Next Article in Journal
Sustainable Protocols for Cellulose Nanocrystals Synthesis from Tomato Waste and Their Antimicrobial Properties against Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato
Next Article in Special Issue
Characterization of Antagonistic Bacteria Paenibacillus polymyxa ZYPP18 and the Effects on Plant Growth
Previous Article in Journal
Persimmon Leaves: Nutritional, Pharmaceutical, and Industrial Potential—A Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 12
Issue 4
10.3390/plants12040938
plants-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

Plant-Mediated Effects of Beneficial Microbes and a Plant Strengthener against Spider Mites in Tomato

by
Konstantinos Samaras
1,
Soultana Mourtiadou
1,
Theodoros Arampatzis
1,
Myrsini Kakagianni
2,3,
Maria Feka
2,
Felix Wäckers
4,5,
Kalliope K. Papadopoulou
2,
George D. Broufas
1 and
Maria L. Pappas
1,*
1
Laboratory of Agricultural Entomology and Zoology, Department of Agricultural Development, Democritus University of Thrace, 68200 Orestiada, Greece
2
Laboratory of Plant and Environmental Biotechnology, Department of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, University of Thessaly, 41500 Larissa, Greece
3
Department of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Thessaly, 43100 Karditsa, Greece
4
R&D Department, Biobest Group N.V., 2260 Westerlo, Belgium
5
Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YW, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2023, 12(4), 938; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12040938
Submission received: 31 January 2023 / Revised: 13 February 2023 / Accepted: 14 February 2023 / Published: 18 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria and Mycorrhizas as Biocontrol and Biostimulats Agents)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus urticae is a polyphagous herbivore with a worldwide distribution, and is a serious pest in tomato and other crops. As an alternative to chemical pesticides, biological control with the release of natural enemies such as predatory mites represent an efficient method to control T. urticae in many crops, but not in tomato. Other biological control agents, such as beneficial microbes, as well as chemical compounds, which can act as plant defense elicitors that confer plant resistance against pests and pathogens, may prove promising biological solutions for the suppression of spider mite populations in tomato. Here, we assessed this hypothesis by recording the effects of a series of fungal and bacterial strains and the plant strengthener acibenzolar-s-methyl for their plant-mediated effects on T. urticae performance in two tomato cultivars. We found significant negative effects on the survival, egg production and spider mite feeding damage on plants inoculated with microbes or treated with the plant strengthener as compared to the control plants. Our results highlight the potential of beneficial microbes and plant strengtheners in spider mite suppression in addition to plant disease control.

1. Introduction

Feeding the increasing human population in a sustainable manner represents a major challenge. If left uncontrolled, herbivorous arthropod pests can be highly destructive to crops, causing significant yield losses, often above 30% [1]. Pesticide application remains the most common method of controlling such pests, despite policies that promote the use of non-chemical methods in crop production. This global trend is in part driven by a strong demand for agricultural products with reduced load of chemicals [2,3,4]. Novel strategies, complementary or alternative to the existing ones, are required to control arthropod pests of crops in the most efficient and environmentally friendly manner.
Biological control, i.e., the use of beneficial agents against harmful organisms, together with breeding for resistance, are the most promising alternatives to chemical control in crop production [5]. Nevertheless, breeding for resistance in modern crops is often hindered by the complex genetic nature of the traits involved, the narrow range of effectiveness (limited to only a few pest species) and the demonstrated ability of pests to overcome resistance mechanisms [6,7,8,9]. Hence, biological control is currently the most widely applied alternative method to control various arthropod pests in organic farming and IPM programs.
Among biocontrol agents, selected root-colonizing microbes (bacteria and fungi) have long been recognized for their ability to antagonize soil-borne pathogens, improve plant growth and nutrition, and also stimulate (prime) the plant immune system against future attackers [10]. Defense priming triggered by soil-borne microbes is generally referred to as Induced Systemic Resistance (ISR). Microbe-mediated ISR is associated with enhanced expression of defense-related genes that only becomes evident upon attack [11,12]. Thus, ISR may provide plants with a cost-effective mechanism of protection against aboveground herbivores [13,14]. For example, an endophytic fungal strain (Fusarium solani strain K) was shown to enhance tomato resistance against spider mites [15], indicating that selected microbes can also contribute to the control of important agricultural pests such as insects and mites. Hence, soil-borne beneficial microbes are of particular interest as ‘plant vaccination’ agents, capable of enhancing plant resistance to biotic stressors [16]. Yet, to date, we only have limited and scattered data on the effects of soil-borne beneficial microbes in providing protection to economically important crops against herbivores [17] and soil microbes currently marketed by the biocontrol industry are only provided as plant growth regulators and/or biofungicides.
Plant defenses can also be induced by chemical compounds besides beneficial soil microbes [18,19,20]. Plant strengtheners, for example, include synthetic compounds which are commercially available to improve plant vigor and protect plants against pathogens. Considering that plant defenses against pathogens and herbivores can be mediated by the same signaling pathways, plant strengtheners can be elicitors that also induce resistance against herbivores [21,22,23]. Hence, beneficial soil microbes and plant strengtheners can be efficient alternatives to chemical pesticides in integrated pest management.
Mechanisms involved in plant defense induction by microbes or chemical elicitors may mediate both direct and indirect responses against herbivores [14,24,25]. Direct effects in particular can be directly effective against arthropods; for instance, when they exhibit an increased sensitivity to jasmonic acid (JA) [26,27]. In the present study, we assessed the plant-mediated effects of a series of commercial and laboratory fungal and bacterial strains, as well as the plant strengthener acibenzolar-S-methyl (Table 1), against the two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus urticae in tomato. Spider mites are mesophyll cell-content feeders and T. urticae is a polyphagous pest that infests a high number of crops of different plant families. Since tomato defenses against spider mites are mediated by the phytohormones JA, salicylic acid and ethylene [28,29], we hypothesized that spider mites could be affected by plant responses elicited by the beneficial microbes and the plant strengthener. To the best of our knowledge, the plant-mediated effects of beneficial soil microbes or plant strengtheners on herbivorous mites have been scarcely addressed so far [30,31,32,33].

2. Results

2.1. Plant-Mediated Effects on Spider Mite Performance

2.1.1. Spider Mite Performance on Tomato Plants cv. Ace 55

The number of mites found alive was significantly lower for the plant strengthener treatment, whereas the plants of all other treatments hosted a similar number of spider mites, which was also significantly lower compared to control plants (F = 42.75; df = 4, 80; p < 0.05, Figure 1A).
Furthermore, all fungal strains tested resulted in a significant reduction in spider mite oviposition (F = 42.75; df = 4, 80; p < 0.05, Figure 1B) on tomato plants of the cultivar Ace 55, with females laying approx. 31–50% fewer eggs on treated compared to control plants (F = 18.66; df = 4, 80; p < 0.05, Figure 1B).
Compared to the microbial products, the application of the plant strengthener resulted in an even more pronounced reduction in spider mite oviposition, at approx. 50% of the level observed in the control plants (Figure 1Β).
Tomato treatment with the different microbial products also resulted in a significant reduction in the damage inflicted by spider mites over the four days of feeding compared to the control plants (Figure 2). Notably, the application of the plant strengthener resulted in the greatest reduction in the feeding damage, both compared to the microbial-treated and the control plants (F = 125.02; df = 4, 40; p < 0.001, Figure 2).

2.1.2. Spider Mite Performance on Tomato Plants cv. Moneymaker

Bacterial strains tested significantly reduced the number of live spider mites (F = 14.27; df = 5, 72; p < 0.001, Figure 3A), as well as the number of spider mite eggs (F = 10.12; df = 5, 72; p < 0.001, Figure 3B) per plant.
Similarly, all tested fungal strains significantly reduced the number of live spider mites (Figure 4(A1): F = 29.76; df = 5, 72; p < 0.001; Figure 4(B1): F = 80.432; df = 3, 56; p < 0.001), as well as the number of spider mite eggs per plant (Figure 4(A2): F = 42.68; df = 5, 72; p < 0.001; Figure 4(Β2): F = 38.05; df = 3, 56; p < 0.001), with R. irregularis QS69 and 197,198 strains resulting in the lowest number of live spider mites and eggs.
Although a direct comparison among the two microbe groups (fungi vs. bacteria) cannot be made, microbes of both groups were shown to result in a similar reduction in spider mites compared with the control (Figure 3 and Figure 4).

2.2. Plant Growth Parameters

Overall, no significant effects were recorded in the stem and root weight of tomato plants which were inoculated with the different microbes and infested with spider mites. Stem weight was found to be similar between the different experiments regardless of the bacterial (means ranging from 0.58 to 0.74 g; Microbe (M): F = 1.647; df = 5, 180; p = 0.150; Infestation (I): F = 0.255; df = 1, 180; p = 0.614; M × I: F = 0.633; df = 5, 180; p = 0.675) or the fungal species (means ranging from 0,49 to 0,55 g in group A plants: Microbe (M): F = 0.948; df = 5, 180; p = 0.452; Infestation (I): F = 1.089; df = 1, 180; p = 0.298; M × I: F = 0.073; df = 5, 180; p = 0.996, and from 0,55 to 0,60 g in group B plants: Microbe (M): F = 0.946; df = 3, 120; p = 0.421; Infestation (I): F = 0.06; df = 1, 120; p = 0.937; M × I: F = 0.289; df = 3, 120; p = 0.833).
The same was seen in terms of the weight of the tomato roots, with no significant effects found related to the inoculation of the plants with the different bacterial (means ranging from 0.079 to 0.099 g; Microbe (M): F = 1.954; df = 5, 180; p = 0.88; Infestation (I): F = 0.025; df = 1, 180; p = 0.874; M × I: F = 0.176; df = 5, 180; p = 0.971) or fungal species (means ranging from 0.059 to 0.071 g in group A plants: Microbe (M): F = 1.22; df = 5, 180; p = 0.302; Infestation (I): F = 0.551; df = 1, 180; p = 0.459; M × I: F = 0.484; df = 5, 180; p = 0.788, and from 0,137 to 0,122 g in group B plants: Microbe (M): F = 0.601; df = 3, 120; p = 0.616; Infestation (I): F = 0.053; df = 1, 120; p = 0.819; M × I: F = 0.478; df = 3, 120; p = 0.698)).

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Plants

Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) plants cv. Ace 55 (Vf) and Moneymaker were used in experiments, as well as in herbivore rearing. Plants were grown from seeds sown in pots (Ø 12 cm) that were filled with sterilized peat (Klasmann-TS2). All plants were maintained in climate chambers (25 ± 2 °C, 16:8 LD, 60–70% RH) and watered every other day. When used in the experiments, plants were 4–5 weeks old.

3.2. Herbivores

Spider mites (Tetranychus urticae) from laboratory rearing, established with individuals collected from greenhouse tomatoes, were used in the experiments. The mites were reared on detached tomato leaves placed on wet cotton wool in plastic trays at 25 ± 2 °C, 16:8 LD, 60–70% RH. Fresh tomato leaves were added every three days on the trays, which were regularly filled with water as required to maintain leaf vigor. Young female mites (2–4 days old) were used in the experiments. These were obtained by infesting tomato plants with a high number (approx. 300) of female mites that were allowed to lay eggs for 48 h at 25 ± 2 °C, 16:8 LD. The next day, the mites were removed and the plants were maintained at the same conditions until adult mites emerged (after approx. 16 days).

3.3. Plant Treatments

3.3.1. Experiments with Tomato Plants cv. Ace 55

We assessed the effects of three commercial fungal products in tomato plants against spider mites and the plant strengthener acibenzolar-S-methyl, a synthetic analogue of salicylic acid (SA) (Table 1). The products were dissolved in water and drenched in sterilized peat in pots where young tomato plants cv. Ace 55 were transplanted 2 days before (10 days from seed sowing). After 3 weeks, the plants were infested on 3 leaflets with spider mites which were reared on ‘Ace 55′ tomato leaflets (15 females per leaflet). Leaflets were selected as described in [28]. Oviposition and survival were recorded 4 days afterwards by removing the infested leaflets and checking them under a stereoscope. During the experiments, the plants were maintained at 25 ± 1 °C, 16:8 LD, 60–70% RH and watered every other day. Two time replicates with nine plants per treatment were used. We used a separate cohort of plants to assess the impact of the treatments on spider mite feeding damage (five plants per treatment, repeated in two independent experiments). In these experiments, plants were infested with 45 spider mite females per plant as described above. Feeding damage was recorded on spider-mite-infested leaflets which were collected and scanned digitally, and damaged leaf area was assessed manually calculated in Photoshop following the steps under ‘Plant Damage Quantification’ as described in [35].

3.3.2. Experiments with Tomato Plants cv. Moneymaker

We assessed the effects of five commercial strains of bacteria and eight strains of fungi, two strains from laboratory and six commercial strains, against spider mites in tomato plants cv. Moneymaker (Table 1). The products (commercial strains) were dissolved in water and drenched in sterilized peat in pots where young tomato plants cv. Moneymaker had been transplanted 2 days before (10 days from seed sowing). Lab fungal strains were routinely cultured on potato dextrose broth (PDB) at 25 °C for 5 days in the dark. Conidial suspensions were prepared and applied as water drench one week after seed sowing as described in Pappas et al. [15]. After 3 weeks, plants were infested with spider mites reared on cv. Moneymaker tomato leaflets as described above. Oviposition and survival were recorded 4 days after inoculation. During the experiments, the plants were maintained at 25 ± 1 °C, 16:8 LD, 60–70% RH and watered every other day. The experiment was conducted three times independently. In each experiment, five plants were used per treatment.

3.4. Plant Growth Parameters

Another set of experimental plants cv. Moneymaker was inoculated with beneficial microbes and infested with a standard number of spider mites as described above. Each beneficial microbe was applied in pots with sterilized peat in which tomato plants had been growing. The plants were inoculated with the microbe under study two days after having been transplanted. Ten days after inoculation, the plants were infested with 45 T. urticae females per plant. Four days after spider mite introduction, the performance of tomato plants was assessed by recording the dry weight of the above- and belowground plant parts of microbe-inoculated control and herbivore-infested plants.

3.5. Statistics

To evaluate the effect of the microbials and the plant strengthener (fixed factor) on the number of spider mite eggs, mite survival and mite damage, a mixed-model ANOVA with replication in time as the random factor was used. In case of significant differences, means were further separated by Tukey’s HSD post hoc test. Similarly, to evaluate the effect of microbial application and infestation by the spider mites (fixed factors) on plant growth parameters (shoot and root dry weight), a mixed-model ANOVA was used with repetition in time as the random factor. Prior to statistical analysis, normality and homogeneity of variances were checked with the Shapiro–Wilk and Levene’s tests, respectively. Significance levels were α = 0.05 for all tests and statistics were performed using SPSS [36].

4. Discussion

In the present study, we tested to what extent treating tomato plants with different beneficial microbes or a plant strengthener affects tomato resistance to spider mites. We found that the number of live spider mites was lower on treated compared to control plants, irrespective of the microbial group (bacteria or fungi) or the application of the plant strengthener or the tomato cultivar. In accordance, we recorded a significantly lower egg production and also observed that feeding damage inflicted by spider mites was lower on treated compared to control plants. Finally, plant biomass was not affected by the application of the microbes in herbivore-infested plants compared to the control plants. We argue that these results indicate plant defense induction capabilities in both the tested microbes as well as the plant strengthener, with some variation was recorded between and within the two microbe groups (fungi and bacteria) and between the microbes and the plant strengthener.
Activating the plant’s inherent defense system with the application of beneficial soil microbes or plant strengtheners represents a novel strategy to biologically fend off plant herbivorous pests. Currently, beneficial microbes used against arthropod pests are mainly entomopathogens that typically act on the pest directly. They are known as ‘biopesticides’ in the sense that they are naturally occurring or derived from natural products, and can be formulated and applied on crops in ways similar to conventional pesticides. Among biopesticides, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is the most widely applied entomopathogenic bacterium against arthropod pests, whereas Metarhizium, Beauveria and Isaria are examples of entomopathogenic fungi. Pseudomonas, Trichoderma and Bacillus (other than Bt) are used as biofungicides [24,25,37]. Microbes as biopesticides offer the advantage of lower or no toxicity compared to synthetic pesticides. Nevertheless, their target range can be narrow and even strain-specific. This selectivity of many of the currently available biopesticides means that there is an urgent need for the diversification of the biocontrol toolbox with biocontrol agents that have a wider target-pest range. Beneficial soil microbes and plant strengtheners may offer such an opportunity to impact a broad range of biotic stressors by activating plant defense responses. Among the broad number of currently identified soil bacteria and fungi, a relatively low number of species have been tested for their plant-mediated effects against arthropods, and none of these have reached the biocontrol market in that capacity. The same holds for the plant-mediated effects of plant strengtheners such as acibenzolar-S-methyl, which is commercially available as a fungicide and acts by mimicking the natural systemic acquired resistance of plants against pathogens [38,39,40].
The plant-mediated effects of microbes against spider mites have mainly been studied for entomopathogenic fungi when applied as soil drench or after treating seeds or roots in tomato, bean and strawberry [41,42,43,44,45], and several promising strains of Metarhizium, Beauveria and Cordyceps entomopathogens with plant protection capabilities have been identified. Nevertheless, the plant-mediated effects of other beneficial microbes such as plant-growth-promoting fungi (PGPF) or rhizobacteria (PGPR) on spider mites have been rarely addressed so far. An exception is the study of the beneficial soil endophytic fungus Fusarium solani strain K which was shown to negatively affect spider mite performance in tomato via the elicitation of plant defense responses [15], and different PGPR in strawberry [46], as well as the work of Pappas et al. [47], who identified a series of effective beneficial fungi and bacteria against spider mites in pepper. With regard to the effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), previous studies have shown variable effects on spider mites. Spider mite performance was shown to be enhanced by the AMF Glomus mosseae on bean plants [30,31,32], whereas spider mite performance in Lotus japonicus was differentially affected by four different AMF species belonging to different genera depending on the AMF species [48], and negatively affected in citrus plants [49]. It is evident that this important group of plant-interacting organisms need a more thorough evaluation as putative biocontrol agents.
Notably, in our study all fungal strains studied were shown to negatively affect spider mite performance when applied as water drench, while the AMF Rhizoglomus irregularis strains were the most promising of all. In addition, the bacteria tested were also shown to negatively affect spider mite performance in tomato. Putative mechanisms involved in the recorded effects could be the production of secondary metabolites, antibiotic effects, feeding deterrents and plant defense induction [16,24,25,41,50,51,52,53], or even the entomopathogenic activity of the microbes colonizing the plant, as has been reported for C. fumosorosea [16,54]. Ιn our study, using two different plant cultivars, plant nutritional benefits translated to plant growth were not recorded, while spider mites were negatively affected on microbe-treated plants. In addition, we recorded a difference in the number of live spider mites on plants and non-inoculated control plants, suggesting that recorded differences cannot be attributed to plant responses affecting spider mite reproduction only. Further studies are needed at the molecular and chemical levels to elucidate which of the above mechanisms underlies the reported findings.
Compared to the plant-mediated effects of beneficial microbes, the application of the plant strengthener acibenzolar-S-methyl resulted in more pronounced negative effects on spider mite performance. These effects were reflected in the number of live spider mites and their eggs, as well as at the resulting feeding damage on the acibenzolar-S-methyl-treated plants compared to control plants. Other studies have shown acibenzolar-S-methyl and SA to be involved in induced defense responses against phloem feeders such as aphids in tomato [55,56]. Furthermore, acibenzolar-S-methyl was shown to be effective against mesophyll cell-content feeders such as spider mites when sprayed on tomato and apple trees [38,39,57] or applied in the soil of lima bean plants [58]. Several mechanisms related to the application of acibenzolar-S-methyl have been proposed/demonstrated, ranging from the activation of defense-related enzymes to the expression of pathogenesis-related (PR) genes, as well as the alteration of volatile blend emissions [19,20,39,40]. Studying the molecular and chemical mechanisms involved in tomato–spider mite interactions after acibenzolar-S-methyl application, coupled with behavioral and life-history experiments, will enable us to explain the recorded effects on mite performance.
The plant growth parameters studied in this work were shown not to be affected by the application of the microbes tested. Specifically, dry root and shoot weights of plants were not affected by the application of the microorganisms, irrespective of the spider mite infection. One possible explanation of the absence of effects may be the short duration of the experiments. Studying the effects on plant growth parameters at later stages, i.e., when plants will be inoculated with the microbes under study for longer time periods after transplantation, spanning several weeks or after repeated applications of the microbes, could reveal possible negative or positive effects. On the other hand, the absence of significant effects may be indicative of a trade-off in the plant’s investment in defense responses elicited by soil microbes at the expense of its growth. Specifically with regard to herbivory, the net benefit of microbial application would depend on the trade-off between induced plant defenses versus plant nutritional quality or quantity alteration [14,24,59,60,61]. In the present study, spider mites were adversely impacted on plants treated with the microbes, suggesting the absence of nutritional benefits or that defense induction outcompetes the putative benefits of improved nutrition for the herbivore. Long-term experiments are needed to clarify the plant-growth-promotion effects of the tested microbes versus plant defense induction against aboveground herbivores.

5. Conclusions

Collectively, our data support the hypothesis that beneficial soil microbes, as well as the plant strengthener acibenzolar-S-methyl, alter tomato responses to the detriment of the mite population. The putative mechanisms involved should be further explored to assess the extent to which these mechanisms may involve defense induction, priming or plant growth promotion. Our experiments were conducted with tomato plants in pots in sterilized peat under controlled conditions; hence, further experiments in the greenhouse/field could provide additional evidence for the effectiveness of the tested microbes and the plant strengthener in shaping plant–herbivore interactions. The number of spider mite individuals (45 females/plant) used in our experiments to infest plants may resemble the early infestation events when spider mites begin to colonize plants. Accordingly, a previous study suggests an action threshold level of eight mites per leaflet on a second or third recently expanded tomato leaf to avoid yield losses by T. urticae [62]. Ultimately, the net benefit of the tested elicitors for the plant and their potential as novel tools in pest control should be confirmed by studying their effects on plant fitness and reproductive output.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.D.B. and M.L.P.; Methodology, F.W., K.K.P., G.D.B. and M.L.P.; Validation, K.S., S.M., T.A., F.W., K.K.P., G.D.B. and M.L.P.; Formal analysis, G.D.B. and M.L.P.; Investigation, K.S., S.M., T.A., M.K. and M.F.; Resources, G.D.B., K.K.P. and M.L.P.; Data curation, G.D.B. and M.L.P.; Writing—original draft, G.D.B. and M.L.P.; Writing—review & editing, K.S., M.K., F.W., K.K.P., G.D.B. and M.L.P.; Visualization, G.D.B.; Supervision, G.D.B. and M.L.P.; Project administration, M.L.P.; Funding acquisition, M.L.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research project was supported by the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation (H.F.R.I.) under the “1st Call for H.F.R.I. Research Projects to support Faculty Members & Researchers and the Procurement of High-and the procurement of high-cost research equipment grant” (Project Number: 50).

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Soraya França for providing insightful comments in an earlier version of the manuscript. Furthermore, we acknowledge Biobest Group N.V. for providing free samples of their products. Maria Liapoura, Charikleia Kyriakaki and all the undergraduate students of the Laboratory of Agricultural Entomology and Zoology at Democritus University of Thrace are thanked for their technical work during preliminary experiments, as well as Myrto Tsiknia for the preparation of mycorrhizal inocula.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Oerke, E.C. Crop losses to pests. J. Agric. Sci. 2006, 144, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. EU 128/2009/EC; Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing a Framework for Community Action to Achieve the Sustainable Use of Pesticides. European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2009.
  3. Udeigwe, T.K.; Teboh, J.M.; Eze, P.N.; Hashem Stietiya, M.; Kumar, V.; Hendrix, J.; Mascagni, H.J.; Ying, T.; Kandakji, T. Implications of leading crop production practices on environmental quality and human health. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 151, 267–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Whitehorn, P.R.; O’Connor, S.; Wackers, F.L.; Goulson, D. Neonicotinoid pesticide reduces bumble bee colony growth and queen production. Science 2012, 336, 351–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Bale, J.S.; Van Lenteren, J.C.; Bigler, F. Biological control and sustainable food production. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2008, 363, 761–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. McDonald, B.A.; Linde, C. Pathogen population genetics, evolutionary potential, and durable resistance. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2002, 40, 349–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Nombela, G.; Williamson, V.M.; Muñiz, M. The root-knot nematode resistance gene Mi-1.2 of tomato is responsible for resistance against the whitefly Bemisia tabaci. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 2003, 16, 645–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Russell, G.E. Plant breeding for pest and disease resistance. Studies in the agricultural and food sciences; Butterworth-Heinemann: Boston, MA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  9. Seifi, A.; Kaloshian, I.; Vossen, J.; Che, D.; Bhattarai, K.K.; Fan, J.; Naher, Z.; Goverse, A.; Tjallingii, W.F.; Lindhout, P.; et al. Linked, if not the same, Mi-1 homologues confer resistance to tomato powdery mildew and root-knot nematodes. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 2011, 24, 441–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Martinez-Medina, A.; Flors, V.; Heil, M.; Mauch-Mani, B.; Pieterse, C.M.J.; Pozo, M.J.; Ton, J.; van Dam, N.M.; Conrath, U. Recognizing Plant Defense Priming. Trends Plant Sci. 2016, 21, 818–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Pieterse, C.M.J.; Van Der Does, D.; Zamioudis, C.; Leon-Reyes, A.; Van Wees, S.C.M. Hormonal modulation of plant immunity. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 2012, 28, 489–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Pieterse, C.M.J.; Zamioudis, C.; Berendsen, R.L.; Weller, D.M.; Van Wees, S.C.M.; Bakker, P.A.H.M. Induced systemic resistance by beneficial microbes. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2014, 52, 347–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Pineda, A.; Soler, R.; Weldegergis, B.T.; Shimwela, M.M.; Van Loon, J.J.A.; Dicke, M. Non-pathogenic rhizobacteria interfere with the attraction of parasitoids to aphid-induced plant volatiles via jasmonic acid signalling. Plant Cell Environ. 2013, 36, 393–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Shikano, I.; Rosa, C.; Tan, C.W.; Felton, G.W. Tritrophic interactions: Microbe-mediated plant effects on insect herbivores. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2017, 55, 313–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Pappas, M.L.; Liapoura, M.; Papantoniou, D.; Avramidou, M.; Kavroulakis, N.; Weinhold, A.; Broufas, G.D.; Papadopoulou, K.K. The beneficial endophytic fungus fusarium solani strain K alters tomato responses against spider mites to the benefit of the plant. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Pappas, M.L.; Baptista, P.; Broufas, G.D.; Dalakouras, A.; Djobbi, W.; Flors, V.; Guerfali, M.M.; Khayi, S.; Mentag, R.; Pastor, V.; et al. Biological and Molecular Control Tools in Plant Defense. In Plant Defence: Biological Control; Mérillon, J.-M., Ramawat, K.G., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 3–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gruden, K.; Lidoy, J.; Petek, M.; Podpečan, V.; Flors, V.; Papadopoulou, K.K.; Pappas, M.L.; Martinez-Medina, A.; Bejarano, E.; Biere, A.; et al. Ménage à Trois: Unraveling the Mechanisms Regulating Plant–Microbe–Arthropod Interactions. Trends Plant Sci. 2020, 25, 1215–1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pappas, M.L.; Broekgaarden, C.; Broufas, G.D.; Kant, M.R.; Messelink, G.J.; Steppuhn, A.; Wäckers, F.; van Dam, N.M. Induced plant defences in biological control of arthropod pests: A double-edged sword. Pest Manag. Sci. 2017, 73, 1780–1788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Inbar, M.; Doostdar, H.; Gerling, D.; Mayer, R.T. Induction of systemic acquired resistance in cotton by BTH has a negligible effect on phytophagous insects. Entomol. Exp. Et Appl. 2001, 99, 65–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Sobhy, I.S.; Erb, M.; Lou, Y.; Turlings, T.C.J. The prospect of applying chemical elicitors and plant strengtheners to enhance the biological control of crop pests. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2014, 369, 20120283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Arimura, G.I.; Kost, C.; Boland, W. Herbivore-induced, indirect plant defences. Biochim. Et Biophys. Acta Mol. Cell Biol. Lipids 2005, 1734, 91–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sobhy, I.S.; Erb, M.; Sarhan, A.A.; El-Husseini, M.M.; Mandour, N.S.; Turlings, T.C.J. Less is more: Treatment with BTH and Laminarin Reduces herbivore-induced volatile emissions in maize but increases parasitoid attraction. J. Chem. Ecol. 2012, 38, 348–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Thaler, J.S.; Humphrey, P.T.; Whiteman, N.K. Evolution of jasmonate and salicylate signal crosstalk. Trends Plant Sci. 2012, 17, 260–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Pineda, A.; Zheng, S.J.; van Loon, J.J.A.; Pieterse, C.M.J.; Dicke, M. Helping plants to deal with insects: The role of beneficial soil-borne microbes. Trends Plant Sci. 2010, 15, 507–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rasmann, S.; Bennett, A.; Biere, A.; Karley, A.; Guerrieri, E. Root symbionts: Powerful drivers of plant above- and belowground indirect defenses. Insect Sci. 2017, 24, 947–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Rosenblueth, M.; Martínez-Romero, E. Bacterial endophytes and their interactions with hosts. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 2006, 19, 827–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Van Wees, S.C.; Van der Ent, S.; Pieterse, C.M. Plant immune responses triggered by beneficial microbes. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2008, 11, 443–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Alba, J.M.; Schimmel, B.C.J.; Glas, J.J.; Ataide, L.M.S.; Pappas, M.L.; Villarroel, C.A.; Schuurink, R.C.; Sabelis, M.W.; Kant, M.R. Spider mites suppress tomato defenses downstream of jasmonate and salicylate independently of hormonal crosstalk. New Phytol. 2015, 205, 828–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Kant, M.R.; Jonckheere, W.; Knegt, B.; Lemos, F.; Liu, J.; Schimmel, B.C.J.; Villarroel, C.A.; Ataide, L.M.S.; Dermauw, W.; Glas, J.J.; et al. Mechanisms and ecological consequences of plant defence induction and suppression in herbivore communities. Ann. Bot. 2015, 115, 1015–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hoffmann, D.; Vierheilig, H.; Peneder, S.; Schausberger, P. Mycorrhiza modulates aboveground tri-trophic interactions to the fitness benefit of its host plant. Ecol. Entomol. 2011, 36, 574–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hoffmann, D.; Vierheilig, H.; Riegler, P.; Schausberger, P. Arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis increases host plant acceptance and population growth rates of the two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus urticae. Oecologia 2009, 158, 663–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Khaitov, B.; Patiño-Ruiz, J.D.; Pina, T.; Schausberger, P. Interrelated effects of mycorrhiza and free-living nitrogen fixers cascade up to aboveground herbivores. Ecol. Evol. 2015, 5, 3756–3768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Schausberger, P.; Peneder, S.; Jürschik, S.; Hoffmann, D. Mycorrhiza changes plant volatiles to attract spider mite enemies. Funct. Ecol. 2012, 26, 441–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kavroulakis, N.; Tsiknia, M.; Ipsilantis, I.; Kavadia, A.; Stedel, C.; Psarras, G.; Tzerakis, C.; Doupis, G.; Karpouzas, D.G.; Papadopoulou, K.K.; et al. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus inocula from coastal sand dunes arrest olive cutting growth under salinity stress. Mycorrhiza 2020, 30, 475–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Cazaux, M.; Navarro, M.; Bruinsma, K.A.; Zhurov, V.; Negrave, T.; Van Leeuwen, T.; Grbic, V.; Grbic, M. Application of two-spotted spider mite tetranychus urticae for plant-pest interaction studies. J. Vis. Exp. 2014, e51738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. IBM Corp. Released 2020. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, SPSS Version 27.0; IBM Corp.: Armonk, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  37. Arora, N.K. Plant Microbes Symbiosis: Applied Facets; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 1–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Warabieda, W. The effect of methyl jasmonate and acibenzolar-S-methyl on the populations of the European red mite (Panonychus ulmi Koch) and Typhlodromus pyri Scheut. in apple orchards, as well as on the yield and growth of apple trees. Int. J. Acarol. 2015, 41, 100–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Warabieda, W.; Markiewicz, M.; Wójcik, D. Mutual relations between jasmonic acid and acibenzolar-S-methyl in the induction of resistance to the two-spotted spider mite (Tetranychus urticae) in apple trees. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2020, 82, 59–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Civolani, S.; Mirandola, D.; Benetti, L.; Finetti, L.; Pezzi, M.; Bernacchia, G. Effects of Acibenzolar-S-methyl on the Probing Behaviour and Mortality of Cacopsylla pyri on Pear Plants. Insects 2022, 13, 525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Canassa, F.; D’Alessandro, C.P.; Sousa, S.B.; Demétrio, C.G.B.; Meyling, N.V.; Klingen, I.; Delalibera, I., Jr. Fungal isolate and crop cultivar influence the beneficial effects of root inoculation with entomopathogenic fungi in strawberry. Pest Manag. Sci. 2020, 76, 1472–1482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Canassa, F.; Esteca, F.C.N.; Moral, R.A.; Meyling, N.V.; Klingen, I.; Delalibera, I. Root inoculation of strawberry with the entomopathogenic fungi Metarhizium robertsii and Beauveria bassiana reduces incidence of the twospotted spider mite and selected insect pests and plant diseases in the field. J. Pest Sci. 2020, 93, 261–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Castro, T.; Eilenberg, J.; Delalibera, I. Exploring virulence of new and less studied species of Metarhizium spp. from Brazil for two-spotted spider mite control. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2018, 74, 139–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. 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]
  45. Elhakim, E.; Mohamed, O.; Elazouni, I. Virulence and proteolytic activity of entomopathogenic fungi against the two-spotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae Koch (Acari: Tetranychidae). Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2020, 30, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Hosseini, A.; Hosseini, M.; Schausberger, P. Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria Enhance Defense of Strawberry Plants Against Spider Mites. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 12, 783578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Pappas, M.L.; Samaras, K.; Koufakis, I.; Broufas, G.D. Beneficial soil microbes negatively affect spider mites and aphids in pepper. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Nishida, T.; Katayama, N.; Izumi, N.; Ohgushi, T. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi species-specifically affect induced plant responses to a spider mite. Popul. Ecol. 2010, 52, 507–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Manresa-Grao, M.; Pastor-Fernández, J.; Sanchez-Bel, P.; Jaques, J.A.; Pastor, V.; Flors, V. Mycorrhizal Symbiosis Triggers Local Resistance in Citrus Plants Against Spider Mites. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 867778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Hartley, S.E.; Gange, A.C. Impacts of plant symbiotic fungi on insect herbivores: Mutualism in a multitrophic context. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2009, 54, 323–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Poveda, J. Trichoderma as biocontrol agent against pests: New uses for a mycoparasite. Biol. Control 2021, 159, 104634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Vega, F.E. Insect pathology and fungal endophytes. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2008, 98, 277–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Vega, F.E. The use of fungal entomopathogens as endophytes in biological control: A review. Mycologia 2018, 110, 4–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zimmermann, G. The entomopathogenic fungi Isaria farinosa (formerly Paecilomyces farinosus) and the Isaria fumosorosea species complex (formerly Paecilomyces fumosoroseus): Biology, ecology and use in biological control. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2008, 18, 865–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Cooper, W.C.; Jia, L.; Goggin, F.L. Acquired and r-gene-mediated resistance against the potato aphid in tomato. J. Chem. Ecol. 2004, 30, 2527–2542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Boughton, A.J.; Hoover, K.; Felton, G.W. Impact of chemical elicitor applications on greenhouse tomato plants and population growth of the green peach aphid, Myzus persicae. Entomol. Exp. Et Appl. 2006, 120, 175–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Favaro, R.; Resende, J.T.V.; Gabriel, A.; Zeist, A.R.; Cordeiro, E.C.N.; Favaro Júnior, J.L. Salicylic acid: Resistance inducer to two-spotted spider mite in strawberry crop. Hortic. Bras. 2019, 37, 60–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Choh, Y.; Ozawa, R.; Takabayashi, J. Effects of exogenous Jasmonic acid and benzo (1,2,3) thiadiazole-7- carbothioic acid S-methyl ester (BTH), a functional analogue of salicylic acid, on the egg production of a herbivorous mite Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae). Appl. Entomol. Zool. 2004, 39, 311–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Pozo, M.J.; Azcón-Aguilar, C. Unraveling mycorrhiza-induced resistance. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2007, 10, 393–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Kempel, A.; Schmidt, A.K.; Brandl, R.; Schädler, M. Support from the underground: Induced plant resistance depends on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Funct. Ecol. 2010, 24, 293–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Gehring, C.; Bennett, A. Mycorrhizal fungal-plant-insect interactions: The importance of a community approach. Environ. Entomol. 2009, 38, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Meck, E.D.; Kennedy, G.G.; Walgenbach, J.F. Effect of Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae) on yield, quality, and economics of tomato production. Crop Prot. 2013, 52, 84–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 12 00938 g001 550
Figure 1. Effects of soil application of beneficial fungi and a plant strengthener on spider mite (Tetranychus urticae) performance on tomato cv. Ace 55. Box plots of (A) the live adult females and (B) spider mite eggs per plant recorded on treated and control plants (n = 18). In each panel, significant differences between treatments are indicated by different letters (Tukey’s HSD, p < 0.001).
Figure 1. Effects of soil application of beneficial fungi and a plant strengthener on spider mite (Tetranychus urticae) performance on tomato cv. Ace 55. Box plots of (A) the live adult females and (B) spider mite eggs per plant recorded on treated and control plants (n = 18). In each panel, significant differences between treatments are indicated by different letters (Tukey’s HSD, p < 0.001).
Plants 12 00938 g001
Plants 12 00938 g002 550
Figure 2. Effects of soil application of beneficial fungi and a plant strengthener on the feeding damage inflicted by spider mites (Tetranychus urticae) on tomato cv. Ace 55. Box plots of plant damaged area recorded on treated and control plants (n = 10). In each panel, significant differences between treatments are indicated by different letters (Tukey’s HSD, p < 0.001).
Figure 2. Effects of soil application of beneficial fungi and a plant strengthener on the feeding damage inflicted by spider mites (Tetranychus urticae) on tomato cv. Ace 55. Box plots of plant damaged area recorded on treated and control plants (n = 10). In each panel, significant differences between treatments are indicated by different letters (Tukey’s HSD, p < 0.001).
Plants 12 00938 g002
Plants 12 00938 g003 550
Figure 3. Effects of soil application of beneficial bacteria on spider mite (Tetranychus urticae) performance on tomato cv. Moneymaker. Box plots of (A) the live adult females and (B) spider mite eggs per plant recorded on treated and control plants (n = 15). In each panel, significant differences between treatments are indicated by different letters (Tukey’s HSD, p < 0.001).
Figure 3. Effects of soil application of beneficial bacteria on spider mite (Tetranychus urticae) performance on tomato cv. Moneymaker. Box plots of (A) the live adult females and (B) spider mite eggs per plant recorded on treated and control plants (n = 15). In each panel, significant differences between treatments are indicated by different letters (Tukey’s HSD, p < 0.001).
Plants 12 00938 g003
Plants 12 00938 g004 550
Figure 4. Effects of soil application of beneficial fungi on spider mite (Tetranychus urticae) performance on tomato cv. Moneymaker. Box plots of (A1,B1) the live adult females and (A2,B2) spider mite eggs per plant recorded on treated and control plants (n = 15). In each panel, significant differences between treatments are indicated by different letters (Tukey’s HSD, p < 0.001).
Figure 4. Effects of soil application of beneficial fungi on spider mite (Tetranychus urticae) performance on tomato cv. Moneymaker. Box plots of (A1,B1) the live adult females and (A2,B2) spider mite eggs per plant recorded on treated and control plants (n = 15). In each panel, significant differences between treatments are indicated by different letters (Tukey’s HSD, p < 0.001).
Plants 12 00938 g004
Table
Table 1. Strains of beneficial microbes and a plant strengthener tested for their plant-mediated effects against spider mites in tomato.
Table 1. Strains of beneficial microbes and a plant strengthener tested for their plant-mediated effects against spider mites in tomato.
StrainOrigin (Product/Lab)Dosage (mg/pot)
Tomato cv: ACE
Fungi
Trichoderma harzianum T-22TRIANUM-P®
KOPPERT
1 × 109 cfu/g		35
Trichoderma asperellum T34Asperello® T34 Biocontrol®,
Biobest Group NV
1 × 109 cfu/g		35
Isaria fumosorosea Apopka 97PreFeRal®,
Biobest Group NV
2 × 109 cfu/g		35
Plant strengthener
Acibenzolar-S-methylBION 50 WG
Syngenta Hellas		5
Tomato cv: Moneymaker
Fungi
Isaria fumosorosea Apopka 97PreFeRal®,
Biobest Group NV
2 × 109 cfu/g		0.64
Trichoderma atroviride SC1Vintec®,
Bi-PA NV/SA
1 × 1010 cfu/g		0.09
Trichoderma asperellum TV1Xedavir,
Intrachem Hellas
1 × 107 cfu/g		350
Trichoderma asperellum T34Asperello® T34 BiocontrolTM,
Biobest Group NV
1 × 109 cfu/g		3.50
Rhizoglomus irregulare QS69Advantage,
INOQ GmbH
3.6 × 104 propagules/g		10
Funneliformis mossaeLab [34]
2 × 105 cfu/g		10
Rhizophagus irregularisLab [34]
2 × 105 cfu/g		10
Rhizophagus irregularis (DAOM) 197198DAOM
Agronutrition
5 × 104 cfu/mL		10 μL
Bacteria
Pseudomonas sp. DSMZ 13134Proradix®,
Anthesis
6.6 × 1010 cfu/g		0.08
Bacillus amyloliquefaciens MBI600Serifel®,
BASF Hellas
5.5 × 1010 cfu/g		0.32
Bacillus amyloliquefaciens FZB24Taegro ®,
Syngenta
1 × 1010 cfu/g		0.24
Bacillus pumilus QST 2808Sonata ®,
Bayer
1 × 109 cfu/gr		6.4
Bacillus amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum D747Amylo-X®,
K&N Efthymiadis
2 × 1011 cfu/g		1.60
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Samaras, K.; Mourtiadou, S.; Arampatzis, T.; Kakagianni, M.; Feka, M.; Wäckers, F.; Papadopoulou, K.K.; Broufas, G.D.; Pappas, M.L. Plant-Mediated Effects of Beneficial Microbes and a Plant Strengthener against Spider Mites in Tomato. Plants 2023, 12, 938. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12040938

AMA Style

Samaras K, Mourtiadou S, Arampatzis T, Kakagianni M, Feka M, Wäckers F, Papadopoulou KK, Broufas GD, Pappas ML. Plant-Mediated Effects of Beneficial Microbes and a Plant Strengthener against Spider Mites in Tomato. Plants. 2023; 12(4):938. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12040938

Chicago/Turabian Style

Samaras, Konstantinos, Soultana Mourtiadou, Theodoros Arampatzis, Myrsini Kakagianni, Maria Feka, Felix Wäckers, Kalliope K. Papadopoulou, George D. Broufas, and Maria L. Pappas. 2023. "Plant-Mediated Effects of Beneficial Microbes and a Plant Strengthener against Spider Mites in Tomato" Plants 12, no. 4: 938. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12040938

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