Compatibility of Metarhizium anisopliae with different insecticides and fungicides

Abstract

A study was designed to assess the toxicity of insecticides and fungicides on mycelial growth and spore production of Metarhizium anisopliae. All insecticides significantly inhibited mycelial growth and spore production of the fungus. Chlorpyrifos, match, profenofos and metalaxyl+mancozeb were the most toxic chemicals to mycelial growth and conidial germination followed by emamectin, cypermethrin, acetameprid, imidacloprid and sinophos which were relatively less toxic to mycelial growth and spore production (P = 0.05) of the fungal pathogen. On the contrary, spinosad and indoxacarb were significantly compatible and were found safe to conidial germination and growth of the fungi. Further studies related to their field evaluation are needed to confirm the findings.

Full text

African Journal of Microbiology Research Vol. 6(17), pp. 3956-3962, 9 May, 2012
Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJMR
DOI: 10.5897/AJMR12.417
ISSN 1996-0808 ©2012 Academic Journals
Full Length Research Paper
Compatibility of Metarhizium anisopliae with different
insecticides and fungicides
Saleem Akbar1, Shoaib Freed1*, Asifa Hameed2, Hafiza Tahira Gul1, Muhammad Akmal1,
Muhammad Naeem Malik1, Muhammad Naeem1 and Muhammad Bismillah Khan1
1Department of Agricultural Entomology, University College of Agriculture, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan,
Punjab, Pakistan.
2Cotton Research Station, Multan, Punjab, Pakistan.
Accepted 30 March, 2012
A study was designed to assess the toxicity of insecticides and fungicides on mycelial growth and
spore production of Metarhizium anisopliae. All insecticides significantly inhibited mycelial growth and
spore production of the fungus. Chlorpyrifos, match, profenofos and metalaxyl+mancozeb were the
most toxic chemicals to mycelial growth and conidial germination followed by emamectin,
cypermethrin, acetameprid, imidacloprid and sinophos which were relatively less toxic to mycelial
growth and spore production (P = 0.05) of the fungal pathogen. On the contrary, spinosad and
indoxacarb were significantly compatible and were found safe to conidial germination and growth of the
fungi. Further studies related to their field evaluation are needed to confirm the findings.
Key words: Metarhizium, mycelial growth, compatibility, insecticides, fungicides.
INTRODUCTION
Among entomopathogens, fungi are the most wide
spread group of microorganisms closely associated with
agriculture. Many entomopathogenic fungi especially
Metarhizium anisopliae are used as biological control
agents of insects including gregarious insect pests
(Moorhouse et al., 1992, 1993a, b; Booth and Shanks,
1998; Bruck, 2005; Bruck and Donahue, 2007; Freed et
al., 2012). But field application of fungi cannot give
satisfactory results as pesticides due to many abiotic and
biotic factors (Ferron, 1978; Villani et al., 1992; Anderson
and Roberts, 1983; Loria et al., 1983; Alves and
Lecuona, 1998). The use of fungi in integrated pest
management (IPM) cannot be ignored. A lot of examples
exist where application of different selective chemical
insecticides and fungi when used in combination provide
satisfactory control against many agricultural insect pests
(Quintela and McCoy, 1998; Dayakar et al., 2000;
Serebrove et al., 2005; Purwar and Sachen, 2006). On
*Corresponding author. E-mail: sfareed@bzu.edu.pk or
shbfkh@gmail.com.
the other hand, the use of non selective or incompatible
chemical pesticides may possibly have the potential to
hinder the vegetative growth and development of fungi
adversely affecting the IPM (Anderson and Roberts,
1983; Duarte et al., 1992; Malo, 1993). For this reason,
an understanding about the adverse effects of different
insecticides on entomopathogenic fungi is very
necessary. A number of experiments have been done to
evaluate the deleterious effects of chemical insecticides
on different developmental stages of fungi (Er and
Gokce, 2004; Rachapa et al., 2007; Alialzadeh et al.,
2007). The effect of these products may vary in different
species and strains of fungi (Vänninen and Hokkanen
1988; Anderson et al., 1989). The results from such
experimental work would direct the farmers to choose a
more compatible pesticides and the adverse effects of
the injudicious use of insecticides can be minimized (Butt
et al., 2001; Inglis et al., 2001).
The aim of present study was to manipulate the
inhibitory effects of different insecticides and fungicides
on the mycelial growth and sporulation of four isolates of
M. anisopliae, as well as, to check the compatibility of
these chemicals with M. anisopliae.

Akbar et al. 3957
Table 1. The isolates of M. anisopliae isolated from different soils.
S/N
Isolate
Source
Location
1
M 11.I
Cotton field
Makhdoom Rasheed, Multan
2
M2
Barseen field
Bund Bosan, Multan
3
M2.2
Cotton field
Tawakal Town, Multan
4
M70
Cotton field
Shujaabad, Multan
Table 2: Insecticides and fungicides used in the study.
S/N
Common name
Active ingredient
Dose/acre in g or ml
Dose/90 ml media in µL or µg
1.
Acetameprid
Acetameprid
125
112.5
2.
Imidacloprid
Imidacloprid
250
225
3.
Tracer
Spinosad
40
36
4.
Profenophos
Profenofos
800
720
5.
Emamectin benzoate
Emamectin Benzoate
200
180
6.
Match
Lufenoron
200
180
7.
Steward
Indoxacarb
175
157
8.
Cypermethrin
Cypermethrin
330
297
9.
Chlorpyriphos
Chlorpyrifos
750
675
10.
Sinophos
Fosetyl-aluminium
250
225
11.
Metalaxyl + mencozeb
Metalaxyl + mencozeb
200-250
180
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Entomopathogenic fungus
The isolates of M. anisopliae used in this study were isolated from
the soil samples collected from different agricultural fields of
Southern Punjab, Pakistan (Table 1). After the isolation and
identification, these isolates were cultured on potato dextrose agar
(PDA) medium autoclaved at 121°C for 20 min. For this purpose 10
ml of PDA was spread onto the sterilized petri plates. After the
solidification of the media, these petri dishes were inoculated with
the respective isolates of M. anisopliae (Table 1) and were
incubated in dark at 28±1°C and at a relative humidity of 85±5%.
After 10 to 12 days, the spores of the fungi were harvested by
scraping the upper surface with sterilized inoculation needle. The
collected spores were suspended in sterilized Tween solution
0.05%. The mixture was shaken by using a magnetic stirrer for 10
to 15 min. The hyphal debris and mycelial clumps were removed by
muslin cloth sieve and the required concentration for compatibility
with insecticides were made by serial dilution.
Insecticides
Insecticides and fungicides commonly used in the field for the
control of insect pests and diseases were used at their
recommended field doses to check their compatibility with the
entomopathogenic fungi (Table 2).
Growth inhibition assay
Insecticides with recommended field doses were added in PDA (90
ml) in Erlenmeyer flask before the solidification and then mixed
thoroughly by gentle shaking. The medium containing insecticides
were poured into sterilized petri plates. After the complete
solidification of poisoned medium, 1 to 2 µl of conidial suspension
was added in the centre of each petri plate with the help of
micropipette. The conidia were allowed to settle on the PDA for 10
min, petri dishes were sealed and were incubated at 28±1°C, 85±5
% relative humidity. There were twelve treatments including control
and each treatment was replicated four times. Standard control
without poison (Tween 80, 0.05%) was also kept for comparison
under same conditions. The radial growth of pathogenic fungal
colony starts to measure after two days of inoculation with a caliper
rule for the next consecutive ten days. The data taken were
compared with the control to check the extent of toxicity of
insecticides used in the study.
Spore yield
To assess the effect of insecticides on the spore production, the
spores of individual plates were harvested after 10 days of
inoculation in sterile conical flasks (50 ml) with 20 ml 0.05% Tween
80 solution and were quantified using a Neubauer chamber. The
data collected were compared with that of control to find the effect
on spore yield.
Statistical analysis
The data collected was analyzed by using SAS (SAS, 2002) under
completely randomized design (CRD) and the treatments means
were compared by Duncan’s multiple range t est (DMRT) at 0.05
probability levels.
RESULTS
Compatibility of different insecticides and fungicides
with M. anisopliae (M11.2)
Compatibility effects of insecticides and fungicides

3958 Afr. J. Microbiol. Res.
Table 3. Compatibility of different insecticides and fungicides with M. anisopliae (M11.2).
Parameters
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
Day 6
Day 7
Day 8
Day 9
Day 10
Acetameprid
4.23 ± 0.13d
6.45 ± 0.35d
7.9±0.44d
9.06±0.52d
10.00±0.53d
10.72±0.43d
11.44±0.34d
12.31±0.49d
13.25±0.48e
14.25±0.60d
Imidacloprid
5.04±0.25c
6.7±0.17d
9.1±0.19c
10.93±0.24c
12.44±0.33c
13.69±0.62c
15.06±0.75c
16.13±0.77c
17.38±0.55c
18.25±0.25c
Spinosad
5.84±0.06b
8.69±0.17b
11.24±0.31b
13.81±0.36b
16.09±0.45b
18.50±0.29b
22.25±1.20b
24.38±0.24b
26.00±0.29b
27.25±0.52b
Eammectin
0±0.00g
0±0.00g
2.75±0.25f
3.41±0.25g
3.94±0.20f
4.59±0.16f
4.83±0.16e
5.34±0.16e
5.75±0.20f
6.34±0.21e
Indoxacarb
5.84±0.14b
7.75±0.32c
10.59±0.44b
13.83±0.69b
16.00±1.02b
18.38±0.94b
22.06±0.78b
24.13±0.58b
25.31±0.57b
26.63±0.55b
Cypermethrin
2.97±0.16f
4.03±0.44f
5.5±0.46e
6.31±0.47f
7.50±0.65e
7.75±0.85e
11.00±1.08d
13.06±1.08d
14.19±1.04de
14.69±1.04d
Sinophos
3.84±0.05e
4.88±0.07e
6.25±0.35e
8.01±0.37e
10.00±0.31d
11.63±0.22d
13.88±0.26c
16.54±0.20c
15.31±0.21d
17.44±0.19c
Control
8.38±0.30a
11.38±0.30a
14.5±0.23a
17.5±0.23a
20.31±0.16a
23.38±0.22a
26.19±0.41a
29.63±0.46a
32.88±0.74a
36.13±0.82a
*The means sharing same letters are not significantly different (DMRT, P= 0.05%).
Table 4. Compatibility of different insecticides and fungicides with M. anisopliae (M2.2).
Parameters
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
Day 6
Day 7
Day 8
Day 9
Day 10
Acetameprid
4.25±0.14cd
4.88±0.13c
5.82±0.25d
6.38±0.22e
7.63±0.39f
9.25±0.67d
11.00±0.35d
11.44±0.33e
12.13±0.24e
12.63±0.24f
Imidacloprid
3.94±0.19d
5.94±0.19b
7.94±0.19b
9.94±0.19b
12.13±0.16c
14.38±0.16b
15.94±0.21b
17.19±0.12c
18.63±0.13c
19.75±0.23d
Spinosad
6.00±0.34a
8.06±0.41a
10.69±0.12a
12.44±0.36a
14.44±0.48a
16.75±0.42a
8.38±0.52a
20.75±0.78a
23.38±0.63a
24.75±0.48b
Emamectin
3.75±0.14d
5.50±0.20bc
7.00±0.20c
8.00±0.20d
9.88±0.31e
11.25±0.43c
12.50±0.50c
13.53±0.54d
14.63±0.55d
16.88±0.63e
Indoxacarb
5.06±0.33b
7.88±0.81a
10.38±0.63a
11.94±0.70a
13.38±0.63b
14.94±0.82b
16.38±0.81b
18.38±0.85b
20.13±0.75b
22.25±0.83c
Cypermethrin
4.63±0.24bc
6.13±0.24b
7.63±0.24bc
9.13±0.24c
10.75±0.14d
11.88±0.24c
13.38±0.24c
14.38±0.24d
15.63±0.24d
17.81±0.37e
Sinophos
2.50±0.00e
3.00±0.00d
4.25±0.14e
5.25±014f
5.75±0.14g
6.75±0.32e
7.25±0.32e
7.69±0.31f
8.25±0.32f
8.75±0.32g
Control
6.06±0.36a
8.31±0.37a
10.69±0.33a
12.69±0.33a
14.69±0.33a
16.88±0.22a
18.94±0.41a
20.88±0.47a
23.88±0.47a
26.69±0.43a
*The means sharing same letters are not significantly different (DMRT, P= 0.05%).
with M. anisopliae (M11.2) showed significant
results. The maximum radial growth of M.
anisopliae was observed in spinosad on the 10th
day of treatment with diameter of 27.25±0.5b (f =
72.34, df = 14, p = < 0.0001). On the other hand,
compared to the control (36.13±0.82a),
indoxacarb (r = 26.63±0.55b), imidacloprid (r =
18.25±0.25c), sinophos (r = 17.44±0.19c),
cypermethrin (r = 14.69±1.04d), acetamiprid
(14.25±0.60d), and emamectin (r = 6.34±0.21e)
showed moderate conidial germination, when
measured radially (Table 3). Cypermethrin and
acetamiprid almost showed equal result. In
contrast to this, profenofos, match, chlorpyrifos
and metalaxyl+mancozeb showed complete
inhibition of conidial germination of M. anisopliae
(M11.2), with no apparent germination.
Compatibility of different insecticides and
fungicides with M. anisopliae (M2.2)
The same chemicals were tested against M.
anisopliae (M2.2) in which spinosad showed the
maximum fungal radial growth with a diameter of
24.75±0.48b (f = 114.95, df = 14, p = < 0.0001).
When compared to the control (26.69 ± 0.43a),
indoxacarb (r = 22.25±0.83c), imidacloprid (r =
19.75±0.23d), cypermethrin (r = 17.81±0.37e),
emamectin (r = 16.88±0.63e), acetamiprid (r =
12.63±0.24f), sinophos (r = 8.75±0.32g) also
showed growth of M. anisopliae in the decreasing
order respectively (Table 4). For the chemicals,
profenofos, match, chlorpyrifos and
metalaxyl+mancozeb showed complete inhibition
of conidia germination of M. anisopliae (M2.2) in

Akbar et al. 3959
Table 5. Compatibility of different insecticides and fungicides with M. anisopliae (M2).
Parameters
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
Day 6
Day 7
Day 8
Day 9
Day 10
Acetameprid
3.50±0.32b
5.00±0.20bc
6.00±0.20de
7.13±0.13d
7.63±0.13d
8.38±0.24d
11.00±0.14d
12.13±0.24c
13.00±0.10d
14.13±0.22d
Imidacloprid
4.25±0.18b
5.19±0.12b
7.25±0.14c
9.25±0.14c
12.25±0.25b
14.25±0.25b
18.69±1.21c
21.13±1.01b
22.13±1.01c
23.25±0.75c
Spinosad
6.44±0.12a
7.69±0.21a
10.50±0.20a
12.69±0.19a
14.81±0.12a
16.94±0.52
21.13±0.55b
23.00±0.27a
24.69±0.28b
26.25±0.34b
Emamectin
3.94±0.54b
4.94±0.54bc
6.69±0.47cd
7.25±0.83d
8.50±1.13cd
9.75±1.20c
11.63±.1.13d
13.06±1.19c
13.56±1.36d
14.63±1.42d
Indoxacarb
6.31±0.62a
8.38±0.58a
9.63±0.55b
11.06±0.52b
12.13±0.66b
14.63±0.24b
19.19±0.73c
20.50±0.68b
21.81±0.64c
23.25±0.57c
Cypermethrin
4.00±0.18b
5.00±0.18bc
6.13±0.26de
7.69±0.06d
9.06±0.16c
10.39±0.32c
12.00±0.46d
13.38±0.43c
14.50±0.54d
15.50±0.54d
Sinophos
3.50±0.18b
4.25±0.10c
5.75±0.10e
7.00±0.18d
8.75±0.10c
9.81±0.31c
11.25±0.43d
12.75±0.25c
13.50±0.41d
14.38±0.52d
Control
5.94±0.06a
8.38±0.07a
10.88±0.07a
13.38±0.07a
15.63±0.07a
17.73±0.10a
23.63±0.52a
23.75±0.59a
26.28±0.49a
28.75±0.48a
The means sharing same letters are not significantly different (DMRT, P= 0.05%).
this experiment.
Compatibility of different insecticides and
fungicides with M. anisopliae (M2)
The test of the same compounds with the isolate
(M2) revealed that spinosad showed a higher
fungal growth with the diameter of 26.25±0.34b (f
= 285.44, df = 14, p = < 0.0001) compared to the
control (28.75±0.48a). Also, indoxacarb (r =
23.25±0.57c), imidacloprid (r = 23.25±0.75c),
cypermethrin (r = 15.50±0.54d), emamectin (r =
14.63±1.42d), sinophos (r = 14.38±0.52d), and
acetamiprid (r = 14.13±0.22d) showed conidia
germination of M. anisopliae when measured
radially (Table 5). But profenofos, match,
chlorpyrifos and metalaxyl+mancozeb showed
complete inhibition of conidia germination of M.
anisopliae (M2) in this experiment.
Compatibility of different insecticides and
fungicides with M. anisopliae (M70)
The results of compatibility of the chemicals with
the isolate (M70) showed that, spinosad and
imidacloprid resulted in maximum growth of M.
anisopliae with the values of r = 25.81±0.21b and
r = 24.81±0.61b respectively, when compared with
control (r = 29.50±0.59a) (f = 198.57, df = 14, p =
< 0.0001); while sinophos (r = 21.31±0.51c),
indoxacarb (20.81±0.81cd), emamectin (r =
19.63±1.03de), cypermethrin (r = 18.56±0.99e),
acetamiprid (r = 18.50±0.40e), showed moderate
conidial germination of Metarhizium. M70 showed
the same extent of compatibility with profenophos
with a radial growth (r = 7.69±0.62f), but showed
no conidia germination when tested with other
isolates of M. anisopliae (Table 6).
On the other hand, match, chlorpyrifos and
metalaxyl+mancozeb showed complete inhibition
of conidia germination of (M70), as recorded for
the other isolates.
Spore yield
The spore yield of different isolates of M.
anisopliae when mixed with insecticides showed
that spinosad yielded a higher number of spores
(3.41x107±1.36x106b) compared to control
(4.35x107±1.23x106a) (Table 7); sinophos yielded
the lowest number of spores
(4.62x106±2.53x105ef). Profenofos, match,
chlorpyrifos and metalaxyl+mancozeb yielded no
spores (f = 67.59, df = 14, p = < 0.0001).
In the same way, when the same chemicals
were tested with M. anisopliae (M2.2), a
significant spore production was observed in
spinosad (5.46x107±4.85x105a), followed by
indoxacarb (3.8x107± 4.7x106b) and imidacloprid
(f = 179.76, df = 14, p = < 0.0001) (Table 7).
The test of insecticides and fungicides with M.
anisopliae (M70) showed that spinosad
(1.26x108±3.21x106ab) was significant in spore
yield with control (2.09x108±9.79x107a) while the
minimum yield was observed in sinophos
(4.05x106±2.18x105c) followed by match,
chlorpyriphos and metalaxyl+mancozeb with no
spore production (f = 38.57, df = 14, p = <0.0001)
(Table 7).
DISCUSSION
The current study was planned to evaluate the
compatibility of different insecticides and
fungicides being used in the field with different
isolates of M. anisopliae. The results revealed that
spinosad and indoxacarb were the most

3960 Afr. J. Microbiol. Res.
Table 6. Compatibility of different insecticides and fungicides with M. anisopliae (M70).
Parameters
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
Day 6
Day 7
Day 8
Day 9
Day 10
Acetameprid
4.94±0.21c
7.00±0.29c
9.25±0.32b
11.38±0.31de
13.25±0.32c
14.75±0.32cd
16.50±0.46c
17.69±0.57d
18.31±0.43e
18.50±0.40e
Imidacloprid
6.75±0.18b
10.00±0.62b
12.75±0.72a
14.06±0.93bc
18.50±0.23a
20.13±0.44b
21.56±0.36b
24.38±0.24b
24.63±0.22b
24,81±0.61b
Spinosad
6.81±0.12b
11.19±0.73b
14.50±0.66a
15.63±1.01b
18.69±0.62a
21.19±0.77ab
23.31±0.47a
25.94±0.79ab
25.63±0.24b
25.81±0.21b
Emamectin
4.50±0.35c
6.13±0.80cd
8.13±1.49b
9.63±1.14e
14.50±0.87bc
15.38±0.90cd
16.63±0.77c
18.13±0.83d
19.25±0.97de
19.63±1.03de
Profenofos
0±0.00e
1.38±0.07e
2.25±0.10c
3.19±0.28f
4.69±0.28d
5.19±0.28e
5.69±0.28d
7.06±0.49e
7.56±0.49f
7.69±0.62f
Indoxacarb
6.25±0.27b
11.00±0.71b
12.75±0.63a
13.00±0.64cd
15.31±0.34b
16.19±0.40cd
17.69±0.43c
20.25±0.66c
20.69±0.70cd
20.81±0.81cd
Cypermethrin
4.88±0.13c
6.88±0.31c
9.13±0.24b
11.25±0.32de
13.00±0.20c
14.44±0.48d
16.13±0.66c
18.13±1.09d
18.38±1.06e
18.56±0.99e
Sinophos
2.88±0.24d
5.25±0.32d
7.75±0.95b
12.25±0.43cd
13.75±0.52bc
16.50±0.65c
17.50±0.46c
20.88±0.72c
21.13±0.62c
21.31±0.51c
Control
10.00±0.41a
12.88±0.46a
14.44±0.66a
18.50±1.51a
20.06±1.38a
22.63±1.26a
24.63±1.34a
27.63±0.68a
29.38±0.63a
29.50±0.59a
*The means sharing same letters are not significantly different (DMRT, P= 0.05%).
Table 7. Spore yield of different isolates of M. anisopliae after insecticides and fungicides treatment.
Parameters
M2
M2.2
M11.2
M70
Acetameprid
8.35x106±1.66 x106de
2.06x107±8.12x105c
9.53x106 ±7.22x105c
4.01x107±4.65x106bc
Imidacloprid
2.23x107±4.11x106c
3.57x107±1.99x106b
7.26x106±3.57x105cd
7.63x107±1.77x107bc
Spinosad
3.41x107±1.36x106b
5.46x107±4.85x105a
1.47x107±2.29x106b
1.26x108±3.21x106ab
Emamectin
1.26x107±1.00x106d
1.98x107±8.77x105c
3.14x106±7.54x104e
6.53x107±6.07x106bc
Profenofos
0±0.00f
0±0.00e
0±0.00f
4.98x106±2.29x106bc
Indoxacarb
2.27x107±8.75x105c
3.8x107±4.7x106b
1.65x107±2.14x106b
9.27x107±6.27x106bc
Cypermethrin
1.24x107±8.75x105c
2.21x107±1.88x106c
7.37x106±1.60x106cd
3.49x107±8.70x105bc
Sinophos
4.62x106±2.53x105ef
5.63x106±6.04x105d
5.67x106±1.23x105de
4.05x106±2.18x105c
Control
4.35x107±1.23x106a
5.21x107±7.79x105a
5.21x107±7.79x105a
2.09x108±9.79x107a
compatible insecticides when used in combination
with all isolates (Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6) which show
that the results of the current studies are in
accordance with the results of Mohammad et al.
(1987) and Rachappa et al. (2007). The utilization
of incompatible insecticides may lead to
suppression of development and reproduction of
pathogens such as M. anisopliae and confine
theirappliance in IPM program (Anderson and
Roberts, 1983; Duarte et al., 1992; Malo, 1993). In
contrast to this, all of the four isolates were badly
affected by chlorpyrifos, match, profenofos and
metalaxyl (Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6). Our results
confirm the findings of Asi et al. (2010) and Li and
Holdon (1996), who reported that these
insecticides were toxic to M. anisopliae with the
exception of one isolate (M.70) which showed a
bit compatibility with profenofos (P < 0.05). Our
findings confirms earlier results of Mietkiewski and
Gorski (1995) and Gupta et al. (1999) who
observed the changes in toxicity of
entomopathogenic fungi from synergistic,
antagonistic or neutral to insecticides. All the four
isolates were affected with (chlorpyriphos,
lufenoron and metalaxyl+mancozeb) in the
present investigation. The same results have
been reported by Asi et al. (2010). Profenophos
was less detrimental in case of isolate M70 but it
showed complete inhibition for other three isolates
(M11.2, M2, and M2.2), same results were
reported by Rachapa et al. (2007).
The variation in prospective of pesticides to
restrain the growth and sporulation of the insect

pathogenic fungi can be due to their inherent changes as
reported earlier (Freed et al., 2011a, b). This outcome of
insecticides on the growth of fungi can be different due to
the chemical nature of products and the fungal species
that are interacting with it (Antonio et al., 2001; Kumar et
al., 2000). The lethal effects of insecticides are different
at various stages of fungus (Li and Holdom, 1994).
Wettable powder insecticides show synergism with M.
anisopliae (Duarte et al., 1992; Moino and Alves, 1998),
but the lethal effect of active ingredient on the growth of
fungi cannot be disregarded. Conidial germination is the
most significant characteristic in initiating biological
control, because it is the primary step for the instigation
of infection procedure (Oliveria et al., 2001; Hirose et al.,
2001). Our results disclose that insecticides were more
deleterious to mycelial growth.
According to our suggestions, all tested chemicals
except chlorpyriphos, match, profenophos and
metalaxyl+mancozeb, were compatible with M.
anisopliae. Spinosad, indoxacarb, imidacloprid and
acetameprid were more compatible with insect
pathogenic fungi compared to other insecticides tested in
the experiment. Alternatively, field application can give
dissimilar results due to low doses of insecticides or due
to the revitalization of fungi after the breakdown of
insecticides. Therefore, once an insecticide has been
established to be compatible in the laboratory, it must be
selective under field conditions. On the other hand, high
In vitro toxicity of a product will not always be same in the
field (Butt and Brownbridge, 1997; Alves et al., 1998).
The present study showed multifaceted and changing
outcomes of insecticides and fungicides on the insect
pathogenic fungi. In connection to that, the effect of
insecticides on fungi in this field needs further exploration
and research for the collective application of insecticides
and fungi for the control of insect pests.
REFERENCES
Alialzadeh A, Samih MA, Khezri M, Riseh RS (2007). Compatibility of
Beauveria bassiana (Bals.) Vuill. with several pesticides. Intl. J. Agric.
Biol., 9(1): 31-34.
Alves SB, Lecuona RE (1998). Epizootiologia aplicada ao controle
microbiano de insetos. p. 97–170. In: S.B. Alves,(ed.). “Controle
Microbiano de Insetos” S ão Paulo, Fealq, pp. 1163.
Alves SB, Moino A Jr, Almeida JEM (1998). Produtos fitossanitarios e
entomopatogenos. In: (Ed.): S.B. Alves. Controle microbiano de
insectos. Piracicaba. FEALQ, pp. 217-238.
Anderson TE, Hajek AE, Roberts DW, Preisler K, Robertson JL (1989).
Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae): Effects of
combinations of Beauveria bassiana withinsecticides. J. Econ.
Entomol., 82(1): 83-89.
Anderson TE, Roberts DW (1983). Compatibility of Beauveria bassiana
isolates with insecticide formulations used in Colorado Potato Beetle
(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) control. J. Econ. Entomol., 76: 1437-
1441.
Anderson TE, Roberts DW (1983). Compatibility of Beauveria bassiana
isolates with insecticide formulations used in Colorado potato beetle
(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) control. J. Econ. Entomol., 76:1437-
1441
Antonio BF, Almeida JEM, Clovis L (2001). Effect of Thiamethoxam on
entomopathogenic microorganisms. Neotropic. Entomol., 30(3): 437-
Akbar et al. 3961
447.
Asi MR, Bashir MH, Afzal M, Ashfaq M, Sahi ST (2010). Compatibility of
entomopathogenic fungi, Metarhizium anisopliae and Paecilomyces
fumosoroseus with selective insecticides. Pak. J. Bot., 42(6): 4207-
4214.
Booth SR, Shanks CH Jr (1998). Potential of a dried rice mycelium
formulation of entomopathogenic fungi to suppress subterranean
pests in small fruits. Biocontrol Sci. Technol., 8:197–206.
Bruck DJ (2005) Ecology of Metarhizium anisopliae in soilless potting
media and the rhizosphere: implications for pest management. Biol.
Control., 32:155-163.
Bruck DJ, Donahue KM (2007) Persistence of Metarhizium anisopliae
incorporated into soilless potting media for control of the black vine
weevil, Otiorhynchus sulcatus in container-grown ornamentals. J.
Invertebr. Pathol., 95:146-150.
Butt TM, Brownbridge M (1997). Fungal pathogens of thrips. In: Thrips
as crop pests. (Ed.): T. Lewis. CAB international, Wallingford, UK. pp.
399-433.
Butt TM, Jackson CW, Magan N (2001). Fungal biological control
agents: Progress, Problems and Potential. CABI International,
Wallingford, Oxon, UK, pp. 377-384
Dayakar S, Kanaujia KR, Rathore RRS (2000). Compatibility of
entomogenous fungi with commonly used insecticides for
management of Spodoptera litura (Fab.). In S. Ignacimuthu and A.
Sen (Eds.). Microbials in Insect Pest Management. Oxford and IBH
Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd, M. Delhi, Kolkata, pp. 47-52.
Duarte A, Menendez JM, Trigueiro N (1992) Estudio preliminar sobre la
compatibilidad de Metarhizium anisopliae com algunos plaguicidas
quimicos. Revista Baracoa, 22: 31-39.
Ferron P (1978). Biological control of insect pests by entomogenous
fungi. Ann. Rev. Entomol., 23: 409-442.
Freed S, Jin FL, Ren SX (2011a). Determination of genetic variability
among the isolates of Metarhizium anisopliae var. anisopliae from
different geographical origins. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol., 27 (2):
359-370.
Freed S, Jin FL, Ren SX (2011b). Phylogenetics of entomopathogenic
fungi isolated from the soils of different ecosystems. Pak. J. Zool., 43
(3): 417-425.
Freed S, Jin FL, Naeem M, Ren SX Hussian M (2012). Toxicity of
proteins secreted by entomopathogenic fungi against Plutella
xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). Int. J. Agric. Biol., 14: 291–295.
Gupta P, Paul MS, Sharma SN (1999). Studies on compatibility of white
muscardine fungus Beauveria bassiana with neem products. Indian
Phytopathol., 52(3): 278-280.
Hirose EP, Neves MOJ, Zequi JAC, Martins LH, Peralta CH, Moino A Jr
(2001). Effect of biofertilizers and neem oil on the entomopathogenic
fungi Beauveria bassiana (Bals.) Vuill. and Metarhizium anisopliae
(Metsch) Sorok. Brazilian Arch. Biol. Technol., 44(4): 419-423
Inglis GD, Goettel MS, Butt TM, Strasser H (2001). Use of
hyphomycetous fungi for managing insect pests. T.M., C. Jackson
and N. Magan (eds.) In Butt, Fungi as biocontrol agents progress,
problems and potential. CAB International, UK, pp. 23-70
Kumar A, Mukherjee P, Guha A, Adyantaya SD, Mandale AB, Kumar R,
Sastry M (2000). Amphoterization of colloidal gold particles by
capping with valine molecules and their phase transfer from water to
toluene by electrostatic complexation with fatty amine molecules.
Langmuir, 16: 9775– 9783.
Li DP, Holdom DG (1994). Effects of pesticides on growth and
sporulation of Metarhizium anisopliae (Deuteromycotina:
Hyphomycets). J. Invertebr. Pathol., 63: 209-211.
Loria R, Galaini S, Roberts DW (1983) Survival of inoculum of the
entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana as influenced by
fungicides. Environ. Entomol., 12:1724–1726.
Malo AR (1993). Estudio sobre la compatibilidad del hongo Beauveria
bassaina (Bals.) Vuill. conformulaciones comerciales de fungicidas e
insecticidas. Revista Colombiana de Entomologia, 19: 151-158.
Mietkiewski R, Gorski R (1995). Growth of selected entomopathogenic
fungi species and isolates on media containing insecticides. Acta.
Mycol., 30(1): 27-33.
Mohammad AKA, Joanin PP, Nelson FRS (1987). Compatibility of
Metarhizium anisopliae var. anisopliae with chemical pesticides.
Mycopathologia, 99(2): 99-105.

3962 Afr. J. Microbiol. Res.
Moino Jr, AR, Alves SB (1998). Efeito de Imidacloprid e Fipronil sobre
Beauveria bassiana (Bals.) Vuill. E Metharhizium anisopliae
(Metsch.) Sorok. e no comportamento de limpeza de Heterotermes
tenuis (Hagem). Anais da Sociedade Entomológica do Brasil, 27:
611-619.
Moorhouse ER, Charnely AK, Gillespie AT (1992). Review of the
biology and control of the vine weevil, Otiorhynchus sulcatus
(Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Ann. Appl. Biol., 121:431-454
Moorhouse ER, Easterbrook MA, Gillespie AT, Charnley AK (1993a).
Control of Otiorhynchus sulcatus (Fabricius) (Coleoptera:
Curculionidae) larvae on a range of hardy ornamental nursery stock
species using the entomogenous fungus. Biocontrol Sci. Technol,.
1:63-72.
Moorhouse ER, Gillespie AT, Charnley AK (1993b). Application of
Metarhizium anisopliae (Metsch.) Sor. conidia to control Otiorhynchus
sulcatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) larvae on glasshouse pot
plants. Ann. Appl. Biol., 122:623-636.
Oliveria GN, Neves PMOJ, Kawazoe LS (2003). Compatibility between
the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana and insecticides
used in coffee plantations. Scientia Agricola., 60(4): 663-667.
Purwar JP, Sachan GC (2006). Synergistic effect of entomogenous
fungi on some insecticide sagainst Bihar hairy caterpillar Spilarctia
oblique (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae) Microbiol. Res., 161(1): 38-42.
Quintela ED, McCoy CW (1998). Synergistic effect of imidacloprid and
two entomogenous fungi on behaviour and survival of Diaprepes
abbreviatus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in soil. J. Econ. Entomol.,
91(1): 110-122.
Rachappa V, Lingappa S, Patil RK (2007). Effect of agrochemicals on
growth and sporulation of Metarhizium anisopliae (Metschnikoff)
Sorokin. Karnataka J. Agri. Sci., 20(2): 410-413.
Serebrov VV, Khodyrev VP, Gerber ON, Tsvetkova VP (2005).
Perspectives of combined use of entomopathogenic fungi and
chemical insecticides against Colorado beetle (Leptinotarsa
decemlineata). Mikologiya I Fitopatologiya, 39(3): 89-98.
Vänninen I, Hokkanen H (1988). Effects of pesticides on four species of
entomopathogenic fungi. Ann. Agric. Fenn., 27: 345-353.
Villani MG, Krueger SR, Nyrop JP (1992). A case study of the impact of
the soil environment on insect/pathogen interactions: Scarabs in
turfgrass. In: use of pathogens in Scarab pest management. (Eds.):
T.R. Glare and T.A. Jackson. Intercept, Hampshire, pp. 111-126.