| Literature DB >> 24455279 |
Boopathi Thangavel1, Karuppuchamy Palaniappan2, Kalyanasundaram Manickavasagam Pillai2, Mohankumar Subbarayalu3, Ravi Madhaiyan4.
Abstract
Biological control using entomopathogenic fungi could be a promising alternative to chemical control. Entomopathogenic fungi, Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) Vuillemin, Metarhizium anisopliae (Metschnikoff) Sorokin, Lecanicillium lecanii (Zimmerm.) Zare and Gams, and Paecilomyces fumosoroseus (Wize) Brown and Smith, were tested for their pathogenicity, ovicidal effect, and median lethal concentrations (LC50) against exotic spiralling whitefly, Aleurodicus dispersus Russell. The applications were made at the rate of 2 × 10(9) conidia mL(-1) for evaluating the pathogenicity and ovicidal effect of entomopathogenic fungi against A. dispersus. The results of pathogenicity test showed that P. fumosoroseus (P1 strain) was highly pathogenic to A. dispersus recording 100% mortality at 15 days after treatment (DAT). M. anisopliae (M2 strain) had more ovicidal effect causing 37.3% egg mortality at 8 DAT. However, L. lecanii (L1 strain) caused minimum egg hatchability (23.2%) at 10 DAT as compared to control (92.6%). The lowest LC50 produced by P. fumosoroseus (P1 strain) as 8.189 × 10(7) conidia mL(-1) indicated higher virulence against A. dispersus. Hence, there is potential for use of entomopathogenic fungi in the field conditions as an alternate control method in combating the insect pests and other arthropod pests since they are considered natural mortality agents and are environmentally safe.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24455279 PMCID: PMC3885141 DOI: 10.1155/2013/393787
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Pathog ISSN: 2090-3057
Figure 1Infected cadavers of A. dispersus by entomopathogenic fungi.
Figure 2Pathogenicity of entomopathogenic fungi against A. dispersus nymphs.
Figure 3Ovicidal action of entomopathogenic fungi against A. dispersus eggs.
Figure 4Effect of entomopathogenic fungi on egg hatchability of A. disperses.
LC50 and LC95 of entomopathogenic fungi against A. dispersus.
| Entomopathogenic fungi | Regression equation | Calculated | LC50 (ppm) | Fiducial limits | LC95 (ppm) | Fiducial limits | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower limit | Upper limit | Lower limit | Upper limit | |||||
|
|
| 0.3176 | 3.085 × 108 | 3.541 × 107 | 2.688 × 109 | 2.513 × 1013 | 5.562 × 1010 | 1.135 × 1016 |
|
|
| 0.3398 | 8.189 × 107 | 4.926 × 106 | 1.361 × 109 | 5.053 × 1012 | 1.036 × 1010 | 2.465 × 1015 |
|
|
| 0.3493 | 2.197 × 108 | 3.991 × 107 | 1.209 × 109 | 1.506 × 1013 | 6.926 × 1010 | 3.274 × 1015 |
|
|
| 0.0448 | 3.481 × 108 | 3.958 × 107 | 3.061 × 109 | 3.442 × 1013 | 9.624 × 1010 | 1.231 × 1016 |
Figure 5Log concentration probit mortality response of A. dispersus to M. anisopliae (M1 strain).
Figure 6Log concentration probit mortality response of A. dispersus to B. bassiana (B1 strain).
Figure 7Log concentration probit mortality response of A. dispersus to L. lecanii (L1 strain).
Figure 8Log concentration probit mortality response of A. dispersus to P. fumosoroseus (P1 strain).