2.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.47 &#177; 2.43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.42**</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >F</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.49<sup>ns</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.33*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.74<sup>ns</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.99<sup>ns</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >p-value</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.8554</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0492</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1354</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4660</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="12"  >Maroua</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Control</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39.50 &#177; 7.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.75 &#177; 1.89</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.92<sup>ns</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.00 &#177; 1.68</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.50 &#177; 6.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.56*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >A. indica</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30.00 &#177; 6.54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.50 &#177; 4.29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.54***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.75 &#177; 3.94</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.50 &#177; 0.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.72***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >B. dalzielii</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.25 &#177; 5.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.75 &#177; 1.70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.74<sup>ns</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.50 &#177; 4.66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.50 &#177; 4.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.69***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M. anisopliae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.00 &#177; 7.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.33 &#177; 4.37</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.16<sup>ns</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34.00 &#177; 6.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.50 &#177; 0.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.88***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M + B</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.50 &#177; 2.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.33 &#177; 5.55</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.45*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.00 &#177; 3.94</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.11***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M + A</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.33 &#177; 9.28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.00 &#177; 4.60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.89**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.25 &#177; 10.86</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.50 &#177; 0.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.12**</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >A + B</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.50 &#177; 8.69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.00 &#177; 0.82</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.94**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.75 &#177; 4.19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.50 &#177; 0.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.14***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M + A + B</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.75 &#177; 6.71</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.75 &#177; 1.70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.66<sup>ns</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.00 &#177; 5.58</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.50 &#177; 0.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.20***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >D&#233;cis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.00 &#177; 8.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.50 &#177; 7.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.62*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41.00 &#177; 3.58</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.00 &#177; 1.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.06***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Means</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.24 &#177; 2.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.09 &#177; 1.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.96***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30.14 &#177; 1.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.56 &#177; 0.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.10***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >F</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.63<sup>ns</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.31<sup>ns</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.26<sup>ns</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.80<sup>ns</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >p-value</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7475</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2837</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3069</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6104</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>C: negative control; A: A. indica; B: B. dalzielii; M: M. anisopliae; M + B: M. anisopliae + B. dalzielii; M + A: M. anisopliae + A. indica; A + B: A. indica + B. dalzielii; M + A + B: M. anisopliae + A. indica + B. dalzielii; D: Decis. ns: p &gt; 0.05; *: p &lt; 0.05; **: p &lt; 0.001; ***: p &lt; 0.0001. For each cowpea variety values of the same column affected by the same upper-case letter are not significantly different between treatments at the indicated level of probability (Student-Newman-Keuls test).</p><p>was no significant difference of pod production due to the application of different substances in 2015 concerning the two cowpea varieties (p = 0.1354 for B125; p = 0.4660 for Bafia). In Maroua, results show that there is not significant improving pod production using the different substances in 2014 and 2015, that on B125 variety (p = 0.7475 in 2014; p = 0.3069 in 2015) and Bafia variety (p = 0.2837 in 2014; p = 0.6104 in 2015). But the pod production in the present study for a given pesticidal treatment varied according to the cowpea variety alone the year.</p><p>Influence of pesticide formulations on yield</p><p>The yield of cowpea crop treated with the different formulations of bioproducts significantly varied according to the sites (t = −6.34; p &lt; 0.0001), varieties (t = 13.45; p &lt; 0.0001) and years (t = 3.11; p = 0.0021) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>). The yield was higher in Ngaoundere than Maroua and B125 variety recorded higher yield compared to Bafia variety. Concerning the two years of cropping, the first year (2014) recorded higher yield compared to the second year (2015).</p><p>At Ngaoundere (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>) in 2014, all insecticidal formulations significantly improved the two varieties’ yield compared to the negative control (p &lt; 0.0001 for B125; p = 0.0012 for Bafia). In B125 variety, the formulations induced more than 100% yield increase compared to the negative control, it was the same performance reached by synthetic insecticide Decis. On Bafia variety, the single products; A. indica, B. dalzielii and M. anisopliae considerably induced yield improvement compared to the negative control, this yield improvement was 25%. However, those yield improvements were lower to those induced by the combined products. The combined bioformulations improved yield as more as Decis with an increasing of 75%. In 2015, no significantly improving of yield on Bafia variety (p = 0.4110) was observed. On B125 variety, all pesticides formulations improved the yield and this varied significantly (p &lt; 0.0001). Despite 100% of yield increasing, A. indica and M. anisopliae were the less effective bioformulations. M. anisopliae + A. indica + B. dalzielii was the most effective formulation with 200% yield increasing compared to the negative control (non-treated plot).</p><p>The influence of the different treatments in Sahelian Savannah (Maroua) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>) significantly showed more yield improvement (p &lt; 0.0001) on B125</p><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Yield as influenced by insecticidal treatments</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Sites</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="7"  >Years</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Treatments</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >2014</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >2015</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >B125</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bafia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >t-value</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >B125</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bafia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >t-value</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="12"  >Ngaoundere</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Control</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.12 &#177; 2.09<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.65 &#177; 4.40<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.7865*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.65 &#177; 0.69<sup>d </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.00 &#177; 3.72<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.6595*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >A. indica</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30.35 &#177; 2.68<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.23 &#177; 4.02<sup>ba </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.1027*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.20 &#177; 2.45<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.65 &#177; 2.64<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.9759***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >B. dalzielii</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.21 &#177; 1.89<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.99 &#177; 4.01<sup>ba </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.5419*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.10 &#177; 3.15<sup>bc </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.18 &#177; 8.01<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.8152***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M. anisopliae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.06 &#177; 2.50<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.81 &#177; 1.32<sup>ba </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.1155*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.08 &#177; 3.03<sup>bc </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.95 &#177; 3.44<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.3592***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M + B</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.93 &#177; 3.17<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34.01 &#177; 1.21<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.5517*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.10 &#177; 1.89<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.88 &#177; 4.49<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.6359*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M + A</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.44 &#177; 4.24<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.21 &#177; 1.53<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.2118<sup>ns</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.83 &#177; 4.08<sup>bc </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.40 &#177; 2.52<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.9246***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >A + B</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30.28 &#177; 1.95<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.88 &#177; 2.04<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.2151<sup>ns</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30.43 &#177; 5.78<sup>bc </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.73 &#177; 3.61<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.9243*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M + A + B</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39.07 &#177; 3.87<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.67 &#177; 0.26<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.1471*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44.23 &#177; 2.31<sup>ba </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.33 &#177; 11.70<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.6765*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >D&#233;cis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41.26 &#177; 3.10<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.81 &#177; 0.59<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.4541*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48.43 &#177; 5.06<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.00 &#177; 7.13<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.1245***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Means</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.06 &#177; 1.86</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30.36 &#177; 1.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.76</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.11 &#177; 1.86</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.19 &#177; 2.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.11***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >F</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.63***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.88**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.80***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.08<sup>ns</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >p-value</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0012</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4110</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="12"  >Maroua</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Control</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.96 &#177; 3.75<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.75 &#177; 1.73<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.8695*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.63 &#177; 1.11<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.50 &#177; 4.70<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.60*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >A. indica</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.25 &#177; 2.85<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.71 &#177; 2.40<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.10***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.43 &#177; 4.24<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.85 &#177; 0.25<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.71***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >B. dalzielii</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30.99 &#177; 2.93<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.94 &#177; 2.68<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.21***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.08 &#177; 1.98<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.30 &#177; 2.70<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.54***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M. anisopliae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.05 &#177; 1.12<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.88 &#177; 3.39<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.89***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.13 &#177; 3.57<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.05 &#177; 0.85<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.06***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M + B</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.19 &#177; 1.18<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.12 &#177; 2.75<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.52***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.90 &#177; 0.86<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45.28***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M + A</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.91 &#177; 1.11<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.43 &#177; 3.67<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.63***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.63 &#177; 5.90<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.20 &#177; 0.20<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.30***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >A + B</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.89 &#177; 2.64<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.39 &#177; 2.10<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.61***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.35 &#177; 6.14<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.20 &#177; 1.70<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.51***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M + A + B</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.36 &#177; 1.22<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.38 &#177; 3.08<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.94***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.83 &#177; 2.64<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.35 &#177; 0.15<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.33***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >D&#233;cis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.28 &#177; 1.99<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.48 &#177; 3.42<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.59***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.30 &#177; 4.22<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.70 &#177; 1.10<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.81***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Means</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30.85 &#177; 1.42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.41 &#177; 0.87</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.45***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.93 &#177; 1.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.39 &#177; 0.69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.32***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >F</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.71***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.36<sup>ns</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.13<sup>ns</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.76<sup>ns</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >p-value</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0706</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6328</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>C: negative control; A: A. indica; B: B. dalzielii; M: M. anisopliae; M + B: M. anisopliae + B. dalzielii; M + A: M. anisopliae + A. indica; A + B: A. indica + B. dalzielii; M + A + B: M. anisopliae + A. indica + B. dalzielii; D: Decis. ns: p &gt; 0.05; *: p &lt; 0.05; **: p &lt; 0.001; ***: p &lt; 0.0001. For each cowpea variety values of the same column affected by the same upper-case letter are not significantly different between treatments at the indicated level of probability (Student-Newman-Keuls test).</p><p>variety in 2014. All biopesticides improved yield by more than 100%, that was higher than the improvement yield induced by the reference pesticide (Decis&#174;). There was yield increase of Bafia variety treated with all used pesticides, and no significant difference was observed for the different formulations (p = 0.9293). In 2015, all the treated blocks have showed significant yield increase when compared to the non-treated ones. For a given variety the different pesticidal formulations had statistically the same performance (B125 variety: p = 0.0706 and Bafia variety: p = 0.6328).</p></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><p>The formulated plant-based products in this study have influenced the different investigated parameters. There were more ramifications in Maroua than Ngaoundere in the two years (2014 and 2015). The most rainfall in Ngaoundere leaches the soil, that weakens plant growth, and the Bafia variety has tendency to crawl in Maroua to resist the drought [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref22">22</xref>] . The absence of significant difference between treatments in Ngaound&#233;r&#233; on B125 variety in 2014, on Bafia variety in 2015, and on B125 variety in Maroua in 2015, could be due to the late application of different formulated pesticides. This is similar with Sharah and Ali [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref23">23</xref>] observations. Difference observed between the treatments in Ngaoundere on Bafia variety in 2014, and on B125 variety in 2015, were the result of the growing plant which is not always uniform.</p><p>Concerning the production of pod, the higher one was observed in Ngaoundere, that was due to the variation of growing plant in different agro-eologial zone [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref24">24</xref>] . In Ngaoundere, the well full-blowing of Bafia variety in 2014 has induced a better production of pods than B125 variety. But in 2015, the soil leaching weakened Bafia variety growth and reduced the pod production compared to B125 variety. In Maroua, the Bafia variety with his intermediate cycle has been interrupted by the shoddiness of the rainfall season, and then it did not produce more pods. The combination properties effects of in A. indica + B. dalzielii treatment in 2014 on Bafia variety in Ngaoundere, allowed to this treatment to produce more pods than Decis. The presence of kerosine in M. anisopliae treatment weaken plants’ development, so treatments that were combined with M. anispliae produced less pods, but more than A. indica treatments which, according to Bambara and Tiemtore [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref25">25</xref>] , is more effective in stocking than yield. The most resource in gum of B. dalzielii [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref26">26</xref>] makes it viscous, favourising its adhesion that could make B. dalzielii treatment to be more effective than A. indica treatment. According to Ibrahim et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref27">27</xref>] , the adhesion is an important factor for the effectiveness of a treatment.</p><p>Concerning cowpea yield, it was higher in Ngaoundere than Maroua. That shows the influence of the agro-ecological zone on crop production [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref24">24</xref>] . Then the cowpea yield in this study was affected by soil, climate and environmental conditions which characterised the different zones. The rainfall season in Maroua is shorter than that of Ngaoundere, the intermediate cycle of Bafia variety has no more full bloom there. The lower efficiency of yield improving with A. indica and B. dalzielii extracts on Bafia variety compared to the other insecticidal treatments, were due to the fact that biopesticides have lower efficiency than synthetic pesticides as show by Dereval et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref28">28</xref>] . The authors observed that the low remanence of biopesticides and the fact that their effectiveness depend to environment conditions make them less effective than synthetic chemical pesticides. These results are similar to Bambara and Tiemtor&#233; [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref25">25</xref>] who showed that A. indica, Euphorbia balsamifera and Hyptis spicigera were less effective than Decis&#174;. The presence of kerozene which has propensity to burn with high temperature was the cause of the helpless of M. anisopliae treatment. Treatments in combination, by the synergy of their different constituents, induced improving yield as well as Decis&#174;. These findings are similar to Barry et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref19">19</xref>] , these authors pointed out that the combination of M. anisopliae with other extracts improved the pesticidal efficacy than alone. In 2015, the low production of Bafia variety was due to the high rainfull which leached the soil. The synthetic pesticide Decis induced more yield improving than biopesticides on B125 variety [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref25">25</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref28">28</xref>] . Moreover, this pesticide is systemic one with a large spectrum. Among biopesticides, the higher yield observed in combination of M. anispliae + A. indica + B. dalzielii could be attributed to the synergic activities of their different constituents [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref18">18</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref19">19</xref>] . The lower yield observed in A. indica treatments was due to the fact that, the efficacy of A. indica products was reduced in field [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref25">25</xref>] . This could be to the fact that the field is not a close space as stores which increase the availability of active components content in pesticide. Also, the field environment conditions are very fluctuating which greatly affected the efficacy of pesticide compared to storage. In Maroua, cowpea crops have benefited from properties of treatment as A. indica and B. dalzielii extracts, that permitted them to produce more than the other pesticides treatments on B125 variety during the year 2014. The low rainfall of Maroua reduced the leaching of these biopesticides. But when the rainfall is very weak, the need of plant in water is not well satisfied which reduced the crop production as observed during the year 2015 on the two cowpea varieties.</p><p>After all, biopesticides are biodegradable [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref29">29</xref>] and easily accessible (as regard A. indica and B. dalzielii), and also can be produce by the farmers [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127057-ref30">30</xref>] . So, it is a really economic gain due to expensive cost of synthetic pesticides which even have harmful effects on the environment.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>The aqueous extracts of A. indica and B. dalzielii, the mycoinsecticide M. anisopliae, and their different mixtures considerably induced improvement of cowpea crop productivity. The different products used in this study positively affect pulses yield. Considering all positive effects of the different formulations on the two cowpea varieties in the two agroecological zones, they could be proposed to substitute the commonly used synthetic pesticides in field in Guinean and Sahelian savannah. However, intermediate cycle plants such as Bafia variety would be recommended in Guinean savannah than Sahilian savannah, and arrangement ought to be taken into consideration to reduce soil leaching in Guinean savannah characterised by heavy rainfall.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>The authors are grateful to the International Institut of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) of Cotonou (Benin) for providing the strain of M. anisopliae used in this study. The authors also thank Institut de la Recherche Agricole pour le D&#233;veloppement (IRAD) of Maroua (Cameroon) for B125 cowpea variety given for this study.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>Authors have declared no relevant conflict of interest that may have influenced the study.</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Barry, R.B., Tofel, K.H., Goudoungou, J.W., Vandi, F.N., Tam&#242;, M., Ngakou, A. and Nukenine, E.N. (2023) Plants Extracts and a Mycoinsecticide in Cowpea Yield Improvement in Guinean Savanah and Sahelian Savanah Agro-Ecological Zones of Cameroun. Agricultural Sciences, 14, 1038-1052. https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2023.148069</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.127057-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Food and Agriculture Organization (2019) FAOSTAT. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127057-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Bressani, R. (1985) Nutritive Value of Cowpea. In: Singh, S.R. and Rachies, K.O., Eds., Cowpea Reseach Production and Utilization, John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA, 353-360.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127057-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Karikari, S.K. and Molatakgosi, G. (1999) Response of Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L) Walp) Varieties to Leaf Harvesting on Botswana. UNISWA Journal of Agriculture, 8, 5-11. https://doi.org/10.4314/uniswa.v8i1.4611</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127057-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Maynard, K. (2008) The Poetic Turn of Culture, or the “Resistances of Structure”. Anthropology Humanism, 33, 66-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1409.2008.00006.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127057-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Pottorff, M., Ehlers, D.J., Fatokun, C., Roberts, A.P. and Close, T.J. (2012) Leaf Morphology in Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp]: QTL Analysis, Physical Mapping and Identifying a Candidate Gene Using Synteny with Model Legume Species. BMC Genomics, 13, Article No. 234. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-13-234</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127057-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Baoua, I., Ba, N.M., Agunbiade, T.A., Margam, V., Binso-Dabiré, C.L., Antoine, S. and Pittendrigh, B.R. (2012) Potential Use of Desbania pachycarpa DC (Fabaceae: Papilionoideae) as a Refugia for the Legume Pod Borer Marucavitrata (Lepidoptera: Crambidae). International Journal of Tropical Insect Science, 31, 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742758411000324</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127057-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Shiringani, R.P. and Shimelis, H.A. (2011) Yield Response and Stability among Cowpea Genotypes at Three Planting Dates and Test Environments. African Journal of Agriculture Research, 6, 3259-3263.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127057-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Singh, B.B., Chambliss, O.L. and Sharma, B. (1997) Recent Advances in Cowpea Breeding. In: Singh, B.B., Mohan Raj, D.R., Dashiell, K.E. and Jakai, L.E.N., Eds., Advances in Cowpea Research, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Ibadan, 30-49.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127057-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tamo, M., Baumg&amp;#228;rtner, J. and Gutierrez, A.P. (1993) Analysis of the Cowpea Agro-Ecosystem in West Africa. II. Modelling the Interactions between Cowpea and the Bean Flower Thrips Megalurothripssjostedti (Trybom) (Thysanoptera, Thripidae). Ecological Modelling, 70, 89-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3800(93)90074-3</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127057-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Singh, S.R. and Van Emden, H.F. (1979) Insect Pest of Grain Legums. Annual Review of Entomology, 24, 255-278. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.24.010179.001351</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127057-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Shannang, H.K. (2007) Effect of Black Bean Aphid, Aphis fabae, on Transpiration, Stomatal Conductace and Crude Protein Content of Faba Bean. Annals of Applied Biology, 151, 183-188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.2007.00161.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127057-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Biddle, A.J. and Cattlin, N.D. (2019) Pest, Diseases and Disorders of Peas and Beans. Taylor &amp; Francis Ltd., London.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127057-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Barry, B.R., Ngakou, A. and Nukenine, E.N. (2017) Pesticidal Activity of Plant Extracts and a Mycoinsecticide (Metarhrizium anisopliae) on Cowpea Flower Thrips and Leaves Damages in the Field. Journal of Experimental Agriculture International, 18, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.9734/JEAI/2017/37002</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127057-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bélanger, A. and Thaddée, M. (2005) Le Neem contre les insectes et les maladies. Association pour la Promotion des Produits Naturels Peu Préoccupants.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127057-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mouffok, B., Raffy, E., Urruty, N. and Zicola, J. (2008) Le neem, un insecticide biologique efficace. Projet tutoré du S2 du Génie Biologique de l’IUT de l’Université Paul Sabatier. (In French)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127057-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kémeuzé, V.A., Mapongmetsem, P.M., Tientcheu, M.A., Nkongmeneck, B.A. and Jiofack, R.B. (2012) Boswellia dalzielii Hutch: Etat du peuplement et utilisation traditionnelle dans la région de Mbé (Adamaoua-Cameroun). Sécheresse, 23, 278-283. (In French) https://doi.org/10.1684/sec.2012.0365</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127057-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Tamò, M., Ekesi, S., Maniania, N.K. and Cherry, A. (2003) Biological Control, a Non-Obvious Component of IPM for Cowpea. In: Neuenschwander, P., Borgemeister, C. and Langewald, J., Eds., Biological Control in IPM Systems in Africa, CAB International, Wallingford, 295-309. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851996394.0295</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127057-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ngakou, A., Tamò, M., Parh, I.A., Nwaga, D., Ntonifor, N.N., Korie, S. and Nebane, C.L.N. (2008) Management of Cowpea Flower Thrips, Megalurothrips sjostedti (Thysanoptera: Thripidae), in Cameroon. Crop Protection, 27, 481-488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2007.08.002</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127057-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Barry, B.R., Ngakou, A., Tamò, M. and Nukenine, E.N. (2019) The Incidence of Aqueous Neem Leaves (Azadirachta indica A. Juss) Extract and Metarhizium anisopliae Metch. on Cowpea Thrips (Megolurothips sjostedti Trybom) and Yield in Ngaoundéré (Adamaoua-Cameroun). Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, 7, 333-338.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127057-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Fiche technique n°2: Le Neem, pesticide naturel. (In French) https://www.terra-symbiosis.org/dossiers/racine/pdf/fiche-technique-le-neem-0.pdf</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127057-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">N’gbesso, M.F.D.P., Zohouri, G.P., Fondio, L., Djidji, A.H. and Konate, D. (2013) Etude des caractéristiques de croissance et de l’état sanitaire de six variétés améliorées de niébé &lt;i&gt; [Vigna unguiculata &lt;/i&gt; (L.) Walp] en zone centre de C&amp;#244;te d’Ivoire. International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences, 7, 457-467. (In French) https://doi.org/10.4314/ijbcs.v7i2.4</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127057-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Brouwer, R. (1962) Nutritive Influences on the Distribution of Dry Matter in Plant. Netherlands Journal Agricultural Science, 10, 399-408. https://doi.org/10.18174/njas.v10i5.17581</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127057-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sharah, H.A. and Ali, E.A. (2008) Impact of Insecticide Spray Regimes on Insect Abundance in Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) in North Eastern Nigeria. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 3, 255-260.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127057-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nouhoheflin, T., Coulibaly, O. and Adégbidi, A. (2003) Impact de l’adoption des nouvelles technologies sur l’efficacité de la production du niébé au Bénin. Bulletin de la Recherche Agronomique du Benin, 40, 10-18. (In French)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127057-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bambara, D. and Tiemtoré, J. (2008) Efficacité biopesticide de Hyptis spicigera Lam., Azadirachta indica A. Juss. et Euphorbia balsamifera Ait. sur le niébé Vigna unguculata L. Walp. Tropicultura, 26, 53-55. (In French)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127057-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Younoussa, L. (2016) Mosquitocidal Activity of Annona senegalensis Pers. (Annonaceae) and Boswellia dalzielii Hutch. (Bruceraceae) Leaf Extracts and Essential Oils against Three Major Vector Species: Anopheles gambiae Giles, Aedes aegypti Say and Culex quinquefasciatus Linnaeus (Diptera: Culicidae). Master’s Thesis, Université de Ngaoundéré, Ngaoundéré.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127057-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ibrahim, L., Butt, T., Beckett, A. and Clark, S.J. (1999) The Germination Oil-Formulated Conidia of the Insect Pathogen Metarhizium anisopliae. Mycological Research, 103, 901-907. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0953756298007849</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127057-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dereval, J., Krier, F. and Jacques, P. (2014) Les biopesticides, compléments et alternatives aux produits phytosanitaires chimiques (synthèse bibliographique). Biotechnologie, Agronomie, Société et Environnement, 18, 220-232. (In French)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127057-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Faye, M. (2010) Nouveau procédé de fractionnement de la graine de neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss) sénégalais: Production d’un biopesticide d’huile et de tourteau. Master’s Thesis, Université de Toulouse, Toulouse. (In French)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127057-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Roy, B., Amin, R., Uddin, M.N., Islam, M.J. and Halder, B.C. (2005) Leaf Extracts of Shylmutra (Blumea lacera Dc.) as Botanical Pesticides against Lesser Grain Borer and Rice Weevil. Journal of Biological Sciences, 5, 201-204. https://doi.org/10.3923/jbs.2005.201.204</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>