Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Dec 24;54(1):44.
doi: 10.1186/s40659-021-00367-x.

Dual effects of entomopathogenic fungi on control of the pest Lobesia botrana and the pathogenic fungus Eutypella microtheca on grapevine

Juan Aguilera-Sammaritano  1 , Juan Caballero  2 , María Deymié  2 , Melisa Rosa  3 , Fabio Vazquez  2 , Delia Pappano  3 , Bernardo Lechner  4 , Marcia González-Teuber  5
Affiliations

Dual effects of entomopathogenic fungi on control of the pest Lobesia botrana and the pathogenic fungus Eutypella microtheca on grapevine

Juan Aguilera-Sammaritano et al. Biol Res. .

Abstract

Background: Entomopathogenic fungi (EPF) are the natural enemies of insect pests. Nevertheless, research on the use of EPF for simultaneous prevention of pest and disease agents on the same crop is limited. In this study, we explored the potential dual effects of three strains of the EPF Metarhizium anisopliae on the control of detrimental agents of Vitis vinifera L., including different developmental stages (larvae, pupae, and adult) of the insect pest Lobesia botrana and the phytopathogenic fungus Eutypella microtheca.

Methods: Laboratory pathogenicity trials were performed to examine the effects of the three M. anisopliae strains on the mortality rate of L. botrana. In addition, field trials were conducted to assess the biocontrol potential of one selected M. anisopliae strain on the larval stage of L. botrana. Moreover, inhibitory effects of the three EPF strains on E. microtheca growth were examined in vitro.

Results: All the M. anisopliae strains were highly effective, killing all stages of L. botrana as well as inhibiting the growth of E. microtheca. The in vitro mortality of larvae treated with the strains was over 75%, whereas that of treated pupae and adults was over 85%. The three EPF strains showed similar efficacy against larvae and adult stages; nevertheless, pupal mortality was observed to be strain dependent. Mortality of L. botrana larvae ranged from 64 to 91% at field conditions. Inhibition of E. microtheca growth reached 50% in comparison to the control.

Conclusions: Our study showed that M. anisopliae strains were highly effective in ensuring control of two different detrimental agents of V. vinifera L., providing new evidence to support the dual effects of entomopathogenic fungi.

Keywords: Entomopathogenic fungi; European grapevine moth; Eutypella microtheca; Grapevine; Ligninolytic fungus; Lobesia botrana.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Effects of the EPF Metarhizium anisopliae on Lobesia botrana. Effective infection of Metarhizium anisopliae strains can be observed for larvae (a), pupae (b), and adults (c)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Corrected mortality (%) of Lobesia botrana larvae, pupae and adults caused by the three strains of Metarhizium anisopliae (CEP413, CEP589, CEP591). Mean percentages ± SD (standard deviation) of infected individuals is indicated for three replicates. Different letters indicate significant differences among treatments within each L. botrana stage (Fisher’s LSD; p < 0.05)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Growth inhibition (%) of the phytopathogenic fungus Eutypella microtheca caused by the three strains of Metarhizium anisopliae (CEP413, CEP589, CEP591) over 20 days. Control consisted of agar plugs without fungal spores. Mean percentages ± SD (standard deviation) is indicated for three replicates. Different letters indicate significant differences among treatments for each measured time (Fisher’s LSD; p < 0.05)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Čepo DV, Pelajić M, Vrček IV, Krivohlavek A, Žuntar I, Karoglan M. Differences in the levels of pesticides, metals, sulphites and ochratoxin A between organically and conventionally produced wines. Food Chem. 2018;246:394–403. - PubMed
    1. Herrero-Hernández E, Andrades MS, Álvarez-Martín A, Pose-Juan E, Rodríguez-Cruz MS, Sánchez-Martín MJ. Occurrence of pesticides and some of their degradation products in waters in a Spanish wine region. J Hydrol. 2013;486:234–245.
    1. Hildebrandt A, Guillamón M, Lacorte S, Tauler R, Barceló D. Impact of pesticides used in agriculture and vineyards to surface and groundwater quality (North Spain) Water Res. 2008;42(13):3315–3326. - PubMed
    1. Marsala RZ, Capri E, Russo E, Bisagni M, Colla R, Lucini L, et al. First evaluation of pesticides occurrence in groundwater of Tidone Valley, an area with intensive viticulture. Sci Total Environ. 2020;736:139730. - PubMed
    1. Paolinelli-Alfonso M, Serrano-Gomez C, Hernandez-Martinez R. Occurrence of Eutypella microtheca in grapevine cankers in Mexico. Phytopathol Mediterr. 2015;54(1):86–93.

Substances

Supplementary concepts

LinkOut - more resources