Use of entomopathogenic nematodes as biological control agentsa [37].
Abstract
The definition “biological control” has been used in different fields of biology, most notably entomology and plant pathology. It has been used to describe the use of live predatory insects, entomopathogenic nematodes (EPNs) or microbial pathogens to repress populations of various pest insects in entomology. EPNs are among one of the best biocontrol agents to control numerous economically important insect pests, successfully. Many surveys have been conducted all over the world to get EPNs that may have potential in management of economically important insect pests. The term “entomopathogenic” comes from the Greek word entomon means insect and pathogenic means causing disease and first occurred in the nematology terminology in reference to the bacterial symbionts of Steinernema and Heterorhabditis. EPNs differ from other parasitic or necromenic nematodes as their hosts are killed within a relatively short period of time due to their mutualistic association with bacteria. They have many advantages over chemical pesticides are in operator and end-user safety, absence of withholding periods, minimising the treated area by monitoring insect populations, minimal damage to natural enemies and lack of environmental pollution. Improvements in mass-production and formulation technology of EPNs, the discovery of numerous efficient isolates and the desirability of increasing pesticide usage have resulted in a surge of scientific and commercial interest in these biological control agents.
Keywords
- biological control
- safety
- entomopathogenic nematodes
- Steinernema
- Heterorhabditis
1. Entomopathogenic nematodes
1.1. General information of entomopathogenic nematodes
Entomopathogenic nematodes (EPNs) are soil-inhabiting, lethal insect parasites that belong to the Phylum Nematoda from the families Steinernematidae and Heterorhabditidae, and they have proven to be the most effective as biological control organisms of soil and above-ground pests [1, 2]. They have been known since the seventeenth century [3], but it was only in the 1930s that serious care was given by using nematodes for pest control.
So far, the family Steinernematidae is comprised of two genera,
EPNs are mutually associated with bacteria of the family Enterobacteriaceae; the bacterium carried by Steinernematidae is usually a species of the genus
Infective juvenile is the only free-living stage and can survive in soil for several months until susceptible insects are encountered. IJs locate and infect suitable insect hosts by entering the insect host through the mouth, anus, spiracles or thin parts of the host cuticle. After infection, the symbiotic bacteria are released into the insect haemocoel, causing septicaemia and death of the insect [1, 8]. When an insect host is infected in the soil by an EPN, development and reproduction within the cadaver can take 1–3 weeks [9].
Surveys for EPNs have been conducted in temperate, subtropical and tropical regions and found that EPNs have a worldwide distribution; the only continent where they have not been found is Antarctica [10]. Soil texture, temperature and host availability are thought to be important factors in determining their distribution [11–13].
Nearly 70 valid species of
1.2. Biology and life cycle of entomopathogenic nematodes
Through all nematodes studied to control insects, the families Steinernematidae and Heterorhabditidae have made a sensation and information about them is increasing exponentially. Steinernematids and Heterorhabditids from these families have similar life cycles, and the only difference between the life cycles of
Both nematode genera reproduction is amphimictic in the second generation [4]. However, a hermaphroditic Steinernematid species was isolated from Indonesia [19]. Only the free-living, IJ stage is able to target insect host and the only form found outside of the host. EPNs occur naturally in soil and locate their host in response to carbon dioxide, vibration and other chemical cues, and they react to chemical stimuli or sense the physical structure of insect’s integument [1].
IJs penetrate the host insect via the spiracles, mouth, anus, or in some species through intersegmental membranes of the cuticle, and then enter into the haemocoel [20]. IJs release cells of their symbiotic bacteria from their intestines into the haemocoel. The bacteria multiply rapidly in the insect hemolymph, provide nematode with nutrition and prevent secondary invaders from contaminating the host cadaver, and the infected host usually dies within 24–48 hours by bacterial toxins.
Nematodes reproduce until the food supply becomes limiting at which time they turn into IJs. The progeny nematodes go through four juvenile stages to the adult. Based on the available resources, one or more generations may occur within the host cadaver, and a great number of IJs are released into environment to infect other host insects and continue their life [1].
The insect cadaver becomes red if the insects are killed by Heterorhabditids and brown or tan if killed by Steinernematids (Figure 1). The colour of the insect host body is indicative of the pigments produced by the monoculture of mutualistic bacteria growing in the host insects [1].
The foraging strategies of EPNs change between species, and they use two main foraging strategies: ambushers or cruisers [21].
Selection of an EPN to control a particular pest insect is based on various factors: the nematode’s host range, host finding or foraging strategy, tolerance of environmental factors and their effects on survival and efficacy. The most critical factors are moisture, temperature, pathogenicity for the targeted pest insect and foraging strategy [1, 22–24]. The activity, infectivity and survival of EPNs can be profoundly influenced by soil composition, through its effects on moisture retention, oxygen supply and texture [25–27].
Within a favourable range of temperatures, adequate moisture and a susceptible host, those EPNs with a mobile foraging strategy (cruisers and intermediate foraging strategies) could be considered for use in subterranean and certain above-ground habitats (foliar, epigeal and cryptic habitats). Those EPNs with a sit and wait foraging strategy (ambushers) will be most effective in cryptic and soil surface habitats [28].
1.3. Advantages of entomopathogenic nematodes
These nematodes have many advantages; EPNs and their associated bacterial symbionts have been proven safe to warm-blooded vertebrates, including humans [29, 30]. Cold-blooded species have been found to be susceptible to EPNs under experimental conditions at very high dosages [31, 32]. However, under field conditions, the negative results could not be reproduced [33, 34].
Most biological agents require days or weeks to kill the host, yet nematodes can kill insects usually in 24–48 hours. They are easy and relatively inexpensive to culture, live from several weeks up to months in the infective stage, are able to infect numerous insect species, occur in soil and have been recovered from all continents except Antarctica [1, 35].
Foliar applications of nematodes have been successfully used to control the quarantine leaf-eating caterpillars as
2. Use of entomopathogenic nematodes
Potential of EPNs as insecticidal agents has been tested against a wide range insect species by many researchers all over the world. They have been used with different success against insect pests occurred in different habitats. Much success has been obtained against soil-dwelling pests or pests in cryptic habitats such as inside galleries in plants where IJs find excellent atmosphere to survive and protect themselves from environmental factors. Commercial use of EPNs against some pest insects is given in Table 1.
Crops (targeted) | Pest common name | Pest scientific name | Effective nematodesb |
---|---|---|---|
Artichokes | Artichoke plume moth | Sc | |
Vegetables | Armyworm | Lep: Noctuidae | Sc, Sf, Sr |
Ornamentals | Banana moth | Hb, Sc | |
Bananas | Banana root borer | Sc, Sf, Sg | |
Turf | Billbug | Hb, Sc | |
Turf, vegetables | Black cutworm | Sc | |
Berries, ornamentals | Black vine weevil | Hb, Hd, Hm, Hmeg, Sc, Sg | |
Fruit trees, ornamentals | Borer | Hb, Sc, Sf | |
Home yard, turf | Cat flea | Sc | |
Citrus, ornamentals | Citrus root weevil | Sr, Hb | |
Pome fruit | Codling moth | Sc, Sf | |
Vegetables | Corn earworm | Sc, Sf, Sr | |
Vegetables | Corn rootworm | Hb, Sc | |
Cranberries | Cranberry girdler | Sc | |
Turf | Crane fly | Dip: Tipulidae | Sc |
Citrus, ornamentals | Diaprepes root weevil | Hb, Sr | |
Mushrooms | Fungus gnat | Dip: Sciaridae | Sf, Hb |
Grapes | Grape root borer | Hz, Hb | |
Iris | Iris borer | Hb, Sc | |
Forest plantings | Large pine weevil | Hd, Sc | |
Vegetables, ornamentals | Leafminer | Sc, Sf | |
Turf | Mole cricket | Sc, Sr, Sscap | |
Nut and fruit trees | Navel orangeworm | Sc | |
Fruit trees | Plum curculio | Sr | |
Turf, ornamentals | Scarab grubc | Col: Scarabaeidae | Hb, Sc, Sg, Ss, Hz |
Ornamentals | Shore fly | Sc, Sf | |
Berries strawberry | Root weevil | Hm | |
Bee hives | Small hive beetle | Hi, Sr | |
Sweet potato | Sweetpotato weevil | Hb, Sc, Sf |
2.1. Efficacy of entomopathogenic nematodes against tomato leaf miner Tuta absoluta
In our laboratory, we investigated the use of native EPN isolates to control various pest insects, and one of these pests was tomato leaf miner. The tomato leafminer,
Since its dispersal in the 1970s, chemical control has been the main method to control
Moreover, the use of pesticides in plant production has numerous disadvantages as pesticide residues on human health and on the environment so biological control may be considered as an alternative method to chemical control [42]. In this respect, EPNs can be an alternative to chemicals. The aims of the work were to determine the efficacy of native EPN isolates against
2.2. Materials and methods
2.2.1. Entomopathogenic nematodes culture
Four native species of nematodes:
Nematode-infected
2.2.2. Tuta absoluta culture
Larvae, pupae and adults of
2.2.3. Field trials
Field trials were carried out in the training and research area of Agriculture Faculty in Çanakkale between 2012 and 2013. In both seasons, nearly 1000 m2 area was cultivated with tomato and seedlings were controlled periodically and closed by a cage when they reached 20 cm height. Each tomato plant was grown in a single cage (50 × 50 × 50 cm). After 30 days, two males and two females were put into each cage.
EPNs were applied at dusk to utilise the higher air humidity for the nematodes with a conventional airblast sprayer at a rate of 50 IJs/cm2. Tomato plants remained wet in cages after application for 2 hours and that provides EPNs enough time with perfect condition to find and infect the target pest. The experiment was carried out with two replicates per nematode species and exposure day and repeated twice.
After releasing the adults of
2.3. Results
The efficacy of EPNs in field in 2012 changed between 0 and 90.7 ± 1.5%. The least efficient species was
The efficacy of EPNs in field in 2013 changed between 0 and 94.3 ± 2.0%. The least efficient species was
2.4. Discussion
The tomato leafminer,
Pesticides are so widely used and that destroys populations of natural enemies and consequently decreases biological control of
Some insects can be controlled by a combination of methods, which are not totally effective when used alone.
Various studies about EPNs have been conducted all over the world, but only few research has been carried out on the efficacy of EPNs against
The efficacy of the three EPNs after foliar application to potted tomato was tested under greenhouse conditions. High larval mortality (78.6–100%) and low pupal mortality (<10%) in laboratory were reported. In the leaf bioassay, high larval parasitisation (77.1–91.7%) was recorded. In the pot experiments, it was found that nematode application decreased insect infestation of tomato by 87–95%. These results showed the suitability of EPNs to control
The efficacy of soil treatments of three native EPNs (
The efficacy of
Our results agree with other reports showing that larvae of
It should be noted that to understand their life cycles and functions, match the correct species of EPNs with the correct species of insect pests, apply them under optimum environmental conditions, such as soil temperature, soil moisture, angle of sun rays, and apply only with compatible pesticides are the keys to success with EPNs.
3. Conclusions
Biological control is an action that involves the use of natural enemies of insect pests to increase negative effects of insect pest as destroying important crops and plantation, plant growth destruction or development infections caused by pests [56].
Advantages | Disadvantages |
---|---|
Broad host range of pest insect | High cost in production |
Able to seek or ambush the host and can kill rapidly the host |
Lack of labour, knowledge and skills required in nematology |
Mass produced by |
Limited shelf life and refrigerated storage required |
Can be used with conventional application equipment | Difficulties in formulation and quality control |
Safety for all vertebrates, most non-target invertebrates and the food sources | Environmental limitations; for survival and infectivity adequate moisture and temperatures are needed, sensitivity to UV radiation, lethal effect of several pesticides (nematicides, fumigants and others) lethal or restrictive soil properties (high salinity, high or low pH, etc.) |
Little or no registration required |
EPNs are a group of soil-dwelling organisms that attack soilborne insect pests that live in, on or near the soil surface and can be used effectively to control economically important insect pests. Different nematode species and strains exhibit differences in survival, search behaviour and infectivity, which make them more or less suitable for particular insect pest control programmes [57]. As the other biological control agents, also EPNs have advantages and disadvantages (Table 2).
There is a great interest in finding wild populations to obtain new species and strains for possible use in biological control. The use of EPNs is one potential non-chemical approach to control insect pests. EPNs are widely spread geographically and have many hosts. They are currently used as biological control agents in many studies to control several important insect pests worldwide [59–61].
It is highlighted that there is a need for more in-depth basic information on EPNs biology, including ecology, behaviour and genetics, to help understand the underlying reasons for their successes and failures as biological control organisms. Most appropriate nematode species/strain, abiotic factors such as soil type, soil temperature and moisture are important for getting success [1].
Proper match of the nematode to the host entails virulence, host finding and ecological factors are essential before application to the field. Matching the appropriate nematode host-seeking strategy with the pest is essential, because poor host suitability has been the most common mistake occurred in application of EPNs [62]. Also application strategies, such as field dosage, volume, irrigation and appropriate application methods, are very important. Furthermore, plant morphology and phenology must be considered in predicting whether nematodes are viable control candidates [63].
References
- 1.
Kaya H.K., Gaugler R. 1993. Entomopathogenic nematodes. Annual Review of Entomology, 38: 181–206. - 2.
Laznik Ž., Tóth T., Lakatos T., Vidrih M., Trdan S. 2010. Control of the Colorado potato beetle ( Leptinotarsa decemlineata [Say]) on potato under field conditions: a comparison of the efficacy of foliar application of two strains ofSteinernema feltiae (Filipjev) and spraying with thiametoxam. Journal of Plant Disease Protection, 117: 129–135. - 3.
Nickle W.R. 1984. History, development, and importance of insect nematology. In: Nickle W.R. (Ed.) Plant and Insect Nematodes. New York: Marcel Dekker, pp. 627–653. - 4.
Poinar G.O. 1990. Taxonomy and biology of Steinernematidae and Heterorhabditidae. In: Gaugler R., Kaya H.K. (Eds.) Entomopathogenic Nematodes in Biological Control, Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press, pp. 23–60. - 5.
Nguyen K.B., Smart Jr. G.C. 1994. Neosteinernema longicurvicauda n. gen., n. sp. (Rhabditida: Steinernematidae), a parasite of the termiteReticulitermes flavipes (Koller). Journal of Nematology, 26: 162–174. - 6.
Poinar G.O. Jr. 1976. Description and biology of a new insect parasitic rhabditoid, Heterorhabditis bacteriophora n. gen. n. sp. (Rhabditida; Heterorhabditidae n. fam.). Nematologica, 21: 463–470. - 7.
Forst S., Dowds B., Boemare N.E., Stackebrandt E. 1997. Xenorhabdus spp. andPhotorhabdus spp.: bugs that kill bugs. Annual Review of Microbiology 51: 47–72. - 8.
Abdel-Razek A.S. 2003. Pathogenic effects of Xenorhabdus nematophilus andPhotorhabdus luminescens (Enterobacteriaceae) against pupae of the diamondback moth,Plutella xylostella (L.). Anzeiger für Schädlingskunde, 76: 108–111. - 9.
Stock S.P. 1995. Natural populations of entomopathogenic nematodes in the Pampean region of Argentina. Nematropica 25: 143–148. - 10.
Hominick W.M. 2002. Biogeography. In: Gaugler R. (Ed.) Entomopathogenic Nematology. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing, pp. 115–143. - 11.
Hominick W.M., Briscoe B.R. 1990. Occurrence of entomopathogenic nematodes (Rhabditida: Steinernematidae and Heterorhabditidae) in British soil. Parasitology, 100: 295–302. - 12.
Griffin C.T., Moore J.F., Downes M.J. 1991. Occurrence of insect-parasitic nematodes (Steinernematidae, Heterorhabditidae) in the Republic of Ireland. Nematologica, 37: 92–100. - 13.
Stock S.P., Pryor B.M., Kaya H.K. 1999. Distribution of entomopathogenic nematodes (Steinernematidae and Heterorhabditidae) in natural habitats in California, USA. Biodiversity and Conservation, 8: 535–549. - 14.
Nguyen K.B., Buss E.A. 2011. Steinernema phyllophagae n. sp. (Rhabditida: Steinernematidae), a new entomopathogenic nematode from Florida, USA. Nematology, 13: 425–442. - 15.
Malan A.P., Knoetze R., Tiedt L. 2012. Heterorhabditis noenieputensis n. sp. (Rhabditida: Heterorhabditidae), a new entomopathogenic nematode from South Africa. Journal of Helminthology 12: 1–13. - 16.
Orozco R.A., Hill T., Stock S.P. 2013. Characterization and phylogenetic relationships of Photorhabdus luminescens subsp.sonorensis (gamma-Proteobacteria: Enterobacteriaceae), the bacterial symbiont of the entomopathogenic nematodeHeterorhabditis sonorensis (Nematoda: Heterorhabditidae). Current Microbiology, 66: 30–39. - 17.
Plichta K.L., Joyce S.A., Clarke D., Waterfield N., Stock S.P. 2009. Heterorhabditis gerrardi n. sp (Nematoda: Heterorhabditidae): the hidden host ofPhotorhabdus asymbiotica (Enterobacteriaceae: Gamma-Proteobacteria). Journal of Helminthology, 83: 309–320. - 18.
Edgington S., Buddie A.G., Moore D., France A., Merino L., Hunt D.J. 2011. Heterorhabditis atacamensis n. sp (Nematoda: Heterorhabditidae), a new entomopathogenic nematode from the Atacama Desert, Chile. Journal of Helminthology, 85: 381–394. - 19.
Griffin C.T., O’callaghan K.M., DIX I. 2001. A self-fertile species of Steinernema from Indonesia: further evidence of convergent evolution amongst entomopathogenic nematodes? Parasitology 122: 181–186. - 20.
Bedding R.A., Molyneux A.S. 1982. Penetration of insect cuticle by infective juveniles of Heterorhabditis spp. (Heterorhabditidae: Nematoda). Nematologica, 21: 109–110. - 21.
Grewal P.S., Lewis E.E., Gaugler R., Campbell J.F. 1994. Host finding behavior as a predictor of foraging strategy in entomopathogenic nematodes. Parasitology, 108: 207–215. - 22.
Kung S.P., Gaugler R., Kaya H.K. 1991. Effects of soil temperature, moisture, and relative humidity on entomopathogenic nematode persistence. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 57: 242–249. - 23.
Campbell J.F., Lewis E.E., Stock S.P., Nadler S., Kaya H.K. 2003. Evolution of host search strategies in entomopathogenic nematodes. Journal of Nematology, 35: 142–145. - 24.
Grewal P.S., Ehlers R-U., Shapiro-Ilan D.I. 2005. Nematodes as Biological Control Agents. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. - 25.
Kaya H.K. 1990. Soil ecology. In: Gaugler R., Kaya H.K. (Eds.) Entomopathogenic Nematodes in Biological Control. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press, pp. 93–115. - 26.
Ellsbury M.M., Jackson J.J., Woodson W.D., Beck D.L., Stange K.A. 1996. Efficacy, application distribution, and concentration by stemflow of Steinernema carpocapsae (Rhabditida: Steinernematidae) suspensions applied with a lateral-move irrigation system for corn rootworm (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) control in maize. Journal of Economic Entomology, 85: 2425–2432. - 27.
Koppenhofer A.M., Fuzy E.M. 2006. Nematodes for white grub control: Effects of soil type and soil moisture on infectivity and persistence. USGA Turfgrass Environmental Research Online, 5: 1–10. - 28.
Lacey L.A., Georgis R. 2012. Entomopathogenic nematodes for control of insect pests above and below ground with comments on commercial production. Journal of Nematology, 44(2): 218–225. - 29.
Poinar G.O. Jr., Thomas G.M., Presser S.B., Hardy J.L. 1982. Inoculation of entomogenous nematodes, Neoaplectana andHeterorhabditis and their associated bacteria,Xenorhabdus spp., into chicks and mice. Environmental Entomology, 11: 137–138. - 30.
Boemare N.E., Laumond C., Mauleon H. 1996. The entomopathogenic nematode-bacterium complex: biology, life cycle and vertebrate safety. Biocontrol Science Technology, 6: 333–346. - 31.
Poinar Jr G.O., Thomas G.M. 1988. Infection of frog tadpoles (Amphibia) by insect parasitic nematodes (Rhabditida). Experientia, 44: 528–531. - 32.
Kermarrec A., Mauleon H., Sirjusingh C., Bauld L. 1991. Experimental studies on the sensitivity of tropical vertebrates (toads, frogs and lizards) to different species of entomoparasitic nematodes of the genera Heterorhabditis andSteinernema . Rencontres Caraibes Lutte Biologique. In Proceedings of the Caribbean Meetings on Biological Control, Guadeloupe, pp. 193–204. - 33.
Georgis R., Kaya H.K., Gaugler R. 1991. Effect of Steinernematid and Heterorhabditid nematodes (Rhabditida: Steinernematidae and Heterorhabditidae) on non-target arthropods. Environmental Entomology, 20: 815–822. - 34.
Bathon H. 1996. Impact of entomopathogenic nematodes on non-target hosts. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 6: 421–434. - 35.
Griffin C.T., Downes M.J., Block W. 1990. Test of Antarctic soils for insect parasitic nematodes. Antarctic Science, 2: 221–222. - 36.
Akhurst R., Smith K. 2002. Regulation and safety. In: Gaugler R. (Ed.) Entomopathogenic Nematology. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing, pp. 311–332, 400 pp. - 37.
Shapiro-Ilan, D.I., R. Gaugler. 2010. Nematodes: Rhabditida: Steinernematidae & Heterorhabditidae. In: Shelton A. (Ed.) Biological Control: A Guide to Natural Enemies in North America. Cornell University. http://www. biocontrol.entomology.cornell.edu/pathogens/ nematodes.html . - 38.
Kılıç T. 2010. First record of Tuta absoluta in Turkey. Phytoparasitica, 38: 243–244. - 39.
Kasap İ., Gözel U., Özpınar A. 2011. A new pest in tomatoes; the tomato borer, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Proceedings of Çanakkale Agriculture Symposium (Yesterday, Today, Future), Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Agriculture Faculty, Çanakkale, 284–287. - 40.
EPPO, 2005. Data sheets on quarantine pests: Tuta absoluta . OEPP/EPPO Bulletin, 35: 434–435. - 41.
Temerak S.A. 2011. The status of Tuta absoluta in Egypt, 16–18. EPPO/IOPC/FAO/NEPP Joint, International Symposium on Management ofTuta absoluta (tomato borer), Conference, Agadir, Morocco, November, 18 pp. - 42.
Gill H.K., Garg H. 2014. Pesticide: environmental impacts and management strategies. In: Solenski S., Larramenday M.L. (Eds.) Pesticides-Toxic Effects. Rijeka, Croatia: Intech, pp. 187–230. - 43.
Bedding R.A., Akhurst R.J., 1975. A simple technique for the detection of insect parasitic Rhabditid nematodes in soil. Nematologica, 21: 109–110. - 44.
Kaya H.K., Stock S.P. 1997. Techniques in insect nematology, In: Lacey L.A. (Ed.) Manual of Techniques in Insect Pathology. Biological Techniques Series, San Diego, California: Academic Press, pp. 281–324. 409 pp. - 45.
White G.F. 1927. A method for obtaining infective nematode larvae from cultures. Science, 66: 302–303. - 46.
Salazar E.R., Araya J.E. 1997. Detection of resistance to insecticides in the tomato moth. Simiente, (1–2): 8–22. - 47.
Salazar E.R., Araya J.E. 2001. Tomato moth, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) response to insecticides in Arica, Chile. 61(4): 429–435. - 48.
Siqueira H.A.A., Guedes R.N.C., Picanço M.C. 2000. Insecticide resistance in populations of Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 2: 147–153. - 49.
Siqueira, H.A.A., Guedes R.N.C., Fragoso D.B., Magalhaes L.C. 2001. Abamectin resistance and synergism in Brazilian populations of Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). International Journal of Pest Management, 47(4): 247–251. - 50.
Olthof Th. H.A., Broadbent A.B. 1990. Control of a chrysanthemum leafminer, Liriomyza trifolii with the entomophilic nematode,Heterorhabditis heliothidis , 379. Abstracts of Papers, Posters and Films Presented at the Second International Nematology Congress, 11–17 August, Veldhoven the Netherlands, Nematologica, 36(1990): 327–403. - 51.
Glazer I., Navon A. 1990. Activity and persistence of entomogenous nematodes used against Heliothis armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 83: 1795–1800. - 52.
Baur M.E., Kaya H.K., Gaugler R., Tabashnik B. 1997. Effects of adjuvants on entomopathogenic nematode persistence and efficacy against Plutella xylostella . Biocontrol, Science and Technology, 7: 513–525. - 53.
Batalla-Carrera L., Morton A., Garcia-del-pino F. 2010. Efficacy of entomopathogenic nematodes against the tomato leafminer Tuta absoluta in laboratory and greenhouse conditions. Biocontrol, 55: 523–530. - 54.
Garcia del Pino F., Alabern X., Morton A. 2013. Efficacy of soil treatments of entomopathogenic nematodes against the larvae, pupae and adults of Tuta absoluta and their interaction with the insecticides used against this insect. BioControl, 58(6): 723–731. - 55.
Van Damme V.M., Beck B.K., Berckmoes E., Moerkens R., Wittemans L., Vis R.D., Nuyttens D., Casteels H.F., Maes M., Tirry L., Clercq P.D. 2015. Efficacy of entomopathogenic nematodes against larvae of Tuta absoluta in the laboratory. Pest Management Science, doi:10.1002/ps.4195, 2015. - 56.
Flint M.L., Dreistadt S.H. 1998. Natural Enemies’ Handbook: The Illustrated Guide to Biological Pest Control. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 2–35. - 57.
Garcia del Pino F., Palomo A., 1996. Natural occurrence of entomopathogenic nematodes (Rhabditida: Steinernematidae and Heterorhabditidae) in Spanish soil. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 68: 84–90. - 58.
Shapiro-Ilan D.I., Bruck D.J., Lacey L.A. 2012. Principles of epizootiology and microbial control. In Vega F.E., Kaya H.K., (Eds.) Insect Pathology, Second Ed. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 29–72. - 59.
Shields E.J., Testa A., Miller J.M., Flanders K.L. 1999. Field efficacy and persistence of the entomopathogenic nematodes Heterorhabditis bacteriophora ‘Oswego’ andH. bacteriophora ‘NC’ on Alfalfa snout beetle larvae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Environmental Entomology, 28: 128–136. - 60.
Gozel U., Gunes C. 2013. Effect of entomopathogenic nematode species on the corn stalk borer ( Sesamia cretica Led. Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) at different temperatures. Turkish Journal of Entomology, 37(1): 65–72. - 61.
Gozel C., Kasap İ. 2015. Efficacy of entomopathogenic nematodes against the Tomato leafminer, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) in tomato field. Turkish Journal of Entomology, 39(3): 229–237. - 62.
Gaugler R. 1999. Matching nematode and insect to achieve optimal field performance. In Polavarapu S. (Ed.) Workshop Proceedings: Optimal use of Insecticidal Nematodes in Pest Management, Rutgers University, pp. 9–14. - 63.
Georgis R., Koppenhöfer A.M., Lacey L.A., Bélair G., Duncan L.W., Grewal P.S., Samish M., Tan L., Torr P., van Tol R.W.H.M. 2006. Successes and failures in the use of parasitic nematodes for pest control. Biological Control, 38: 103–123.