{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027377521613832854, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011527377521613832, 'mean_word_length': 5.043478260869565, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Cowpea aphid performance and behaviour on two resistant cowpea lines

In a series of laboratory and climate chamber tests we compared the growth and behaviour of Aphis craccivora on one susceptible (ICV‐1) and two aphid‐resistant (ICV‐11 and ICV‐12) cowpea lines. The aphids' growth rates were much lower on the resistant cowpea lines than on the susceptible one, indicating strong antibiosis. In addition, the aphids invariably settled in higher numbers on the susceptible line than on either of the resistant. Compared to ICV‐1, damaged leaves of the resistant line ICV‐12 were settled upon to a higher degree than undamaged leaves, and leaf discs from the same line were even less resistant.