4.5 Article

Characterization of Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae isolates for management of tarnished plant bug, Lygus lineolaris (Hemiptera: Miridae)

期刊

JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY
卷 82, 期 3, 页码 139-147

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-2011(03)00018-1

关键词

Beauveria bassiana; Metarhizium anisopliae; Lygus lineolaris; tarnished plant bug; biological control; entomopathogenic fungi; characterization

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Selected morphological and physiological characteristics of four Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) Vuillemin isolates and one Metarhizium anisopliae (Metschnikoff) Sorokin isolate, which are highly pathogenic to Lygus lineolaris (Palisot de Beauvois) (Hemiptera: Miridae), were determined. There were significant differences in conidial size, viability, spore production, speed of germination, relative hyphal growth, and temperature sensitivity. Spore viability after incubation for 24 h at 20 degreesC ranged from 91.4 to 98.6% for the five isolates tested. Spore production on quarter-strength Sabouraud dextrose agar plus 0.25% (w/v) yeast extract after 10 days incubation at 20 degreesC ranged from 1.6 x 10(6) to 15.5 x 10(6) conidia/cm(2). One B. bassiana isolate (ARSEF 1394) produced significantly more conidia than the others. Spore germination was temperature-dependant for both B. bassiana and M. anisopliae. The time required for 50% germination (TG(50)) ranged from 25.0 to 30.9, 14.0 to 16.6, and 14.8 to 18.0 h at 15, 22, and 28degreesC, respectively. Only the M. anisopliae isolate (ARSEF 3540) had significant spore germination at 35degreesC with a TG(50) of 11.8 h. A destructive sampling method was used to measure the relative hyphal growth rate among isolates. Exposure to high temperature (40-50 degreesC) for 10 min had a negative effect on conidial viability. The importance of these characteristics in selecting fungal isolates for management of L. lineolaris is discussed. (C) 2003 Published by Elsevier Science (USA).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据