Next Article in Journal
Machine Learning-Based Prediction and Optimisation System for Laser Shock Peening
Next Article in Special Issue
Could Gnomoniopsis castaneae Be Used as a Biological Control Agent against Insect Pests?
Previous Article in Journal
COVID-19 Diagnosis in Chest X-rays Using Deep Learning and Majority Voting
Previous Article in Special Issue
Trapping Entomopathogenic Fungi from Vine Terroir Soil Samples with Insect Baits for Controlling Serious Pests
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 11
Issue 7
10.3390/app11072887
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Beauveria bassiana-Seed Treatment on Zea mays L. Response against Spodoptera frugiperda

by
Laiju Kuzhuppillymyal-Prabhakarankutty
1,
Fernando H. Ferrara-Rivero
2,
Patricia Tamez-Guerra
1,
Ricardo Gomez-Flores
1,
María Cristina Rodríguez-Padilla
1 and
María Julissa Ek-Ramos
1,*
1
Departamento de Microbiología e Inmunología-Laboratorio de Inmunología y Virología, Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, UANL, San Nicolás de los Garza, Nuevo León 66455, Mexico
2
Rancho La Verdad, Hacienda Ramírez, General Terán, Nuevo León 67405, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(7), 2887; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11072887
Submission received: 17 December 2020 / Revised: 7 February 2021 / Accepted: 9 February 2021 / Published: 24 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Entomopathogenic Microorganisms: A Viable Tool for Controlling Serious Pests)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Spodoptera frugiperda is a widely distributed insect pest that causes major economic losses in various crops, particularly maize. On the other hand, Beauveria bassiana is an entomopathogenic fungus that establishes symbiotic associations with many plants and contributes to tolerance against biotic and abiotic stresses. In the present work, in laboratory experiments, the effects of the B. bassiana strain GHA, in addition to a native strain (PTG4), delivered via seed treatment in maize seedlings, were evaluated on S. frugiperda growth, development, and mortality. We inoculated maize seeds with 1 × 106 B. bassiana blastospores; then these seeds were germinated and grown to seedlings under growth chamber conditions. Third-instar S. frugiperda larvae were allowed to feed on B. bassiana-treated and -untreated (negative control) seedlings until reaching the sixth instar and transferred to an artificial diet until reaching adult stage. Results showed that larvae feeding on B. bassiana strain PTG4-treated plants prolonged their larval stage. Furthermore, feeding on plants treated with B. bassiana strains yielded fewer S. frugiperda male moths compared with feeding with the untreated control plants. Under field conditions, 1 × 106 (first trial) and 1 × 108 (second trial) of B. bassiana (GHA strain) blastospores were used for corn seed inoculation. In the first field trial, there were a higher number of larvae in the negative control plants compared to those in the plants treated with B. bassiana. No larvae were found in negative control and B. bassiana-treated plants in the second field trial. In conclusion, seed treatment with B. bassiana in maize reduced S. frugiperda infestation of maize plants in field trials. S. frugiperda development was also affected in laboratory trials.

1. Introduction

Worldwide, about an 18–26% reduction in crop production is due to insect pests, which mostly occurs in the fields before harvest [1]. The Fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), from the tropical and subtropical zones of America [2], is a catastrophic insect pest of economic importance [3]. This voracious insect has a polyphagous feeding nature in more than 80 host species, including many commercial crops such as maize, cotton, rice, soybean, bean, and other crops from the Gramineae family [3,4,5]. Until 2015, damage due to S. frugiperda was reported only in America [6], but in the last few years, attacks have been reported in other parts of the world [5]. In late 2016 they were reported in Southern, Eastern, and Northern parts of Africa [6], which briskly expanded across the continent and, by late 2018 they were confirmed in almost 44 African countries [3]. By 2018, the presence of this insect pest was confirmed in Yemen and India, and by 2019, devastation due to this pest was confirmed in five more Asian countries, including China [7]. The destruction generated by S. frugiperda relies on the geographic region, seed variety, planting time, and fundamental cultural habits in and around the field, although abiotic factors have an effect on egg and initial larval stage mortality during a rainy season, and with various predators during a dry season [4].
S. frugiperda is treated as a crucial insect pest of maize, which is the third most essential cereal crop worldwide with the highest economic value in terms of production and nutrition [6]. It causes extensive damage to maize plants by feeding on young leaf whorls, corn cobs, and tassels [3]. Younger larvae prefer epidermal leaf tissue and produce holes in them, which is the typical damage sign by these insect pests. Deadheart is caused by feeding on young plants through the whorls. Older larvae in the whorls of grown-up plants feed on cobs or kernels, which reduces yield quality and quantity [2]. The presence of various generations, their migration, and the potential to feed on a vast range of host plants make this insect one of the most difficult pests to control [2].
Synthetic/chemical insecticides or genetically modified crops have been used to control insect pests [2]. Although these control measures are very efficient, their extensive usage has caused ecological issues, environmental contamination, development of resistance, and detrimental effects on human health [8]. Since the insects have gained resistance to various chemical insecticides, farmers are compelled to use recurrent application of large amounts of insecticides, which will lead to the accumulation of chemicals in agricultural fields [2]. Taken together, scientists in different parts of the world are forced to develop more environmentally safe, cost-effective, and reliable strategies to control insect pests [1].
The Integrated Pest Management (IPM) global program for agriculture is a holistic concept for approaching the crop production system as a whole process, rather than focusing only on pest elimination. This approach combines various techniques, including the use of resistant varieties, cultural manipulation, trap cropping, and biological control [1]. The latter is one of the techniques to control insect pests with the slightest environmental impact [9]. Cost-effectiveness, high yield, not being harmful to beneficial insects, and the release of fewer chemical residues into agricultural fields make entomopathogenic microorganisms excellent alternatives to chemical pesticides [1]. At present, different bacteria (Bacillus spp., Enterobacter spp., Pseudomonas spp. Paenibacillus spp., etc.) and fungi (Beauveria sp., Metarhizium sp., Paecilomyces sp., Isaria sp., Lecanicillium sp., Hirsutella sp., etc.) are being applied as biocontrol agents [1,9]. The potential of entomopathogenic fungus to adjust to external habitats other than their original habitats has made them very efficient and adequate candidates for biological control measures [10]. Considered as facultative microorganisms that do not require arthropods as hosts to complete their life cycles, Metarhizium anisopliae and Beauveria bassiana are the best characterized and most applied entomopathogenic fungi in biological control programs [11].
The hypocrealean fungus Beauveria bassiana (Bals.) Vuill. (Ascomycota: Hypocreales) [12] has shown negative effects on 33 species of insects belonging to eight orders [13]. It implements integral protection against insect pests or constrains their growth and proliferation [12]. This fungus has also exhibited dual protection ability against Rhizoctonia solani and Pythium myriotylum in B. bassiana-treated tomato seedlings [11]. Distinct studies showed thant B. bassiana may be used as an effective biocontrol agent against Helicoverpa armigera in broad bean [14] and Helicoverpa zea in cotton and tomato [15,16]. Feeding on B. bassiana-treated maize plants reduced Sitobion avenae survival and fecundity in single aphids [13]. In corn plants, B. bassiana showed insecticidal activity against many lepidopterans including Sesamia calamistis [17] and Ostrinia nubilalis [18]; and when it was isolated as endophyte, against Spodoptera frugiperda [19]. The mortality level of target insect pests with B. bassiana depends on larval developmental stage [20], inoculation method [21], or fungal strains used [22]. As an endophyte, B. bassiana mostly does not induce direct mortality in insect pests but often reduces larval growth rate, weight, or longevity [23,24].
Taken together, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of Beauveria bassiana-seed treatment on Zea mays L. against Spodoptera frugiperda larval activity under laboratory and field conditions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Insect, Plant, and Fungal Strains for Laboratory Assays

Insect colony: S. frugiperda eggs were kindly donated by José Refugio Lomelí-Flores (Colegio de Postgraduados, Montecillo, Texcoco, Estado de México, México). They were carefully placed into 700 mL plastic bottles, and kept in the breeding room under controlled conditions (temperature 27 °C ± 3 °C, humidity 60% ± 5%, and photoperiod 14 h light: 10 h dark) until hatched. Neonates were then transferred to individual diet cups with 5 mL modified artificial wheat germ diet [25] as their food source (Figure S1). This diet was replaced when necessary to prevent desiccation. To perform bioassays, we used S. frugiperda larvae belonging to the second laboratory generation.
Plants: Zea mays plants were used in this study. Zea mays Chalqueño seeds were obtained from Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo (CIMMYT) and Verónica Garrocho-Villegas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), México.
Fungal strains: B. bassiana GHA strain, commercially obtained as Botanigard® 22WP and PTG4 strain, (GenBank accession number KC759730.1, isolated from Periplaneta americana) kindly provided by Patricia Tamez, from Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León (UANL), México were stored at −80 °C in a So-Low Ultra freezer (Environmental Equipment, Cincinnati, OH, USA).

2.2. Inoculation of Z. mays Seeds with B. bassiana

B. bassiana strains were activated by plating the stock cultures onto potato dextrose agar (PDA, BD Difco, México) and incubated in darkness at 25 °C ± 2 °C for 1 week. To achieve a monosporic culture, a single selected colony was inoculated into a 500 mL Erlenmeyer flask, containing 200 mL of potato dextrose broth (PDB, BD Difco) and kept at 25 °C ± 2°C on an automatic rotary shaker (Orbit1900, Labnet, México) at 120 rpm, for five days or until blastospores production. Blastospores counts were determined in a hematocytometer chamber and adjusted to a concentration of 1 × 10⁶ spores/mL. Methyl cellulose (MC) (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) was mixed with the blastospores for adequate attachment to the seeds. MC was prepared by dissolving the reagent in warm distilled water at 35 °C to 40 °C to a pre-gelatinized state [26]. Seeds (20 seeds/treatment/strain) were then added, evenly mixed, and placed on a flat surface to dry at 25 °C ± 2 °C for 24 h. Controls (CC) included seeds without any treatments (nor fungi, neither adherents), and seeds without fungi but with MC (CMC). MCGHA, MCPTG4, CMC, and CC seeds were sown individually into commercial soil (Happy Flower Mexicana, S.A. de C.V, Ciudad de México, México) previously autoclaved, which was contained in 250 mL plastic cups and kept at 25 °C ± 2 °C for 10 days after germination.

2.3. Bioassays under Laboratory Conditions

Each third instar S. frugiperda larva (Figure S1) was carefully transferred onto a Z. mays plant (10 days old) for each treatment (one larva/plant, to avoid cannibalism) and then covered with a mesh bag to prevent escapes (Figure S2). Plants were replaced every 24 h. When larvae reached the sixth instar, they were returned to the artificial diet to monitor pupal stage development. Each pupa was examined under a stereoscope (Labomed Stereomicroscope, Luxeo2S, CA, USA) to determine its sex, weighed on a microbalance (A&D Company Limited, N–92, Tokyo, Japan), and measured for length with a standard, scholastic ruler. After that, pupae were transferred to individual plastic containers (7 cm diameter × 16 cm height, covered with mesh bags), separating male and female pupae. In the lower part of the container, a piece of cotton embedded in sugar syrup was provided as a food source for the adult moths. Containers were analyzed every day to check for adult emergence. Pupae were maintained under the most suitable laboratory conditions (25 °C ± 2 °C temperature, 60% ± 5% relative humidity, and 14:12 h light and dark photoperiod). The following parameters were recorded: (a) Initial larvae numbers, (b) the number of dead larvae during the experiment, (c) the number of larvae that remained as larvae, even after reaching the sixth instar of development, (d) the number of larvae that remained as prepupa, (e) the number of larvae that reached the pupal stage at the most frequently reported time, (f) larval weight before transferring back to artificial diet, (g) pupal weight, (h) pupal length, and (i) pupal sex ratio.

2.4. Field Trial: Experiment 1

Field trials were performed in an agricultural field located in General Teran, Nuevo Leon, Mexico with a geographical location of 25°16′00.0″ N 99°41′00.0″ W. The first trial was started in mid-February 2019 as an early season corn. The main agricultural products of this region include citrus, corn, sorghum, wheat, livestock, among others. In this zone, maize crops are generally affected by S. frugiperda, and a phytosanitary alert program is implemented for the three corn cultivation cycles (early, intermediate and late) of the region (peaks of S. frugiperda expected in March, May and September) [27]. Since farmers normally used Bacillus thuringiensis to control them, no artificial inoculation of S. frugiperda was done in any of the field experiments. One-hectare field was prepared using a tractor; 38 furrows of 100 m length and 25 furrows of 80 m length were made, with a row-to-row distance of 80 cm. Using the seed inoculation procedure, mentioned in Section 2.2, 3300 Z. mays seeds of “criollo maize” race (kindly donated by the field owner, without any insecticides or fungicides) were inoculated with B. bassiana strain GHA, with a concentration of 1 × 10⁶ blastospores/mL and methylcellulose as adherent; 2500 seeds were used as a negative control without any fungal or adherent treatment. Seeds were planted during mid-February 2019 on the furrows, with a separation of 25 cm between each seed, the distance between each row was 80 cm, and in each row, 100 seeds were planted, which were monitored every week. The first 33 furrows were used to plant B. bassiana-treated seeds, then five furrows were left without seeds, and the remaining 25 furrows were used to plant negative control treatments (Figure S3). In this experiment, the germination percentage at the third week after planting was recorded, and the presence of S. frugiperda larvae between the fifth true leaf and the tenth true leaf period was monitored by visually scouting. Other than watering every day, neither fertilizer nor pesticides were applied in the field during the whole experiment.

2.5. Field Trial: Experiment 2

The second field trial was started in mid-April 2019 as an intermediate season corn. Due to lack of farm space, negative control plants from the February experiment were cleared out, and B. bassiana-maize plants of the first trial were maintained aside until harvest time. We inoculated 500 “criollo maize” race seeds with B. bassiana GHA strain with a concentration of 1 × 10⁸ blastospores/mL (the concentration was increased with the aim to observe major effects on S. frugiperda population than the observed in the first trial as an increase on insect peaks were expected for May) and methylcellulose as an adherent, and kept 500 seeds as a negative control without any fungal or adherent treatment. The seeds were planted as in the first field experiment (Figure S4). Germination percentage and the presence of S. frugiperda were analyzed in the whole field, whereas other parameters such as plant height and number of leaves were evaluated in the second and fourth furrows in both treatments. Germination was recorded in the third week after planting. Plant height and number of leaves were recorded in the fourth week after planting. Presence of S. frugiperda was monitored between the fifth and tenth true leaf period. To assess for yield effects during harvest, five corn cobs from each treatment were randomly collected, weighed (A&D Company Limited, N-92, Tokyo, Japan), and their lengths were measured with a normal scholastic ruler.

2.6. Data Analysis

Prior to statistical analysis, the values of the effect of B. bassiana on Z. mays plant germination percentage and the effect of B. bassiana treated plants on the percentage of each developmental stage of the larvae were arcsine transformed for normalization. Data from three biological replicates were subjected to one-way ANOVA using the software IBM SPSS Statistics, version 21. Before ANOVA, all data were tested for homogeneity of variance using Levene’s test. When a significant F value was obtained after ANOVA, post-hoc Duncan’s multiple range tests were performed. Considering that there were only two groups to analyze the germination data of field trial Experiment 1 and corn cob data from field trial Experiment 2, Independent sample T-test analysis was used. Significance levels were calculated by Levene’s test for equality of variance. To interpret the putative changes in the frequency of S. frugiperda larva found in the first field trial, an analysis with a Generalized Linear Model (GLM), fitted with a negative binomial distribution, was used. Pearson chi-square value > 0.05 indicated goodness of fit of the data. Omnibus test with p < 0.05 indicated significant differences. The results of the Test of Model effects Type III were reported.

3. Results

3.1. Effect of B. bassiana on Z. mays Plant Germination

After 10 days, seedling germination percentages were determined. Compared with the absolute negative control (CC) values, the negative control with only the adherent methylcellulose (CMC) and both treatments with B. bassiana strains (MCPTG4 and MCGHA), showed no significant difference (F(3, 11) = 0.189, p = 0.901) among them in the germination of Z. mays seeds (Figure 1).

3.2. Effect of B. bassiana Treated Plants on S. frugiperda Developmental Stages

The development, survival, and mortality of S. frugiperda larvae fed on untreated Z. mays plants and B. bassiana-treated Z. mays plants are shown in Table 1. Each experiment started with 10 larvae per treatment, except in CMC, which had 11 larvae. The final percentage was calculated based on the number of larvae left after some escaped during the experiments. S. frugiperda larvae fed on B. bassiana strain PTG4-treated plants markedly had changes in their life cycle. Statistical analysis with one-way ANOVA showed significant differences in the mean percentage values (F(3, 11) = 20.657, p < 0.001) of larvae that remained as larva during the experiment and pupa (F(3, 11) = 5.170, p = 0.028). However, there were no significant differences among the number of dead larvae (F(3, 11) = 0.88, p = 0.491) and prepupa observed (F(3, 11) = 1.381, p = 0.317).
S. frugiperda sixth instar larvae fed on both B. bassiana treated and no-treated plants were weighed before transferring them back to the artificial diet. Data showed that larvae fed on plants treated with B. bassiana strain PTG4 weighed significantly (F(3, 48) = 4.813, p = 0.005) different than the other treatments (Figure 2). S. frugiperda pupal weight showed a significant (F(3, 97) = 3.753, p = 0.014) difference among larvae fed on GHA B. bassiana strain-treated plants, negative controls, and B. bassiana PTG4 strain fed larvae (Figure 3). S. frugiperda pupal length showed a significant (F(3, 98) = 4.491 p = 0.005) difference between the larvae fed on GHA B. bassiana-treated plants and all other treatments (Figure 4). Pupae sex ratio was determined by calculating the percentage of male and female pupae observed. Results showed a significant difference among treatments for pupae male (F(3, 11) = 7.033, p = 0.012) and female (F(3, 11) = 6.088, p = 0.018) developed from larvae fed on plants treated with both strains of B. bassiana. In addition, it was observed a lesser number of male than female pupae (Figure 5). Furthermore, we observed apparent parthenogenesis, with fertile eggs that hatched viable neonates from virgin female moths that had been feeding on B. bassiana-treated plants (Figure 6), indicating important changes in S. frugiperda physiology caused by this entomopathogen, which was not observed in virgin female moths fed on negative-control plants.

3.3. Field Trials: Experiment 1

Maize plant germination percentage in the field was low, nevertheless, there was no significant (F(5, 57) = 1.002 and p = 0.426) difference among negative controls and B. bassiana treated plants. The average germination percentage at the third week after planting the seeds for the negative control and B. bassiana-treated plants were 71.5% ± 5.4% and 80.33% ± 3.49%, respectively. The number of leaves per plant at the fourth week after planting also showed no significant differences among negative control plants and B. bassiana treated plants with F (5, 57) = 0.928 and p = 0.471. Average number of leaves per plant on the fourth week after planting the seeds for the negative control and B. bassiana treated plants was 3.12 ± 0.22 and 3.49 ± 0.09, respectively.
To analyze the presence of S. frugiperda in the experiments, we inspected each one of the plants. We did observe that S. frugiperda larvae between the second and third instar were found in almost all furrows of negative control plants, whereas in B. bassiana-treated plants, they were present in those furrows near to the negative control plants, and their number was reduced further than in the negative control plants and none were present in the last 12 furrows of B. bassiana-treated plants (Figure 7 and Figure S3). The analysis GLM-fitted with negative binomial distribution showed a Pearson chi-square value of 0.311, indicating goodness of fit of the data. The Omnibus test value of 0.539 indicated a non-statistically significant model. The Type III Test of Model effects showed p = 0.342 for the treatments (CC/GHA). Several pictures of larval instars found at the time of data collection are shown in Figure S5. Interestingly, we also observed the presence of various pathogenic and beneficial insects during the experiments that need further identification.

3.4. Field Trials: Experiment 2

Independent Samples T-test analysis showed no significant (F = 0.225 and p = 0.648) difference in the percentage of germination in all five furrows of negative control plants (mean 91.20% ± 2.8) and five furrows of B. bassiana-treated plants (mean 87.20% ± 3.5). Independent sample T-test analysis showed no significant difference in the number of leaves and plant height. The average number of leaves in negative controls and B. bassiana-treated plants at the third week after planting the seeds were 5.20 ± 0.055 and 5.23 ± 0.054, respectively. The average plant height for the negative control and B. bassiana-treated plants was 12.04 ± 0.16 cm and 12.36 ± 0.15 cm, respectively. In this trial, S. frugiperda larvae were not detected, neither in negative control plants nor in B. bassiana treated plants at the time of data collection. Independent Samples T-test analysis showed no significant difference between negative controls and B. bassiana-treated plants in corn cob length with F = 0.006 and p = 0.937, whereas no significant differences in corn cob weight were observed (F = 0.048 and p = 0.831) (Table 2). Although numbers were not recorded at harvesting time, it was observed the presence of more than two corn cobs per plant in the B. bassiana-treated plants, compared with the negative control plants (Figure S6).

4. Discussion

All experiments were performed using fresh cultures of B. bassiana strains from frozen stocks, considering former reports indicating important correlations between the number of subcultures and the stability of genetic and physiological parameters [28] of B. bassiana in germination, conidiation, and virulence [29].
Manufacture and formulation are the decisive elements of the success of an entomopathogenic fungus as a commercial biocontrol agent. Solid substrate fermentation for aerial-conidia and liquid culture fermentation for blastospores are typical methods for their massive production. Although aerial-conidia contain the main active ingredients as biocontrol agents, they require weeks for sporulation and fermentation, which is reduced by using blastospores. We used blastospores in our study because they tolerate drying and continue to be viable after long-term storage [30]. To assure blastospores viability and stability during exposure to direct sunlight or ultraviolet radiation, methylcellulose can be used to make blastospore formulations [12,31].
At present, foliar spraying, plant dipping, stem injection, seed coating, and root or soil drenching methods have been used to inoculate artificially entomopathogenic fungi into different plants. McKinnon et al. [32] reported that seed coating and foliar treatments were used in most published bioassays for artificial inoculation. Some studies demonstrated that leaves are loose passages for entomopathogenic fungus entry to colonize plants [20,33]. However, effective endophytic colonization of these fungi depends on factors such as plant age, fungal species, inoculation methods, and exposure to direct sunlight and rain, among others. Diverse studies show that B. bassiana does not maintain its survival and viability after exposure to direct sunlight or ultraviolet radiation [31,34]. Nevertheless, various studies reported that formulation with natural substances overcomes this obstacle [31,35,36,37]. In the present study, we used a methylcellulose seed coating method to aim for effective colonization of Zea mays seeds and maintain the viability and perhaps the virulence of B. bassiana blastospores.
Z. mays germination percentage in all treatments, including negative controls, did not show differences under field and laboratory conditions; therefore, neither the fungus nor the adherent affected germination, which was similar to the results reported by Jaber and Enkerli [38], who showed that neither B. bassiana nor M. brunneum altered V. faba seed germination. In contrast, Russo et al. [8] reported an enhancement in the germination of B. bassiana-treated Z. mays seeds. Previous results in our laboratory demonstrated that B. bassiana and methylcellulose do not have inhibitory effects on Z. mays germination [26].
We analyzed the effect of maize seed treatments by B. bassiana GHA and a native strain (PTG4) under laboratory conditions on the physiology of S. frugiperda. We observed that a small percentage of larvae died, without any significant difference between larvae fed with untreated and B. bassiana-treated maize plants. We did not observe fungal outgrowth from S. frugiperda cadavers; therefore, the larvae probably were not in direct contact with B. bassiana blastospores. It was not possible to determine the presence of B. bassiana in the plant tissues that were used to feed the larvae since there was no plant material left after the larvae were fed. However, in our previous studies, we found B. bassiana as an endophyte in Zea mays plants that grew after B. bassiana-methylcellulose-seed treatments [26]. One perspective from this study is to analyze the microbiota of S. frugiperda excrement to determine if B. bassiana was present. On the other hand, we observed that S. frugiperda larvae fed on plants treated with B. bassiana strain PTG4 had their development considerably affected, with a prolonged larval stage, a decline in larval weight, and a smaller number of pupae. In addition, we observed a high number of escaped larvae that were fed on GHA B. bassiana strain-treated plants (26.7%) (Table 1), and the remaining showed a decline in pupal length and weight. Vega [39] reported that by adding cultured B. bassiana to the insects’ diet, after removing mycelia, it was possible to reduce the percentage of pupation and the pupation time was prolonged. On the other hand, Hassan et al. [40] reported that adult malformations occurred in B. bassiana-treated squash beetles. Lopez and Sword [15] did not find any difference in cotton boll worm and pupal weight when the insects were fed on B. bassiana and Purpureocillium lilacinum inoculated cotton plants. In our bioassays, since they were no-choice experiments, there was not sufficient remaining plant material to analyze and determine if there were any feeding preferences of larvae between negative control plants and B. bassiana-treated plants. Another important observation of this study was the adult male/female ratio obtained after the development of larvae fed on B. bassiana-treated Z. mays plants. We observed a lower number of adult male moths. Interestingly Russo et al. recently reported differences in S. frugiperda female fertility, fecundity, and longevity using corn plants endophytically-inoculated with B. bassiana by foliar spray treatments [41]. In contrast, they did not find significant differences in the sex ratio of Helicoverpa gelotopoeon when they were fed on B. bassiana treated soybean plants [42]. Akutse et al. observed a higher number of emerged males in their study with different fungal strains to protect Vicia faba and Phaseolus vulgaris against Liriomyza huidobrensis [43]. In addition, we observed apparent parthenogenesis in female adults, but further studies are needed to determine the cause of this, in addition to the analyses of the longevity, survival capacity, eating habits, or any other changes in the life cycle of the larvae born from these eggs. Furthermore, Mahmood et al. [13] reported a reduced survival and fecundity of Sitobion avenae after feeding on maize plants inoculated with B. bassiana. Insect immunity is influenced by successive exposures to the same pathogen and has a long-term effect on its survival [44]. More studies are needed to determine whether B. bassiana affects S. frugiperda successive generations. In this regard, Bamisile et al. [10] reported that endophytic B. bassiana established after foliar treatment of Citrus limon plants acted as a growth suppressor to three successive generations of Diaphorina citri.
Based on our laboratory results, two preliminary field trials in 2019 were conducted. The main objective was to analyze the effect of GHA B. basssiana-seed treatment on natural S. frugiperda populations, as we observed no mortality but some effects on the insect physiology and certain avoidance to the treated plants (Table 1). Our hypothesis was that we would observe a smaller number of larvae in the treated plants. In the field trial Experiment 1, there was no significant difference between the germination of the negative control and B. bassiana treated plants, whereas there was a small decline in comparison with laboratory results. This decrease might be due to the uncontrolled environmental conditions and the type of seed (Criollo race) that was used; however, the percentage of Z. mays plants germination was not affected by the presence of B. bassiana. This conclusion is in contrast with the study of Russo et al. [8], who reported a 77% germination of negative control, compared with 89% germination of B. bassiana-treated Z. mays plants. Moreover, the average number of leaves per plant did not show any significant difference between the negative control and B. bassiana-treated plants. Despite there was a non-significant difference in the frequency of S. frugiperda larvae between the B. bassiana-treated plants and negative control plants (Figure 7), there was a slight increment in the number of larvae in the furrows of B. bassiana-treated plants that were immediately close to the negative control plants. This eventually decreased to zero in the last 12 rows of B. bassiana-treated plants, which were only 30 meters from neighboring maize fields that had S. frugiperda presence. Therefore, the insects showed some avoidance of feeding on the treated plants. These are preliminary results that are similar to what we observed in our laboratory bioasays. (Figure 7, Table 1). In addition, we wanted to test if an increase in the concentration of B. bassiana GHA strain could show any effect on plant growth or insect presence in the field, as a second peak of S. frugiperda insects was expected in the area of study.
In the second field trial, there were no significant differences observed in terms of germination percentage and the average number of leaves of Z. mays plants in both treatments, whereas a small increment in plant height was observed with B. bassiana-treated plants. In addition, increased germination was observed, from 71.5% (first trial) in negative control plants to 91.20% (second trial) and from 80.33% (first trial) to 87.20% (second trial) in B. bassiana-treated plants. In terms of the average number of leaves per plant, we observed an increase of 3.12 (first trial) to 5.20 (second trial) leaves per plant in negative control and from 3.49 (first trial) to 5.23 (second trial) leaves per plant in B. bassiana-treated plants. This difference might be due to the use of a higher concentration of blastospores (from 1 × 10⁶ blastospores/mL in the first trial to 1 × 10⁸ blastospores/mL in the second trial) or to the change in cultivation cycle conditions (intermediate). These results are similar to those by Castillo-Lopez and Sword, who indicated that Gossypium hirsutum height increased by establishing B. bassiana as an endophyte in the plants [15]. Dash et al. reported an increasing number of leaves of P. vulgaris after B. bassiana treatment [45].
We found that the length of the cob corn was slightly higher in the negative control plants than in B. bassiana-treated plants. However, most B. bassiana-treated plants yielded more than two corn cobs per plant (Figure S6). We did not find any significant difference in the corn cobs weight among the treatments, which is in agreement with Hernandez-Trejo et al. [46], who found that application of Metarhizium robertsii to maize plants did not show any significant difference in grain yield per hectare among the treatments tested, whereas Russo et al. [8] found an increase in maize corn yield after applying B. bassiana under field conditions. Qayyum [20] reported a decrease in tomato size after colonizing the plants with B. bassiana. All these contradictory results might be due to the difference in the fungal strains, host plant species, and varieties, or even may be due to the geographical regions in which studies were undertaken.
We also detected a high presence of beneficial insects (honeybees) in comparison with pathogenic ones, although further taxonomic identification is needed. Therefore, this indicates that the treatments used did not affect the ecosystem present in this experimental field.
In addition, the most relevant fact in the second field trial was that we did not observe any S. frugiperda larvae, neither in the negative control plants nor in B. bassiana-treated plants, during the period of the study. These results in both trials appear to confirm our hypothesis of putative insect avoidance. Hernandez-Trejo et al., reported that Metarhizium robertsii decreased S. frugiperda incidence from 41.3% to 2.8% in the first application and 17.4% to 8.3% in the second application on maize plants [46].
However, our findings need more experiments in the field to understand the mechanisms related to these results. These two preliminary field trials need to be repeated at least in two more years. In future studies, we should consider recent reports indicating that B. bassiana and Muscodor vitigenus can produce naphthalene as a potential insect repellent [47,48]. We should also consider the effect of endophytic entomopathogens in the production of kairomones by colonized plants, as these compounds are chemical signals used by the insects to localize them [39].

5. Conclusions

We conclude that using GHA B. bassiana-seed treatment in Z. mays in two preliminary field trials, the population of S. frugiperda in the field was controlled, and economic damage was not observed. We obtained evidence that the environment was not affected, particularly there were no negative effects on beneficial insects, such as honeybees. In addition, using a native strain (PTG4) under laboratory conditions, we observed effects on S. frugiperda’s physiology and morphology that need to be further analyzed under field conditions. Therefore, the proposed technique has the potential to be applied in the future for more sustainable agriculture practices.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app11072887/s1, Figure S1: 3rd instar S. frugiperda larva onto artificial diet, Figure S2: S. frugiperda larva in Z. mays plant covered with a mesh cage, Figure S3: Dimensions of Field trial 1, Figure S4: Dimensions of Field trial 2, Figure S5: Representative S. frugiperda larval instars found in the fields at the time of data collection, Figure S6: B. bassiana treated plants showed more than two corn cobs per plant.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.K.-P., F.H.F.-R. and M.J.E.-R.; Data curation, M.J.E.-R.; Formal analysis, L.K.-P., F.H.F.-R. and M.J.E.-R.; Funding acquisition, M.J.E.-R.; Investigation, L.K.-P., F.H.F.-R. and M.J.E.-R.; Methodology, L.K.-P., F.H.F.-R. and M.J.E.-R.; Supervision, M.J.E.-R.; Validation, F.H.F.-R., P.T.-G., R.G.-F. and M.C.R.-P.; Visualization, P.T.-G., R.G.-F. and M.C.R.-P.; Writing-original draft, L.K.-P.; Writing-review & editing, L.K.-P., P.T.-G., R.G.-F., M.C.R.-P. and M.J.E.-R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by CONACYT PhD scholarship 449643 to L.K.-P. and SNI-CONACYT support 16614 to P.T.-G., 9942 to R.G.-F., 11924 to M.C.R.-P., and 54340 to M.J.E.-R. The APC was funded by UANL-Dirección de Investigación-Programa de Apoyo a la Publicación Científica en Revistas Indexadas en el Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2021.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of DEMI-LIV-Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas-Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León. (protocol code CI-07-2018-D01 and date of approval 18 October 2018).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable for studies not involving humans.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article or supplementary material.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the comments and suggestions of three anonymous reviewers. Also, we thank Refugio Lomeli-Flores from Colegio de Postgraduados campus Montecillo, who kindly provided the S. frugiperda eggs to start our laboratory colony; Fernando Ferrara-Rivero’s field crew, who helped to design and provided technical support for both field trials; colleagues and students from Unidad de Formulación de Biológicos, for comments and constructive discussions; and Bharathan Vellayikodath-Soumyan for his encouragement and support during both field trials data collection.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mantzoukas, S.; Eliopoulos, P.A. Endophytic Entomopathogenic Fungi: A Valuable Biological Control Tool against Plant Pests. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sisay, B.; Tefera, T.; Wakgari, M.; Ayalew, G.; Mendesil, E. The Efficacy of Selected Synthetic Insecticides and Botanicals against Fall Armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda, in Maize. Insects 2019, 10, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bhusal, K.; Bhattarai, K. A review on fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) and its possible management options in Nepal. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 2019, 7, 1289–1292. [Google Scholar]
  4. Barrios, C.I.J.; Quijano, E.B.; Andrade, B.M. Populations of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) cause significant damage to genetically modified corn crops. Rev. Fac. Nac. Agron. Medellín 2019, 72, 8953–8962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Sharanabasappa, S.; Kalleshwaraswamy, C.M.; Poorani, J.; Maruthi, M.S.; Pavithra, H.B.; Diraviam, J. Natural Enemies of Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), a Recent Invasive Pest on Maize in South India. Fla. Entomol. 2019, 102, 619–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Siddhartha, K.; Chinniah, C.; Shanthi, M. In vitro bioassay of certain botanical oils for their efficacy against maize fall armyworm (J.E. Smith) Spodoptera frugiperda (Noctuidae: Lepidoptera). J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 2 2019, 7, 606–609. [Google Scholar]
  7. Hruska, A. Fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) management by smallholders. CAB Rev. Perspect. Agric. Vet. Sci. Nutr. Nat. Resour. 2019, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Russo, M.L.; Scorsetti, A.C.; Vianna, M.F.; Cabello, M.; Ferreri, N.; Pelizza, S. Endophytic Effects of Beauveria bassiana on Corn (Zea mays) and Its Herbivore, Rachiplusia nu (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Insects 2019, 10, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. De Silva, N.I.; Brooks, S.; Lumyong, S.; Hyde, K.D. Use of endophytes as biocontrol agents. Fungal Biol. Rev. 2019, 33, 133–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bamisile, B.S.; Dash, C.K.; Akutse, K.S.; Qasim, M.; Aguila, L.C.R.; Wang, F.; Keppanan, R.; Wang, L. Endophytic Beauveria bassiana in foliar-treated citrus limon plants acting as a growth suppressor to three successive generations of Diaphorina citri kuwayama (Hemiptera: Liviidae). Insects 2019, 10, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Baron, N.C.; Rigobelo, E.C.; Zied, D.C. Filamentous fungi in biological control: Current status and future perspectives. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2019, 79, 307–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Rondot, Y.; Reineke, A. Endophytic Beauveria bassiana in grapevine Vitis vinifera (L.) reduces infestation with piercing-sucking insects. Biol. Control 2018, 116, 82–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mahmood, Z.; Steenberg, T.; Mahmood, K.; Labouriau, R.; Kristensen, M. Endophytic Beauveria bassiana in maize affects survival and fecundity of the aphid Sitobion avenae. Biol. Control 2019, 137, 104017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jaber, L.R.; Vidal, S. Fungal endophyte negative effects on herbivory are enhanced on intact plants and maintained in a subsequent generation. Ecol. Entomol. 2010, 35, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lopez, D.C.; Sword, G.A. The endophytic fungal entomopathogens Beauveria bassiana and Purpureocillium lilacinum enhance the growth of cultivated cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and negatively affect survival of the cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa zea). Biol. Control 2015, 89, 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Powell, W.A.; Klingeman, W.E.; Ownley, B.H.; Gwinn, K.D. Evidence of Endophytic Beauveria bassiana in Seed-treated Tomato Plants Acting as a Systemic Entomopathogen to Larval Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Entomol. Sci. 2009, 44, 391–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Cherry, A.J.; Banito, A.; Djegui, D.; Lomer, C. Suppression of the stem-borer Sesamia calamistis (Lepidoptera; Noctuidae) in maize following seed dressing, topical application and stem injection with African isolates of Beauveria bassiana. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2004, 50, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wagner, B.L.; Lewis, L.C. Colonization of Corn, Zea mays, by the Entomopathogenic Fungus Beauveria bassiana. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2000, 66, 3468–3473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ramirez-Rodriguez, D.; Sánchez-Peña, S.R. Endophytic Beauveria bassiana in Zea mays: Pathogenicity against Larvae of Fall Armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda. Southwest. Entomol. 2016, 41, 875–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Qayyum, M.A.; Wakil, W.; Arif, M.J.; Sahi, S.T.; Dunlap, C.A. Infection of Helicoverpa armigera by endophytic Beauveria bassiana colonizing tomato plants. Biol. Control 2015, 90, 200–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sánchez-Rodríguez, A.R.; Raya-Díaz, S.; Zamarreño, Á.M.; García-Mina, J.M.; del Campillo, M.C.; Quesada-Moraga, E. An endophytic Beauveria bassiana strain increases spike production in bread and durum wheat plants and effectively controls cotton leafworm (Spodoptera littoralis) larvae. Biol. Control 2018, 116, 90–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Vidal, S.; Jaber, L.R. Entomopathogenic fungi as endophytes: Plant-endophyte-herbivore interactions and prospects for use in biological control. Curr. Sci. 2015, 109, 46–54. [Google Scholar]
  23. Klieber, J.; Reineke, A. The entomopathogen Beauveria bassiana has epiphytic and endophytic activity against the tomato leaf miner Tuta absoluta. J. Appl. Entomol. 2016, 140, 580–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lefort, M.C.; McKinnon, A.C.; Nelson, T.L.; Glare, T.R. Natural occurrence of the entomopathogenic fungi Beauveria bassiana as a vertically transmitted endophyte of Pinus radiata and its effect on above- and below-ground insect pests. N. Z. Plant Prot. 2016, 69, 68–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mc Guire, M.R.; Galan-Wong, L.J.; Tamez-Guerra, P. Chapter III—Bacteria: Bioassay of Bacillus thuringensis against Lepidoptera larvae. In Manual of Techniques in Insect Pathoglogy; Lacey, L., Ed.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1997; pp. 91–99. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kuzhuppillymyal-Prabhakarankutty, L.; Tamez-Guerra, P.; Gomez-Flores, R.; Rodriguez-Padilla, M.C.; Ek-Ramos, M.J. Endophytic Beauveria bassiana promotes drought tolerance and early flowering in corn. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2020, 36, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Secretaría de Desarrollo Agropecuario. Nuevo León. Gobierno del Estado. Informe del Comité Estatal de Sanidad Vegetal 2020. Programa de Trabajo Integral de los Incentivos de Vigilancia Epidemiológica de Riesgos Fitosanitarios y Servicio Fitosanitario en Apoyo a la Producción para el Bienestar y Prevención, control o Erradicación de Plagas Fitosanitarias, en el Estado de Nuevo León, del Programa de Sanidad e Inocuidad Agroalimentaria Ejercicio Fiscal 2020 con Recursos de Origen Federal. Available online: https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/555841/Nuevo_Le_n_2020_compressed.pdf. (accessed on 12 February 2021).
  28. Kary, N.E.; Alizadeh, Z. Effects of sub-culturing on genetic and physiological parameters in different Beauveria bassiana isolates. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2017, 145, 62–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Jirakkakul, J.; Roytrakul, S.; Srisuksam, C.; Swangmaneecharern, P.; Kittisenachai, S.; Jaresitthikunchai, J.; Punya, J.; Prommeenate, P.; Senachak, J.; So, L.; et al. Culture degeneration in conidia of Beauveria bassiana and virulence determinants by proteomics. Fungal Biol. 2018, 122, 156–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mascarin, G.M.; Jackson, M.A.; Kobori, N.N.; Behle, R.W.; Delalibera Junior, I. Liquid culture fermentation for rapid production of desiccation tolerant blastospores of Beauveria bassiana and Isaria fumosorosea strains. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2015, 127, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Kaiser, D.; Bacher, S.; Mène-Saffrané, L.; Grabenweger, G. Efficiency of natural substances to protect Beauveria bassiana conidia from UV radiation. Pest Manag. Sci. 2019, 75, 556–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. McKinnon, A.C.; Saari, S.; Moran-Diez, M.E.; Meyling, N.V.; Raad, M.; Glare, T.R. Beauveria bassiana as an endophyte: A critical review on associated methodology and biocontrol potential. BioControl 2017, 62, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Posada, F.; Aime, M.C.; Peterson, S.W.; Rehner, S.A.; Vega, F.E. Inoculation of coffee plants with the fungal entomopathogen Beauveria bassiana (Ascomycota: Hypocreales). Mycol. Res. 2007, 111, 748–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Inglis, G.; Goettel, M.; Johnson, D. Influence of Ultraviolet Light Protectants on Persistence of the Entomopathogenic Fungus, Beauveria bassiana. Biol. Control 1995, 5, 581–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Fernandes, É.K.K.; Rangel, D.E.N.; Braga, G.U.L.; Roberts, D.W. Tolerance of entomopathogenic fungi to ultraviolet radiation: A review on screening of strains and their formulation. Curr. Genet. 2015, 61, 427–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lohse, R.; Jakobs-Schönwandt, D.; Vidal, S.; Patel, A.V. Evaluation of new fermentation and formulation strategies for a high endophytic establishment of Beauveria bassiana in oilseed rape plants. Biol. Control 2015, 88, 26–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kim, J.C.; Lee, M.R.; Kim, S.; Lee, S.J.; Park, S.E.; Baek, S.; Gasmi, L.; Shin, T.Y.; Kim, J.S. Long-term storage stability of Beauveria bassiana ERL836 granules as fungal biopesticide. J. Asia Pac. Entomol. 2019, 22, 537–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Jaber, L.R.; Enkerli, J. Effect of seed treatment duration on growth and colonization of Vicia faba by endophytic Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium brunneum. Biol. Control 2016, 103, 187–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Vega, F.E. The use of fungal entomopathogens as endophytes in biological control: A review. Mycologia 2018, 110, 4–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hassan, F.R.; Abdullah, S.K.; Assaf, L.H. Pathogenicity of the entomopathogenic fungus, Beauveria bassiana (Bals.) Vuill. endophytic and a soil isolate against the squash beetle, Epilachna chrysomelina (F.) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2019, 29, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Russo, M.L.; Jaber, L.R.; Scorsetti, A.C.; Vianna, F.; Cabello, M.N.; Pelizza, S.A. Effect of entomopathogenic fungi introduced as corn endophytes on the development, reproduction, and food preference of the invasive fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda. J. Pest Sci. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Russo, M.; Scorsetti, A.; Vianna, M.; Allegrucci, N.; Ferreri, N.; Cabello, M.; Pelizza, S. Effects of endophytic Beauveria bassiana (Ascomycota: Hypocreales) on biological, reproductive parameters and food preference of the soybean pest Helicoverpa gelotopoeon. J. King Saud Univ. Sci. 2019, 31, 1077–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Akutse, K.; Maniania, N.; Fiaboe, K.; Berg, J.V.D.; Ekesi, S. Endophytic colonization of Vicia faba and Phaseolus vulgaris (Fabaceae) by fungal pathogens and their effects on the life-history parameters of Liriomyza huidobrensis (Diptera: Agromyzidae). Fungal Ecol. 2013, 6, 293–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jensen, R.E.; Enkegaard, A.; Steenberg, T. Increased fecundity of Aphis fabae on Vicia faba plants following seed or leaf inoculation with the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0223616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Dash, C.K.; Bamisile, B.S.; Keppanan, R.; Qasim, M.; Lin, Y.; Islam, S.U.; Hussain, M.; Wang, L. Endophytic entomopathogenic fungi enhance the growth of Phaseolus vulgaris L. (Fabaceae) and negatively affect the development and reproduction of Tetranychus urticae Koch (Acari: Tetranychidae). Microb. Pathog. 2018, 125, 385–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Hernandez-Trejo, A.; Estrada-Drouaillet, B.; López-Santillán, J.A.; Rios-Velasco, C.; Rodríguez-Herrera, R.; Osorio-Hernández, E. Effects of Native Entomopathogenic Fungal Strains and Neem Extract on Spodoptera frugiperda on Maize. Southwest. Entomol. 2019, 44, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Daisy, B.H.; Strobel, G.A.; Castillo, U.; Ezra, D.; Sears, J.; Weaver, D.K.; Runyon, J.B. Naphthalene, an insect repellent, is produced by Muscodor vitigenus, a novel endophytic fungus. Microbiology 2002, 148, 3737–3741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Crespo, R.; Pedrini, N.; Juárez, M.; Bello, G.D. Volatile organic compounds released by the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana. Microbiol. Res. 2008, 163, 148–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Applsci 11 02887 g001 550
Figure 1. Zea mays plants germination percentage after 10 days of sowing with the different treatments. CC: Negative control, CMC: Negative control with only methylcellulose, MCPTG4: B. bassiana fungal strain PTG4 with methylcellulose, MCGHA: B. bassiana strain GHA with methylcellulose. Analysis done with Duncan’s Post hoc multiple range test (α = 0.05) after one-way ANOVA. Graphical bars with the same letters indicate that there were no significant differences among them.
Figure 1. Zea mays plants germination percentage after 10 days of sowing with the different treatments. CC: Negative control, CMC: Negative control with only methylcellulose, MCPTG4: B. bassiana fungal strain PTG4 with methylcellulose, MCGHA: B. bassiana strain GHA with methylcellulose. Analysis done with Duncan’s Post hoc multiple range test (α = 0.05) after one-way ANOVA. Graphical bars with the same letters indicate that there were no significant differences among them.
Applsci 11 02887 g001
Applsci 11 02887 g002 550
Figure 2. S. frugiperda sixth instar larval weight after feeding on plants from the specified treatments. CC: Negative control, CMC: Negative control with only methylcellulose, MCPTG4: B. bassiana fungal strain PTG4 with methylcellulose, MCGHA: B. bassiana fungal strain GHA with methylcellulose. Analysis done with Duncan’s post-hoc multiple range test (α = 0.05) after one-way ANOVA. Graphical bars with the same letters indicate that there were no significant differences among them.
Figure 2. S. frugiperda sixth instar larval weight after feeding on plants from the specified treatments. CC: Negative control, CMC: Negative control with only methylcellulose, MCPTG4: B. bassiana fungal strain PTG4 with methylcellulose, MCGHA: B. bassiana fungal strain GHA with methylcellulose. Analysis done with Duncan’s post-hoc multiple range test (α = 0.05) after one-way ANOVA. Graphical bars with the same letters indicate that there were no significant differences among them.
Applsci 11 02887 g002
Applsci 11 02887 g003 550
Figure 3. S. frugiperda pupal weight after feeding on the plants from the specified treatments. CC: Negative control, CMC: Negative control with only methylcellulose, MCPTG4: B. bassiana fungal strain PTG4 with methylcellulose, MCGHA: B. bassiana fungal strain GHA with methylcellulose. Analysis done with Duncan’s post-hoc multiple range test (α = 0.05) after one-way ANOVA. Graphical bars with the same letters indicate that there were no significant differences among them.
Figure 3. S. frugiperda pupal weight after feeding on the plants from the specified treatments. CC: Negative control, CMC: Negative control with only methylcellulose, MCPTG4: B. bassiana fungal strain PTG4 with methylcellulose, MCGHA: B. bassiana fungal strain GHA with methylcellulose. Analysis done with Duncan’s post-hoc multiple range test (α = 0.05) after one-way ANOVA. Graphical bars with the same letters indicate that there were no significant differences among them.
Applsci 11 02887 g003
Applsci 11 02887 g004 550
Figure 4. S. frugiperda pupal length after feeding on plants treated with the specified treatments. CC: Negative control, CMC: Negative control with only methylcellulose, MCPTG4: B. bassiana fungal strain PTG4 with methylcellulose, MCGHA: B. bassiana fungal strain GHA with methylcellulose. Analysis done with Duncan’s post-hoc multiple range test (α = 0.05) after one-way ANOVA. Graphical bars with the same letter indicate that there were no significant differences among them.
Figure 4. S. frugiperda pupal length after feeding on plants treated with the specified treatments. CC: Negative control, CMC: Negative control with only methylcellulose, MCPTG4: B. bassiana fungal strain PTG4 with methylcellulose, MCGHA: B. bassiana fungal strain GHA with methylcellulose. Analysis done with Duncan’s post-hoc multiple range test (α = 0.05) after one-way ANOVA. Graphical bars with the same letter indicate that there were no significant differences among them.
Applsci 11 02887 g004
Applsci 11 02887 g005 550
Figure 5. S. frugiperda female moths’ percentage distribution after feeding on plants treated with the different treatments. CC: Negative control, CMC: Negative control with only methylcellulose, MCPTG4: B. bassiana fungal strain PTG4 with methylcellulose, MCGHA: B. bassiana fungal strain with methylcellulose. Analysis done with Duncan’s post-hoc multiple range test (α = 0.05) after one-way ANOVA. Graphical bars with the same letters indicate that there were no significant differences among them.
Figure 5. S. frugiperda female moths’ percentage distribution after feeding on plants treated with the different treatments. CC: Negative control, CMC: Negative control with only methylcellulose, MCPTG4: B. bassiana fungal strain PTG4 with methylcellulose, MCGHA: B. bassiana fungal strain with methylcellulose. Analysis done with Duncan’s post-hoc multiple range test (α = 0.05) after one-way ANOVA. Graphical bars with the same letters indicate that there were no significant differences among them.
Applsci 11 02887 g005
Applsci 11 02887 g006 550
Figure 6. Representative virgin female moth having laid fertile eggs showing apparent parthenogenesis.
Figure 6. Representative virgin female moth having laid fertile eggs showing apparent parthenogenesis.
Applsci 11 02887 g006
Applsci 11 02887 g007 550
Figure 7. Presence of S. frugiperda in the field trial experiment 1. There were found 52 total larvae in CC furrows and 40 total larvae in GHA furrows. As insects’ distribution appeared to be related to the location of the plants, the frequency of larvae found per furrow is presented. 25 CC furrows = Negative control plants. 33 GHA furrows = B. bassiana strain GHA with methylcellulose treated plants. The analysis GLM-fitted with negative binomial distribution showed Pearson chi-square value of 0.311, indicating the goodness of fit of the data. The Omnibus test value of 0.539 indicated a non-statistically significant model. The Type III Test of Model effects showed p = 0.342 for the treatments (CC/GHA).
Figure 7. Presence of S. frugiperda in the field trial experiment 1. There were found 52 total larvae in CC furrows and 40 total larvae in GHA furrows. As insects’ distribution appeared to be related to the location of the plants, the frequency of larvae found per furrow is presented. 25 CC furrows = Negative control plants. 33 GHA furrows = B. bassiana strain GHA with methylcellulose treated plants. The analysis GLM-fitted with negative binomial distribution showed Pearson chi-square value of 0.311, indicating the goodness of fit of the data. The Omnibus test value of 0.539 indicated a non-statistically significant model. The Type III Test of Model effects showed p = 0.342 for the treatments (CC/GHA).
Applsci 11 02887 g007
Table
Table 1. Effects of feeding on Beauveria bassiana-treated plants on the developmental stages of Spodoptera frugiperda.
Table 1. Effects of feeding on Beauveria bassiana-treated plants on the developmental stages of Spodoptera frugiperda.
StagesCC (30 Larvae)CMC (33 Larvae)MCPTG4
(30 Larvae)		MCGHA
(30 Larvae)
Initial larva100% a * (30/30)100% a (33/33)100% a (30/30)100% a (30/30)
Dead larva6.67% a (2/30)3% a (1/33)7.410% a (2/27)0 a
Still larva3.33% a (1/30)3% a (1/33)22% b (6/27)0 a
Prepupa6.67% a (2/30)3% a (1/33)7.41% a (2/27)0 a
Pupa83.33% a,b (25/30)91% a,b (30/33)62.96% a (17/27)100% b (22/22)
* Values followed by the same letters are not significantly different and with different letters are significantly different after running Duncan’s post-hoc multiple range test (p = 0.05). CC = Negative control without any treatments or adherents, CMC = Negative control with only methylcellulose, MCPTG4 = Methylcellulose with B. bassiana strain PTG4, MCGHA = Methylcellulose with B. bassiana strain GHA. Several larvae escaped: three larvae in treatment MCPTG4 and eight larvae in treatment MCGHA.
Table
Table 2. Average weight and length of corn cobs obtained at harvesting time.
Table 2. Average weight and length of corn cobs obtained at harvesting time.
ParametersCCMCGHA
Average weight of fresh corn cob in g209.15 ± 26.11183.43 ± 24.65
Average length of fresh corn cob in cm18.20 ± 0.7416.71 ± 0.75
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kuzhuppillymyal-Prabhakarankutty, L.; Ferrara-Rivero, F.H.; Tamez-Guerra, P.; Gomez-Flores, R.; Rodríguez-Padilla, M.C.; Ek-Ramos, M.J. Effect of Beauveria bassiana-Seed Treatment on Zea mays L. Response against Spodoptera frugiperda. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2887. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11072887

AMA Style

Kuzhuppillymyal-Prabhakarankutty L, Ferrara-Rivero FH, Tamez-Guerra P, Gomez-Flores R, Rodríguez-Padilla MC, Ek-Ramos MJ. Effect of Beauveria bassiana-Seed Treatment on Zea mays L. Response against Spodoptera frugiperda. Applied Sciences. 2021; 11(7):2887. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11072887

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kuzhuppillymyal-Prabhakarankutty, Laiju, Fernando H. Ferrara-Rivero, Patricia Tamez-Guerra, Ricardo Gomez-Flores, María Cristina Rodríguez-Padilla, and María Julissa Ek-Ramos. 2021. "Effect of Beauveria bassiana-Seed Treatment on Zea mays L. Response against Spodoptera frugiperda" Applied Sciences 11, no. 7: 2887. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11072887

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop