title: The entomopathogenic fungal endophytes Purpureocillium lilacinum (formerly Paecilomyces lilacinus) and Beauveria bassiana negatively affect cotton aphid reproduction under both greenhouse and field conditions.
abstract: The effects of two entomopathogenic fungal endophytes, Beauveria bassiana and Purpureocillium lilacinum (formerly Paecilomyces lilacinus), were assessed on the reproduction of cotton aphid, Aphis gossypii Glover (Homoptera:Aphididae), through in planta feeding trials. In replicate greenhouse and field trials, cotton plants (Gossypium hirsutum) were inoculated as seed treatments with two concentrations of B. bassiana or P. lilacinum conidia. Positive colonization of cotton by the endophytes was confirmed through potato dextrose agar (PDA) media plating and PCR analysis. Inoculation and colonization of cotton by either B. bassiana or P. lilacinum negatively affected aphid reproduction over periods of seven and 14 days in a series of greenhouse trials. Field trials were conducted in the summers of 2012 and 2013 in which cotton plants inoculated as seed treatments with B. bassiana and P. lilacinum were exposed to cotton aphids for 14 days. There was a significant overall effect of endophyte treatment on the number of cotton aphids per plant. Plants inoculated with B. bassiana had significantly lower numbers of aphids across both years. The number of aphids on plants inoculated with P. lilacinum exhibited a similar, but non-significant, reduction in numbers relative to control plants. We also tested the pathogenicity of both P. lilacinum and B. bassiana strains used in the experiments against cotton aphids in a survival experiment where 60% and 57% of treated aphids, respectively, died from infection over seven days versus 10% mortality among control insects. Our results demonstrate (i) the successful establishment of P. lilacinum and B. bassiana as endophytes in cotton via seed inoculation, (ii) subsequent negative effects of the presence of both target endophytes on cotton aphid reproduction using whole plant assays, and (iii) that the P. lilacinum strain used is both endophytic and pathogenic to cotton aphids. Our results illustrate the potential of using these endophytes for the biological control of aphids and other herbivores under greenhouse and field conditions.
authors.affiliation: Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, United States of America.
authors.forename: Diana
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Castillo Lopez
authors.affiliation: Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, United States of America.
authors.forename: Keyan
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Zhu-Salzman
authors.affiliation: Department of Immunology and Microbiology, Autonomous University of Nuevo Leon, San Nicolás de los Garza, Nuevo Leon, Mexico.
authors.forename: Maria Julissa
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Ek-Ramos
authors.affiliation: Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, United States of America.
authors.forename: Gregory A
authors.initials: GA
authors.lastname: Sword
mesh_terms: D000383:Agriculture; D000818:Animals; D001042:Aphids / Q000382:microbiology / Q000502:physiology*; D052982:Beauveria / Q000254:growth & development / Q000472:pathogenicity* / Q000502:physiology; D060026:Endophytes / Q000254:growth & development / Q000472:pathogenicity / Q000502:physiology; D004780:Environment, Controlled; D003368:Gossypium / Q000382:microbiology* / Q000469:parasitology*; D007300:Insect Control / Q000379:methods*; D007305:Insecticide Resistance; D010143:Paecilomyces / Q000254:growth & development / Q000472:pathogenicity* / Q000502:physiology; D012098:Reproduction
references.citation: Plant Physiol. 1997 May;114(1):1-7
references.pmid: 12223685
references.citation: Mycol Res. 2005 Jun;109(Pt 6):661-86
references.pmid: 16080390
references.citation: PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e36366
references.pmid: 22685538
references.citation: PLoS One. 2010 Jun 30;5(6):e11395
references.pmid: 20614034
references.citation: FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2005 Jan 1;51(2):257-64
references.pmid: 16329874
references.citation: Annu Rev Entomol. 2009;54:323-42
references.pmid: 19067635
references.citation: Microb Ecol. 2010 Nov;60(4):928-34
references.pmid: 20871988
references.citation: Pest Manag Sci. 2009 Nov;65(11):1174-81
references.pmid: 19757500
references.citation: Nature. 2001 Jan 4;409(6816):78-81
references.pmid: 11343116
references.citation: Trends Plant Sci. 2006 Sep;11(9):428-33
references.pmid: 16890473
references.citation: Oecologia. 2012 Apr;168(4):1023-31
references.pmid: 21989607
references.citation: FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2011 Aug;321(2):141-9
references.pmid: 21631575
references.citation: Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2004;55:315-40
references.pmid: 15377223
references.citation: Mycologia. 2005 Nov-Dec;97(6):1195-200
references.pmid: 16722213
references.citation: PLoS One. 2013 Jun 11;8(6):e66049
references.pmid: 23776604
references.citation: Plant Physiol. 2008 Mar;146(3):1440-53
references.pmid: 18218971
references.citation: Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2011;49:291-315
references.pmid: 19400639
references.citation: New Phytol. 2009;182(2):314-330
references.pmid: 19236579
references.citation: Mycopathologia. 2006 Nov;162(5):369-72
references.pmid: 17123036
references.citation: Oecologia. 1998 May;114(4):541-547
references.pmid: 28307903
references.citation: J Invertebr Pathol. 2008 Jul;98(3):267-70
references.pmid: 18442830
references.citation: Pest Manag Sci. 2007 Apr;63(4):381-7
references.pmid: 17315271
references.citation: Mycol Res. 2007 Jun;111(Pt 6):748-57
references.pmid: 17604149
references.citation: Phytopathology. 2011 Jan;101(1):105-12
references.pmid: 20822430