Laboratory evaluation of the effect of the entomopathogenic fungi, Hirsutella thompsonii and Paecilomyces fumosoroseus, against the citrus brown mite, Eutetranychus orientalis (Acari: Tetranychidae

Hamdy Mahmoud El-Sharabasy
Additional contact information
Hamdy Mahmoud El-Sharabasy: Plant Protection Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt

Plant Protection Science, 2015, vol. 51, issue 1, 39-45

Abstract: Formulations of the entomopathogenic fungi Hirsutella thompsonii (Fisher) and Paecilomyces fumosoroseus (Wize) Brown and Smith were tested against all stages of this pest under laboratory conditions. Three concentrations: 0.5 × 109, 1.0 × 109, and 2.0 × 109 conidia/ml were sprayed on leaf discs containing larvae, nymphs, and adults, while a single dosage of 1.0 × 109 conidia/ml wassprayed on eggs as ovicide. All the life stages were susceptible to both fungal pathogens at the tested concentrations. Larval and nymphal stages were generally less susceptible than adults. Based on probit analysis, H. thompsonii was the highest virulent with LC50 and LT50 (358, 290, and 146 conidia/ml and 7.78, 7.11, and 6.92 days) and P. fumosoroseus (597, 589, and 339 conidia/ml and 7.49, 7.14, and 4.31 days) for larvae, nymphs, and adults, respectively. However the efficacy of the two pathogens evaluated clearly differs from that of the controls. Compared with controls, egg hatchability was reduced at the different pathogen concentrations used. H. thompsonii at LC50 was more effective against eggs. Also, females in the control laid more eggs than those treated with the fungi. The entomopathogenic fungi H. thompsonii and P. fumosoroseus could be considered as an environmentally friendly alternative for biocontrol of E. orientalis.

Keywords: : pathogenicity; biological control; bioassay; mortality (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2015
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://pps.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/72/2014-PPS.html (text/html)
http://pps.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/72/2014-PPS.pdf (application/pdf)
free of charge

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:caa:jnlpps:v:51:y:2015:i:1:id:72-2014-pps

DOI: 10.17221/72/2014-PPS

Access Statistics for this article

Plant Protection Science is currently edited by Ing. Eva Karská, (Executive Editor PPS)

More articles in Plant Protection Science from Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Ivo Andrle ().