First Report of Field Efficacy and Economic Viability of Metarhizium anisopliae-ICIPE 20 for Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) Management on Tomato
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Site, Field Preparation and Raising Seedlings
2.2. Transplanting and Subsequent Field Management
2.3. Experimental Design and the Treatments
- i.
- Metarhizium anisopliae isolate ICIPE 20: This was obtained from the International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (icipe), Nairobi, Kenya, as dry conidia produced on grain rice. The freshly produced dry conidia had a >95% viability. The haemocytometer quantification method described by Inglis et al. [37] was used to determine the concentration of conidia per gram of the isolate. A conidial suspension was prepared by adding 0.01 g of M. anisopliae ICIPE 20 dry conidia to 100 mls of sterile distilled water mixed with Triton X-100 (0.05%) in a conical flask, and vortexed for 5 min at ~700 rpm. From the suspension, 1 mL was pipetted into the improved Neubauer haemocytometer and, thereafter, conidia were counted under a light microscope. The average number of propagules per ‘cell’ was multiplied by the volume conversion factor (2.5 × 105) to obtain the number of propagules per ml of suspension. The quantity of dry conidia of M. anisopliae ICIPE 20 required to provide a concentration of 1.0 × 109 conidia/mL (equivalent to field application rate of the commercial product M. anisopliae ICIPE 69) for field application was computed. Subsequently, the procedure described by Ummidi and Vadlamani [38] was followed in the preparation of an oil-in-water formulation of M. anisopliae ICIPE 20. For the aqueous formulation, fungal spores were suspended in water containing 0.05% Integra (sticker, Greenlife Crop Protection Africa Ltd, Nairobi, Kenya) with 0.1% nutrient agar, 0.1% glycerine and 0.5% molasses added as protectants and attractants, respectively, whereas in oil formulation, spores were suspended in canola oil with similar proportions of the sticker, nutrient agar, glycerine and molasses, as described above in aqueous formulation. An aqueous M. anisopliae ICIPE 20 propagule suspension was prepared and added to a mixture of Triton X-100 (at 1% v/v) and canola oil (at 1% v/v). The mixture was then vortexed to obtain a homogenized stable formulation. During application, the oil-in-water formulation of M. anisopliae ICIPE 20 was mixed with water at a rate of 10 mL in 20 L of water and the mixture was applied at a rate of 400 mL/Ha.
- ii.
- Metarhizium anisopliae isolate ICIPE 69: This is commercially registered as Campaign® and was obtained from Real IPM (U) Ltd., Kampala, Uganda. It is an oil dispersion containing M. anisopliae ICIPE 69 at a concentration of 1.0 × 109 cfu/mL, with a pre-harvest interval (PHI) of 0 day. The product is registered in South Africa for control of mealybugs, thrips and leafminers, whereas in Uganda, it was registered for thrips, fruit flies, and mealybugs [16]. The microbial biopesticide kills the host insect in 7 to 21 days (https://realipm.com (accessed on 4 July 2019)). During application, the oil-in-water formulation of M. anisopliae ICIPE 69 was mixed with water at a rate of 10 mL in 20 L of water and the mixture was applied at the rate of 400 mL/Ha.
- iii.
- Dudu Acelamectin (Abamectin 20 g/L + Acetamiprid 3%): This was obtained from Africa One Farmer’s Shop, an agro-input shop in Container Village, Kampala, Uganda. Dudu Acelamectin 5% EC is recommended for effective control of leafminers, thrips, mites, beetles, fruit flies and plant bugs. It has the active ingredients Abamectin 20 g/L + Acetamiprid 3%, with PHI of 7 days (http://bukoolachemicals.com (accessed on 16 June 2019)). The recommended mixing of the pesticide is 20–30 mL of Dudu Acelamectin in 20 L of water, a rate equivalent to 400–500 mL/Ha, to be sprayed at an interval of 7–14 days. During application, this pesticide was mixed with water at a rate of 20 mL in 20 L of water and the mixture was applied at a rate of 400 mL/Ha.
- iv.
- Untreated plot: the negative control plots were sprayed with distilled sterile water at a rate of 400 L/Ha.
2.4. Assessing Tuta absoluta Infestation
2.5. Assessing Leaf and Leaflet Damage by Tuta absoluta
2.6. Assessing Fruit Damage by Tuta absoluta
2.7. Assessing Fruit Yield Loss Due to Tuta absoluta
2.8. Assessing the Economic Viability of Treatments
2.8.1. Marketable Fruit Yield in Treated Plots Compared to Untreated Plot
2.8.2. Cost–Benefit Analysis
2.9. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Tuta absoluta Infestation in the Experimental Field
3.2. Leaf Damage by Tuta absoluta
3.3. Leaflet Damage by Tuta absoluta
3.4. Fruit Damage by Tuta absoluta
3.5. Fruit Yield Loss Due to Tuta absoluta
3.6. Marketable Yield Gain Due to Treatments for Managing Tuta absoluta on Tomato in the Field
3.7. Cost–Benefit Ratio of the Treatments for Managing Tuta absoluta on Tomato in the Field
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Rodrigues, P.H.M.; Kupski, L.; Souza, T.D.D.; Arias, O.L.J.; D’Oca, M.M.; Furlong, E.B. Relations between nutrients and bioactive compounds of commercial tomato varieties by the Principal Component Analysis. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 42, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luna-Guevara, M.L.; Jiménez-gonzález, Ó.; Luna-guevara, J.J.; Hernández-carranza, P.; Ochoa-Velasco, C.E. Quality parameters and bioactive compounds of red tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum L.) cv Roma VF at different postharvest conditions. J. Food Res. 2014, 3, 8–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rwomushana, I.; Chipabika, G.; Tambo, J.; Pratt, C.; Moreno, P.G.; Beale, T.; Lamontagne-Godwin, J.; Makale, F.; Day, R. Evidence Note. Tomato leafminer (Tuta absoluta): Impacts and coping strategies for Africa. CABI Work. Pap. 2019, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sridhar, V.; Nitin, K.S.S.O.N.; Nagaraja, T. Comparative biology of South American tomato moth, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) on three solanaceous host plants. Pest Manag. Hortic. Ecosyst. 2015, 21, 159–161. [Google Scholar]
- Younes, A.A.; Nawal, Z.M.; Hazem, A.F.; Reham, F. Preference and performance of the tomato leafminer, Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera-Gelechiidae) towards three Solanaceous host plant species. CPQ Microbiol. 2018, 1, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
- Biondi, A.; Guedes, R.N.C.; Wan, F.; Desneux, N. Ecology, worldwide spread, and management of the invasive South American tomato pinworm, Tuta absoluta: Past, present, and future. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2018, 63, 239–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Desneux, N.; Wajnberg, E.; Wyckhuys, K.A.G.; Burgio, G.; Arpaia, S.; Narváez-Vasquez, A.C.; González-Cabrera, J.; Ruescas, D.C.; Tabone, E.; Frandon, J.; et al. Biological invasion of European tomato crops by Tuta absoluta: Ecology, geographic expansion and prospects for biological control. J. Pest Sci. 2010, 83, 197–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mansour, R.; Brévault, T.; Chailleux, A.; Cherif, A.; Grissa-Lebdi, K.; Haddi, K.; Mohamed, S.A.; Nofemela, R.S.; Oke, A.; Sylla, S.; et al. Occurrence, biology, natural enemies and management of Tuta absoluta in Africa. Entomol. Gen. 2018, 38, 83–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Retta, A.; Berhe, D. Tomato leafminer–Tuta absoluta (Meyrick), a devastating pest of tomatoes in the highlands of Northern Ethiopia: A call for attention and action. Res. J. Agric. Environ. Manag. 2015, 4, 264–269. [Google Scholar]
- Aigbedion-atalor, P.O.; Hill, M.P.; Zalucki, M.P.; Obala, F.; Idriss, G.E.; Midingoyi, S.K.; Chidege, M.; Ekesi, S.; Mohamed, S.A. The South America tomato leafminer, Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae), spreads its wings in Eastern Africa: Distribution and socioeconomic impacts. J. Econ. Entomol. 2019, 112, 2797–2807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guedes, R.N.C.; Roditakis, E.; Campos, M.R.; Haddi, K.; Bielza, P.; Siqueira, H.A.A.; Tsagkarakou, A.; Vontas, J.; Nauen, R. Insecticide resistance in the tomato pinworm Tuta absoluta: Patterns, spread, mechanisms, management and outlook. J. Pest Sci. 2019, 92, 1329–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aktar, W.; Sengupta, D.; Chowdhury, A. Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: Their benefits and hazards. Interdiscip Toxicol. 2009, 2, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kim, K.H.; Kabir, E.; Jahan, S.A. Exposure to pesticides and the associated human health effects. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 575, 525–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Aynalem, B. Tomato leafminer [(Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae)] and its current ecofriendly management strategies: A review. J. Agric. Biotechnol. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 10, 11–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Koul, O. Microbial biopesticides: Opportunities and challenges. Perspect. Agric. Vet. Sci. Nutr. Nat. Resour. 2011, 6, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Akutse, K.S.; Subramanian, S.; Maniania, N.; Dubois, T.; Ekesi, S. Biopesticide research and product development in Africa for sustainable agriculture and food security–Experiences from the International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (icipe). Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 4, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tarusikirwa, V.L.; Machekano, H.; Mutamiswa, R.; Chidawanyika, F.; Nyamukondiwa, C. Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) on the “offensive” in Africa: Prospects for integrated management initiatives. Insects 2020, 11, 764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erasmus, R.; van den Berg, J.; du Plessis, H. Susceptibility of Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) Pupae to Soil Applied Entomopathogenic Fungal Biopesticides. Insects 2021, 12, 515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murtaza, G.; Naeem, M.; Manzoor, S.; Khan, H.A.; Eed, E.M.; Majeed, W.; Makki, H.A.; Ramzan, U.; Ummara, U.E. Biological control potential of entomopathogenic fungal strains against peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae). PeerJ 2022, 10, e13316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gonzalez-Cabrera, J.; Molla, O.; Monton, H.; Urbaneja, A. Efficacy of Bacillus thuringiensis (Berliner) in controlling the tomato borer, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). BioControl 2011, 56, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alsaedi, G.; Ashouri, A.; Talaei-hassanloui, R. Evaluation of Bacillus thuringiensis to control Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) under laboratory conditions. Agric. Sci. 2017, 8, 591–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Batalla-carrera, L.; Morton, A.; Garcia-del-Pino, F. Efficacy of entomopathogenic nematodes against the tomato leafminer Tuta absoluta in laboratory and greenhouse conditions. BioControl 2010, 55, 523–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamali, S.; Karimi, J.; Koppenhöfer, A.M. New insight into the management of the tomato leafminer, Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) with entomopathogenic nematodes. Biol. Microb. Control 2018, 111, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ndereyimana, A.; Nyalala, S.; Murerwa, P.; Gaidashova, S. Potential of entomopathogenic nematode isolates from Rwanda to control the tomato leafminer, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Egypt J. Biol. Pest Control 2019, 29, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Contreras, J.; Mendoza, J.E.; Martínez-Aguirre, M.R.; García-Vidal, L.; Izquierdo, J.; Bielza, P. Efficacy of entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium anisopliae against Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2014, 107, 121–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tadele, S.; Emana, G. Entomopathogenic Effect of Beauveria bassiana (Bals.) and Metarrhizium anisopliae (Metschn.) on Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) larvae under laboratory and glasshouse conditions in Ethiopia. J. Plant Pathol. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 8–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alikhani, M.; Safavi, S.A.; Iranipour, S. Effect of the entomopathogenic fungus, Metarhizium anisopliae (Metschnikoff) Sorokin, on demographic fitness of the tomato leaf miner, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Egypt J. Biol. Pest Control 2019, 29, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ndereyimana, A.; Nyalala, S.; Murerwa, P.; Gaidashova, S. Pathogenicity of some commercial formulations of entomopathogenic fungi on the tomato leafminer, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Egypt J. Biol. Pest Control 2019, 29, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zekeya, N.; Mtambo, M.; Ramasamy, S.; Chacha, M.; Ndakidemi, P.A.; Mbega, E.R. First record of an entomopathogenic fungus of tomato leafminer, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) in Tanzania. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2019, 29, 626–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akutse, K.S.; Subramanian, S.; Khamis, F.M.; Ekesi, S.; Mohamed, S.A. Entomopathogenic fungus isolates for adult Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) management and their compatibility with Tuta pheromone. J. Appl. Entomol. 2020, 144, 777–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hajek, A.E.; Goettel, M.S. Guidelines for evaluating effects of entomopathogens on non-target organisms. In Field Manual of Techniques in Invertebrate Pathology, 2nd ed.; Lacey, L.A., Kaya, H.K., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 815–833. [Google Scholar]
- Wraight, S.P.; Inglis, G.D.; Goettel, M.S. Fungi. In Field Manual of Techniques in Invertebrate Pathology, 2nd ed.; Lacey, L.A., Kaya, H.K., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 223–248. [Google Scholar]
- Jaronski, S.T. Ecological factors in the inundative use of fungal entomopathogens. BioControl 2010, 55, 159–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sridhar, V.; Chakravarthy, A.K.; Asokan, R.; Vinesh, L.S.; Rebijith, K.B. New record of the invasive South American tomato leafminer, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) in India. Pest Manag. Hortic. Ecosyst. 2014, 20, 148–154. [Google Scholar]
- Tumuhaise, V.; Khamis, F.M.; Agona, A.; Sseruwu, G.; Mohamed, S.A. First record of Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) in Uganda. Int. J. Trop Insect Sci. 2016, 36, 135–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simmons, A.; Wakil, W.; Qayyum, M.; Ramasamy, S.; Kuhar, T.; Philips, C.R. Lepidopterous pests: Biology, ecology, and management. In Sustainable Management of Arthropod Pests of Tomato; Wakil, W., Brust, G.E., Perring, T.M., Eds.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2018; pp. 131–152. [Google Scholar]
- Inglis, G.D.; Enkerli, J.; Goettel, M.S. Laboratory techniques used for entomopathogenic fungi: Hypocreales. In Manual of Techniques in Invertebrate Pathology, 2nd ed.; Lacey, L.A., Ed.; Elsevier Ltd: London, UK, 2012; pp. 189–253. [Google Scholar]
- Ummidi, V.R.S.; Vadlamani, P. Preparation and use of oil formulations of Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae against Spodoptera litura larvae. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2014, 8, 1638–1644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rasheed, V.A.; Rao, S.K.; Babu, T.R.; Krishna, T.M.; Reddy, B.B.; Naidu, G.M. Infestation of South American tomato leafminer, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) in Chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh, India. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 2018, 6, 2407–2414. [Google Scholar]
- Ghaderi, S.; Fathipour, Y.; Asgari, S.; Reddy, G.V.P. Economic injury level and crop loss assessment for Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) on different tomato cultivars. J. Appl. Entomol. 2019, 143, 493–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shabozoi, N.U.K.; Abro, G.H.; Syed, T.S.; Awan, M.S. Economic appraisal of pest management options in okra. Pakistan J. Zool. 2011, 43, 869–878. [Google Scholar]
- Banerjee, A.; Pal, S. Estimation of crop losses due to major insect pests of field pea in Gangetic plains of West Bengal. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 2020, 8, 1063–1067. Available online: http://www.entomoljournal.com (accessed on 9 July 2021).
- Dijkxhoorn, Y.; Galen, M.V.; Barungi, J.; Okiira, J.; Gema, J.; Janssen, V. The Uganda Vegetables and Fruit Sector: Competitiveness, Investment and Trade Options; Wageningen Economic Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2019; p. 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shiberu, T.; Getu, E. Experimental Analysis of Economic action level of tomato leafminer, Tuta absoluta Meyrick (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) on tomato plant under open field. Adv. Crop Sci. Technol. 2018, 6, 327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gayi, D.; Ocen, D.; Lubadde, G.; Serunjogi, L. Efficacy of bio and synthetic pesticides against the American bollworm and their natural enemies on cotton. Uganda J. Agric. Sci. 2016, 17, 67–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- El-Aassar, M.R.; Soliman, M.H.A.; Abd-Elaal, A.A. Efficiency of sex pheromone traps and some bio and chemical insecticides against tomato borer larvae, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) and estimate the damages of leaves and fruit tomato plant. Ann. Agric. Sci. 2015, 60, 153–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shiberu, T.; Getu, E. Evaluation of bio-pesticides on integrated management of tomato leafminer, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Gelechiidae: Lepidoptera) on tomato crops in Western Shewa of Central Ethiopia. Entomol. Ornithol. Herpetol. 2018, 7, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO). International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides: Guidelines on Efficacy Evaluation for the Registration of Plant Protection Products; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2006; p. 61. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/bt474e/BT474E.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2021).
- Ndereyimana, A.; Nyalala, S.; Murerwa, P.; Gaidashova, S. Growth, yield and fruit quality of tomato under different integrated management options against Tuta absoluta Meyrick. Adv. Hort. Sci. 2020, 34, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sathish, B.N.; Singh, V.V.; Kumar, S.; Kumar, S. Incremental cost-benefit ratio of certain chemical and bio- pesticides against tomato fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera Hubner (Noctuidae: Lepidoptera) in tomato crop. Bull. Environ. Pharmacol. Life Sci. 2018, 7, 102–106. [Google Scholar]
- Ojha, P.K.; Kumari, R.; Chaudhary, R.S.; Pandey, N.K. Incremental cost-benefit ratio of certain bio- pesticides against Helicoverpa armigera Hubner (Noctuidae: Lepidoptera) in chickpea. Legum. Res. Int. 2017, 42, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sujatha, B.; Bharpoda, T.M. Bio-efficacy of biopesticides against sucking pests in green gram grown during Kharif. Int. J. Pure App. Biosci. 2017, 5, 1827–1834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Narasimhamurthy, G.M.; Keval, R. Field evaluation of some insecticides and bio-pesticide against tur pod bug, Clavigralla gibbosa (Spinola) in long duration pigeonpea. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2013, 8, 4876–4881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sahayaraj, K.; Namachivayam, S.K.R. Field evaluation of three entomopathogenic fungi on groundnut pests. Tropicultura 2011, 29, 143–147. [Google Scholar]
- Maina, U.M.; Galadima, I.B.; Gambo, F.M.; Zakaria, D. A review on the use of entomopathogenic fungi in the management of insect pests of field crops. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 2018, 6, 27–32. [Google Scholar]
- Agbessenou, A.; Akutse, K.S.; Yusuf, A.A.; Wekesa, S.W.; Khamis, F.M. Temperature-dependent modelling and spatial prediction reveal suitable geographical areas for deployment of two Metarhizium anisopliae isolates for Tuta absoluta management. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 23346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zimmermann, G. Review on safety of the entomopathogenic fungi Beauveria bassiana and Beauveria brongniartii. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2007, 17, 553–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Omuse, E.R.; Niassy, S.; Wagacha, J.M.; Ong’amo, G.O.; Lattorff, H.M.G.; Kiatoko, N.; Mohamed, S.A.; Subramanian, S.; Akutse, K.S.; Dubois, T. Susceptibility of the western honey bee Apis mellifera and the African stingless bee Meliponula ferruginea (Hymenoptera: Apidae) to the entomopathogenic fungi Metarhizium anisopliae and Beauveria bassiana. J. Econ. Entomol. 2021, 115, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zimmermann, G. Review on safety of the entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium anisopliae. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2007, 17, 879–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skinner, M.; Parker, B.L.; Kim, J.S. Role of entomopathogenic fungi in integrated pest management. In Integrated Pest Management: Current Concepts and Ecological Perspectives; Abrol, D.P., Ed.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 169–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scheepmaker, J.W.A.; Butt, T.M. Natural and released inoculum levels of entomopathogenic fungal biocontrol agents in soil in relation to risk assessment and in accordance with EU regulations. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2010, 20, 503–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Curl, C.L.; Spivak, M.; Phinney, R.; Montrose, L. Synthetic pesticides and health in vulnerable populations: Agricultural workers. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2020, 7, 13–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Treatment/Season | Mean ± SE (%) | t-Value | p-Value (df = 2) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Prior to Treatment | After Treatment | |||
Season 1 | ||||
Untreated plot | 30.01 ± 6.06 a | 36.88 ± 2.88 b | −1.36 | 0.308 |
Dudu Acelamectin | 29.58 ± 3.24 a | 20.05 ± 2.00 a | 5.01 | 0.038 |
M. anisopliae ICIPE 69 | 31.61 ± 1.25 a | 32.64 ± 1.82 b | −0.34 | 0.763 |
M. anisopliae ICIPE 20 | 30.74 ± 2.29 a | 32.47 ± 1.18 b | −0.63 | 0.592 |
p-value (df = 3) | 0.932 | 0.010 | ||
Season 2 | ||||
Untreated plot | 33.92 ± 1.17 a | 30.94 ± 1.74 a | 1.15 | 0.370 |
Dudu Acelamectin | 39.79 ± 6.83 a | 18.51 ± 4.50 a | 3.54 | 0.071 |
M. anisopliae ICIPE 69 | 27.03 ± 7.69 a | 22.12 ± 4.58 a | 1.45 | 0.283 |
M. anisopliae ICIPE 20 | 40.85 ± 3.48 a | 29.51 ± 1.89 a | 3.43 | 0.076 |
p-value (df = 3) | 0.133 | 0.088 |
Treatment/Season | Mean ± SE (%) | t-Value | p-Value (df = 2) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Prior to Treatment | After Treatment | |||
Season 1 | ||||
Untreated plot | 4.94 ± 1.79 a | 18.58 ± 2.39 d | −12.86 | 0.006 |
Dudu Acelamectin | 7.94 ± 2.54 a | 6.06 ± 1.46 a | 2.50 | 0.130 |
M. anisopliae ICIPE 69 | 6.91 ± 1.78 a | 12.76 ± 1.49 c | −0.95 | 0.442 |
M. anisopliae ICIPE 20 | 7.82 ± 1.46 a | 8.78 ± 2.39 b | 1.04 | 0.406 |
p-value (df = 3) | 0.288 | <0.001 | ||
Season 2 | ||||
Untreated plot | 7.30 ± 1.52 a | 11.36 ± 2.68 a | −1.85 | 0.205 |
Dudu Acelamectin | 10.46 ± 4.26 a | 4.86 ± 1.56 a | 1.80 | 0.214 |
M. anisopliae ICIPE 69 | 12.84 ± 6.21 a | 8.96 ± 2.77 a | 0.79 | 0.513 |
M. anisopliae ICIPE 20 | 8.12 ± 5.34 a | 6.96 ± 2.32 a | 0.22 | 0.846 |
p-value (df = 3) | 0.611 | 0.081 |
Treatment/Season | Mean ± SE (%) | t-Value | p-Value (df = 2) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Prior to Treatment | After Treatment | |||
Season 1 | ||||
Untreated plot | 15.07 ± 1.77 a | 28.84 ± 1.62 c | −3.62 | 0.069 |
Dudu Acelamectin | 15.50 ± 1.93 a | 15.54 ± 0.65 a | 0.60 | 0.612 |
M. anisopliae ICIPE 69 | 18.78 ± 1.28 a | 23.94 ± 1.32 b | −2.35 | 0.143 |
M. anisopliae ICIPE 20 | 17.06 ± 0.33 a | 20.93 ± 1.50 b | −3.50 | 0.073 |
p-value (df = 3) | 0.414 | 0.002 | ||
Season 2 | ||||
Untreated plot | 21.16 ± 2.13 a | 24.17 ± 5.17 a | −0.99 | 0.427 |
Dudu Acelamectin | 34.40 ± 2.39 a | 14.40 ± 2.04 a | 6.14 | 0.026 |
M. anisopliae ICIPE 69 | 19.81 ± 10.27 a | 17.33 ± 3.54 a | 0.36 | 0.752 |
M. anisopliae ICIPE 20 | 22.25 ± 5.66 a | 15.12 ± 3.19 a | 2.48 | 0.131 |
p-value (df = 3) | 0.445 | 0.238 |
Treatment/Season | Mean ± SE (%) | MFY (ton/ha) | MFY Gain 1 (%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Fruit Damage | Fruit Yield Loss | |||
Season 1 | ||||
Untreated plot | 26.48 ± 4.13 b | 43.41± 2.63 b | 4.81± 0.71 a | - |
Dudu Acelamectin | 10.87 ± 1.62 a | 6.73 ± 3.64 a | 11.07± 1.18 a | 130.15 |
M. anisopliae ICIPE 69 | 18.84 ± 2.61 ab | 18.41 ± 2.94 a | 7.47± 1.94 a | 55.30 |
M. anisopliae ICIPE 20 | 13.92 ± 1.89 a | 10.48 ± 4.92 a | 8.28± 1.72 a | 72.14 |
p-value (df = 3) | 0.042 | 0.001 | 0.173 | |
Season 2 | ||||
Untreated plot | 6.03 ± 2.21 a | 13.01 ± 0.47 c | 11.04± 2.86 a | - |
Dudu Acelamectin | 2.81 ± 0.61 a | 2.82 ± 0.48 a | 15.59± 1.06 a | 41.21 |
M. anisopliae ICIPE 69 | 4.47 ± 1.41 a | 6.58 ± 1.14 b | 12.79± 1.38 a | 15.85 |
M. anisopliae ICIPE 20 | 3.21 ± 1.06 a | 4.90 ± 0.95 b | 13.47± 2.25 a | 22.01 |
p-value (df = 3) | 0.341 | <0.001 | 0.536 |
Treatment/Season | Revenue/ha (USD) | Benefit/ha 1 (USD) | Crop Protection Cost/ha (USD) | BCR 2 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pesticide | Labour | Sprayer | Total | ||||
Season 1 | |||||||
Untreated plot | 1560.00 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Dudu Acelamectin | 3590.27 | 2030.27 | 17.84 | 196.21 | 13.51 | 227.56 | 8.92 |
M. anisopliae ICIPE 69 | 2422.70 | 862.70 | 121.62 | 115.94 | 13.51 | 251.07 | 3.43 |
M. anisopliae ICIPE 20 | 2685.41 | 1125.41 | 121.62 | 125.67 | 13.51 | 260.80 | 4.31 |
Season 2 | |||||||
Untreated plot | 3580.54 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Dudu Acelamectin | 5056.22 | 1475.68 | 17.84 | 202.97 | 13.51 | 234.32 | 6.30 |
M. anisopliae ICIPE 69 | 4148.11 | 567.57 | 121.62 | 129.73 | 13.51 | 264.86 | 2.14 |
M. anisopliae ICIPE 20 | 4368.65 | 788.11 | 121.62 | 142.70 | 13.51 | 277.83 | 2.84 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kabaale, F.P.; Tumuhaise, V.; Tinzaara, W.; Turyasingura, G.; Subramanian, S.; Khamis, F.M.; Akutse, K.S. First Report of Field Efficacy and Economic Viability of Metarhizium anisopliae-ICIPE 20 for Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) Management on Tomato. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14846. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142214846
Kabaale FP, Tumuhaise V, Tinzaara W, Turyasingura G, Subramanian S, Khamis FM, Akutse KS. First Report of Field Efficacy and Economic Viability of Metarhizium anisopliae-ICIPE 20 for Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) Management on Tomato. Sustainability. 2022; 14(22):14846. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142214846
Chicago/Turabian StyleKabaale, Fred Peter, Venansio Tumuhaise, William Tinzaara, Geoffrey Turyasingura, Sevgan Subramanian, Fathiya Mbarak Khamis, and Komivi Senyo Akutse. 2022. "First Report of Field Efficacy and Economic Viability of Metarhizium anisopliae-ICIPE 20 for Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) Management on Tomato" Sustainability 14, no. 22: 14846. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142214846