4.2 Article

Compatibility of the fungus Beauveria Bassiana (Bals.) Vuill. (Deuteromycetes) with extracts of neem seeds and leaves and the emulsible oil

Journal

NEOTROPICAL ENTOMOLOGY
Volume 34, Issue 4, Pages 601-606

Publisher

ENTOMOLOGICAL SOC BRASIL
DOI: 10.1590/S1519-566X2005000400010

Keywords

Azadirachta indica; selectivity; biological control; entomopathogenic fungus

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The compatibility of a commercial formula of emulsible neem oil (Azadirachta indica A. Juss.) and of aqueous extracts of neem seeds and leaves with Beauveria bassiana (Bals.) Vuill. was evaluated in vitro. Three experiments were conducted to evaluate the effect of each product on the fungus vegetative growth and on conidia production and viability. The products were incorporated to a culture medium (BDA+E) and distributed into petri dishes, in the following concentrations: 0.15%; 1.5% and 15% (leaf aqueous extract), 1%; 2% and 4% (seed aqueous extract) and 0.5%; 1% and 1.5% (emulsible oil). Vegetative growth and conidia production were the basis for characterization of the aqueous extracts of seeds and leaves and of the emulsible oil, using the T classification model for compatibility of products. Seed and leaf extracts were less harmful to B. bassiana than the emulsible oil. Under the tested concentrations, the oil was not compatible with B. bassiana, inhibiting conidia vegetative growth significantly and decreasing production and viability of conidia, particularly at higher concentrations. Neem seed and leaf extracts were compatible with the entomopathogen in all concentrations. The seed extracts reduced conidia vegetative growth and production, but it did not affect the viability of spores. Leaf extract at 15% had a small negative impact on vegetative growth, and on production and viability of conidia, but it was still compatible with the fungus B. bassiana, according to the T model.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available