| Literature DB >> 27308292 |
Mona Sharififard1, Mohammad Saeed Mossadegh2, Babak Vazirianzadeh3, Seyed Mahmood Latifi4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Considering to the high distribution of cockroaches as urban pests, the efficacy of different formulations of Metarhizium anisopliae strain Iran 437C were assessed against the brown-banded cockroach, Supella longipalpa F. under laboratory and field conditions.Entities:
Keywords: Biocontrol; Entomopathogenic fungus; Metarhizium anisopliae; Supella longipalpa
Year: 2016 PMID: 27308292 PMCID: PMC4906740
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Arthropod Borne Dis ISSN: 2322-1984 Impact factor: 1.198
Virulence screening of Metarhizium anisopliae isolates on adult Supella longipalpa by immersing in conidia aqueous suspension (108 conidia ml−1)
| % Mortality Mean± SE | ||
|---|---|---|
| After 3 days | After 5 days | |
| 82± 2.3 | 100± 0.0 | |
| 56±3.6 | 76±1.9 | |
| 39±1.5 | 67±4.2 | |
| 28±2.7 | 45±3.1 | |
Fig. 1.The brown-banded cockroach with green muscardin (left: male, right: female)
Cumulative mortality of Supella longipalpa nymphs exposed to different concentrations of Metharhizium anisopliae isolate Iran 437C presented as treated surface and treated bait (2011–2012)
| 65.3±4.6 | 88.9±3.9 | 97.8±0.27 | 97.8±0.27 | |
| 38.9±3.8 | 64.4±7.1 | 81.1±8.6 | 93.6±10.8 | |
| 28.2±3.1 | 59±3.7 | 72.5±2.6 | 83.1±3.2 | |
| 9.2±0.83 | 20.8±1.6 | 30.8±0.83 | 34.2±2.2 | |
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.3±2.9 | |
Probit analysis of Metharhizium anisopliae (IRAN 437C) against nymphs of Supella longipalpa presented as treated surface (conidia per cm2) (2011–2012)
| 7.7×106(5.2×106–1.1×107) | 108(6.1×107–2.2×108) | 0.0001 | 0.179 | |
| 2×106(8.5×105–3.2 ×106) | 1.7×107(107–3.3×107) | 0.0001 | 0.015 | |
| 9.5×105(2.9×105–1.8×106) | 6.6×106(4.2×106–1.1×107) | 0.0001 | 0.072 | |
| 5.6×105(5.3×105–1.7×106) | 2.7×106(8.8×105–1.7×107) | 0.0001 | 0.001 |
CI: Confidence Intervals
Supella longipalpa nymphs mortality rates exposed to different concentration of Metharhizium anisopliae strain Iran 437C formulations presented as treated surface at 2 days post exposure (108 conidia/ml−1) (2011–2012)
| 10 | 96.1±2.5 | |
| 5 | 94±2.2 | |
| 2.5 | 89.1±2.8 | |
| 10 | 85.2±3.3 | |
| 5 | 84±3 | |
| 2.5 | 75.5±3 | |
| 10 | 94.4±2.7 | |
| 5 | 95.4±2.1 | |
| 2.5 | 91.8±3.4 | |
| 10 | 97.2±1.7 | |
| 5 | 93.6±0.88 | |
| 2.5 | 86.1±4.3 | |
| 0.01 | 39.4±8.8 | |
| - | 2.5±1.6 |
Field evaluation of Metharhizium anisoplae strain Iran 437C as oil-in-water formulation containing 10% sunflower oil applied against Supella longipalpa on seventh day after exposure (2011–2012)
| Pre-treatment | Post-treatment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| House | Mean± SE [ | Mean± SE [ | Reduction [ | |
| Treatment | 1 | 20.7±3.2 | 7.5±0.87 | 71.2 |
| 2 | 15.2±1.5 | 6±1.4 | 68.7 | |
| 3 | 25±1.4 | 4.7±2.1 | 85.1 | |
| 4 | 27±2.9 | 7±1.2 | 79.4 | |
| Control | 1 | 26±2.2 | 34±3.1 | - |
| 2 | 22±4.2 | 29±2.6 | - | |
| 3 | 23±2.5 | 27±5.2 | - | |
| 4 | 27±3 | 32±1.4 | - | |
Mean number of cockroach per house pre-treatment and post-treatment
Average percent reduction of cockroach in each house.