Content uploaded by Juma I Mabubu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Juma I Mabubu on Mar 29, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
~241~
Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies 2016; 4(2): 241-246
E-ISSN: 2320-7078
P-ISSN: 2349-6800
JEZS 2016; 4(2): 241-246
© 2016 JEZS
Received: 25-01-2016
Accepted: 28-02-2016
Muhammad Nawaz
College of Plant Science and
Technology, Huazhong
Agricultural University,
Wuhan 430070, China.
Juma Ibrahim Mabubu
College of Plant Science and
Technology, Huazhong
Agricultural University,
Wuhan 430070, China.
Hongxia Hua
College of Plant Science and
Technology, Huazhong
Agricultural University,
Wuhan 430070, China.
Correspondence
Muhammad Nawaz
College of Plant Science and
Technology, Huazhong
Agricultural University,
Wuhan 430070, China.
Current status and advancement of biopesticides:
Microbial and botanical pesticides
Muhammad Nawaz, Juma Ibrahim Mabubu, Hongxia Hua
Abstract
Biopesticides are considered to be the best alternative to synthetic pesticides that are highly effective,
target specific and reduce environmental risks. These factors led to its application in pest management
program instead of chemical pesticides throughout the world. Biopesticides are derived from animals,
plants and other natural materials such as fungi, bacteria, algae, viruses, nematodes and protozoa. The
advance research and development in the field of biopesticide applications greatly reduce the
environmental pollution caused by the chemical synthetic insecticides residues and promotes sustainable
development of agriculture. Since the advent of biopesticides, a large number of products have been
registered and released, some of which have played a leading role in the agro-market. The development
of biopesticide has prompted to replace the chemical pesticide in pest management. The current status
and advancement of biopesticides focusing mainly on improving action spectra, replacing of chemical
pesticides, its role in integrated pest management, proper application of botanical and semiochemical in
pest management have been discussed in this review.
Keywords: Biopesticides, IPM, Semiochemical, Microbial pesticides, Botanical pesticides,
Baculoviruses
Introduction
The global population will grow to 10.12 billion by 2100
[1]
. In order to fulfill the food demand
of growing population; higher and advance productive agricultural materials are required
[1]
.
The highest yield of crops is based on the improved variety, the appropriate pest and disease
management, and recommended fertilization. Proper pest management is an important factor
for healthy and high yielding crop that can provide food to the increasing population. The
adequate pest management is pivotal need for today to produce maximum food for increasing
population from less
[2]
. The multiple approaches that would be suitable in organic farming
reduce the human and environmental exposure to synthetic chemical pesticides, and may also
reduce the overall costs of pesticide applications. To date, only 15% of natural enemies of
insect pests have been identified. In all successful biocontrol programs; most important
parasitoids are Hymenoptera and predators (Neuroptera, Hemiptera and Coleoptera). Globally
more than 125 species of natural enemies are commercially available for biological control
programs such as Trichogramma spp.; Encarsia formosa Gahan, and Phytoseiulus persimilis
Athias- Henriot
[3]
. Although, chemical pesticides play a vital role in insect pest management,
however, they have accelerated land, air and water contamination. Similarly, they have been
the main cause of insect resistance as well as adverse impacts on natural enemies and humans
[4, 5]
. Due to these factors, farmers adopted biopesticides which are environmentally friendly
and reduced frequently application of synthetic insecticides for pest management
[6]
.
Nowadays, a lot of biopesticides have been developed from microorganisms (bacteria, fungi,
viruses, etc.), plant, animal derived products (pheromones, hormones, insect-specific toxins,
etc.) and genetically modified organisms and used worldwide for insect pest management
[7, 8]
.
This review summarizes the current development and improvement of all aspects related to
biopesticides in insect pest management including spectra improvement, challenges and role of
biopesticides in integrated pest management.
Current status of biopesticides
In this case the current status of different categories of biopesticides such as microbial
pesticides based on microorganisms, botanical pesticides derived from plants, semiochemicals
will be discussed.
~242~
Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies
Microbial biopesticides
So far, in the global agriculture system the most widely used
pesticides have synthetic origin such as halogenated,
carbamate and organophosphorus compounds. Excessive use
led to the creation of new strains of pests resistant to synthetic
insecticides. The resistance development often related to
receptors modification that involved the mechanisms and
targets of action
[9, 10]
. Due to the results of resistance,
researchers have synthesized many new organic molecules
with this target of action, having adverse effect on the non-
target organisms. Acute or chronic poisoning caused by
pesticides is a problem in many countries in the world,
especially in developing countries
[10, 11]
. Biopesticides derived
from fungi, bacteria, algae, viruses, nematodes and protozoa
and also some other compounds produced directly from these
microbes such as metabolites are main microbial pest control
agents
[12]
. Up to now, there are more than 3000 kinds of
microbes that cause diseases in insects. Some biopesticides are
given in Table 1. However, a lot of research should be
conducted to find remaining undiscovered or unidentified
microorganisms that are useful in insect pest management.
Over 100 bacteria have been identified as insect pathogens,
among which Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner (Bt) has got the
maximum importance as microbial control agent. So far, more
than 1000 insect species viruses have been isolated such as
nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV) infested 525 insects
worldwide. Over 800 species of entomopathogenic fungi and
1000 species of protozoa pathogenic have been described and
identified. The two major groups of entomopathogenic
nematodes are Steinernema (55 species) and Heterorhabditis
(12 species)
[13]
.
Table 1: Some important biopesticides list and their references
Target insects
Common name and
references
Entomopathogenic viruses
Helicoverpa zea: corn earworm,
tomato fruitworm, tobacco budworm,
Helioth virescens
Corn earworm NPV
(HezeSNPV)
[14]
Helicoverpa armigera,
cotton bollworm, pod borer
Cotton bollworm NPV
(HearNPV)
[14-17]
Plutella xylostella Diamond back moth GV
[17]
Anticarsia gemmatalis
Velvetbean caterpillar, NPV
(AngeMNPV)
[18, 19]
Noctuidae
Alfalfa looper NPV
(AucaMNPV)
[17]
Buzura suppressaria Tea moth (BuzuNPV)
[17]
Entomopathogenic bacteria
Lepidoptera
Bacillus thuringiensis sub-
species kurstakia
[20, 21]
Lepidoptera
B. thuringiensis sub-species
aizawaia
[22]
Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae
B. thuringiensis sub-species
japonensis
[23]
Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae, Popillia
japonica
Paenibacillus popilliae
[24]
Entomopathogenic fungi
Hemiptera Aschersonia aleyrodis
[25, 26]
Coleoptera (Scarabaeidae) Beauveria brongniartii
[27]
Hemiptera, Thysanoptera
Conidiobolus thromboides
Acari
[28]
Hemiptera
Lecanicillium longisporum
[29, 30]
Coleoptera, Diptera, Hemiptera,
Isoptera
Metarhizium anisopliae
sensu lato
[25, 31]
Lepidoptera Nomuraea rileyi
[32]
Positive aspects of Microbial pesticides
Generally, the beneficial characteristics of microbial
insecticides are given below as described by Jindal
[33]
.
The bioactive agents are basically non-toxic and non-
pathogenic to non-target organisms, communities and
humans.
They have narrow area of toxic action, mostly specific to
a single group or species of insect pests and do not
directly affect beneficial insects (predators, parasites,
parasitoids, pollinators) in treated areas.
They can be used in combination with synthetic chemical
insecticides because in most cases the microbial product is
not deactivated.
Their residues have no adverse effects on humans or other
animals, therefore, microbial insecticides can be used in
near harvesting time.
Sometime, the pathogenic microorganisms can become
established in a pest population or its habitat and provide
control pest generation to generations or season after
seasons.
They improve the root and plant growth by encouraging
the beneficial soil microflora and also increase yield.
Main challenges to microbial pesticides
The rapid biopesticide success is due to its effectiveness and
safety as compared to chemical insecticides. Still, there are a
lot of challenges facing to microbial pesticides to replace
chemical pesticides in the future.
The utilization of microbial pesticides in IPM model
requires high scientific study such as systematic surveys
on properties, mode of action, pathogenicity, etc.
Ecological studies are necessary on the dynamics of
diseases in insect populations because the environmental
factors play a vital role in disease outbreaks to control the
pests.
In order to improve mass production technologies;
contamination should be reduced with the improvement of
formulation potency and increase in shelf-life of microbial
biopesticides.
Dry formulations should be commercially focused than
the liquid formulations with the improvement of slow
speed with which microbial pathogens kill their host.
Genetic and biotechnological tools would lead to the
production of strains with improved pathogenesis and
virulence.
Due to narrow specificity mostly forces biopesticide
application with common conventional insecticides.
However, this practice can also lead to incompatibility
problems such as inhibition or death of the living
organism.
All aspects study should be done especially; persistence,
resistance, dispersal potential, the range of non-target
organisms affected directly and/or indirectly in order to
solve the problem of regarding the regulatory and
registration.
Baculoviruses biopesticide importance and future aspects
Baculovirus biopesticide has many advantages as a tool in the
insect pest management program, including the highly
specificity, no adverse effect on vertebrates and plants and
ease of genetic manipulation. However, the baculovirus, like
other biopesticides have some difficulties for commercial use,
such as the current requirements for killing speed, short field
stability, high production costs, and biological control agents
[34-36]
. The wild type baculoviruses have slow killing rate that
~243~
Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies
reduce their practical application. To overcome this problem
multi strategy has been developed to use the recombinant
DNA technology to enhance their killing action including the
insertion of genes encoding insect hormones or enzymes, or
insect specific toxins
[37]
. However, only the expression of
juvenile hormone esterase showed a significant improvement
in insecticidal activity of the parent wild-type baculovirus
[38]
.
Because of juvenile hormone esterase regulates juvenile
hormone, its overexpression the hormone concentrations were
decreased and leads to prevent insect feeding and pupation
[39]
.
Short half-life in the hemolymph of juvenile hormone esterase
is a serious restriction to the effective use of recombinant
baculovirus to express this enzyme. Still, many efforts have
been made to improve in vivo stability, making it more
effective
[40]
. Anticarsia gemmatalis is a very important
soybean insect pest in Brazil, before an IPM program
implementation, frequent insecticide were applied for their
control and AgMNPV used to threaten about 2000 hectares of
soybeans treatment area increased to two million ha by 2002-
2003
[41]
. The application of AgMNPV to control A.
gemmatalis in Brazil was a very successful program has been
considered as the most important in the world
[17]
. The codling
moth, Cydia pomonella is well known pest of fruits such as
apple, pears and walnuts throughout the world
[42]
. In 1964, the
isolation of the C. pomonella granulovirus (CpGV) provided a
highly effective pathogen for control of important insect pests
worldwide that are responsible for huge economic loss every
year
[18]
. Cotton Bollworm, H. armigera is the resistant noctuid
species to a wide range of insecticides
[43, 44]
resistance to
transgenic Bt cotton as well
[45, 46]
. It has also been found that
the combination of HaMNPV with endosulfan has provided
significant results
[47, 48, 49]
. In China HaSNPV is one of the
most important commercial baculovirus. Many NPVs are used
on over 100,000 ha annually
[17]
. Nowadays, the commercial
baculoviruses production is occur in vivo, using the
baculovirus in the open field and collecting infected larvae
(dead) or reared larvae feed with baculovirus contaminated
food in the laboratory
[50]
.
Botanical biopesticides
Botanical pesticides derived from some parts or whole plants
having ability of insect killing, sterilization, weed control and
plant growth regulating activities. The application of botanical
pesticides for the crop and stored products protection from
insect pests has been become a part of traditional agriculture
for generations. The development of biopesticides has
promoted the modernization of agriculture and will, no doubt,
and gradually replace chemical pesticides. A large number of
products have been released, some of which have played a
leading role in the market. Over 6000 plant species have been
identified that possessing insecticidal properties. In insect pest
management, a number of plant products derived from neem,
custard apple, tobacco, pyrethrum, etc. have been used as safer
insecticides
[51]
. Botanical pesticides have environmentally
friendly characteristics such as volatile nature, low
environmental risk compared to current synthetic pesticides.
Due to minimal residual activity; predation, parasitism, and the
number of pollination insects would affect smaller and
compatible with IPM programs
[52]
. Azadirachtin compounds
derived from the neem tree is sold under various trade names,
can use on several food crops and ornamental plants for
controlling whitefly, thrips, scale and other pests
[53, 54]
. Some
important botanical biopesticides are shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Some plant products used as biopesticides
[55]
Plant product used
as biopesticide
Target pests
Limonene and
Linalool
Fleas, aphids and mites, also kill fire ants,
several types of flies, paper wasps and house
crickets
Neem A variety of sucking and chewing insect
Pyrethrum /
Pyrethrins
Ants, aphids, roaches, fleas, flies, and ticks
Rotenone
Leaf-feeding insects, such as aphids, certain
beetles (asparagus beetle, bean leaf beetle,
Colorado potato beetle, cucumber beetle, flea
beetle, strawberry leaf beetle, and others) and
caterpillars, as well as fleas and lice on
animals
Ryania
Caterpillars (European corn borer, corn
earworm, and others) and thrips
Sabadilla
Squash bugs, harlequin bugs, thrips,
caterpillars, leaf hoppers, and stink bugs
A number of problems have been encountered while
commercializing the botanical pesticides such as quality
control and product standardization. As synthetic pesticides,
the improper and excessive use of botanical pesticides may
also develop pest resistance. The phytotoxicity is also a matter
of botanical pesticides such as neem oil based is often
phytotoxic to tomato, brinjal and ornamental plants at high oil
levels. Although plant extracts are considered to be relatively
safe to humans, still, this is not yet confirmed for all plant
species such as Aconitum spp. and Ricinus communis have
notoriously high toxicity to man and Tephrosia vogelii having
well-known adverse effects against fish
[56]
.
Semiochemicals
From the 1970's to 1980's in the last century, about 1000 kind
of insect’s pheromones were identified and discovered. The
first experiment that involved pheromones for pest control was
conducted in 1980's. Since then, a lot of pheromones have
been identified and used in pest management programs. More
than 30 target species have been controlled successfully by sex
pheromones. Based on the use of these semiochemicals,
producers rely on the deployment of air permeation to attract
and kill techniques for pest control
[57, 58]
.
Current research has found that herbivore-induced plant
volatiles from arthropod herbivores interaction. Then it has
synthesized and used in slow release dispensers to attract
predators and parasitoids. Under field conditions, they lead to
a high capture of natural enemies. It is worth noting that
application of compounds such as jasmonic acid to plants can
also induce the production of a natural blend of HIPVs. The
results of this study indicate that the application of synthetic
HIPVs crops may attract - direct and indirect effects that can
protect crops from pests such as sodium alginate as a
biological control to attract natural enemies and the natural
enemies of aphids
[59, 60]
.
Semiochemicals improvement and development
For improvement of semiochemicals, understanding the
mechanisms of communication systems of insects,
behavior and mating systems among target insects and
non-target organisms is important. At the same time the
effects of different meteorological and physiochemical
characteristics of insects and plants should be understood.
Proper protection and controlled release formulations
should be developed to prolong its efficacy after their
application on crop and reduce its rapid photodegradable.
~244~
Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies
The best successes of semiochemicals have been
achieved where large, contiguous areas have been treated
with these compounds. Farmers should be used a very
proper insect control methodology to get best result from
semiochemical application.
Cost of registration, size of the potential market and
product’s price are very important for development.
Therefore should be improved.
Replacement of chemical pesticides to biopesticides
Chemical pesticides play an important role in the green
revolution, which can realize high yield varieties and the most
effective pest management tool. Synthetic pesticides are very
effective, affordable and rapid in action in the case of the pest
populations reached to economic threshold levels (ETLs).
Problems such as pest resistance development, resurgence,
pesticide residues in the food commodities and environmental
effects to non-target organisms and direct hazards to human
beings have evolved due to repeated and excessive use of
pesticides. Many species of insects and mites have developed
resistance to different groups of pesticides
[59, 60]
.
Environmentally friendly alternative to chemical pesticides is
biopesticides. The development and improvement of
biopesticides are based on the negative effects of chemical
pesticides. More than 3000 tons/year biopesticide is produced
in the worldwide; its market share is only 2.5%. The rapid
increasing rate of biopesticides is due to its target specificity
and ecologically friendly
[61]
.
Role of biopesticides in IPM
Crop protection has relied basically on synthetic chemical
pesticides in past, but their availability is now declining as a
result of new laws and legislations and the evolution in the
process of insect resistance. Therefore, it is necessary to
replace the pest management strategy. Biopesticide is the best
alternative to synthetic chemical pesticides based on living
micro-organisms or natural products. Biopesticides include a
broad array of microbial pesticides, biochemicals derived from
microorganisms and other natural sources, and processes
involving the genetic modification of plants to express genes
encoding insecticidal toxins
[55]
. Biopesticides have
demonstrated the potential of pest management and used
worldwide. In the European Union, there are new
opportunities for development of biological pesticides in
combination with integrated pest management, ecological
science and post genomic technologies
[62]
. In this regard, the
use of biopesticides and bio-agents has assumed significance
as an important component of IPM due to their economic
viability and eco-friendly nature instead of chemical synthetic
pesticides
[2]
. Biopesticide application as a component of IPM
programs can play important role in overcoming disadvantage
of chemical insecticides that have some important
characteristics such as biodegradable and self- perpetuating,
less harmful on beneficial pests, mostly host specific and less
shelf life
[63]
. Baculovirus biopesticides are an alternative to
chemical pesticides in integrated pest management; however,
they have a wide range of difficulties for commercial uses
such as slow killing, short life time, high production costs and
current laws and regulations of biological control agents
[36]
.
To overcome many problems of wild-type baculoviruses,
many strategies have been developed to improve their killing
action by recombinant DNA technology, including the
insertion of genes encoding insect hormones or enzymes, or
insect-specific toxins
[37]
.
Improvement in action spectra of biopesticides
Biopesticide is commercially available for a single main pest
that reduce their market value due to their formulations, e.g,
Mycotal
®
the fungus Verticillium lecanii) against cereal aphids
[64]
. Some biopesticides are highly targeted specific hence
generally concern as a disadvantage because accessible
biopesticide markets are smaller than those for products with
broad spectrum activity
[65]
. Some biopesticides are only
effective in specific stages of pests to reduce their population
below threshold level
[66]
. In addition, some of the pesticides
have important advantages in favor of their application in
modern legislation, such as new behavioral modes of action,
which enable them to overcome the increased resistance to
conventional pesticides with valuable tools as well as to reduce
the impact on non-target organisms
[67]
. It must also be pay
attention to a number of biological pesticide has relatively
wide range of activities (such as Bacillus thuringiensis and
active bioextracts from natural products such as azadirachtin),
which encourages their widespread application and market size
[68]
. In the development of biological pesticide, it is important
to overcome the problem of improper preparation or
formulations, low shelf life, slow pest control and the highest
market costs as well as other marketing registration related
issues
[62]
.
References
1. UN. World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision,
United Nations, New York, 2011.
2. Birch ANE. How agro-ecological research helps to
address food security issues under new IPM and pesticide
reduction policies for global crop production systems. J
Exp Bot. 2011; 62:3251-3261.
3. Srivastava KP, Dhaliwal GS. A Textbook of Applied
Entomology. Concepts in Pest Management. Kalyani
Publishers, New Delhi, 2010, 1.
4. Al-Zaidi AA, Elhag EA, Al-Otaibi SH, Baig MB.
Negative effects of pesticides on the environment and the
farmer’s awareness in Saudi Arabia: a case study. J Anim
Plant Sci. 2011; 21(3):605-611.
5. Ishtiaq M, Saleem MA, Razaq M. Monitoring of
resistance in Spodoptera exigua (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)
from four districts of the Southern Punjab, Pakistan to
four conventional and six new chemistry insecticides.
Crop Protect. 2012; 33:13-20.
6. Bailey A, Chandler D, Grant WP, Greaves J, Prince G,
Tatchell M. Biopesticides: Pest Management and
Regulation, CABI, UK, 2010.
7. Mazhabi M, Nemati H, Rouhani H, Tehranifar A,
Moghadam EM, Kaveh H et al.. The effect of
Trichoderma on polianthes qualitative and quantitative
properties. J Anim Plant Sci. 2011; 21(3):617-621.
8. Islam MT, Omar DB. Combined effect of Beuveria
bassiana with neem on virulence of insect in case of two
application approaches. J Anim Plant Sci. 2012; 22(1):77-
82.
9. Alout H, Labbe P, Berthomieu A, Djogbenou L, Leonetti
JP, Fort PH et al. Novel AChE inhibitors for sustainable
insecticide resistance management. PLoS One 2012;
7(10):1-8.
10. Casida JE, Durkin KA. Neuroactive insecticides: targets,
selectivity, resistance, and secondary effects. Ann. Rev.
Entomol 2013; 58:99-117.
11. Green BT, Welch KD, Panter KE, Lee ST. Plant toxins
that affect nicotinic acetylcholine receptors: a review.
Chem. Res. Toxicol 2013; 26(8):1129-1138.
~245~
Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies
12. Van Lenteren JC. The state of commercial augmentative
biological control: plenty of natural enemies, but a
frustrating lack of uptake. Bio Control 2012; 57:1-20.
13. Koul O. Microbial biopesticides: opportunities and
challenges. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture,
Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources
2011; 6:1-26.
14. Rowley DL, Popham HJR, Harrison RL. Genetic variation
and virulence of nucleopolyhedroviruses isolated
worldwide from the heliothine pests Helicoverpa
armigera, Helicoverpa zea and Heliothis virescens. J
Invertebr Pathol. 2011; 107:112-126.
15. Hauxwell C, Tichon M, Buerger P, Anderson S. Australia.
In: Kabaluk JT, Svircev AM, Goettel, MS. and Woo SG.
The Use and Regulation of Microbial Pesticides in
Representative Jurisdictions Worldwide. IOBC Global,
2010, 80-88.
16. Rabindra RJ, Grzywacz D. India. In: Kabuluk T, Svircev
A, Goettel M, Woo SG. (Eds.), Use and Regulation of
Microbial Pesticides in Representative Jurisdictions
Worldwide. IOBC Global, 2010, 12-17.
17. Yang MM, Li ML, Zhang Y, Wang YZ, Qu LJ, Wang QH
et al. Baculoviruses and insect pests control in China. Afr.
J Microbiol Res. 2012; 6(2):214-218.
18. Moscardi F, de Souza ML, de Castro MEB, Moscardi ML,
Szewczyk B. baculovirus pesticides: present state and
future perspectives. In: Ahmad I, Ahmad F, Pichtel J.
(Eds.), Microbes and Microbial Technology. Springer,
Dordrecht, 2011, 415-445.
19. Panazzi AR. History and contemporary perspectives of the
integrated pest management of soybean in Brazil.
Neotrop. Entomol. 2013; 42:119-127.
20. Van Frankenhuyzen K. Insecticidal activity of Bacillus
thuringiensis crystal proteins. J Invertebr Pathol. 2009;
101:1-16.
21. Jurat-Fuentes JL, Jackson TA. Bacterial
entomopathogens. In: Vega, F.E., Kaya, H.K. (Eds.),
Insect Pathology, second ed. Academic Press, San Diego,
2012, 265-349.
22. Mashtoly TA, Abolmaaty A, El-Zemaity M, Hussien MI,
Alm SR. Enhanced toxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis
subspecies kurstaki and aizawai to black cutworm larvae
(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) with Bacillus sp. NFD2 and
Pseudomonas sp. FNFD1. J Econ Entomol. 2011; 104:41-
46.
23. Mashtoly TA, Abolmaaty A, Thompson N, El-Said El-
Zemaity M, Hussien MI, Alm SR. Enhanced toxicity of
Bacillus thuringiensis japonensis strain Buibui toxin to
oriental beetle and northern masked chafer (Coleoptera:
Scarabaeidae) larvae with Bacillus sp. NFD2. J Econ
Entomol. 2010; 103:1547-1554.
24. Koppenhofer AM, Jackson TA, Klein MG. Bacteria for
use against soil inhabiting insects. In: Lacey LA (Ed.),
Manual of Techniques in Invertebrate Pathology.
Academic Press, San Diego, 2012, 129-149.
25. Lacey LA, Liu TX, Buchman JL, Munyaneza JE, Goolsby
JA, Horton DR. Entomopathogenic fungi (Hypocreales)
for control of potato psyllid, Bactericera cockerelli (Sulc)
(Hemiptera: Triozidae) in an area endemic for zebra chip
disease of potato. Biol. Control 2011; 36:271-278.
26. McCoy CW, Samson RA, Boucias DG, Osborne, LS,
Pena J, Buss LJ. Pathogens Infecting Insects and Mites of
Citrus. LLC Friends of Microbes, Winter Park, FL, USA,
2009, 193.
27. Townsend RJ, Nelson TL, Jackson TA. Beauveria
brongniartii–a potential biocontrol agent for use against
manuka beetle larvae damaging dairy pastures on Cape
Foulwind. N. Z. Plant Protect 2010; 63:224-228.
28. Hajek AE, Papierok B, Eilenberg J. Methods for study of
the entomophthorales. In: Lacey LA. (Ed.), Manual of
Techniques in Invertebrate Pathology. Academic Press,
San Diego, 2012, 285-316.
29. Down RE, Cuthbertson AGS, Mathers JJ, Walters KFA.
Dissemination of the entomopathogenic fungi,
Lecanicillium longisporum and L. muscarium, by the
predatory bug, Orius laevigatus, to provide concurrent
control of Myzus persicae, Frankliniella occidentalis and
Bemisia tabaci. Biol. Control 2009; 50:172-178.
30. Kim JJ, Goettel MS, Gillespie DR. Evaluation of
Lecanicillium longisporum, Vertalec against the cotton
aphid, Aphis gossypii, and cucumber powdery mildew,
Sphaerotheca fuliginea in a greenhouse environment.
Crop Protect. 2009; 29:540-544.
31. Jaronski ST, Jackson MA. Mass production of
entomopathogenic Hypocreales. In: Lacey, L.A. (Ed.),
Manual of Techniques in Invertebrate Pathology.
Academic Press, San Diego, 2012, 257-286.
32. Thakre M, Thakur M, Malik N, Ganger S. Mass scale
cultivation of entomopathogenic fungus Nomuraea rileyi
using agricultural products and agro wastes. J Biopest
2011; 4:176-179.
33. Jindal V, Dhaliwal GS, Koul O. Pest Maagement in 21st
century: Roadmap for future. Biopestic. Int. 2013; 9(1):1-
22.
34. Mills NJ, Kean JM. Behavioral studies, molecular
approaches, and modelling: methodological contributions
to biological control success. Biol. Control 2010;
52(3):255-262.
35. Ravensberg WJ. A roadmap to the successful
development and commercialization of microbial pest
control products for control of arthropods. Springer,
Dordrecht, Netherland, 2011, 171-233.
36. Regnault-Roger C. Trends for commercialization of
biocontrol agent (biopesticide) products. In: Merillon JM.
and Ramawat KG. (eds.) Plant Defence: Biological
Control. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherland, 2012, 139-160.
37. Gramkow AW, Perecmanis S, Sousa RLB, Noronha EF,
Felix CR, Nagata T et al. Insecticidal activity of two
proteases against Spodoptera frugiperda larvae infected
with recombinant baculoviruses. Virol. J 2010; 29(7):143.
38.
El-Sheikh ESA, Kamita SG, Vu K, Hammock BD.
Improved insecticidal efficacy of a recombinant
baculovirus expressing mutated JH esterase from
Manduca sexta. Biol. Control, 2011; 58:354-361.
39. El-Sheikh ESA, Mamtha MD, Ragheb DA, Ashour MBA.
Potential of juvenile hormone esterase as a bio-
insecticide: an overview. Egyp. J of Biol Pest Cont. 2011;
21(1):103-110.
40. Kamita SG, Hammock BD. Juvenile hormone esterase:
biochemistry and tructure. J Pest Sci. 2010; 35:265-274.
41. Szewczyk B, Hoyos-Carvajal L, Paluszek M, Skrzecz I,
Lobo de Souza M. Baculoviruses-re-emerging
biopesticides. Biotechnol. Adv. 2006; 24: 143-160.
42. Arthurs SP, Lacey LA, Miliczky ER. Evaluation of the
codling moth granulovirus and spinosad for codling moth
control and impact on non-target species in pear orchards.
Biol. Control, 2007; 41:99-109.
43. Jouben N, Agnolet S, Lorenz S, Schone SE, Ellinger R,
Schneider B et al. Resistance of Australian Helicoverpa
~246~
Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies
armigera to fenvalerate is due to the chimeric P450
enzyme CYP337B3. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci 2012;
109(38):15206-15211.
44. Mironidis GK, Kapantaidaki D, Bentila M, Morou E,
Savopoulou-Soultani M, Vontas J. Resurgence of the
cotton bollworm Helicoverpa armigera in northern
Greece associated with insecticide resistance. Insect Sci
2013; 20(4):505-512.
45. Luttrell RG, Jackson RE. Helicoverpa zea and Bt cotton
in the United States. GM Crops 2012; 3(3):213-227.
46. Yang Y, Li Y, Wu Y. Current status of insecticide
resistance in Helicoverpa armigera after 15 Years of Bt
cotton planting in China. J Econ Entomol. 2013;
106(1):375-381.
47. Elamathi E, Cholan JRR, Vijayakumar N, Ramamourti A.
Formulation and optimisation of various nuclear
polyhedrosis virus isolates and assessment of their
insecticidal activity against Helicoverpa armigera
(Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) larvae. Arch.
Phytopathol. Plant Protect. 2012; 45(7):750-765.
48. Mir MUD, Gaurav SS, Prasad CS, Tyagi A. Field efficacy
of HaNPY against Helicoverpa armigera on Tomato.
Ann. Plant Prot. Sci. 2010; 18(2): 301-303.
49. Siddique SS, Babu R, Arif M. Efficacy of Trichogramma
brasiliense, nuclear polyhedrosis virus and endosulfan for
the management of Helicoverpa armigera on tomato. J
Exp Zool 2010; 13(1):177-180.
50. Elvira S, Williams T, Caballero P. Juvenile hormone
analog technology: effects on larval cannibalism and the
production of Spodoptera exigua (Lepidoptera:
Noctuidae) nucleopolyhedrovirus. J Econ Entomol. 2010;
103:577-582.
51. Koul O. Plant biodiversity as a resource for natural
products for insect pest management. In Gurr GM,
Wratten SD, Snyder WE, Read, DMY. Biodiversity and
Insect Pests: Key Issues for Sustainable Management.
John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Sussex, UK, 2012, 85-105.
52. Xu XM. Combined use of biocontrol agents to manage
plant diseases in theory and practice. Phytopathol. 2011;
101:1024-1031.
53. Sarwar M, Ahmad N, Bux M, Tofique M. Potential of
Plant Materials for the Management of Cowpea Bruchid
Callosobruchus analis (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) in Gram
Cicer arietinum during Storage. The Nucleus, 2012;
49(1):61-64.
54. Sarwar M, Ashfaq M, Ahmad A, Randhawa MAM.
Assessing the Potential of Assorted Plant Powders on
Survival of Caloglyphus Grain Mite (Acari: Acaridae) in
Wheat Grain. International Journal of Agricultural
Science and Bioresource Engineering Research. 2013;
2(1):1-6.
55. Salma M, Ratul CR, Jogen CK. A review on the use of
biopesticides in insect pest management. Int. J Sci Adv
Tech. 2011; 1:169-178.
56. Stevenson PC, Nyirenda SP, Mvumi B, Sola P, Kamanula
JF, Sileshi G et al. Pesticidal plants: A viable alternative
insect pest management approach for resource-poor
farming in Africa. In Koul O, Dhaliwal GS, Khokhar S,
Singh R. (eds.), Biopesticides in Environment and Food
Security: Issues and Strategies. Scientific Publishers
(India), Jodhpur, 2012, 175-201.
57.
Witzgall P, Kirsh P, Cock A. Sex pheromones and their
impact in pest management. J Chem Ecol. 2010; 36:80-
100.
58. Dhaliwal GS, Koul O, Khokhar S, Singh R. Biopesticides:
Springboard to environment and food security. In Koul O,
Dhaliwal GS, Kokhar S, Singh R., (eds.), Biopesticides in
Environment and Food Security: Issues and Strategies,
Scientific Publishers (India) Jodhpur, 2012, 1-11.
59. Heuskin S, Lorge S, Godin B, Leroy P, Frere I,
Verheggen FJ et al. Optimisation of a semiochemical
slow-release alginate formulation attractive towards
Aphidius ervi Haliday parasitoids. Pest Manag. Sci. 2012;
68:127–136.
60. Gurr GM, Simpson M, Wratten SD. A novel approach to
enhancing biological control: attracting predators and
parasitoids using herbivore induced plant volatiles
(HIPVs) and nectar ‘rewards’. In O. Koul GS, Dhaliwal S,
Khokhar Singh R. (eds.), Biopesticides in Environment
and Food Security: Issues and Strategies. Scientific
Publishers (India), Jodhpur, 2012, 12-24.
61. Suman G, Dikshit AK. Biopesticides: An eco-friendly
approach for pest control. J Biopesticides. 2010; 3(1):186-
188.
62. Chandler D, Bailey AS, Tatchell GM, Davidson G,
Greaves J, Grant WP. The development, regulation and
use of biopesticides for integrated pest management. Phil.
Trans. R. Soc. B. Biol. Sciences, 2011; 366(1573):1987-
1998.
63. Matyjaszczyk E. Products containing microorganisms as a
tool in integrated pest management and the rules of their
market placement in the European Union. Pest Manag.
Sci. 2015; 71:1201-1206.
64. Aqueel MA, Leather SR. Virulence of Verticillium lecanii
(Z.) against cereal aphids; does timing of infection affect
the performance of parasitoids and predators? Pest Manag.
Sci. 2013; 69:493-498.
65. Glare T, Caradus J, Gelernter W, Jackson T, Keyhani N,
Kohl J. et al. Have biopesticides come of age? Trends
Biotechnol, 2012; 30:250-258.
66. Singh RK, Sanyal PK, Patel NK, Sarkar AK, Santra AK,
Pal S. et al. Fungus–benzimidazole interactions: a
prerequisite to deploying egg-parasitic fungi
Paecilomyces lilacinus and Verticillium chlamydosporium
as biocontrol agents against fascioliasis and
amphistomiasis in ruminant livestock. J Helminthol. 2010;
84:123-131.
67. Spence KO, Lewis EE. Biopesticides with complex modes
of action: direct and indirect effects of DiTera on
Meloidogyne incognita. Nematology, 2010; 12:835-846.
68. Ernandes S, Del Bianchi VL, Moraes ID. Evaluation of
two different culture media for the development of
biopesticides based on Bacillus thuringiensis and their
application in larvae of Aedes aegypti. Acta. Sci. Technol
2013; 35:11-18.
