Insect pathogens as biological control agents: Back to the future
L.A. Lacey
1
,
D Grzywacz
2
,
David I. Shapiro-Ilan
3
,
R. Frutos
4
,
M Brownbridge
5
,
M. S. Goettel
6
1
IP Consulting International, Yakima, WA, USA
|
3
5
Vineland Research and Innovation Centre, 4890 Victoria Avenue North, Box 4000, Vineland Station, Ontario L0R 2E0, Canada
|
Publication type: Journal Article
Publication date: 2015-11-01
scimago Q1
wos Q1
SJR: 0.691
CiteScore: 6.0
Impact factor: 2.4
ISSN: 00222011, 10960805
PubMed ID:
26225455
Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Abstract
The development and use of entomopathogens as classical, conservation and augmentative biological control agents have included a number of successes and some setbacks in the past 1years. In this forum paper we present current information on development, use and future directions of insect-specific viruses, bacteria, fungi and nematodes as components of integrated pest management strategies for control of arthropod pests of crops, forests, urban habitats, and insects of medical and veterinary importance. Insect pathogenic viruses are a fruitful source of microbial control agents (MCAs), particularly for the control of lepidopteran pests. Most research is focused on the baculoviruses, important pathogens of some globally important pests for which control has become difficult due to either pesticide resistance or pressure to reduce pesticide residues. Baculoviruses are accepted as safe, readily mass produced, highly pathogenic and easily formulated and applied control agents. New baculovirus products are appearing in many countries and gaining an increased market share. However, the absence of a practical in vitro mass production system, generally higher production costs, limited post application persistence, slow rate of kill and high host specificity currently contribute to restricted use in pest control. Overcoming these limitations are key research areas for which progress could open up use of insect viruses to much larger markets. A small number of entomopathogenic bacteria have been commercially developed for control of insect pests. These include several Bacillus thuringiensis sub-species, Lysinibacillus (Bacillus) sphaericus, Paenibacillus spp. and Serratia entomophila. B. thuringiensis sub-species kurstaki is the most widely used for control of pest insects of crops and forests, and B. thuringiensis sub-species israelensis and L. sphaericus are the primary pathogens used for control of medically important pests including dipteran vectors. These pathogens combine the advantages of chemical pesticides and MCAs: they are fast acting, easy to produce at a relatively low cost, easy to formulate, have a long shelf life and allow delivery using conventional application equipment and systemics (i.e. in transgenic plants). Unlike broad spectrum chemical pesticides, B. thuringiensis toxins are selective and negative environmental impact is very limited. Of the several commercially produced MCAs, B. thuringiensis (Bt) has more than 50% of market share. Extensive research, particularly on the molecular mode of action of Bt toxins, has been conducted over the past two decades. The Bt genes used in insect-resistant transgenic crops belong to the Cry and vegetative insecticidal protein families of toxins. Bt has been highly efficacious in pest management of corn and cotton, drastically reducing the amount of broad spectrum chemical insecticides used while being safe for consumers and non-target organisms. Despite successes, the adoption of Bt crops has not been without controversy. Although there is a lack of scientific evidence regarding their detrimental effects, this controversy has created the widespread perception in some quarters that Bt crops are dangerous for the environment. In addition to discovery of more efficacious isolates and toxins, an increase in the use of Bt products and transgenes will rely on innovations in formulation, better delivery systems and ultimately, wider public acceptance of transgenic plants expressing insect-specific Bt toxins. Fungi are ubiquitous natural entomopathogens that often cause epizootics in host insects and possess many desirable traits that favor their development as MCAs. Presently, commercialized microbial pesticides based on entomopathogenic fungi largely occupy niche markets. A variety of molecular tools and technologies have recently allowed reclassification of numerous species based on phylogeny, as well as matching anamorphs (asexual forms) and teleomorphs (sexual forms) of several entomopathogenic taxa in the Phylum Ascomycota. Although these fungi have been traditionally regarded exclusively as pathogens of arthropods, recent studies have demonstrated that they occupy a great diversity of ecological niches. Entomopathogenic fungi are now known to be plant endophytes, plant disease antagonists, rhizosphere colonizers, and plant growth promoters. These newly understood attributes provide possibilities to use fungi in multiple roles. In addition to arthropod pest control, some fungal species could simultaneously suppress plant pathogens and plant parasitic nematodes as well as promote plant growth. A greater understanding of fungal ecology is needed to define their roles in nature and evaluate their limitations in biological control. More efficient mass production, formulation and delivery systems must be devised to supply an ever increasing market. More testing under field conditions is required to identify effects of biotic and abiotic factors on efficacy and persistence. Lastly, greater attention must be paid to their use within integrated pest management programs; in particular, strategies that incorporate fungi in combination with arthropod predators and parasitoids need to be defined to ensure compatibility and maximize efficacy. Entomopathogenic nematodes (EPNs) in the genera Steinernema and Heterorhabditis are potent MCAs. Substantial progress in research and application of EPNs has been made in the past decade. The number of target pests shown to be susceptible to EPNs has continued to increase. Advancements in this regard primarily have been made in soil habitats where EPNs are shielded from environmental extremes, but progress has also been made in use of nematodes in above-ground habitats owing to the development of improved protective formulations. Progress has also resulted from advancements in nematode production technology using both in vivo and in vitro systems; novel application methods such as distribution of infected host cadavers; and nematode strain improvement via enhancement and stabilization of beneficial traits. Innovative research has also yielded insights into the fundamentals of EPN biology including major advances in genomics, nematode-bacterial symbiont interactions, ecological relationships, and foraging behavior. Additional research is needed to leverage these basic findings toward direct improvements in microbial control.
Found
Nothing found, try to update filter.
Found
Nothing found, try to update filter.
Top-30
Journals
|
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
|
|
|
Journal of Invertebrate Pathology
68 publications, 5.89%
|
|
|
Insects
44 publications, 3.81%
|
|
|
Biological Control
43 publications, 3.72%
|
|
|
Pest Management Science
35 publications, 3.03%
|
|
|
Biocontrol Science and Technology
30 publications, 2.6%
|
|
|
Scientific Reports
27 publications, 2.34%
|
|
|
Journal of Economic Entomology
21 publications, 1.82%
|
|
|
Frontiers in Microbiology
18 publications, 1.56%
|
|
|
Egyptian Journal of Biological Pest Control
18 publications, 1.56%
|
|
|
Viruses
16 publications, 1.39%
|
|
|
Fungal Biology
16 publications, 1.39%
|
|
|
Crop Protection
15 publications, 1.3%
|
|
|
Journal of Fungi
14 publications, 1.21%
|
|
|
Microorganisms
14 publications, 1.21%
|
|
|
BioControl
14 publications, 1.21%
|
|
|
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
13 publications, 1.13%
|
|
|
Journal of Pest Science
12 publications, 1.04%
|
|
|
Journal of Applied Entomology
11 publications, 0.95%
|
|
|
PLoS ONE
10 publications, 0.87%
|
|
|
F1000Research
10 publications, 0.87%
|
|
|
Agronomy
9 publications, 0.78%
|
|
|
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science
9 publications, 0.78%
|
|
|
Journal of Asia-Pacific Entomology
9 publications, 0.78%
|
|
|
Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology
9 publications, 0.78%
|
|
|
Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata
9 publications, 0.78%
|
|
|
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
8 publications, 0.69%
|
|
|
Plants
8 publications, 0.69%
|
|
|
Neotropical Entomology
8 publications, 0.69%
|
|
|
Journal of Nematology
8 publications, 0.69%
|
|
|
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
|
Publishers
|
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
|
|
|
Elsevier
324 publications, 28.05%
|
|
|
Springer Nature
215 publications, 18.61%
|
|
|
MDPI
159 publications, 13.77%
|
|
|
Wiley
102 publications, 8.83%
|
|
|
Taylor & Francis
47 publications, 4.07%
|
|
|
Frontiers Media S.A.
45 publications, 3.9%
|
|
|
Oxford University Press
41 publications, 3.55%
|
|
|
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
26 publications, 2.25%
|
|
|
Cambridge University Press
21 publications, 1.82%
|
|
|
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
13 publications, 1.13%
|
|
|
American Society for Microbiology
11 publications, 0.95%
|
|
|
F1000 Research
10 publications, 0.87%
|
|
|
American Chemical Society (ACS)
8 publications, 0.69%
|
|
|
Society of Nematologists
8 publications, 0.69%
|
|
|
EDP Sciences
6 publications, 0.52%
|
|
|
SciELO
6 publications, 0.52%
|
|
|
IntechOpen
5 publications, 0.43%
|
|
|
Entomological Society of America
4 publications, 0.35%
|
|
|
Walter de Gruyter
4 publications, 0.35%
|
|
|
Microbiology Society
3 publications, 0.26%
|
|
|
King Saud University
3 publications, 0.26%
|
|
|
Brill
3 publications, 0.26%
|
|
|
CABI Publishing
3 publications, 0.26%
|
|
|
Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences
3 publications, 0.26%
|
|
|
University of Chicago Press
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
|
Higher Education Press
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
|
IOP Publishing
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
|
Scientific Research Publishing
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
|
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
|
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
|
- We do not take into account publications without a DOI.
- Statistics recalculated weekly.
Are you a researcher?
Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
Metrics
1.2k
Total citations:
1155
Citations from 2024:
259
(22.43%)
Cite this
GOST |
RIS |
BibTex
Cite this
GOST
Copy
Lacey L. et al. Insect pathogens as biological control agents: Back to the future // Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 2015. Vol. 132. pp. 1-41.
GOST all authors (up to 50)
Copy
Lacey L., Grzywacz D., Shapiro-Ilan D. I., Frutos R., Brownbridge M., Goettel M. S. Insect pathogens as biological control agents: Back to the future // Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 2015. Vol. 132. pp. 1-41.
Cite this
RIS
Copy
TY - JOUR
DO - 10.1016/j.jip.2015.07.009
UR - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2015.07.009
TI - Insect pathogens as biological control agents: Back to the future
T2 - Journal of Invertebrate Pathology
AU - Lacey, L.A.
AU - Grzywacz, D
AU - Shapiro-Ilan, David I.
AU - Frutos, R.
AU - Brownbridge, M
AU - Goettel, M. S.
PY - 2015
DA - 2015/11/01
PB - Elsevier
SP - 1-41
VL - 132
PMID - 26225455
SN - 0022-2011
SN - 1096-0805
ER -
Cite this
BibTex (up to 50 authors)
Copy
@article{2015_Lacey,
author = {L.A. Lacey and D Grzywacz and David I. Shapiro-Ilan and R. Frutos and M Brownbridge and M. S. Goettel},
title = {Insect pathogens as biological control agents: Back to the future},
journal = {Journal of Invertebrate Pathology},
year = {2015},
volume = {132},
publisher = {Elsevier},
month = {nov},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2015.07.009},
pages = {1--41},
doi = {10.1016/j.jip.2015.07.009}
}