Next Article in Journal
Codling Moth Wing Morphology Changes Due to Insecticide Resistance
Next Article in Special Issue
Diverging Effects of Landscape Factors and Inter-Row Management on the Abundance of Beneficial and Herbivorous Arthropods in Andalusian Vineyards (Spain)
Previous Article in Journal
Sex Pheromone Aerosol Devices for Mating Disruption: Challenges for a Brighter Future
Previous Article in Special Issue
Impact Assessment of Biological Control-Based Integrated Pest Management in Rice and Maize in the Greater Mekong Subregion
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 10
Issue 10
10.3390/insects10100309
insects-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Interactions between Fungal-Infected Helicoverpa armigera and the Predator Chrysoperla externa

by
Pamella Mingotti Dias
1,*,
Elisângela de Souza Loureiro
1,2,
Luis Gustavo Amorim Pessoa
2,
Francisco Mendes de Oliveira Neto
2,
Ricardo Alexandre de Souza Tosta
2 and
Paulo Eduardo Teodoro
2
1
Graduate Program in Entomology and Biodiversity Conservation (PPGECB), Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados, Dourados MS 79.804-970, Brazil
2
Agronomy Universidade Federal of Mato Grosso do Sul (CPCS), Chapadão do Sul MS 79.560-000, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2019, 10(10), 309; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects10100309
Submission received: 27 June 2019 / Revised: 5 September 2019 / Accepted: 6 September 2019 / Published: 20 September 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Pest Management in Sustainable Farming Systems)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the interactions between Chrysoperla externa (Hagen, 1861) and the eggs and first-instar larvae of Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner 1805) infected by entomopathogenic fungi. The H. armigera eggs and larvae were treated with sterile distilled water + 0.01% Tween 80 (T1, control), Beauveria bassiana (Bals.) Vuill (T2), Metarhizium anisopliae (Metsch.) Sorok (T3), or Metarhizium rileyi (Farlow) Samson. (T4) at different concentrations (1 × 107, 1 × 108, and 1 × 109 con. mL−1). For each treatment, a single third-instar C. externa was offered prey (a combination of 80 eggs and 50 first-instar H. armigera larvae) at 0, 24, and 48 h after inoculation. Ten trials were completed for each treatment, and the entire experiment was repeated three times. Neither the concentrations of fungi nor the application method affected consumption by C. externa. Because all the predator larvae reached the pupal phase, with 100% viability in adults, these results suggest that entomopathogenic fungi and C. externa are compatible and that the simultaneous use of these biological control agents is possible for managing H. armigera.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The occurrence of lepidopteran pests at high population densities has led to major economic losses in the agricultural and forestry sectors of Brazil [1]. The cotton caterpillar Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner 1805) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) was considered in Brazil, a quarantine pest, with reports during occurrence and major damage of the 2013/2014 agricultural year [2]. H. armigera has a high potential to become a pest in countries into which it enters because the adults are capable of migration and possess high reproductive potential [3,4], whereas the larvae exhibit aggressive, polyphagous, and destructive eating habits, indiscriminately consuming both the vegetative and reproductive structures (e.g., flowers, pods, and fruits) of a variety of agricultural crops [5,6,7]. Furthermore, the succession and crop rotation systems used in Brazil promote damage by H. armigera by providing abundant food resources [8].
The interactions between populations from different regions [9], poorly structured pest management programs, and indiscriminate insecticide use have contributed to the selection pressure that has led H. armigera populations to develop resistance to approximately 49 active ingredients of commercially available insecticides [10,11]. Effective integrated pest management (IPM) must involve a well-architectured structure that includes a variety of tools, including biological control agents, entomopathogenic fungi, and insect predators [12,13,14,15,16]. Confirmatory studies of pathogenicity and virulence of entomopathogenic fungi on H. armigera have been presented [17] using Beauveria bassiana (Bals.) Vuill [18], Metarhizium anisopliae (Metsch.) Sorok [19,20] and Metarhizium rileyi (Farlow) Samson [21].
Environmental factors such as temperature and precipitation can negatively affect the pathogenicity, virulence, and survival of entomopathogenic fungi. The combination of entomopathogenic fungi and other control agents such as predators may be a viable alternative in pest management [22]. Among entomophagous insects, the green lacewing, Chrysoperla externa (Hagen, 1861) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae), a veracious predator that is highly abundant and easy to culture in the laboratory, has gained attention in research into biological control [23,24].
The efficacy of entomopathogenic fungi depends on their high virulence, in regard to arthropod pests, as well as on their selectivity and low virulence toward non-target insects [25]. Studies in Brazil have demonstrated the compatibility of fungal and lacewing species [26,27,28,29], and Chrysopidae have also been demonstrated as effective consumers of lepidopteran eggs [30,31,32,33], including those of H. armigera [34]. However, there is still much to learn about the effect of entomopathogenic fungi on the green lacewing, especially regarding its consumption of infected prey.
Studies that have investigated the direct and indirect effects of entomopathogens on predators and parasitoids have mostly focused on the direct application of fungal suspensions and have generally reported that higher doses are correlated with greater negative effects [35].
The genera Beauveria and Metarhizium may present endophytic action on plants providing better physiological performance and reducing the population arthropod-pests through synergism between predators and parasitoids [35,36]. It has been reported by [37,38] that the interaction between entomopathogenic fungi and the predator of Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) is beneficial, thus enabling the joint application of these biocontrol organisms in aphid management.
The objective of the present study was to evaluate the interaction between C. externa and the eggs and first-instar larvae of H. armigera treated with different concentrations of B. bassiana (isolate ESALQ PL63), M. anisopliae (isolate ESALQ E9), or M. rileyi (isolate UFMS 03).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Collection and Rearing of H. armigera

During the 2018–2019 growing season, H. armigera adults and larvae of different ages were collected from soybean fields at the Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul (Campus of Chapadão do Sul, MS, Brazil) that had not been sprayed with chemicals. In the laboratory, the H. armigera larvae were transferred to plastic containers (16 insects per container; 25 ± 1 °C, 70 ± 10% RH (relative humidity), and photoperiod 12 h day and 12 h night and daily fed an artificial diet mainly composed of white beans adapted from [39]. The H. armigera pupae were separated by sex and, were assembled into male–female pairs, totaling sixteen adults per cage, using methods [40,41].

2.2. Collection and Rearing of C. externa

Adults of C. externa were identified from collections made in the same area mentioned above in and using the method [42], and were later transferred to an acclimatized room (25 ± 1 °C, 70 ± 10% RH, and photoperiod of 12 h day and 12 h night). Within the room, the collected adults were kept in PVC (Polyvinyl chloride) cages (height 23 cm, diameter 10 cm) that were lined with white bond paper (for oviposition), with the lower end supported by styrofoam lined with a paper towel and the upper end sealed with “VOILE fabric”. An artificial diet of beer yeast and honey [43] was provided using an adapted feeder, which was composed of a soft sponge containing paste-shaped diet over the top base and the bottom part inserted into a 10-mL cylindrical tube with distilled water. This adaptation allowed the sponge to be constantly humidified by constantly providing water and food. At 24 h after oviposition, eggs were removed from the oviposition substrate using either scissors or a fine plastic comb. The eggs (10 each) were then transferred to 500-mL plastic containers that had been properly sanitized using 70% alcohol and 12 h of UV irradiation. The containers (i.e., cages) contained strips of paper to create a refuge for the larvae against cannibalism. Larvae were fed with eggs of Anagasta kuehniella (Zeller) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) daily until sufficient numbers of larvae were available for bioassays [34].

2.3. Fungal Isolates

Beauveria bassiana (isolate ESALQ PL63) and M. anisopliae (isolate ESALQ E9) were extracted from the commercial mycoinsecticides BOVERIL® and METARRIL®, respectively (Koppert Biological Systems, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil), whereas Metarhizium rileyi (UFMS 03) was obtained from the entomopathogen bank of the Entomology Laboratory of the Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul (Campus of Chapadão do Sul, MS, Brazil). However, because no commercial formulas contain M. rileyi (UFMS 03), this isolate was produced using Sabouraud media and previously reported methods (25 ± 1 °C, 70 ± 10% RH, and photoperiod of 12 h day and 12 h night) [44]. To prepare fungal suspensions, the isolates were diluted using sterile distilled water that contained 0.01% (v/v) Tween80®, and the conidia were counted using a Neubauer chamber to standardize the concentrations [45].

2.4. Interaction between C. externa and Fungi-Treated H. armigera

The bioassay was performed in the laboratory under the following conditions: (25 ± 1 °C, 70 ± 10% RH, and photoperiod of 12 h day and 12 h night). Two prey stages, (eggs and caterpillars) were used in separate experiments.
For the egg bioassay, each C. externa larvae received 80 H. armigera eggs (>12 h). In the caterpillar bioassay, each C. externa larvae received 50 first-instar H. armigera larvae (1 to 3 mm long). These preys were made available to the predator in 250 mL plastic containers that were properly sanitized with 70% alcohol and 12 h of UV irradiation.
The H. armigera eggs and larvae were treated with sterile distilled water + 0.01% Tween 80 (T1, control), B. bassiana (T2), M. anisopliae (T3), or M. rileyi (T4) at different concentrations (1 × 107, 1 × 108, and 1 × 109 con. mL−1), and a control treatment was included for each exposure time (0, 24 and 48 h) and using either direct application (D.A.) or dry film (D.F.) application methods. The treatments were applied using an adapted Potter Tower, with a pressure of 1.5 MPa. For the direct application, fungal suspensions and control treatment were applied directly to eggs, larvae and plastic containers [46] after the dry surface (time zero), with release of C. externa, whereas the dry film method was applied only in the containers, with transfer of eggs and larvae of H. armigera to the plastic container containing the larvae of C. externa after drying the excess moisture [47]. The protocol proposed by the International Organization for Integrated Biological and Control of Harmful Animals and Plants, Western Palaearctic Regional Section was used to standardize selectivity tests for entomopathogens [48].
For each treatment, a single third-instar larvae of C. externa, after 24 h of fasting, was offered prey (80 eggs and 50 first-instar H. armigera larvae) at 0, 24, and 48 h after inoculation. The choice of this predator instar refers to the most voracious larval age. In the third instar, green lacewing can reach 72–85% prey consumption equivalent to the predatory capacity of the entire larval phase, depending on prey type [49].
After the start of each test, the containers were sealed with plastic film and plastic caps with small ventilation holes and stored in a biological oxygen demand (B.O.D) chamber under the following conditions: 25 ± 1 ° C, 70 ± 10% RH, and photoperiod of 12 h day and 12 h night. The performance of C. externa was evaluated over a 24-h period, and performance was assessed on the basis of mean number of eggs and larvae consumed, ability to detect infected prey, and the interactive behaviors of both the predators and prey.
In order to evaluate the conidia recovery, three inoculated insects from each replicate were washed using sterile distilled water with 0.01% Tween80®, and then the number of conidia was estimated using a Neubauer counting chamber, (Boeco®), Lab-Líder, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
We performed three replicates of the bioassay of the interaction between C. externa and inoculated H. armigera eggs and larvae.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

The present study involved a completely randomized experimental design (DIC) that included factorial arrangement (4 × 3 × 2), with four treatments (P), three suspension concentrations (C), and two application methods (A). Each trial included a third-instar C. externa larva, 80 H. armigera eggs, and 50 first-instar H. armigera larvae, and 10 replicates were performed for each combination of treatment, suspension concentration, and application method.
The consumption of inoculated H. armigera eggs and larvae after 0, 24, 48, and 72 h was normally distributed. Therefore, the data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA), and means were compared using the Tukey test, at 5% probability, using Rbio [50] and Genes [51].

3. Results

3.1. Interaction between C. externa and Fungi-Treated H. armigera Eggs

Neither product (P), application method (A), suspension concentration (C), or interactions between these factors (A × P, A × C, P × C, or A × P × C) significantly affected the consumption of H. armigera eggs by C. externa, regardless of exposure time (p > 0.05; Table 1), and the C. externa larvae consumed statistically equivalent numbers of H. armigera eggs, regardless of treatment (vs. control), product, application method, suspension concentration, or exposure time (Table 2).

3.2. Interaction between C. externa and Fungi-Treated H. armigera Larvae

Neither product (P), application method (A), suspension concentration (C), or interactions between these factors (A × P, A × C, P × C, or A × P × C) significantly affected the consumption of H. armigera larvae by C. externa, regardless of exposure time (p > 0.05; Table 3), and the C. externa larvae consumed statistically equivalent numbers of H. armigera eggs, regardless of treatment (vs. control), product, application method, or suspension concentration (Table 4).

3.3. Effect of Entomopathogenic Fungi on Predator Behavior

It was clear that the C. externa larvae were not killed by consuming entomopathogen-infected H. armigera eggs or larvae, at least not within the first several days after consumption (Figure S1A). However, the H. armigera first instar caterpillars exhibited defense mechanisms that prevented the larvae of C. externa from eating them for a period. The larvae were observed to cluster in the area that was opposite the predator and to produce webs, which, in many cases, allowed them to defend themselves against predation by C. externa. The predator, in turn, remained on the opposite side of the arena when a caterpillar defense was mounted.
The C. externa larvae returned to searching for food and capturing prey, preferring to attack the posterior part of caterpillars and to grab them with their mouthparts (Figure S1B). Some caterpillars managed to escape, but many of those were still debilitated by a loss of fluids, owing to injuries sustained from the attack. The caterpillars remained defensive and mobile in the early hours of evaluation but later exhibited reduced mobility, which allowed them to be captured (Figure S1C).
All the C. externa larvae reached the pupal stage, with 100% viability in adults.

4. Discussion

The present study makes several useful observations, especially considering the scarcity of information on the potential of C. externa as an insect predator of H. armigera and on the interactions between C. externa and entomopathogenic fungi. The findings of the present study indicate that the interactions between C. externa and entomopathogenic fungi are positive because the fungi (B. bassiana, M. anisopliae, and M. rileyi) do not interfere with the ability of C. externa to consume H. armigera larvae, assuming that the entomopathogens do not influence the nutritional quality of the prey.
Entomopathogenic fungi are a primary source of metabolites and exhibit a variety of antimicrobial, insecticidal and cytotoxic activities [52]. Through chemical communication, these metabolites can be recognized by insects as predators that can reduce feeding by identifying prey infected with hyphae, blastospores after conidiogenesis due to the toxic metabolic action of entomopathogenic fungi [53].
This research assumed that C. externa consumption was not disrupted when prey were infected by entomopathogenic fungi. However, studies with the predator Orius insidiosus (SAY, 1832) (Hemiptera, Anthocoridae) shown that this predator can identify infected aphids and starve to death before consuming the infected prey [54].
Even though there was no significant difference between the mean numbers of eggs consumed by third-instar green lacewing, small decreases were noted in the consumption of eggs by C. externa at 48–72 h after treatment. This suggests that: (1) the prolonged period of fungal contact with the eggs enabled the germination of the fungus, thereby making the prey unappetizing to the predator, (2) the eggs were more nutritious at this time, owing to the stage of embryo formation, and satiated the predator for a longer period, or (3) the eggs that were exposed to the predator for less time (0–24 and 24–48 h) released chemical propionic, benefit during the capture by the C. externa larvae. Previous studies have reported that C. carnea larvae benefit from the capture of Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) by the release of kairomones from eggs and adult scales [55,56,57].
There is a possibility of simultaneous use of entomopathogenic fungi and C. externa in the integrated management of lepidopteran pests, since the consumption rates of C. externa prey were not reduced by increasing concentrations of entomopathogen suspensions. It has been reported that high concentrations of entomopathogens when applied directly to entomophagous organisms may have a greater negative effect than lower concentrations [25].
Fungi act through direct contact and infect a broad spectrum of insect hosts [58]. Both the (D.A.) and (D.F.) methods increase the possibility of contact between insects and fungi in the field. In green lacewings, naked-type larvae have a habit of actively searching for food, moving with the mouthpieces partially open and parallel to the substrate to initiate predation more quickly upon direct contact with prey [59].
In the present study, C. externa larvae used all of the available space in the arenas, and, consequently, all the larvae came in contact with conidia, regardless of the application method. The dry film method is important because it has the potential to disperse conidia using other entomophagous organisms, as indicated by the recovery of conidia from the insects.
Ladybugs (Coccinellidae) and lacewings can naturally spread conidia, with reports that Harmonia axyridis (Pallas, l773) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) and C. carnea disseminated 93 and 89% of B. bassiana conidia, respectively, up to 2.4 m away from the site of release, with a positive interaction between infected larvae and aphid consumption.
In the present study, the consumption of infected prey and, thus, exposure to entomopathogenic fungi did not affect C. externa larval development, pupal development, or adult viability. The quality and quantity of food consumed by the predator during the first larval instars directly influence adult viability, where the highest food intake of lacewings is during the third instar consisting of approximately 72–85% of consumption during the juvenile stages, depending on prey species [49].
When larvae H. armigera feel threatened by the presence of other insects, they bend with the cephalic capsule towards the ventral region of the first pair of false legs, probably as a defense mechanism. This behavior was noticeable during the approach of the larvae C. externa; the caterpillars exhibited cephalic capsule curvature, cobweb production and crowding, with collective defense.
These behavioral characteristics may be the result of evolutionary adaptations and population mixing, which makes them more aggressive [2,5,9,60]. The insects can develop defense mechanisms against entomopathogens, predators, and parasitoids, and such mechanisms can include recognition, agglutination, and the activation of proteolytic enzymes, which cause hemolymph coagulation, melanin production, cellular reactions, and the synthesis of antimicrobial peptides and protease inhibitors [61,62].
Studies of the interactions between microbial agents and predators are valid because entomopathogenic fungi produce a wide range of pathogenic metabolites and are capable of infecting several orders of insects [63]. According to [64], entomopathogenic fungi may also affect host development, fitness, physiology, and behavior.
The compatibility observed in the present study suggests the joint action of B. bassiana, M. anisopliae, M. rileyi and C. externa in the integrated management of H. armigera. It is important to validate the action of natural enemies on lepidopteran-pest eggs, the reduction in the number of pest generations. This study corroborates the results of previous studies in Brazil [30,60] that demonstrated the effectiveness of C. externa predation on H. armigera eggs and first-instar larvae.
Investigated the interactions of entomopathogenic fungi with C. externa and consumption capacity of this predator in relation to H. armigera, verifying the general predation and compatibility between the tested fungi. We suggest that future studies evaluate the interactions between C. externa and other microbial agents and investigate the applicability of such microorganisms and entomophages used in the integrated management of lepidopteran pests in important crops.

5. Conclusions

The consumption of H. armigera eggs and first-instar larvae by C. externa was not reduced by the application of entomopathogenic fungi (B. bassiana, M. anisopliae, or M. rileyi), regardless of concentration (1 × 107, 1 × 108, or 1 × 109 con. mL−1) or application method (DA or DF). Chrysoperla externa also failed to exhibit discriminatory potential in relation to the contaminated prey at 0, 24, or 48 h after inoculation. These findings indicate that there was a positive interaction between the entomopathogenic fungi and the third-instar larvae of C. externa and that their simultaneous use may be helpful for controlling H. armigera populations. All the C. externa larvae reached the pupal stage, with 100% adult viability.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4450/10/10/309/s1, Figure S1: Capture and consumption of first-instar Helicoverpa armigera larvae by third-instar Chrysoperla externa larvae (time zero). (A) catch and suction of cellular fluid of caterpillars with 2 hours of evaluation; (B) Capture of larvae by the final portion of the abdomen with a period of 6 hours of evaluation; (C) cephalic capsules of caterpillars ingested by the green lacewing during 24 hours of evaluation. (Photos registered with 13 Mpx camera and aid of stereoscopic microscope with an increase of 20 ×).

Author Contributions

P.M.D. developed the project, designed the experiment, collected and analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript. E.d.S.L. helped, guided, and oversaw the writing of the project, designed the experiment, provided funds for the purchase of materials, and reviewed the manuscript. L.G.A.P. helped develop the project, provided necessary laboratory materials, and reviewed the manuscript. F.M.d.O.N. and R.A.d.S.T. designed and evaluated the experiment. P.E.T. helped analyze and interpret the data and revised the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by (FUNDECT) - Foundation to Support the Development of Education, Science and Technology of the State of Mato Grosso do Sul, MS, Brazil, grant number (59/300.513/2016).

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the Graduate Program in Entomology and Biodiversity Conservation, PPGECB-UFGD (Dourados, MS, Brazil); for the resources, it offered to help publish this manuscript; (FUNDECT), Foundation to Support the Development of Education, Science and Technology of the State of Mato Grosso do Sul for granting the doctoral scholarship to the first author, the Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul, UFMS campus of Chapadão do Sul, for providing space to perform the experiment at the Laboratory of Entomology; and members of the LAMIP research group and trainees of UEMS-UCC (Cassilândia, MS, Brazil) for their collaboration in the course of the bioassay.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Pomari-Fernandes, A.; Bueno, A.F.; Sosa-Gómez, D.R. Helicoverpa armigera: Current status and future prospects in Brazil. Curr. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2015, 21, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  2. Czepak, C.; Albernaz, K.C.; Vivan, L.M.; Guimarães, H.O.; Carvalhais, T. First record of occurrence of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Brazil. Pesqui. Agropecu. Trop. 2013, 43, 110–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Drake, V.A. Methods for studying adult movement in heliothis. In Heliothis: Research Methods and Prospects; Zalucki Myron, P., Ed.; Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 1991; pp. 109–121. [Google Scholar]
  4. Wang, C.N.; Li, Z.H. Studies on the biology of the cotan earworm Heliothis armigera (Hübner) and abacco earworm Heliothis assulta (Quenee). J. Shandong Agric. Univ. 1984, 1, 13–25. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ávila, J.C.; Vivian, L.M.; Amquelski, G.V. Occurrence, Biological Aspects, Damage and Management Strategies of Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Agricultural Production Systems; Embrapa Agropecuária Oeste: Dourados, Brazil, 2013; p. 12, (Emprapa Agropecuária Oeste. Circular Technique, 23). [Google Scholar]
  6. Sarwar, M.M.; Ahmad, N.; Aufiq, M. Host plant resistance relation shiphs in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) against gram pod borer Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). Pak. J. Bot. 2009, 41, 3047–3052. [Google Scholar]
  7. Pratissoli, D.; Lima, V.L.; Pirovani, V.D.; Lima, W.L. Ocorrência de Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) em tomateiro no estado do Espírito Santo. Hortic. Bras. 2015, 33, 101–105. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Suzana, C.S.; Damiani, R.; Fortuna, L.S.; Salvadori, J.R. Performance of Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) larvae on different food sources. Pesq. Agropecu. Trop. 2015, 45, 480–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Silva, I.F.; Baldin, E.L.L.; Specht, A.; Sosa-Gómez, D.R.; Roque-Specht, V.F.; Morando, R.; Paula-Moraes, S.V. The biotic potential and Life Table of Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) from three Brazilian Regions. Neotrop. Entomol. 2018, 47, 344–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Michigan State University. Arthropod Pesticide Resistance Database. Available online: http://www.pesticideresistance.org/display.php?page=species&arId=41 (accessed on 3 April 2019).
  11. Fathipour, Y.; Sedaratian, A. Integrated management systems of cultivation of soy Helicoverpa armigerain. In Resistance a Pests of Soybeans; Elshemy, H.A., Ed.; InTeOpP: Cairo, Egypt, 2013; pp. 231–280. [Google Scholar]
  12. De Bueno, A.F.; Hirose, E.; Sosa-Gómez, D.R.; Hoffmann-Campo, C.B.; Roggia, S. Folder-Helicoverpa Armigera and Other Challenges of Pest Management in Soybean Crop; Embrapa Soja: Londrina, Brazil, 2013; Available online: http://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/90797/1/folder-helicoverpa-baixa.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2019).
  13. Wang, Z.Y.; He, K.L.; Zhan, F.; Lu, X.; Babendreier, D. Mass rearing and release of Trichogramma for biological control of insect pests of maize in China. Biol. Control 2013, 68, 136–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. De Bueno, A.F.; Carvalho, G.A.; dos Santos, A.C.; Sosa-Gómez, D.R.; Silva, D.M.D. Pesticide selectivity to natural enemies: Challenges and constraints for research and field recommendation. Ciência Rural 2017, 47, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ignoffo, C.M. The fungus Nomuraea rileyi as a microbial insecticide. In Microbial Control of Pests and Plant Diseases: 1970–1980; Burgers, H.D., Ed.; Academic Press: London, UK, 1981; p. 949. [Google Scholar]
  16. Alves, S.B.; Lopes, R.B. Microbial Control of Pests in Latin America; FEALQ: Piracicaba, Brazil, 2008; p. 414. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kalvnadi, E.; Mirmoayedi, A.; Alizadeh, M.; Pourian, H.R. Sublethal concentrations of the entomopathogenic fungus, Beauveria bassiana, increase the costs of physical conditioning of pups of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2018, 158, 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Wang, C.; St Leger, R.J. The collagenous protective coat enables Metarhizium anisopliae a evade insect immune responses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006, 103, 6647–6652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Devi, P.S.S.; Prasad, Y.F.; Chowdary, D.A.; Rao, L.M.; Balakrishnan, K. Identification of virulent isolates of the entomopathogenic fungus Nomuraea rileyi (F) Samson is the management of Helicoverpa armigera and Spodoptera litura. Mycopathologia 2003, 56, 365–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Tang, G.; Hou, R. Effects of environmental factors on the virulence of the entomopathogenic fungus Nomuraea rileyi, against the ear of corn earworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Lep. Noctuidae). J. Appl. Entomol. 2001, 125, 243–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Costa, V.H.D.; Soares, A.M.; Rodriguez, F.A.D.; Zanuncio, J.C.; Silva, I.M.; Valicente, F.H. Nomuraea rileyi (Hypocreales: Clavicipitaceae) in Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) larvae in Brazil. Fla. Entomol. 2015, 980, 796–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sujii, E.; Caravalho, V.; Tigano, E. Sporulation kinetics and conidial viability of Nomuraea rileyi (Farlow) samson on cadavers of the velvetbean caterpillar, Anticarsia gemmatalis Hübner (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), in field conditions. Neotrop. Entomol. 2002, 31, 85–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Maia, W.J.M.S.; Carvalho, C.F.; Souza, B.; Cruz, I.; Maia, T.J.A.F. Rhopalosiphum maidis (Fitch, 1856) (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Ciência Agrotecnologia 2004, 28, 1259–1268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lacey, L.A.; Fruits, R.; Kaya, H.K.; Vail, P. Insect pathogens as biological control agents: Do they have a future? Biol. Control 2001, 21, 230–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Portilla, M.; Luttrell, R.; Snodgrass, G.; Zhu, Y.C.; Riddick, E. Lethality of the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana NI8 strain in Lygus lineolaris (Hemiptera: Miridae) and its possible impact on beneficial arthropods. J. Entomol. Sci. 2017, 52, 352–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Generoso, A.R. Compatibility of Beauveria bassiana and Paecilomyces fumosoroseus with Chrysoperla externa (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) and Methodology for Evaluating Selectivity. Master’s Thesis (Master in Entomology), Paulista State University, Jaboticabal-SP, Brazil, 2002; p. 63. [Google Scholar]
  27. Pessoa, L.G.A.; Cavalcanti, R.S.; Moino Junior, A.; Souza, B. Compatibility between Beauveria bassiana and predator Chrysoperla externa in the laboratory. Pesq. Agropecu. Bras. 2005, 40, 617–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cardoso, E.R.; Freitas, S.; Nunes, H.T.; Pessoa, L.G.A. Selectivity of Lecanicillium lecanii and Metarhizium anisopliae for first instar larvae of Ceraeochrysa cincta (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) in laboratory. Acta Sci. Agron. 2007, 29, 563–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Schilick, E.C.; Toscano, L.C.; Souza, G.D.; Peres, A.J.A.; Dias, P.M.; Maryama, W.I. Compatibility of Metarhizium anisopliae (Metschnikoff) Sorokin (Hypocreales: Clavicipitaceae) with Chrysoperla externa (Hagen) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). EntomoBrasilis 2015, 8, 189–195. [Google Scholar]
  30. Albuquerque, D.F.A.; Cruz, I. Biological Aspects of Chrysoperla externa (Hagen, 1861) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) having as a source of food eggs of Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Seminar on Scientific Initiation Program PIBIC/BIC JÚNIOR, 2017, Sete Lagoas (submitted paper). In Proceedings of the Sete Lagoas: Embrapa Maize and Sorghum, Sete Lagoas, Brazil, 17 August 2017; Available online: http://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/alice/handle/doc/1074573> (accessed on 10 April 2019).
  31. Bortoli, S.A.; Caetano, A.C.; Murata, A.T.; Oliveira, J.E.M. Development and predatory ability of Chrysoperla externa (Hagen) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) in different prey. Bioterra 2006, 6, 152–154. [Google Scholar]
  32. Murata, T.; Caetano, C.; Bortoli, S.A.; Brito, C.H. Capacity of consumption of Chrysoperla externa (Hagen, 1861) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) in different prey. Rev. Caatinga 2006, 19, 304–309. [Google Scholar]
  33. Pessoa, L.G.A.; Freitas, S.; Loureiro, E.S. Post-embryonic development of Ceraeochrysa cincta (Schneider, 1851) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) fed on eggs of Diatraea saccharallis (Fabricius, 1794) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae). Semin. Ciênc. Agrár. 2010, 31 (Suppl. 1), 1355–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bezerra, C.E.S.; Nogueira, C.A.F.; Shadow, M.C.D.S.; Demartelaere, A.C.C.; Araujo, E.L. Green lacewings (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae): Biological Aspects, potential use and future perspectives. Rev. Caatinga 2009, 22, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  35. González-Mas, N.; Cuenca-Medina, M.; Gutiérrez-Sánchez, F.; Quesada-Moraga, E. Botam-up effects of Beauveria bassiana endophytes in interactions between multitróficas the cotan aphid, Aphis gossypii and its natural enemies in melon. J. Pest. Sci. 2019, 92, 1271–1281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Canassa, F.; Tall, S.; Moral, R.A.; Lara, I.A.R.; Magali, I., Jr.; Meyling, N.V. Effects of bean seed treatment by the entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium robertsii and Beauveria bassiana on plant growth, spider mite populations and behavior of predatory mites. Biol. Control 2019, 132, 199–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhu, H.; Kim, J. Dissemination of Beauveria bassiana conidia oriented award the target by predators Harmonia axyridis (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) and Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) for biocontrol of Myzus persicae. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2012, 4, 393–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ríos-Moreno, A.; Quesada-Moraga, E.; Garrido-Jurado, I. Treatments with strains of Metarhizium brunneum BIPESCO5 and EAMa01/58-Su (Ascomycota: Hypocreales) are of low risk a the generalist predator Chrysoperla carnea. J. Pest. Sci. 2017, 91, 385–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Greene, G.L.; Leppla, N.C.; Dickerson, W.A. Velvet bean caterpillar: The rearing procedure artificial medium. J. Econ. Entomol. 1976, 69, 487–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pinóia, S.F. Efficacy of Bacillus thuringiensis (Berliner) and Spinosad in Combating the Helicoverpa armigera (crystalline) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Amaa. Master’s Thesis (Masters in Agronomic Engineering), Intitua Superior de Agronomia, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal, 2012; p. 89. (In Portuguese). [Google Scholar]
  41. Rodríguez, H.C.; Vendramim, J.D. Use of nutritional indices a measure el efeca insectistatico extracts of meliaceae on Spodoptera frugiperda. Man. Int. Plagas 1998, 48, 11–18. [Google Scholar]
  42. Freitas, S. Chrysoperla Steinmann, 1964 (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae): Description of a new species from Brazil. Rev. Bras. Entomol. 2003, 47, 385–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ribeiro, M.J. Biology of Chrysoperla externa (Hagen, 1861) (Neuroptera, Chrysopidae) Fed with Different Diets. Master’s Thesis (Mestrado em Agronomia), Escola Superior de Agricultura de Lavras, Lavras-MG, Brazil, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  44. Dias, P.M.; Almeida Filho, L.M.; Pessoa, L.G.A.; Loureiro, E.S.; Ramalho, K.F. Production of Metarhizium Rileyi in Different Mixtures of Rice and Sorghum in XII Agronomic Week Cassilândia & V week of Research of the Post-graduation. In Proceedings of the V Week of Postgraduate Research, Cassilândia, Brazil, 21 March 2017; p. 99. [Google Scholar]
  45. Rossoni, C.; Kassab, S.O.; Loureiro, E.S.; Pereira, F.; Costa, D.P.; Barbosa, R.H.; Zanuncio, J.C. Metarhizium anisopliae and Beauveria bassiana (Hypocreales: Clavicipitaceae) are compatible with Cotesia flavipes (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Fla. Entomol. 2014, 97, 1794–1804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Thungrabeab, M.; Angma, S. Effect of entomopathogenic fungus, Beauveria bassiana (BALSAM) and Metarhizium anisopliae (Metsch) on non-target insects. KMITL Sci. Technol. J. 2007, 7, 1. [Google Scholar]
  47. Hassan, S.A. Standard methods a test the Sideeffects of pesticides on natural enemies of insects and mites developed by the IOBC/WPRS Wprk Group ‘Pesticides and Benefitial Organisms”. EPPO Bull. 1985, 15, 214–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hassan, S.A. Standardized techniques for testing side-effects of pesticides on beneficial arthropods in the laboratory. ZeitscbriflfUr Pflanz. FIanzenscbutz 1977, 84, 158–163. [Google Scholar]
  49. Albuquerque, S.A. Green lacewings (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). In The Bioecology and Nutrition of Insects: Basis for the Integrated Management of Pests, 1st ed.; Panizzi, A.R., Parra, J.R.P., Eds.; Embrapa Technological Information: Brasilia, Brazil, 2009; Volume 23, pp. 969–1022. [Google Scholar]
  50. Bhering, L.L. Rbio: A Tool for Biometric and Statistical Analysis Using the R Platform. Crop Breed. Appl. Biotechnol. 2017, 17, 187–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Cruz, C.D. Genes Software-extended and integrated with the R, Matlab and Selegen. Acta Sci. 2016, 38, 547–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gibson, D.M.; Donzelli, B.M.G.; Krasnoff, S.B.; Keyhani, N.J. Discovering the secondary metabolite potential encoded within entomopathogenic fungi. Nat. Prod. Rep. 2014, 31, 1287–1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Cohen, A.C. How carnivorous bugs feed. In Heteroptera of Economic Importance; Schaefer, C.W., Panizzi, A.R., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2000; p. 828. [Google Scholar]
  54. Loureiro, E.S.; Moino Júnior, A. Consumption of Aphis gossypii Glover, 1877 and Myzus persicae (Sulzer, 1776) infected with entomopathogenic fungi by Orius insidiosus (Say, 1832) (Hemiptera, Anthocoridae). Arq. Inst. Biol. 2008, 75, 497–504. [Google Scholar]
  55. Kawecki, Z. Beobachtungen über das verhalten und die sinnesorientierung der florfliegenlarven. Bull. Int. Acad. Pol. Sci. Lett. Crac. 1932, 2, 91–106. [Google Scholar]
  56. Lewis, J.; Norlund, D.A.; Gross Junior, H.R.; Jones, R.L.; Jones, S.L. Kairomones and their use for management of entomophagous insects V: Moth scales as a stimulus for predation of Heliothis zea (Boddie) eggs by Chrysopa carnea Stephens larvae. J. Chem. Ecol. 1977, 3, 483–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Norlund, D.A.; Lewis, W.J.; Jones, R.L.; Gross Junior, H.R.; Hagen, K.S. Kairomones and their use for management of entomophagous insects VI: An examination of the Kairomones is the predator Chrysopa carnea STEPH. at the Avaliados sites of Heliothis zea (Boddie). J. Chem. Ecol. 1977, 3, 507–511. [Google Scholar]
  58. Alves, S.B.; Milk, L.H.; Batista Filho, A.; Almeida, J.E.M.; Marques, E.J. Massal production of entomopathogenic fungi in Latin America. In Microbial Control of Pests in Latin America, 2nd ed.; Alves, S.B., Lopes, R.B., Eds.; FEALQ: Piracicaba, Brazil, 2008; pp. 215–237. [Google Scholar]
  59. Canard, M.; Duelli, P. Predatory behavior of larvae and cannibalism. In Biology of the Chrysopidae; Canard, M., Séméria, Y., New, T.R., Eds.; Dr. W. Junk Publishers: The Hague, The Netherlands, 1984; Volume 27, pp. 92–100. [Google Scholar]
  60. Oliveira Neto, F.M.; Dias, P.M.; Loureiro, E.S.L.; Pessoa, L.G.A.; Silva, J.X.; Devoz, G.L.R.; Bellanda, M.E.R.S. Behavior of Chrysoperla externa (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) on Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the SBPC, UFMS, Campo Grande/MS, Brazil, 21–27 July 2019. [Google Scholar]
  61. Wheeler, M.B.; Stuart, G.; Hapner, M.C.D. Agglutinin mediated opsonization of fungal blasaspores in melanoplus differentialis (Insecta). J. Insect Physiol. 1993, 39, 477–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wilson, R.; Chen, C.; Albany Adult, N.A. Innate immunity in insects-the role of multiple endogenous serum lectin in the recogtion of foreign invaders in the cockroach Blaberus Discoidalis. J. Immunol. 1999, 162, 1590–1596. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  63. Roberts, D.W. Axins of entomopathogenic fungi. In Microbial Control of Pests and Plant Disease 1970–1980, 1st ed.; Burges, H.D., Ed.; Academic Press: London, UK, 1981; pp. 441–463. [Google Scholar]
  64. Gurung, K.; Wertheim, B.; Salles, J.F. The microbiome of pest insects: It is not just bacteria. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2019, 167, 156–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. ANOVA table for the interactions between the factors studied and the consumption of eggs of H. armigera in different times (0, 24, 48, and 72 h) of exposure to C. externa (T: 25 ± 1 °C, RH of 70 ± 10% and photoperiod of 12 h day and 12 h night).
Table 1. ANOVA table for the interactions between the factors studied and the consumption of eggs of H. armigera in different times (0, 24, 48, and 72 h) of exposure to C. externa (T: 25 ± 1 °C, RH of 70 ± 10% and photoperiod of 12 h day and 12 h night).
SVDF0–24 h24–48 h48–72 h
Application (A)11.62 ns3.12 ns231.12 ns
Product (P)31.84 ns14.54 ns68.00 ns
Concentration (C)32.27 ns1.41 ns7.49 ns
A × P310.86 ns1.51 ns31.55 ns
A × C34.67 ns0.34 ns6.78 ns
P × C97.65 ns1.18 ns7.59 ns
A × P × C90.69 ns1.60 ns6.85 ns
Residue18062.36 ns78.11 ns78.29 ns
ns: not-significance at 5% probability by F-test. SV: source of variation; DF: degrees of freedom; Numbers are F-values.
Table
Table 2. Mean consumption (mean ± standard error) of eggs of H. armigera infected with B. bassiana and M. anisopliae and M. rileyi in times (0, 24, 48 and 72 h) of exposure to C. externa (T: 25 ± 1 °C, RH of 70 ± 10%, and photoperiod of 12 h day and 12 h night).
Table 2. Mean consumption (mean ± standard error) of eggs of H. armigera infected with B. bassiana and M. anisopliae and M. rileyi in times (0, 24, 48 and 72 h) of exposure to C. externa (T: 25 ± 1 °C, RH of 70 ± 10%, and photoperiod of 12 h day and 12 h night).
Application (A)0–24 h24–48 h48–72 h
Direct (D.A.)72.28 ± 0.86 a71.01 ± 0.82 a68.51 ± 0.84 a
Dry film (D.F.)72.10 ± 0.63 a70.76 ± 0.85 a66.36 ± 0.88 a
Product (P)
Control73.50 ± 1.19 a72.25 ± 1.69 a69.30 ± 3.16 a
B. bassiana72.20 ± 3.19 a70.61 ± 4.00 a66.41 ± 4.04 a
M. anisopliae71.56 ± 3.71 a70.88 ± 2.54 a68.38 ± 2.87 a
M. rileyi72.36 ± 2.55 a70.70 ± 3.91 a66.88 ± 3.35 a
Concentration (C)
107 con. mL−172.10 ± 1.17 a70.95 ± 1.14 a67.13 ± 1.15 a
108 con. mL−171.78 ± 0.90 a70.61 ± 0.95 a66.85 ± 1.06 a
109 con. mL−172.25 ± 0.93 a70.63 ± 1.25 a67.70 ± 1.07 a
For each factor (application, product or concentration), means followed by letters equal in the same column do not differ statistically by Tukey test at 5% probability.
Table
Table 3. ANOVA table for the interactions between the factors studied and the consumption of larvae of H. armigera in different times (0, 24, 48 and 72 h) of exposure a C. externa (T: 25 ± 1 °C, RH of 70 ± 10% and photoperiod of 12 h day and 12 h night).
Table 3. ANOVA table for the interactions between the factors studied and the consumption of larvae of H. armigera in different times (0, 24, 48 and 72 h) of exposure a C. externa (T: 25 ± 1 °C, RH of 70 ± 10% and photoperiod of 12 h day and 12 h night).
SVGL0–24 h24–48 h48–72 h
Application (A)132.00 ns3.12 ns0.04 ns
Product (P)334.30 ns8.80 ns2.34 ns
Concentration (C)320.27 ns0.77 ns0.41 ns
A × P31.46 ns0.45 ns0.30 ns
A × C320.07 ns1.34 ns2.23 ns
P × C93.02 ns4.34 ns0.69 ns
A × P × C910.62 ns0.56 ns0.85 ns
Residue18026.41 ns0.41 ns18.56 ns
ns: not-significance at 5% probability by F-test. SV: source of variation; DF: degrees of freedom; Numbers are F-values.
Table
Table 4. Consumption (mean ± standard error) of larvae of H. armigera infected with B. bassiana, M. anisopliae and M. rileyi in times (0, 24, 48 and 72 h) of exposure a C. externa (T: 25 ± 1 °C, RH of 70 ± 10% and photoperiod of 12 h day and 12 h night).
Table 4. Consumption (mean ± standard error) of larvae of H. armigera infected with B. bassiana, M. anisopliae and M. rileyi in times (0, 24, 48 and 72 h) of exposure a C. externa (T: 25 ± 1 °C, RH of 70 ± 10% and photoperiod of 12 h day and 12 h night).
Application (A)0–24 h24–48 h48–72 h
Direct (D.A.)45.54 ± 0.68 a46.54 ± 0.33 a45.38 ± 0.40 a
Dry film (D.O.)45.58 ± 0.52 a46.74 ± 0.31 a45.29 ± 0.44 a
Product (P)
Control47.75 ± 0.40 a47.70 ± 0.60 a45.95 ± 1.15 a
B. bassiana45.53 ± 2.78 a46.63 ± 1.32 a45.13 ± 1.69 a
M. anisopliae44.58 ± 3.25 a46.26 ± 1.52 a45.35 ± 1.71 a
M. rileyi45.83 ± 1.39 a46.66 ± 1.30 a45.31 ± 1.90 a
(C) concentration
107 con. mL−1 45.88 ± 0.74 a46.55 ± 0.44 a45.25 ± 0.50 a
108 con. mL−1 45.11 ± 0.91 a46.48 ± 0.43 a45.28 ± 0.59 a
109 con. mL−144.95 ± 0.81 a46.53 ± 0.44 a45.26 ± 0.57 a
For each factor (application, product or concentration), means followed by letters equal in the same column do not differ statistically by Tukey test at 5% probability.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mingotti Dias, P.; de Souza Loureiro, E.; Amorim Pessoa, L.G.; Mendes de Oliveira Neto, F.; de Souza Tosta, R.A.; Teodoro, P.E. Interactions between Fungal-Infected Helicoverpa armigera and the Predator Chrysoperla externa. Insects 2019, 10, 309. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects10100309

AMA Style

Mingotti Dias P, de Souza Loureiro E, Amorim Pessoa LG, Mendes de Oliveira Neto F, de Souza Tosta RA, Teodoro PE. Interactions between Fungal-Infected Helicoverpa armigera and the Predator Chrysoperla externa. Insects. 2019; 10(10):309. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects10100309

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mingotti Dias, Pamella, Elisângela de Souza Loureiro, Luis Gustavo Amorim Pessoa, Francisco Mendes de Oliveira Neto, Ricardo Alexandre de Souza Tosta, and Paulo Eduardo Teodoro. 2019. "Interactions between Fungal-Infected Helicoverpa armigera and the Predator Chrysoperla externa" Insects 10, no. 10: 309. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects10100309

APA Style

Mingotti Dias, P., de Souza Loureiro, E., Amorim Pessoa, L. G., Mendes de Oliveira Neto, F., de Souza Tosta, R. A., & Teodoro, P. E. (2019). Interactions between Fungal-Infected Helicoverpa armigera and the Predator Chrysoperla externa. Insects, 10(10), 309. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects10100309

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop