4.6 Article

Susceptibility of Ceratitis capitata Wiedemann (Diptera: Tephritidae) to entomopathogenic fungi and their extracts

Journal

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
Volume 19, Issue 3, Pages 274-282

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1006/bcon.2000.0867

Keywords

entomopathogenic fungi; Metarhizium anisopliae; Paecilomyces fumosoroseus; Aspergillus ochraceus; Mediterranean fruit fly; Ceratitis capitata; fecundity; fertility; organic extracts

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The effectiveness of seven strains of entomopathogenic fungi against Ceratitis capitata adults was evaluated in the laboratory. Adults were susceptible to five of seven aqueous suspensions of conidia. Metarhizium anisopliae and strain CG-260 of Paecilomyces fumosoroseus were the most pathogenic fungi, with 10-day LD50 values of 5.1 and 6.1 x 10(3) conidia/fly, respectively, when applied topically. Sublethal effects on fecundity and fertility of the fungal-exposed females were also studied. The most effective fungus in reducing fecundity was P. fumosoroseus CECT 2705, with reductions on the order of 65% at 1 x 10(6) conidia/fly. M. anisopliae and Aspergillus ochraceus also showed significant reductions of fecundity (40-50% for most of the assayed concentrations). Fertility was moderately affected by the fungi. M. anisopliae at 1 x 10(6) conidia/fly was the most effective fungus, showing egg eclosion reduction of over 50% compared with the control. In addition, culture broth dichloromethane extracts from the entomopathogenic fungi were tested for insecticide activity against C. capitata, including effects on fecundity and fertility. The extract from M. anisopliae was the most toxic, resulting in about 90% mortality at a concentration of 25 mg/g of diet; under these conditions, fecundity and fertility of treated females were reduced by 94 and 53%, respectively, compared with untreated controls. (C) 2000 Academic Press.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available