Here, we report the different stages involved in the knowledge-based development of an effective mycoinsecticide, including the isolation, identification, screening, and selection of the “best-fit” entomopathogenic fungus, Metarhizium anisopliae, for the control of insect pests in agriculture.
A major concern when developing commercial mycoinsecticides is the kill speed compared to that of chemical insecticides. Therefore, isolation and screening for the selection of a fast-acting, highly virulent entomopathogenic fungus are important steps. Entomopathogenic fungi, such as Metarhizium, Beauveria, and Nomurea, which act by contact, are better suited than Bacillus thuringiensis or nucleopolyhedrosis virus (NPV), which must be ingested by the insect pest. In the present work, we isolated 68 Metarhizium strains from infected insects using a soil dilution and bait method. The isolates were identified by the amplification and sequencing of the ITS1-5.8S-ITS2 and 26S rDNA region. The most virulent strain of Metarhizium anisopliae was selected based on the median lethal concentration (LC50) and time (LT50) obtained in insect bioassays against III-instar larvae of Helicoverpa armigera. The mass production of spores by the selected strain was carried out with solid-state fermentation (SSF) using rice as a substrate for 14 days. Spores were extracted from the sporulated biomass using 0.1% tween-80, and different formulations of the spores were prepared. Field trials of the formulations for the control of an H. armigera infestation in pigeon peas were carried out by randomized block design. The infestation control levels obtained with oil and aqueous formulations (78.0% and 70.9%, respectively) were better than the 63.4% obtained with chemical pesticide.
From the introduction of organochlorine pesticides in the 1940s in India, the use of pesticides has increased many fold1, with crop pests still costing billions of rupees2 annually in terms of yield loss in agricultural production. The widespread and non-judicious use of synthetic pesticides is a continuous threat to the environment and human health1. The indiscriminate use of pesticides leads to residues in the soil and the depletion of natural pest predators. It also serves as a powerful selection pressure for altering the genetic makeup of a pest population, leading to the development of resistance1. Despite the enormous benefits of the green revolution, which required high inputs, like fertilizers and pesticides, pests continue to be a major biotic constraint. A general estimate of recorded annual crop losses in India and worldwide are USD 12 billion2 and USD 2,000 billion3, respectively.
When chemical pesticides have detrimental effects when used to control insect pests, it becomes imperative to search for alternative methods that are ecologically sound, reliable, economical, and sustainable. Biological control offers a suitable alternative and includes the use of parasites, predators, and microbial pathogens4. Fungi, for instance, are known to infect a broad range of insect pests, including lepidopterans, hymenopterans, coleopterans, and dipterans, often resulting in natural epizootics. Furthermore, unlike other bacterial and viral insect control agents, the mode of action of insect pathogenic fungi is by contact5. These fungi comprise a heterogenous group of over 100 genera, with approximately 750 species reported among different insects. The important fungal pathogens are: Metarhizium sp., Beauveria sp., Nomuraea rileyi, Lecanicillium lecanii, and Hirsutella sp., to name a few6. M. anisopliae (Metchnikoff) Sorokin is the second most widely used entomopathogenic fungus in biocontrol. It is known to attack over 200 species of insects7.
In this study, different stages involved in the knowledge-based development of a mycopesticide using M. anisopliae are presented. This includes: 1) the identification of a source (i.e., either soil or mycosed insects) for virulent entomopathogens, 2) entomopathogen identification and selection, 3) strategies to maintain their virulent nature and effectiveness in the laboratory bioassay and in the field, 4) the cost-effective formulation of infective propagules, 5) the development of unique quality-control parameters for virulent preparation, and 6) bioprospecting and value addition.
1. Isolation of Entomopathogenic Fungi
2. Identification of Entomopathogenic Fungi
3. Screening of Metarhizium Isolates Against H. armigera
4. Production of Spores of a Metarhizium Isolate for Field Performance Studies
5. Field Performance Studies of the Ability of the Selected M. anisopliae Isolate to Control H. armigera in Pigeon Peas
6. Effect on Non-target Organisms
7. Identification of Quality-control Parameters
During the investigations, different strains of Metarhizium, Beauveria, and Nomuraea were isolated by various isolation methods (data not shown)6,14 As Metarhizium strains were found to be more effective at controlling H. armigera, a dreadful pest in pulses6,14, further isolations were targeted to isolate Metarhizium strains from different crop fields and insects (Table 1). The total of 68 Metarhizium isolates obtained were identified by cultural and morphological characteristics and by ITS 1-5.8S-ITS 4 sequencing. Based on the >90% mortality of H. armigera in laboratory bioassays, 12 Metarhizium isolates were further tested for spore production, viability, LC50, LT50, and ST50. Table 2 describes the data for 3 potential isolates, M34311, M34412, and M81123; M34412 was found to be the best performing isolate.
Among the tested substrates, such as rice, sorghum, corn, and wheat, rice supported the maximum sporulation in the case of Metarhizium isolates (60-75 g of spores/kg; 4-4.4 x 1010 spores/g of spore powder).
During the field trial for the control of H. armigera in pigeon peas, 78.0% and 70.9% efficacies were obtained with the M. anisopliae M34412 oil and aqueous formulations, respectively. The pod damage in M. anisopliae-treated plots was found to be less (8.76%) than in the untreated control plots (23.63%) and the chemically treated plots (10.24%). The average yield (q/ha) in the untreated control was 7.31 q/ha, which was less than that after M. anisopliae M34412 treatment (14.04 q/ha). Treatment with chemical gave a yield of 12.78 q/ha (Table 3).
The observations recorded for phytotoxicity symptoms revealed that no treatments showed a phytotoxic effect on the pigeon pea crop after 3 sprays of M. anisopliae formulation. Out of 57 collected soil-dwelling arthropods (field crickets and spiders), none were infected. Out of 590 collected canopy-inhabiting arthropods, two individuals of the order Heteroptera (= 0.3% of the collected arthropods) were found to be infected with M. anisopliae (Table 4). Neither spiders nor Coccinellids succumbed to the fungus.
Soil (58 isolates) | ||
Isolate No. | Crop | No. of isolates |
M1311, M1322, M1333, M2104, M2305, M2416, M2427, M2508, M42014, M45115, M45216, M45317, M79120, M79221, M79322 | Tomato | 15 |
M3419, M34210, M34311, M34412, M34513, M171264 | Custard apple | 6 |
M81123, M91124, M91225, M91326, M91528, M91427, M91629, M91730, M91831, M91932, M111145 | Sugarcane | 11 |
M101133, M101234, M101335, M101436, M101537, M101638, M101739, M101840, M101941, M102042, M102143, M102244 | Brinjal | 12 |
M51118, M51219 | Okra | 2 |
M131150, M141151, M141252, M151153 | Pigeon pea | 4 |
M121146, M121247, M121348, M121449 | Chickpea | 4 |
M183365 | Cotton | 1 |
M193166 | Jawar | 1 |
Insect host (10 isolates) | ||
M16255, M16356, M16457, M16558, M16659 | Pigeon pea-greasy cutworm | 5 |
M16154, M16760 | Sugarcane-mealy bug | 2 |
M16861 | Sugarcane-white grub | 1 |
M16962 | Sugarcane-beetle | 1 |
M161063 | Sugarcane-Pyrilla perpussila | 1 |
Table 1. Origin of Metarhizium strains. The 68 Metarhizium strains were isolated from different crop fields (58 strains) and mycosed insects from the crop fields (10 strains).
Isolate | Yield (g/kg rice) | Viability (%) | ST50 in T80 (h) | LC50 (x 103 spores/mL) | LT50 (days) | Mortality (%) |
Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | (Fiducial Limit) | (Fiducial Limit) | (Fiducial Limit) | ||
M34311 | 60.00±2.64a | 92.00±2.64a | 2.47 (2.26-2.69) | 2 (0.4-10.3) | 3.5 (3.2-3.7) | 96.67 |
M34412 | 67.00±3.46b | 97.00±1.73a | 2.3 (2.11-2.52) | 1.4 (0.1-1.9) | 3.3 (3.0-3.6) | 96.67 |
M81123 | 75.00±3.60c | 93.00±1.73a | 2.65 (2.43-2.90) | 5.7 (1.2-26.7) | 3.3 (3.1-3.6) | 95.56 |
Numbers followed by the same letter within the column are not statistically different. | ||||||
ST50, time required for sedimentation of 50% spores in 0.1% (w/v) Tween 80. | ||||||
Numbers followed by the same letter within the column are not statistically different. SD, Standard Deviation. T80, Tween 80 (0.1%, w/v). | ||||||
LC50, the median lethal concentration of spores calculated to cause 50% mortality of H. armigera after 14 days. | ||||||
LT50, the median lethal time of spores calculated to cause 50% mortality of H. armigera. |
Table 2. Selection of three best-performing Metarhizium isolates. The isolates were selected based on production parameters and performance in insect bioassays with H. armigera 3rd -instar larvae.
Field Trial$ | ||
Treatment | % Efficacy* | Yield (q/ha) |
Aqueous M. anisopliae M34412 (5x 1012 spores/ha) 500L | 70.93 ± 4.19 | 14.04 |
Oil formulation (M. anisopliae) (5x 1012 spores/ha) 3 L | 78.02 ± 4.61 | 15.53 |
Chemical pesticide/Farmers’ practice (2ml/L, 500 L/ha) | 63.43 ± 0.85 | 12.78 |
Untreated Control | – | 7.31 |
Demonstration trial in ( Farmers’ participatory programme)$$ | ||
Treatment | % Pod damage | Yield (q/ha) |
Aqueous formulation (M. anisopliae); Area 4.2 ha | 15.9 ±1.26 | 10.75 |
Oil formulation (M. anisopliae); Area 0.4 ha | 17.74 | 12.5 |
Farmers’ practice; Area 11ha | 22.72 ± 3.37 | 7.55 |
Irrigated crop | ||
$Randomised Block Design | ||
*After Henderson and Tilton (1955) | ||
# HaNPV, H. armigera nucleopolyhedrovirus | ||
$$ Number of farmers involved in the demonstration trials were 20. The pigeon pea seeds (BSMR – 736) were supplied along with fertilizers to the farmers. Village: Deolali Pravara, Tal. Rahuri. Dist. A’Nagar (MS) ( 19.473° N 74.6° E) |
Table 3. Field performance of the M. anosopliae (M34412) strain against H. armigera. The efficacies of different formulations of M. anisopiae were compared with chemical pesticide treatments against H. armigera infestation in pigeon peas under field conditions.
Parameter | Field 1 | Field 2 | Field 3 |
Plot size (m) | 12 x 17 | 10 x 10 | 10 x 15 |
Replicates | 2 | 2 | 2 |
# Arthropods from pitfall traps tested | 20 | 22 | 15 |
% Infected with M. anisopliae (pitfall traps) | ND | ND | ND |
# Arthropods from sweep net collection tested | 193 | 171 | 226 |
% Infected with M. anisopliae (sweep net collection) | ND | ND | 0.9 |
ND, Not detected Field 1, Agriculture college, Pune; Field 2, NGO 1, Tulapur, Pune; Field 3, NGO 2, Aalandi, Pune. |
Table 4. Effects of M. anisopliae treatments on non-target arthropods. The observations were recorded in three different fields in two replicates. No effect was seen on any of the non-target insects collected.
During the 1880s, the first attempt was made to use Metarhizium to control the scarab beetle, Anisoplia austriaca, and the sugar beet curculio, Cleonis punctiventris21. In this protocol, one of the prerequisites was to isolate a virulent strain, either from the soil or from infected insects. Indeed, other parameters, such as LC50, LT50, and ST50, significantly contributed to the cost-effectiveness of the product22,23. For the optimization of the spore production, a delicate balance between number of spores, viability, and virulence was maintainend24.
As agriculture is a high-volume-low-cost product, the quality perception, acceptability by end users, and shelf life of spores are the major concerns. Host specificity is advantageous to avoiding non-target effects14. The avoidance of repeated subculturing on artificial medium and the occasional passage through the insect host maintained the virulence and effectiveness of the Metarhizium spores in the field22. The presented approach does have limitations: the preparation is more effective when the economic threshold level is ~2-3 larvae per plant, and the spore germination is at a maximum in the presence of high moisture and relatively low temperatures.
Here, the fungal preparation is effective after contact, while bacterial (Bt) and viral preparations (-HaNPV) are only effective when digested. Regarding quality-control parameters, in addition to the viability of the spores, for the first time, it has been suggested that biochemical and molecular markers based on cuticle-degrading enzyme activities and specific restriction digestion patterns of the same enzyme genes can assure effectiveness in the field. The quality-control parameters suggested are: (a) the spore viability, measured as spore germination (should be >90% on PDA after 16 h at 28 °C and 70-80% RH); (b) the percent mortality of H. armigera (should be >90%, with 1 x 107 spores in the laboratory bioassay); (c) the chitinase activity in the chitin medium after 72 h (should be >3.5 x 10-3 U/mL); and (d) the PCR-RFLP pattern of chitinase genes. This manuscript has essentially described the protocols, from the isolation of an entomopathogenic fungus to the generation of efficacy data against the target pest in the field. This is one of the prerequisites to register any biopesticide formulation with the Central Insecticide Board of India and, eventually, for commercialization.
The series of experiments detailed here will be useful for the development of a potential mycoinsecticide. Furthermore, after the extraction of the spores, the waste mycelial biomass can be used for plant growth promotion or for the isolation of chitosan or glucosamine polymers for healthcare applications.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
The authors acknowledge the contribution of collaborators from the Indo-Swiss Collaboration in Biotechnology (ISCB) program of the Department of Biotechnology, New Delhi and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, Berne, Switzerland. The contributions of project students and staff involved in the development of the mycoinsecticide, including Vandana Ghormade, Pallavi Nahar, Priya Yadav, Shuklangi Kulkarni, Manisha Kapoor, Santosh Chavan, Ravindra Vidhate, Shamala Mane, and Abhijeet Lande, are acknowledged. EKP and SGT thank the University Grants Commission, India and the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), India, respectively, for research fellowships. MVD acknowledges the support from the Council of Industrial and Scientific Research, New Delhi for the Emeritus Scientist Scheme. The authors are grateful to the Department of Biotechnology, New Delhi, India for the financial support under the ISCB and SBIRI programs. We are thankful to reviewers for their inputs.
Agar | Hi-Media | RM666 | Reagent |
Ammonium sulphate | Thomas Baker | 11645 | Reagent |
DNA analyzer | Applied biosystem | ABI prism 3730 | Instrument |
DNA islation kit | Qiagen | 69104 | Reagent |
Dodine | Sigma | 45466 | Reagent |
Gel extraction kit | Qiagen | 28604 | Reagent |
Glucose | Hi-Media | GRM077 | Reagent |
Knapsac sparyer | Kaypee | HY-16L (1004) | Instrument |
Peptone | Hi-Media | RM006-500G | Reagent |
Polypropylene vials | Laxbro | SV-50 | Plasticware |
Potato dextrose agar (PDA) | Hi-Media | M096-500G | Reagent |
Tween-80 | SRL | 28940 | Reagent |
Ultra low volume sparyer | Matabi | INSECDISK | Instrument |
Unicorn-bags | Unicorn | UP-140024-SMB | Autoclavalbe bag for SSF |
Yeast extract | Hi-Media | RM027-500G | Reagent |
Chromas 2.1 | software |