Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Entomopathogenic Nematodes in Pest Management

Written By

Ugur Gozel and Cigdem Gozel

Submitted: 21 October 2015 Reviewed: 22 April 2016 Published: 31 August 2016

DOI: 10.5772/63894

From the Edited Volume

Integrated Pest Management (IPM): Environmentally Sound Pest Management

Edited by Harsimran Kaur Gill and Gaurav Goyal

Chapter metrics overview

3,403 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


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.


  • 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, Steinernema Travassos, 1927 [4] (Poinar, 1990) and Neosteinernema (Nguyen and Smart, 1994) [5]. Neosteinernema contains only one species Neosteinernema longicurvicauda that isolated from the termite Reticulitermes flavipes (Koller). The family Heterorhabditidae contains only one genus, Heterorhabditis Poinar, 1976 [6].

EPNs are mutually associated with bacteria of the family Enterobacteriaceae; the bacterium carried by Steinernematidae is usually a species of the genus Xenorhabdus, and that carried by Heterorhabditidae is a species of Photorhabdus. The third juvenile stage of EPNs is referred to as the “infective juvenile” (IJ) or the “dauer” stage. IJs of both genera release their bacterial symbionts in the insect host body and develop into fourth-stage juveniles and adults. The insects die mainly due to a septicemia. Sometimes a bacterial toxaemia precedes the resulting septicemia [7].

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 [1113].

Nearly 70 valid species of Steinernema [1416] and 25 species of Heterorhabditis [17, 18] have been described worldwide and still surveys for EPNs have been conducted in many parts of the world.

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 Heterorhabditis and Steinernema is occurred in the first generation. Steinernema species are amphimictic; this means that for successful reproduction they require the presence of males and females, whereas Heterorhabditis species are hermaphroditic and able to reproduce in the absence of conspecifics.

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].

Figure 1.

Different colours of the dead Curculio nucum larvae on white traps after EPNs infection.

The foraging strategies of EPNs change between species, and they use two main foraging strategies: ambushers or cruisers [21]. Steinernema carpocapsae is an example of ambushers, which have an energy-conserving approach and lie in wait to attack mobile insects (nictitating) in the upper layer of the soil. Steinernema glaseri and Heterorhabditis bacteriophora are examples of cruisers are highly active and generally subterranean, moving significant distances using volatile cues and other methods to find their host underground. But they are also successful to attack white grubs (Scarab beetles), which are less mobile. Other species, such as Steinernema feltiae and Steinernema riobrave, use an intermediate foraging strategy (combination of ambush and cruiser type) to find their host.

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, 2224]. The activity, infectivity and survival of EPNs can be profoundly influenced by soil composition, through its effects on moisture retention, oxygen supply and texture [2527].

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 Tuta absoluta, Spodoptera littoralis, Helicoverpa armigera, Pieris brassicae on several crops and have the potential for controlling various other insect pests. Application of EPNs does not require masks or other safety equipment like chemicals. EPNs and their associated bacteria have no detrimental effect to mammals or plants [29, 30, 36].


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  Platyptilia carduidactyla Sc
Vegetables Armyworm Lep: Noctuidae Sc, Sf, Sr
Ornamentals Banana moth Opogona sacchari Hb, Sc
Bananas Banana root borer Cosmopolites sordidus Sc, Sf, Sg
Turf Billbug Sphenophorus spp. (Col: Curculionidae)  Hb, Sc
Turf, vegetables Black cutworm Agrotis ipsilon Sc
Berries, ornamentals Black vine weevil Otiorhynchus sulcatus Hb, Hd, Hm, Hmeg, Sc, Sg
Fruit trees, ornamentals Borer Synanthedon spp. and other sesiids Hb, Sc, Sf
Home yard, turf Cat flea Ctenocephalides felis Sc
Citrus, ornamentals Citrus root weevil Pachnaeus spp. (Col: Curculionidae) Sr, Hb
Pome fruit Codling moth Cydia pomonella Sc, Sf
Vegetables Corn earworm Helicoverpa zea Sc, Sf, Sr
Vegetables Corn rootworm Diabrotica spp. Hb, Sc
Cranberries Cranberry girdler Chrysoteuchia topiaria Sc
Turf Crane fly Dip: Tipulidae Sc
Citrus, ornamentals Diaprepes root weevil Diaprepes abbreviatus Hb, Sr
Mushrooms Fungus gnat Dip: Sciaridae Sf, Hb
Grapes Grape root borer Vitacea polistiformis Hz, Hb
Iris Iris borer Macronoctua onusta Hb, Sc
Forest plantings Large pine weevil Hylobius abietis Hd, Sc
Vegetables, ornamentals  Leafminer Liriomyza spp. (Dip: Agromyzidae) Sc, Sf
Turf Mole cricket Scapteriscus spp. Sc, Sr, Sscap
Nut and fruit trees Navel orangeworm Amyelois transitella Sc
Fruit trees Plum curculio Conotrachelus nenuphar Sr
Turf, ornamentals Scarab grubc Col: Scarabaeidae Hb, Sc, Sg, Ss, Hz
Ornamentals Shore fly Scatella spp. Sc, Sf
Berries strawberry Root weevil Otiorhynchus ovatus Hm
Bee hives Small hive beetle Aethina tumida Hi, Sr
Sweet potato Sweetpotato weevil Cylas formicarius Hb, Sc, Sf

Table 1.

Use of entomopathogenic nematodes as biological control agentsa [37].

aNematodes listed provided at least 75% suppression of these pests in field or greenhouse experiments.

bAbbreviations of nematode species; Hb: Heterorhabditis bacteriophora, Hd: H. downesi, Hi: H. indica, Hm: H. marelata, Hmeg: H. megidis, Hz: H. zealandica, Sc: Steinernema carpocapsae, Sf: S. feltiae, Sg: S. glaseri, Sk: S. kushidai, Sr: S. riobrave, Sscap: S. scapterisci, Ss: S. scarabaei.

cEfficacy against various pest species within this group varies among nematode species.

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, T. absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae), is a very devastating pest and was first recorded in 2009 in the Urla District of Izmir Province in Turkey [38]. It has been a serious problem to tomato production in Çanakkale since the first detection in our country [39]. T. absoluta can attack all parts and stages of the tomato plant, overwinter in the egg, pupal or adult stage and can cause up to 100% losses in tomato crops [40].

Since its dispersal in the 1970s, chemical control has been the main method to control T. absoluta. Producers have tried to decrease its damages by using insecticides twice a week during a cultivation period, sometimes every 4–5 days/season with 8–25 sprays [41]. Although with the many applications of chemicals, effective control is difficult due to the behaviour of these mine-feeding larvae.

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 T. absoluta in tomato field and to reduce the use of pesticides.

2.2. Materials and methods

2.2.1. Entomopathogenic nematodes culture

Four native species of nematodes: Steinernema affine (Bovien) (isolate 46) S. carpocapsae (Weiser) (isolate 1133), S. feltiae (Filipjev) (isolate 879) and H. bacteriophora (Poinar) (isolate 1144), were tested against T. absoluta larvae. Each isolates was reared in the last instar of wax moth larvae Galleria mellonella L., which is the most commonly used insect host for in vivo production of EPNs because of its rich nutrient source available in body and easy to multiply in economical diet source [43, 44].

Nematode-infected G. mellonella larvae were placed on white traps [45] at 25°C and IJs that emerged from cadavers were harvested.

2.2.2. Tuta absoluta culture

Larvae, pupae and adults of T. absoluta used in the trials were obtained from infested tomato fields in Çanakkale. They reared in wooden rearing cages (50 × 50 × 50 cm) on tomato plants at 25 ± 1°C, 65 ± 5% RH, with a 16:8 L:D photoperiod in climate room.

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 T. absoluta, EPNs were sprayed on tomato plants at the 7th, 14th and 21st days. Tomato plants were cut from the soil line at the 3rd, 5th 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th and 15th days after EPN applications and analysed to determine the mortality of T. absoluta. Dead T. absoluta larvae were immediately dissected and checked for nematode infection (Figure 2). EPNs most likely entered feeding canals in the leaves of tomatoes. Many larvae of T. absoluta died inside these galleries, which indicate that IJs were able to find and infect them.

Figure 2.

Emerged EPNs from infected Tuta absoluta larvae.

2.3. Results

The efficacy of EPNs in field in 2012 changed between 0 and 90.7 ± 1.5%. The least efficient species was S. affine and the most efficient species was S. feltiae with the mortality of 39.3 ± 1.5% and 90.7 ± 1.5%, respectively. S. affine caused 0–39.3 ± 1.5% mortality and found as the least efficient species. S. carpocapsae caused 0–43.7 ± 1.5% mortality, while S. feltiae caused 0–90.7 ± 1.5% mortality. H. bacteriophora caused 0–81 ± 3.5% mortality and was the second efficient species after S. feltiae against T. absoluta in tomato field in 2012.

The efficacy of EPNs in field in 2013 changed between 0 and 94.3 ± 2.0%. The least efficient species was S. affine and the most efficient species was S. feltiae with the mortality of 43.7 ± 2.3% and 94.3 ± 2.0%, respectively. S. affine caused 0–43.7 ± 2.3% mortality and was the least efficient species. S. carpocapsae caused 0–49.3 ± 2.4% mortality, while S. feltiae caused 0–94.3 ± 2.0% mortality. H. bacteriophora caused 0–83.0 ± 2.1% mortality and was the second efficient species after S. feltiae against T. absoluta in field in 2013.

2.4. Discussion

The tomato leafminer, T. absoluta, is one of the most important lepidopteran moth associated with tomato plants and because of its biology and behaviour, it is difficult to control. Effective chemical control of T. absoluta is not possible because it feeds internally within the plant tissues. Resistance to insecticides is another significant problem in chemical control of this pest because of its high reproduction capacity, short generation cycle and intensive use of insecticides [4650].

Pesticides are so widely used and that destroys populations of natural enemies and consequently decreases biological control of T. absoluta. Because of these negative effects of insecticides, other approaches need to be considered seriously for this devastating pest.

Some insects can be controlled by a combination of methods, which are not totally effective when used alone. T. absoluta is one of these insects, which requires more than one method to be controlled successfully. For this reason, integrated pest management (IPM) programmes are continuously being progressed in different countries to control infestations of tomato leaf miner. EPNs have been considered as potential biocontrol agents for leafminers in recent years [50]. They can be applied, in combination with other biological and chemical pesticides, fertilisers and soil amendments and in the form of adjuvants or antidesiccants [51, 52].

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 T. absoluta. This is the first study conducted both in çanakkale and in Turkey based on the efficacy of native EPN isolates to T. absoluta in a tomato field.

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 T. absoluta [53].

The efficacy of soil treatments of three native EPNs (S. carpocapsae, S. feltiae and H. bacteriophora) against T. absoluta larvae, pupae and adults was determined under laboratory conditions in another study [54]. The effect of three commonly used insecticides against T. absoluta was also evaluated in the survival, infectivity and reproduction of these EPNs. When the larvae dropped into the soil to become pupa, soil application of nematodes resulted in a high larval mortality: 100, 52.3 and 96.7% efficacy for S. carpocapsae, S. feltiae and H. bacteriophora, respectively. No mortality of pupae was recorded, and mortality of adults emerging from soil was 79.1% for S. carpocapsae and 0.5% for S. feltiae. An insignificant effect of the insecticides tested was reported on nematode survival, infectivity and reproduction. No sublethal effects were observed. These findings proved that larvae of T. absoluta, falling from leaves following insecticide application, could be favourable hosts for nematodes, thereby increasing their concentration and persistence in the soil.

The efficacy of S. feltiae, S. carpocapsae and H. bacteriophora was evaluated against larvae of T. absoluta inside leaf mines in tomato leaf discs by means of an automated spray boom. They reported that all EPNs used in the study were effective to all four larval instars of T. absoluta but caused higher mortality in the later instars (fourth instar: 77.1–97.4%) than in the first instars (36.8–60.0%). S. feltiae and S. carpocapsae showed better results than H. bacteriophora. S. carpocapsae and H. bacteriophora performed better at 25°C (55.3 and 97.4% mortality, respectively) than at 18°C (12.5 and 34.2% mortality, respectively), while S. feltiae caused 100% mortality at both temperatures. Their results demonstrated that under laboratory conditions, S. feltiae and S. carpocapsae showed effective performance against the larvae of T. absoluta inside tomato leaf mines [55].

Our results agree with other reports showing that larvae of T. absoluta were highly susceptible to the EPNs tested and these EPNs can be used as efficient biological control agents against T. absoluta. All EPNs used in the study showed efficacy at different rates against T. absoluta. They were able to find and infect T. absoluta larvae both inside and outside of the tomato leaf. According to these findings, it could be suggested that EPNs have a great potential to use as biocontrol agents for the management of T. absoluta.

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 in vivo and in vitro (solid and liquid culture medium) 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

Table 2.

Advantages and disadvantages of entomopathogenic nematodes [58].

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 [5961].

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].


  1. 1. Kaya H.K., Gaugler R. 1993. Entomopathogenic nematodes. Annual Review of Entomology, 38: 181–206.
  2. 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 of Steinernema feltiae (Filipjev) and spraying with thiametoxam. Journal of Plant Disease Protection, 117: 129–135.
  3. 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. 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. 5. Nguyen K.B., Smart Jr. G.C. 1994. Neosteinernema longicurvicauda n. gen., n. sp. (Rhabditida: Steinernematidae), a parasite of the termite Reticulitermes flavipes (Koller). Journal of Nematology, 26: 162–174.
  6. 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. 7. Forst S., Dowds B., Boemare N.E., Stackebrandt E. 1997. Xenorhabdus spp. and Photorhabdus spp.: bugs that kill bugs. Annual Review of Microbiology 51: 47–72.
  8. 8. Abdel-Razek A.S. 2003. Pathogenic effects of Xenorhabdus nematophilus and Photorhabdus luminescens (Enterobacteriaceae) against pupae of the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (L.). Anzeiger für Schädlingskunde, 76: 108–111.
  9. 9. Stock S.P. 1995. Natural populations of entomopathogenic nematodes in the Pampean region of Argentina. Nematropica 25: 143–148.
  10. 10. Hominick W.M. 2002. Biogeography. In: Gaugler R. (Ed.) Entomopathogenic Nematology. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing, pp. 115–143.
  11. 11. Hominick W.M., Briscoe B.R. 1990. Occurrence of entomopathogenic nematodes (Rhabditida: Steinernematidae and Heterorhabditidae) in British soil. Parasitology, 100: 295–302.
  12. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 nematode Heterorhabditis sonorensis (Nematoda: Heterorhabditidae). Current Microbiology, 66: 30–39.
  17. 17. Plichta K.L., Joyce S.A., Clarke D., Waterfield N., Stock S.P. 2009. Heterorhabditis gerrardi n. sp (Nematoda: Heterorhabditidae): the hidden host of Photorhabdus asymbiotica (Enterobacteriaceae: Gamma-Proteobacteria). Journal of Helminthology, 83: 309–320.
  18. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 24. Grewal P.S., Ehlers R-U., Shapiro-Ilan D.I. 2005. Nematodes as Biological Control Agents. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.
  25. 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. 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. 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. 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. 29. Poinar G.O. Jr., Thomas G.M., Presser S.B., Hardy J.L. 1982. Inoculation of entomogenous nematodes, Neoaplectana and Heterorhabditis and their associated bacteria, Xenorhabdus spp., into chicks and mice. Environmental Entomology, 11: 137–138.
  30. 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. 31. Poinar Jr G.O., Thomas G.M. 1988. Infection of frog tadpoles (Amphibia) by insect parasitic nematodes (Rhabditida). Experientia, 44: 528–531.
  32. 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 and Steinernema. Rencontres Caraibes Lutte Biologique. In Proceedings of the Caribbean Meetings on Biological Control, Guadeloupe, pp. 193–204.
  33. 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. 34. Bathon H. 1996. Impact of entomopathogenic nematodes on non-target hosts. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 6: 421–434.
  35. 35. Griffin C.T., Downes M.J., Block W. 1990. Test of Antarctic soils for insect parasitic nematodes. Antarctic Science, 2: 221–222.
  36. 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. 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. nematodes.html.
  38. 38. Kılıç T. 2010. First record of Tuta absoluta in Turkey. Phytoparasitica, 38: 243–244.
  39. 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. 40. EPPO, 2005. Data sheets on quarantine pests: Tuta absoluta. OEPP/EPPO Bulletin, 35: 434–435.
  41. 41. Temerak S.A. 2011. The status of Tuta absoluta in Egypt, 16–18. EPPO/IOPC/FAO/NEPP Joint, International Symposium on Management of Tuta absoluta (tomato borer), Conference, Agadir, Morocco, November, 18 pp.
  42. 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. 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. 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. 45. White G.F. 1927. A method for obtaining infective nematode larvae from cultures. Science, 66: 302–303.
  46. 46. Salazar E.R., Araya J.E. 1997. Detection of resistance to insecticides in the tomato moth. Simiente, (1–2): 8–22.
  47. 47. Salazar E.R., Araya J.E. 2001. Tomato moth, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) response to insecticides in Arica, Chile. 61(4): 429–435.
  48. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 59. Shields E.J., Testa A., Miller J.M., Flanders K.L. 1999. Field efficacy and persistence of the entomopathogenic nematodes Heterorhabditis bacteriophora ‘Oswego’ and H. bacteriophora ‘NC’ on Alfalfa snout beetle larvae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Environmental Entomology, 28: 128–136.
  60. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Written By

Ugur Gozel and Cigdem Gozel

Submitted: 21 October 2015 Reviewed: 22 April 2016 Published: 31 August 2016