Next Article in Journal
Is the Secret in the Gut? SuperJump Activity Improves Bone Remodeling and Glucose Homeostasis by GLP-1 and GIP Peptides in Eumenorrheic Women
Previous Article in Journal
Probing Genome-Scale Model Reveals Metabolic Capability and Essential Nutrients for Growth of Probiotic Limosilactobacillus reuteri KUB-AC5
Previous Article in Special Issue
Entomopathogenic Nematodes for the Management of Plum Curculio in Highbush Blueberry
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Biology
Volume 11
Issue 2
10.3390/biology11020295
biology-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

Isolation, Identification, and Biocontrol Potential of Entomopathogenic Nematodes and Associated Bacteria against Virachola livia (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) and Ectomyelois ceratoniae (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)

by
Saqer S. Alotaibi
1,*,
Hadeer Darwish
1,
Madiha Zaynab
2,
Sarah Alharthi
3,
Akram Alghamdi
4,
Amal Al-Barty
4,
Mohd Asif
5,
Rania H. Wahdan
6,
Alaa Baazeem
4 and
Ahmed Noureldeen
4
1
Department of Biotechnology, College of Science, Taif University, P.O. Box 11099, Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia
2
Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Marine Bioresource & Eco-Environmental Sciences, College of Life Sciences and Oceanography, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518107, China
3
Department of Chemistry, College of Science, Taif University, P.O. BOX 11099, Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia
4
Department of Biology, College of Science, Taif University, P.O. Box 11099, Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia
5
Regional Ayurveda Research Institute (CCRAS), Ranikhet 263645, Uttarakhand, India
6
Agricultural Research Center, Department of Nematode Diseases Research, Plant Pathology Research Institute, Giza 12619, Egypt
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Biology 2022, 11(2), 295; https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11020295
Submission received: 10 January 2022 / Revised: 9 February 2022 / Accepted: 10 February 2022 / Published: 11 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biological Control in Agroecosystems)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

For sustainable agriculture, there is a need to identify and evaluate more biocontrol agents, including entomopathogenic nematodes (EPNs). In this study, EPNs and their associated entomopathogenic bacteria symbionts (EPBs) were isolated and identified from 320 soil samples collected in Taif, Saudi Arabia. The biocontrol efficacy of EPNs and EPBs was also evaluated against third instar larvae of the pomegranate butterfly, Virachola livia, and the carob moth, Ectomyelois ceratoniae, two important insect pests of pomegranate, under laboratory conditions. Our results show that the EPNs Steinernema spp. were more virulent than Heterorhabditis spp. against the two pomegranate insects. In addition, the EPB Stenotrophomonas maltophilia CQ1, isolated from Steinernema spp., surpassed Pseudomonas mosselii SJ10, associated with Heterorhabditis spp., in their ability to kill V. livia or E. ceratoniae larvae. We conclude that either application of EPNs’ infective juveniles (IJs) or their associated EPBs could serve as potential biocontrol agents for V. livia and E. ceratoniae.

Abstract

Virachola livia (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) and Ectomyelois ceratoniae (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) are the key pests of pomegranates in Saudi Arabia that are managed mainly using broad-spectrum pesticides. Interactions between the entomopathogenic nematodes (EPNs) Steinernematids, and Heterorhabditids, and their entomopathogenic bacterial symbionts (EPBs) have long been considered monoxenic 2-partner associations responsible for killing insects and, therefore, are widely used in insect pest biocontrol. However, there are limited reports identifying such organisms in Taif, Saudi Arabia. The current study aimed to identify the EPNs and their associated bacteria isolated from Taif, Saudi Arabia, and evaluate their biocontrol potential on third instar larvae of V. livia and E. ceratoniae under laboratory conditions. A total of 35 EPN isolates belonging to Steinernema (20) and Heterorhabditis (15) were recovered from 320 soil samples. Twenty-six isolates of symbiotic or associated bacteria were isolated from EPNs and molecularly identified as Xenorhabdus (6 isolates), Photorhabdus (4 isolates), Pseudomonas (7), or Stenotrophomonas (9). A pathogenicity assay revealed that Steinernema spp. were more virulent than Heterorhabditis spp. against the two pomegranate insects, with LC50 values of 18.5 and 13.6 infective juveniles (IJs)/larva of V. livia for Steinernema spp. and 52 and 32.4 IJs/larva of V. livia for Heterorhabditis spp. at 48 and 72 h post-treatment, respectively. Moreover, LC50 values of 9 and 6.6 IJs/larva (Steinernema spp.) and 34.4 and 26.6 IJs/larva (Heterorhabditis spp.) were recorded for E. ceratoniae larvae at 48 and 72 h post-treatment. In addition, the EPB Stenotrophomonas maltophilia CQ1, isolated from Steinernema spp., surpassed Pseudomonas mosselii SJ10, associated with Heterorhabditis spp., in their ability to kill V. livia or E. ceratoniae larvae within 6 h post-application, resulting in 100% mortality in both insects after 24 and 48 h of exposure. We conclude that either application of EPNs’ IJs or their associated EPBs could serve as potential biocontrol agents for V. livia and E. ceratoniae.

1. Introduction

Nematodes that parasitise insects, known as entomopathogenic nematodes (EPNs), have been identified within 23 nematode families [1]. For several years, EPNs belonging to the Steinernematidae and Heterorhabditidae (Rhabditida) families have received the most attention as potential biocontrol agents because of their wide host spectrum, active host-seeking, easy mass production, low cost, long-term efficacy, easy application, compatibility with most chemicals, environmental safety for humans and other non-target organisms, capacity to reduce pesticide residues in food, and ability to increase activity of other natural enemies and increase biodiversity in managed ecosystems [2]. Photorhabdus and Xenorhabdus are Gram-negative bacteria of the family Enterobacteriaceae and are symbiotically associated with the entomopathogenic nematodes Heterorhabditis and Steinernema, respectively [3]. The infective juveniles (IJs) of Steinernematid and Heterorhabditid nematodes carrying symbiotic bacteria in their midguts live in the soil of diverse ecological systems [4]. These nematodes actively seek insect hosts, penetrating through an insect’s mouth, anus, or spiracles to reach the hemocoel, where symbiotic bacteria (e.g., Xenorhabdus spp. and Photorhabdus spp.) are released [5]. Subsequently, the symbiotic bacteria colonise the insect haemolymph, degrade insect tissues, and produce several immunosuppression factors, including toxin complexes, hydrolytic enzymes, and haemolytic and antimicrobial compounds that kill insect hosts, typically within 48 h [6,7]. Finally, the symbiotic bacteria replicate rapidly and cause septicaemia in insects [8]. This process converts the insect cadaver into suitable food for nematode development and reproduction. However, several studies have cast doubt on this view because some entomopathogenic pairs have been found to have attenuated virulence or to be non-virulent when injected alone into insects [9,10,11]. EPNs have been used against soil pests such as white grubs, root weevils, rootworms, sciarid flies, cutworms, and armyworms [12]. Satisfactory results concerning the effects of EPNs and/or EPBs in the laboratory and under field conditions have been recorded for controlling cherry fruit flies and mosquitoes as well as the pomegranate aphid, cabbage worm, and scarab beetle [13,14,15]. The protease inhibitor protein encoded gene from strains BJFS526 and Xbpi-1 of the symbiotic bacterium Xenorhabdus bovienii has been identified and expressed. The effects of this protein on pea aphids (Acyrthosiphon pisum) have also been investigated [16,17]. Fuchs et al. [18] reported that Xenorhabdus szentirmaii is a unique source of highly efficient antimicrobial peptides against almost all known plant pathogens. At present, EPNs have been identified in several geographical areas, including approximately 100 species of Steinernema and 26 species of Heterorhabditis [19,20,21,22,23,24]. However, the diversity and application of EPNs and their symbionts have not been thoroughly studied in several countries, including Saudi Arabia. Therefore, many species and strains of such potential control organisms must be evaluated to identify new biological control agents. In 2018, Noureldeen [25] isolated an EPN species, Steinernema sp., from the rhizosphere of pomegranate trees in Taif, Saudi Arabia and evaluated the genetic diversity among the Saudi Arabian and Egyptian EPNs’ genotypes via RAPD and ISSR markers.
Pomegranate cultivation and its potential yield and quality are affected by many insect pests. The most problematic insect pests for pomegranates are aphids, caterpillars, fruit flies, and leaf-footed bugs [26,27]. The pomegranate butterfly, Deudorix (= Virachola) livia (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae), and the carob moth, Ectomyelois ceratoniae (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), are major Lepidopteran insect pests of pomegranate. Their larvae feed on the seeds, causing serious damage in many countries, including Saudi Arabia [28], Iran [29], Tunisia [30], Egypt [31], Oman [32,33], and Jordan [34]. Virachola livia is also reported as a pest of the date palm in Morocco [35], Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Tunisia. In Tunisia, the yearly damage rate caused by E. ceratoniae to pomegranate fruits ranges from 29–72% [36], whereas the economic loss caused by this pest in Iran is 30–80% [29]. Because the larval activity of both insects is unknown, commercial insecticides are not efficient against them [37]. When pomegranates are heavily treated with pesticides, the pesticide residues are mainly concentrated in the fruits. Given that these fruits are consumed raw, contamination with pesticides is undesirable [38]. The objectives of this study were to isolate and identify EPNs and their associated symbiotic bacteria from Taif, Saudi Arabia, and to evaluate the activity of EPNs/EPBs against the pomegranate butterfly (V. livia) and the carob moth (E. ceratoniae) under laboratory conditions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sampling and Isolation of Entomopathogenic Nematodes (EPNs)

Taif is a high-altitude region in Saudi Arabia, which includes high mountains, agricultural plates, and valleys, expected to be rich in EPN and EPB fauna because of an abundance of insect hosts. In this study, a total of 320 soil samples were randomly collected from 10 soil localities in the Taif governorate, either from cultivated sites with pomegranate, grapevine, mango, apple, fig, citrus, and rose crops, or uncultivated ones. At each site, 32 soil samples (500 g each) were collected using a hand shovel, placed into a plastic container, labelled with vegetation and date, and then transferred under ambient temperature to the laboratory for the isolation of EPNs. The soil collection process was performed as described by Khashaba et al. [39]. The soil samples were processed using a baiting technique [40] with Galleria mellonella larvae followed by a modified White trap [41] to isolate EPNs. The infective juvenile stages (IJs) of the EPNs emerged from the G. mellonella cadavers and moved to water. The IJs were collected daily in a culture flask, kept in distilled water, and stored at 15 °C in a refrigerator. To increase the population size and confirm the pathogenicity of EPNs, a fresh G. mellonella larva was infected with IJs. The isolated nematodes were morphologically identified as Steinernema spp. or Heterorhabditis spp. by examining the morphometrics of the IJs and first-generation males [42].

2.2. Isolation of EPN-Associated Microbiota

Symbiotic bacteria associated with EPNs were isolated from the haemolymph of dead G. mellonella larvae, which had been infected with the IJs of EPNs according to the method of Poinar and Thomas [43], as modified by Vitta et al. [44]. In summary, the dead larvae of G. mellonella were surface sterilised via washing with absolute ethanol for 1 min and placed in a sterile Petri dish to dry. Subsequently, the 3rd segments from the heads of G. mellonella larvae were incised by a sterile sharp needle to create an influx of the haemolymph containing symbiotic bacteria. A sterile loop was used to distribute and streak the haemolymph samples on NBTA medium (nutrient agar with 0.004% triphenyl tetrazolium chloride and 0.025% bromothymol blue) and incubated at 28 °C for 48 h [14]. Bacteria were routinely grown every 24 h until pure isolated colonies were obtained. A single colony of each isolate of symbiotic bacteria was inoculated in 5 mL of Luria–Bertani (LB) broth and incubated with shaking at 220 rpm overnight at 28 °C. For the bioassay experiments, the isolated bacterial cultures in LB broth were diluted in sterile distilled water to an OD600 of 0.1 with a spectrophotometer. Finally, the resulting bacterial cell suspension concentration was adjusted to 1 × 108 colony-forming units (CFU) per mL. The bacteria were then stored at −80 °C with 20% glycerol (v/v) for further study.

2.3. Identification of EPN-Associated Bacteria

In order to characterize the isolates, we selected only Isolate4 and Isolate16 for further molecular characterization. The genomic DNA of isolated bacteria was extracted from bacterial pellets using a bacteria genomic DNA miniprep kit (QIAprep Spin Miniprep Kit). The genomic DNA of bacteria was stored at −20 °C for further use in PCR. PCR-based analysis and 16S rRNA gene sequencing were performed to identify bacterial species [45] using the inter-universal primers 785F (GGATTAGATACCCTGGTA) and 907R (CCGTCAATTCMTTTRAGTTT).

2.4. Molecular Characterisation through Phylogenetic Tree Analysis

The 16Sr RNA sequence of each isolate was blast against the NCBI “16S ribosomal RNA sequence (Bacteria and Archaea)” database, and the top five targets were collected for further phylogenetic tree analysis. All 16S sequences were aligned using the MUSCLE program with 50 iterations. The aligned sequences were displayed in a CLC viewer. The evolutionary history was inferred by using the maximum likelihood method based on the Tamura–Nei model [46]. The tree with the highest log likelihood (-1426.34) is shown. The percentage of trees in which the associated taxa clustered together is shown next to the branches. Initial tree(s) for the heuristic search were obtained automatically by applying the Neighbor-Join and BioNJ algorithms to a matrix of pairwise distances estimated using the maximum composite likelihood (MCL) approach and then selecting the topology with a superior log-likelihood value. The tree is drawn to scale, with branch lengths measured in the number of substitutions per site. All positions containing gaps and missing data were eliminated. There were a total of 242 positions in the final dataset. Evolutionary analyses were conducted using MEGA7 [47] with 1000 bootstrap values.

2.5. Insects

Following methods by Alotaibi et al. [48], pomegranate butterfly (V. livia) and carob moth (E. ceratoniae) larvae were collected from commercial pomegranate orchards located in Taif, Saudi Arabia, and then reared on a wheat bran diet (300 g of wheat bran, 50 g of sugar, 120 mL of water, 130 mL of glycerol, and 9 g of yeast), whereas adults were fed with a 10% honey–water solution. The rearing room was adjusted to 25 ± 1 °C, a relative humidity of 60% and a light–dark cycle of 16 L:8 D.

2.6. Bioassays

2.6.1. Pathogenicity of EPNs

Five third instar larvae of the pomegranate butterfly or carob moth were placed individually in 5-cm-diam. Plates lined with a Whatman’s No. 2 filter paper. One millilitre of EPN suspension from each species (Steinernema spp. and Heterorhabditis spp.) was added directly by micropipette at rates of 160, 80, 40, 20, 10, and 5 IJs per insect larva. Five grams of pomegranate seeds were provided as food for the larvae. In the control treatment, 1 mL of distilled water was added to the plate. The plates were then covered and incubated in a controlled growth chamber under the same conditions described above. Subsequently, V. livia and E. ceratoniae larval mortalities were monitored daily for up to 4 days, and the dead larvae were dissected under the stereomicroscope to confirm the infections. Each treatment was replicated 5 times, and the entire experiment was conducted twice.

2.6.2. Pathogenicity of EPBs

In this experiment, two isolates of bacterial associations were selected for use in the bioassay. The bacteria, including Pseudomonas mosselii SJ10 associated with Heterorhabditis spp. and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia strain CQ1 associated with Steinernema spp., were used to determine the oral toxicity against V. livia and E. ceratoniae larvae. In summary, 5 g of pomegranate seeds were immersed in 2 mL of each bacterial suspension at concentrations of 1 × 108, 1 × 106, 1 × 104, and 1 × 102 CFU/mL for 30 sec. The treated seeds were then picked up and placed in a plastic plate (5 cm) lined with filter paper (Whatman number 2). Then, 5 V. livia or E. ceratoniae larvae were put into the plastic plate, which was then covered and incubated as previously described. Equal proportions of distilled water were used as controls. Finally, the mortality rates of V. livia and E. ceratoniae larvae were recorded for 6, 12, 24, and 72 h following treatment. Each bioassay was repeated twice in five replicates, each on different dates.

2.7. Statistical Analysis

The data obtained are expressed in terms of mean ± standard error (M ± SE). Percente larval mortality was analysed using 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), with IJ rate or CFU concentration and exposure duration as independent factors, followed by Duncan’s multiple range test. All mortality data analyses were conducted using the Costat program (Version 6.45). Furthermore, data for LC50 and LC90 values were subjected to chi-square tests for both EPNs and EPBs using SPSS Version 23 (p < 0.05), in which p-values less than 0.05 indicate statistical significance.

3. Results

3.1. Isolation of Entomopathogenic Nematodes from Soil Samples

Out of the 10 soil sites from Taif Province, Saudi Arabia, seven tested positive for EPNs (Table 1). The positive sites were Thomala, Al-Haweyia, Bani-Malik, Al-Shafa, Taif University, Alsail Alkabir, and Garoah. Soil samples recovered from the Thomala region revealed the largest number of EPNs (10), followed by Al-Haweyia (7) and Al-Shafa (6). Of the 32 soil samples collected from Bani-Malik, five EPN isolates were recorded, whereas Taif University gardens revealed the presence of three EPN isolates. Moreover, two EPNs were present in the soil of two sites: Alsail Alkabir and Garoah (Table 1). Data presented in Table 2 show that out of the eight vegetation types examined, six were positive for Steinernema and five for Heterorhabditis isolates. Among the 320 soil samples, 35 (10.9%) were positive for Steinernema or Heterorhabditis (Table 2). This yielded 15 isolates (4.69%) of Heterorhabditis and 20 isolates (6.25%) of Steinernema. Most EPNs were isolated from the soil of the citrus rhizosphere (13 isolates), followed by the pomegranate (9 isolates) and the grapevine (7 isolates), with occurrence rates of 32.5%, 22.5% and 17.5%, respectively. Two EPN isolates were found in the rhizosphere soil of fig and mango vegetation, with occurrence rates of 5% each, whereas only one EPN isolate was recorded from rose and apple crop soil. Furthermore, none of the EPNs were isolated from the uncultivated soil (Table 2).

3.2. Isolation and Identification of EPBs through 16S rRNA Gene Sequencing

Based on colony morphology on NBTA agar, 26 isolates of EPN-associated bacteria were identified as Xenorhabdus (6 isolates), Photorhabdus (4 isolates), Pseudomonas (7) or Stenotrophomonas (9). The molecular characterization of Isolate4 and Isolate16 also validated our morphological identification as Pseudomonas sp. and Xenorhabdus sp. For instance, the Isolate4 showed a 99.419% identity match with Pseudomonas soli strain F-279 (NR_134794.1), Pseudomonas mosselii strain CFML 90-83 (NR_024924.1) and Pseudomonas entomophila L48 (NR_115336.1) (Figure 1). Similarly, Isolate16 showed identity (99% similarity) with Xenorhabdus sp. The phylogenetic tree analysis also confirmed that Isolate4 belonged to Pseudomonas sp., and Isolate16 belonged to Xenorhabdus sp.

3.3. Pathogenicity Assays

3.3.1. Virulence of EPNs

The insecticidal activity of the isolated EPNs and their associated bacteria against insect hosts was further evaluated to determine their capacity to be used as biological control agents. The data in Figure 2, A and B show that both Steinernema spp. and Heterorhabditis spp. had a highly significant effect on the mortality of V. livia larvae (p < 0.05). The results show that both nematode species increased mortality of V. livia larvae (p < 0.05) when compared to the control treatment, which recorded zero mortality at all exposure times. The Steinernema spp. isolate induced 100% mortality, and the Heterorhabditis spp. isolate induced 88% mortality at 160 IJs/larva and 96 h post-treatment. The results also show a direct, significant relationship between the mortality rates and both IJ concentration and exposure time (p < 0.05). Thus, as the IJ concentration and exposure time increased, the mortality rate increased. The overall mortality of V. livia larvae after treatment with 5 to 160 IJs of Steinernema spp./larva ranged between 8% and 100% (Figure 2A), whereas it ranged from 0% to 88% (Figure 2B) for Heterorhabditis spp.
The data in Figure 3, A and B show that third instar E. ceratoniae larvae were highly susceptible (p < 0.05) to both Steinernema spp. and Heterorhabditis spp.; they exhibited 100% mortality at 96 h post treatment. According to the results, Steinernema spp. surpassed Heterorhabditis spp. in inducing mortality in E. ceratoniae larvae. Steinernema spp. induced 100% larval mortality from 48 to 96 h exposure, compared with 88%, 96% and 100% mortality induced by Heterorhabditis spp. at 160 IJs/larva and the same exposure times, respectively. Compared to the control (0 mortality), an increase in larval mortality with the increase of IJ concentration and exposure time was also observed (Figure 3). At 24 h post treatment, Steinernema spp. isolates caused larval mortality rates ranging from 16% to 88% (Figure 3A). Heterorhabditis spp. did not cause larval mortality at a concentration of 5 IJs/larva, and exhibited virulence (8% mortality) up to 72% when applied at a range between 10 and 160 IJs/larva (Figure 3B).
As shown in Table 3, the data indicate that Steinernema spp. was significantly more efficient against V. livia larvae than Heterorhabditis spp. under laboratory conditions. The Steinernema spp. isolate exhibited lower LC50 and LC90 values of 43 and 352.8 IJs/larva, respectively, at 24 h; 18.5 and 208.1 IJs/larva, respectively, at 48 h; 13.6 and 97.9 IJs/larva, respectively, at 72 h; and 12.9 and 85.5 IJs/larva, respectively, at 96 h. However, for the Heterorhabditis spp. isolate, the LC50 and LC90 values were 118 and 586.2 IJs/larva, respectively, at 24 h; 52 and 359.6 IJs/larva, respectively, at 48 h; and 32.4 and 243.9 IJs/larva, respectively, at 72 h. At 96 h, it exhibited LC50 and LC90 values of 28.3 and 226 IJs/larva, respectively (Table 3).
Likewise, the data in Table 4 reveal that the Steinernema spp. isolate was more effective against E. ceratoniae than the Heterorhabditis spp. isolate, with LC50 values at 24, 48, 72, and 96 h after treatment of 28.1, 9, 6.6, and 5.7 IJs/larva, respectively, for the former and 68.3, 34.4, 26.6, and 20.2 IJs/larva, respectively, for the latter. Similar results were obtained for the LC90 values, which were significantly lower for Steinernema spp. than for Heterorhabditis spp. Furthermore, the data in Table 4 show that the highest degree of homogeneity in the E. ceratoniae larval response was observed after exposure to the Heterorhabditis spp. isolate, with a slope value of 0.119 at 72 h post-treatment. In contrast, the other tested IJ levels exhibited low slope values (Table 4), which indicates heterogeneity in the response of E. ceratoniae larvae to these levels.

3.3.2. Virulence of EPN-Associated Bacteria

The data in Table 5 represent the toxicity of two species of bacteria—Pseudomonas mosselii SJ10 (associated with the EPN Heterorhabditis spp.) and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia CQ1 (associated with Steinernema spp.)—against V. livia larvae under laboratory conditions. Both EPB species significantly affected larval mortality (p < 0.05); however, percent larval mortality caused by S. maltophilia CQ1 (78.5%) was significantly higher than that caused by P. mosselii SJ10 (66%). The percentage of larval mortality increased significantly with bacterial cell concentration and exposure duration (p < 0.05). The interactive effect of EPB species, cell concentrations, and exposure time on larval infection was not significant (p = 0.9742). The highest mortality percentage (100%) was recorded in the plates where the larvae were exposed to S. maltophilia CQ1 at the rate of 108 CFU/mL distilled water after 24 and 48 h of application, and the lowest (32%) was recorded when the larvae were exposed to 102 CFU/mL of P. mosselii SJ10 6 h post-treatment (Table 5).
The data in Table 6 show the toxicity levels of the EPBs. S. maltophilia CQ1 was more effective than P. mosselii SJ10. After 6 and 12h of exposure against V. livia larvae, S. maltophilia CQ1 exhibited LC50 values of 1.26 × 102 and 5.01 × 101 CFU/mL, respectively, whereas P. mosselii SJ10 exhibited LC50 values of 1.26 × 104 and 7.94 × 102, respectively. However, at 48 h of exposure, no significant difference was detected between the LC50 values of these bacterial species. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia CQ1 exhibited LC50 value of 6.31 CFU/mL compared with 10 CFU/mL for P. mosselii SJ10. It is also clear that both EPBs exhibited high slope values (more than 2), which indicates homogeneity in the response of V. livia larvae to these bacteria (Table 6).
Similarly, as shown in Table 7 and Table 8, both S. maltophilia CQ1 and P. mosselii SJ10 bacteria successfully induced mortality in E. ceratoniae larvae (p < 0.05). The data also indicate that the mortality rate had a direct relationship with the exposure time and bacterial CFU concentration (p < 0.05). The regression analysis of the data shows that the mortality of E. ceratoniae larvae significantly increased with increasing bacterial concentration (R2 = 0.9743; p < 0.05). Maximum (58.7%) and minimum (38.7%) mortality rates were achieved when the larvae were treated with 108 and 102 CFU/mL, respectively. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia CQ1 was more virulent than P. mosselii SJ10; it induced 82.3% mortality in third instar E. ceratoniae larvae compared with 71.3% for P. mosselii SJ10. The maximum larval mortality rate was caused by S. maltophilia CQ1 at a concentration of 108 CFU/mL (100%) after 24 and 48 h of application, whereas the minimum was recorded in the larvae treated with the isolate P. mosselii SJ10 at 102 CFU/mL (40%) after 6 h (Table 7). The calculated LC50 and LC90 values obtained with S. maltophilia CQ1 at 24 and 48 h after treatment against E. ceratoniae were 9.33 and 1 × 104 CFU/mL and 4.79 and 1 × 103 CFU/mL, respectively, whereas they were 15.8 and 2.51 × 109 CFU/mL and 10 and 7.94 × 105 CFU/mL, respectively, for P. mosselii SJ10 (Table 8). Furthermore, the highest degree of homogeneity for the larvae of E. ceratoniae was observed under exposure to S. maltophilia CQ1, with a slope value of 2.8.

4. Discussion

The present investigation showed a 10.94% rate of recovery of EPNs in the soil samples from the Taif region of Saudi Arabia. These results may be attributed to soil parameters (e.g., temperature, pH, and moisture), which are important for EPN survival and infectivity. The isolated EPNs were only identified to the genus level in the present study; thus, future research should identify them to species level.
Our findings are in accordance with those reported by Noureldeen [25], who recorded the occurrence of one EPN species, Steinernema sp., in the rhizosphere of pomegranate trees in Taif, Saudi Arabia. Likewise, EPNs have been identified in several geographical areas including approximately 100 species of Steinernema and 26 species of Heterorhabditis [22,24]. Of the symbiotic bacteria, the morphologically identified Xenorhabdus species (isolate16) was molecularly characterized as Xenorhabdus budapestensis or Xenorhabdus szentirmaii, whereas the isolate4 was molecularly identified as Pseudomonas fulva. In addition, in the present study, we found that the bacteria S. maltophilia CQ1 was associated with Steinernema spp., whiles the bacteria P. mosselii SJ10 was symbiotically associated with Heterorhabditis spp., which are reported for the first time in Saudi Arabia. These results are consistent with those previously recorded by Ogier et al. [49], who mentioned that the association between Steinernema and Xenorhabdus was never monoxenic. Therefore, the bacterial community associated with laboratory-reared IJs from the Steinernema carpocapsae, S. feltiae, S. glaseri, and S. weiseri EPN species consisted of several Proteobacteria. The authors also reported that the laboratory-reared IJs of S. carpocapsae had a bacterial community composed of the core symbiont Xenorhabdus nematophila, together with a frequently associated microbiota (FAM) consisting of about a dozen Proteobacteria (Pseudomonas, Stenotrophomonas, Alcaligenes, Achromobacter, Pseudochrobactrum, Ochrobactrum, Brevundimonas, Deftia, etc.) [49]. Two species, Pseudomonas protegens and P. chlororaphis—the FAM members potentially involved in the parasitic lifecycle of Steinernema—displayed entomopathogenic properties suggestive of a role in Steinernema virulence and involvement in the Steinernema pathobiome. Indeed, in our study, the isolated bacteria were frequently detected in the haemolymph of insects infected with Steinernema and Heterorhabditis. It is generally assumed that non-symbiotic bacteria randomly “hitchhiked” in the IJ vectors via the cuticle or intercuticular space are introduced into the insect haemocoel during IJ penetration [50]. For example, Stenotrophomonas, Ochrobactrum, and Pseudomonas have often been identified in the soil-dwelling Caenorhabditis elegans nematodes [51]. Likewise, Proteobacteria is the most abundant phylum in bacterial communities associated with plant roots [52], as well as in plant-covered soils, such as the rhizosphere [53].
Regarding their insecticidal activity, our investigations show that Steinernema spp. were more effective than Heterorhabditis spp. against V. livia and E. ceratoniae larvae under laboratory conditions. These results are consistent with those of Memari et al. [54], who observed that mortality rates of E. ceratoniae larvae in laboratory tests corresponded to LC50 values of 2.02 IJ/larva for S. feltiae and 2.05 IJ/larva for S. carpocapsae. On the contrary, H. bacteriophora showed low virulence against the larvae, with an LC50 of 426.92 IJ/larva [54]. Our findings also show that E. ceratoniae larvae have higher susceptibility to both EPN species tested than V. livia, which may be due to the strong virulence of EPNs on members of the Pyralidae family such as the wax moth (G. mellonella) larvae. Furthermore, because E. ceratoniae overwinters throughout the autumn and winter seasons as larvae within infested fruit that drop on the soil, we hypothesise that it is possible to use EPNs for their control. Although most of the Steinernematids have ambush behaviours, the success of our tested species could be attributed to the mobile behaviours of V. livia and E. ceratoniae larvae, which may increase the distribution patterns of Steinernema spp. and can thus, increase the pest’s mortality [55]. For instance, Christos et al. [56] also reported the potential of three concentrations (100, 300 and 900 IJs/larva) of S. feltiae for the control of the Mediterranean flour moth, Ephestia kuehniella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), in stored wheat.
The larvicidal activity of the two EPN-associated bacterial species was also evaluated against the two pomegranate pests in the current study. It is clear that the bacteria S. maltophilia CQ1 and P. mosselii SJ10 have the capacity to control V. livia and E. ceratoniae larvae. Our data also revealed that S. maltophilia CQ1 was more effective than P. mosselii SJ10 against both V. livia and E. ceratoniae larvae; however, E. ceratoniae was more susceptible. The higher lethality of S. maltophilia CQ1 (that is associated with Steinernema spp.) in comparison to P. mosselii SJ10 (that is associated with Heterorhabditis spp.) correlates with the greater lethality of Steinernema spp. over Heterorhabditis spp. on V. livia and E. ceratoniae larvae. These results are consistent with those of Alotaibi et al. [48], who recorded that mortality of E. ceratoniae larvae caused by two Xenorhabdus bacterial species was significantly higher than that of Photorhabdus species. In contrast, a recent study by Elbrense et al. [15] showed that H. bacteriophora and its symbiont, Photorhabdus sp., were more virulent than S. riobravis and its symbiont, Xenorhabdus sp. against Pieris rapae and Pentodon algerinus. Our results are also consistent with those of Jabeen et al. [57], who quantified bacterial chitinase production by S. maltophilia and their termiticidal activity. Moreover, this study concurred with Amer et al. [58], who stated that S. maltophilia shows promising antagonistic activity against a panel of multidrug-resistant bacteria and fungi. Similarly, Berg [59] reported that S. maltophilia inhibited the growth of phytopathogen Rhizoctonia solani, possibly because of antibiosis and the production of some lytic enzymes that act against pathogenic fungi. Subsequent studies have revealed that the metabolic diversity of S. maltophilia is responsible for the production of novel bioactive compounds, including agents that can be used in biocontrol against microorganisms and insects [60].

5. Conclusions

In this study, EPNs and their associated bacteria were isolated and identified from Taif, Saudi Arabia, and their biocontrol efficacy was evaluated against the third instar larvae of V. livia and E. ceratoniae, two important insect pests of pomegranate. Steinernema spp. were more virulent than Heterorhabditis spp. against the two pomegranate insects. In addition, the bacteria Stenotrophomonas maltophilia CQ1, isolated from Steinernema spp., surpassed those of the bacteria Pseudomonas mosselii SJ10, associated with Heterorhabditis spp., in their ability to kill V. livia or E. ceratoniae larvae. We conclude that either application of either EPNs’ IJs or their associated EPBs could serve as potential biocontrol agents for V. livia and E. ceratoniae for sustainable agriculture. These studies were conducted under laboratory conditions; thus, future studies need to validate these results under field conditions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, S.S.A. and A.N.; data curation, H.D., S.A. and A.N.; formal analysis, H.D., A.N. and A.A.-B.; investigation, S.S.A., A.A., A.N.; methodology, H.D., A.N. and A.A.-B.; project administration, S.S.A.; resources, S.S.A., S.A. and A.N.; validation, H.D., R.H.W. and M.Z.; visualisation, A.N.; writing—original draft, S.S.A. and A.N.; writing—review and editing, S.S.A., A.N., A.B. and M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Deputyship for Research and Innovation, Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia through the project number 1-441-117.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their appreciation to the Deputyship for Research and Innovation, Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia for funding this research work through the project number 1-441-117.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Koppenhofer, A.M. Nematodes. In Field Manual of Techniques in Invertebrate Pathology: Application and Evaluation of Pathogens for Control of Insects and Other Invertebrate Pests, 3rd ed.; Lacey, L.A., Kaya, H.K., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 249–264. [Google Scholar]
  2. Kaya, H.K. Soil ecology. In Entomopathogenic Nematodes in Biological Control; Gaugler, R., Kaya, H.K., Eds.; CRC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1990; pp. 93–115. [Google Scholar]
  3. Boemare, N.E.; Akhurst, R.J.; Mourant, R.G. DNA relatedness between Xenorhabdus spp. (Enterobacteriaceae), symbiotic bacteria of entomopathogenic nematodes, and a proposal to transfer Xenorhabdus luminescens to a new genus, Photorhabdus gen. nov. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 1993, 43, 249–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Dillman, A.R.; Guillermin, M.L.; Lee, J.H.; Kim, B.; Sternberg, P.W.; Hallem, E.A. Olfaction shapes host–parasite interactions in parasitic nematodes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, E2324–E2333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Salvadori, J.D.M.; Defferrari, M.S.; Ligabue-Braun, R.; Lau, E.Y.; Salvadori, J.R.; Carlini, C.R. Characterization of entomopathogenic nematodes and symbiotic bacteria active against Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and contribution of bacterial urease to the insecticidal effect. Biol. Control. 2012, 63, 253–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Fang, X.; Li, Z.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, X. In vitro and in vivo antimicrobial activity of Xenorhabdus bovienii YL002 against Phytophthora capsici and Botrytis cinerea. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2011, 111, 145–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Shi, D.; An, R.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, G.; Yu, Z. Stilbene derivatives from Photorhabdus temperata SN259 and their antifungal activities against phytopathogenic fungi. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2017, 65, 60–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Forst, S.; Dowds, B.; Boemare, N.; Stackebrandt, E. Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus spp. Bugs that kill bugs. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 1997, 51, 47–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bisch, G.; Pages, S.; McMullen, J.G.; Stock, S.P.; Duvic, B.; Givaudan, A.; Gaudriault, S. Xenorhabdus bovienii CS03, the bacterial symbiont of the entomopathogenic nematode Steinernema weiseri, is a non-virulent strain against lepidopteran insects. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2015, 124, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kim, I.-H.; Aryal, S.K.; Aghai, D.T.; Casanova-Torres, A.M.; Hillman, K.; Kozuch, M.P.; Mans, E.J.; Mauer, T.J.; Ogier, J.C.; Ensign, J.C.; et al. The insect pathogenic bacterium Xenorhabdus innexi has attenuated virulence in multiple insect model hosts yet encodes a potent mosquitocidal toxin. BMC Genom. 2017, 18, 927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. McMullen, J.G.; McQuade, R.; Ogier, J.C.; Pages, S.; Gaudriault, S.; Stock, S.P. Variable virulence phenotype of Xenorhabdus bovienii (γ-Proteobacteria: Enterobacteriaceae) in the absence of their vector hosts. Microbiology 2017, 163, 510–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hazır, S.; Kaya, H.K.; Stock, S.P.; Keskin, N. Entomopathogenic nematodes (Steinernematidae and Heterorhabditidae) for biological control of soil pests. Turk. J. Biol. 2003, 27, 181–202. [Google Scholar]
  13. Herz, A.; Koppler, K.; Vogt, H.; Elias, E.; Katz, P.; Peters, A. Biological control of the cherry fruit fly, Rhagoletis cerasi L. (Diptera, Tephritidae) by use of entomopathogenic nematodes: First experiences towards practical implementation. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Cultivation Technique and Phytopathological Problems in Organic Fruit Growing (Eco-fruit), Weinsberg, Germany, 18–20 February 2006; pp. 67–72. [Google Scholar]
  14. Yooyangket, T.; Muangpat, P.; Polseela, R.; Tandhavanant, S.; Thanwisai, A.; Vitta, A. Identification of entomopathogenic nematodes and symbiotic bacteria from Nam Nao National Park in Thailand and larvicidal activity of symbiotic bacteria against Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus. PLoS ONE 2008, 13, e0195681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Elbrense, H.; Elmasry, A.M.; Seleiman, M.F.; AL-Harbi, M.S.; Abd El-Raheem, A.M. Can symbiotic bacteria (Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus) be more efficient than their entomopathogenic nematodes against Pieris rapae and Pentodon algerinus larvae? Biology 2021, 10, 999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Zeng, F.; Xue, R.; Zhang, H.; Jiang, T. A new gene from Xenorhabdus bovienii and its encoded protease inhibitor protein against Acyrthosiphonpisum. Pest. Mang. Sci. 2012, 68, 1345–1351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Jin, D.; Zeng, F.; Dong, S.; Zhang, H. Effects of a protease inhibitor protein from Xenorhabdus bovienii on physiology of pea aphid (Acyrthosiphon pisum). Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2014, 108, 86–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fuchs, S.W.; Grundmann, F.; Kurz, M.; Kaiser, M.; Bode, H.B. Fabclavines: Bioactive peptide–polyketide-polyamino hybrids from Xenorhabdus. Chembiochem 2014, 15, 512–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mraček, Z.; Liu, Q.Z.; Nguyen, K.B. Steinernema xueshanense n. sp. (Rhabditida, Steinernematidae), a new species of entomopathogenic nematode from the province of Yunnan, southeast Tibetan Mts., China. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2009, 102, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Li, X.Y.; Liu, Q.; Nermut, J.; Půza, V.; Mraček, Z. Heterorhabditis beicherriana n. sp. (Nematoda: Heterorhabditidae), a new entomopathogenic nematode from the Shunyi district of Beijing, China. Zootaxa 2012, 3569, 25–40. [Google Scholar]
  21. Cimen, H.; Lee, M.M.; Hatting, J.; Hazir, S.; Stock, S.P. Steinernema innovationi n. sp. (Panagrolaimomorpha: Steinernematidae), a new entomopathogenic nematode species from South Africa. J. Helminthol. 2014, 3, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  22. Phan, K.L.; Mracek, Z.; Puza, V.; Nermut, J.; Jarosova, A. Steinernema huense sp. n., a new entomopathogenic nematode (Nematoda: Steinernematidae) from Vietnam. Nematology 2014, 16, 761–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Malan, A.P.; Knoetze, R.; Tiedt, L. Heterorhabditis noenieputensis n. sp. (Rhabditida: Heterorhabditidae), a new entomopathogenic nematode from South Africa. J. Helminthol. 2014, 88, 139–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. de Bride, A.L.; Rosa, J.M.O.; de Oliveira, C.M.G.; de Castro e Castro, B.M.; Serrao, J.D.; Zanuncio, J.C.; Leite, L.G.; Wilcken, S.R.S. Entomopathogenic nematodes in agricultural areas in Brazil. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 45254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Noureldeen, A.H. Validation of DNA fingerprinting techniques in characterization of entomopathogenic nematodes. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 2018, 6, 226–231. [Google Scholar]
  26. Day, K.R.; Wilkins, E.D. Commercial pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) production in California. Acta Hort. 2011, 890, 275–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Braham, M. Insect Larvae Associated with Dropped Pomegranate Fruits in an Organic Orchard in Tunisia. J. Entomol. Nematol. 2015, 7, 5–10. [Google Scholar]
  28. El-Hawagry, M.S.; Sharaf, M.R.; Al Dhafer, H.M.; Fadl, H.H.; Aldawood, A.S. Addenda to the insect fauna of Al-Baha Province, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with zoogeographical notes. J. Nat. Hist. 2016, 50, 1209–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hoseini, S.A.; Goldansaz, S.H.; Sadeghhasani, S.; Mousavi, S.G. A field screening of 10 high yield pomegranate cultivars for resistance to the carob moth, Ectomyelois ceratoniae, in the climate condition of Karaj, Alborz, Iran. In Proceedings of the 21st Iranian Plant Protection Congress, Urmia, Iran., 23–26 August 2014. [Google Scholar]
  30. Ksentini, I.; Jardak, T.; Zeghal, N. First report on Virachola livia Klug. (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) and its effects on different pomegranate varieties in Tunisia. Bull. OEPP 2011, 41, 178–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sayed, A.A.; Temerak, S.A.; Lysandrou, M. The use of different insect control regimes using three green chemicals to combat Virachola livia on date palm fruit in Egypt. Acta Hortic. 2010, 882, 471–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Abbas, M.S.T.; Razvi, S.A.; Shidi, R.H.; Al-Khatry, S.A. Role of egg parasitoids for controlling the pomegranate butterfly, Virachola livia Klug (Lycaenidae: Lepidoptera) in Sultanate of Oman. J. Biol. Pest Contr. 2008, 18, 43–46. [Google Scholar]
  33. Kinawy, M.M.; Al-Waili, H.M.; Elmandhari, A.M. Review of the successful classical biological control programs in Sultanate of Oman. J. Biol. Pest Contr. 2008, 18, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  34. Obeidat, W.; Akkawi, M. Bionomics and control of pomegranate butterfly Virachola (Deudorix) livia (Klug) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) in Northern Jordan. Diras. Agri. Sci. 2002, 29, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  35. Sedra, M.H. Le Palmier Dattier Base de la Mise en Valeur des Oasis au Maroc, Techniques Phoénicicoles et Création d’Oasis; INRA-Editions: Rabat, Morocco, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  36. Dhouibi, M.H. Lutte Intégrée Pour la Protection du Palmier Dattier en Tunisie; Centre de Publication Universitaire: Tunis, Tunisia, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  37. Shakeri, M. Carob Moth and Its Control Methods; Yazd Utilization Publishing: Yazd, Iran, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  38. Pertot, I.; Caffi, T.; Rossi, V.; Mugnai, L.; Hoffmann, C.; Grando, M.S.; Gary, C.; Lafond, D.; Duso, C.; Thiery, D.; et al. A critical review of plant protection tools for reducing pesticide use on grapevine and new perspectives for the implementation of IPM in viticulture. Crop Protect. 2017, 97, 70–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Khashaba, E.H.K.; Moghaieb, R.E.A.; Abd El Azim, A.M.; Ibrahim, S.A.M. Isolation, identification of entomopathogenic nematodes, and preliminary study of their virulence against the great wax moth, Galleria mellonella L. (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2020, 30, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bedding, R.A.; Akhurst, R.J. A simple technique for the detection of insect parasitic rhabditid nematodes in soil. Nematologica 1975, 21, 109–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kaya, H.K.; Stock, S.P. Techniques in in sect nematology. In Manual of Techniques in Insect Pathology; Lacey, L.A., Ed.; Academic Press: London, UK, 1997; pp. 281–324. [Google Scholar]
  42. Nguyen, K.B.; Smart, G.C. Identification of entomopathpgenic nematodes in the Steinernematidae and Heterorhabditidae (Nemata: Rhabditida). J. Nematol. 1996, 28, 286–300. [Google Scholar]
  43. Poinar, G.G.; Thomas, G.M. Significance of Achromobacter nematophilus Poinar and Thomas (Achromobacteraceae: Eubacteriales) in the development of the nematode, DD-136 (Neoaplectana sp., Steinernematidae). Parasitology 1966, 56, 385–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Vitta, A.; Thimpoo, P.; Meesil, W.; Yimthin, T.; Fukruksa, C.; Polseela, R.; Mangkit, B.; Tandhavanant, S.; Thanwisai, A. Larvicidal activity of Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus bacteria against Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Biomed. 2018, 8, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tailliez, P.; Pagès, S.; Ginibre, N.; Boemare, N. New insight into diversity in the genus Xenorhabdus, including the description of ten novel species. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2006, 56, 2805–2818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Tamura, K.; Nei, M. Estimation of the number of nucleotide substitutions in the control region of mitochondrial DNA in humans and chimpanzees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 1993, 10, 512–526. [Google Scholar]
  47. Kumar, S.; Stecher, G.; Li, M.; Knyaz, C.; Tamura, K. MEGA X: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2018, 35, 1547–1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Alotaibi, S.; Hadeer, D.; Alharthi, S.; Alghamdi, A.; Noureldeen, A.; Fallatah, F.; András, F.; Al-Barty, A.; Albogami, B.; Baazeem, A. Potential of three entomopathogenic bacterial isolates for management of the carob moth, Ectomyelois ceratoniae (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Agriculture 2021, 11, 1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ogier, J.C.; Pagès, S.; Frayssinet, M.; Gaudriault, S. Entomopathogenic nematode-associated microbiota: From monoxenic paradigm to pathobiome. Microbiome 2020, 8, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Singh, S.; Reese, J.M.; Casanova-Torres, A.M.; Goodrich-Blair, H.; Forst, S. Microbial population dynamics in the hemolymph of Manduca sexta infected with Xenorhabdus nematophila and the entomopathogenic nematode Steinernema carpocapsae. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2014, 80, 4277–4285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  51. Dirksen, P.; Marsh, S.A.; Braker, I.; Heitland, N.; Wagner, S.; Nakad, R.; Mader, S.; Petersen, C.; Kowallik, V.; Rosenstiel, P.; et al. The native microbiome of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans: Gateway to a new host-microbiome model. BMC Biol. 2016, 14, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Hartman, K.; van der Heijden, M.G.; Roussely-Provent, V.; Walser, J.-C.; Schlaeppi, K. Deciphering composition and function of the root microbiome of a legume plant. Microbiome 2017, 5, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Lacerda Júnior, G.V.; Noronha, M.F.; de Sousa, S.T.P.; Cabral, L.; Domingos, D.F.; Sáber, M.L.; de Melo, I.S.; Oliveira, V.M. Potential of semiarid soil from Caatinga biome as a novel source for mining lignocellulose degrading enzymes. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2017, 93, fiw248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Memari, Z.; Karimi, J.; Kamali, S.; Goldansaz, S.H.; Hosseini, M. Are entomopathogenic nematodes effective biological control agents against the carob moth, Ectomyelois ceratoniae? J. Nematol. 2016, 48, 261–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Kaya, H.K.; Koppenhoffer, A.M. Effects of microbial and other antagonistic organism and competition on entomopathogenic nematodes. Biocontrol. Sci. Technol. 1996, 6, 357–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Athanassiou, C.G.; Palyvos, N.E.; Kakouli-Duarte, T. Insecticidal effect of Steinernema feltiae (Filipjev) (Nematoda: Steinernematidae) against Tribolium confusum du Val (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) and Ephestia kuehniella (Zeller) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in stored wheat. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2008, 44, 52–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Jabeen, F.; Ali, H.; Manzoor, M.; Younis, T.; Rasul, A.; Qazi, J.I. Potential of bacterial chitinolytic, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in biological control of termites. Egypt J. Biol. Pest Cont. 2018, 28, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Amer, A.; Hamdy, B.; Mahmoud, D.; Elanany, M.; Rady, M.; Alahmadi, T.; Alharbi, S.; Al Ashaal, S. Antagonistic activity of bacteria isolated from the Periplaneta americana L. gut against some multidrug-resistant human pathogens. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Berg, R.D. The indigenous gastrointestinal microflora. Trends Microbiol. 1996, 4, 430–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ribitsch, D.; Heumann, S.; Karl, W.; Gerlach, J.; Leber, R.; Birner-Gruenberger, R.; Gruber, K.; Eiteljoerg, I.; Remler, P.; Siegert, P.; et al. Extracellular serine proteases from Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: Screening, isolation and heterologous expression in E. coli. J. Biotechnol. 2012, 157, 140–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Biology 11 00295 g001 550
Figure 1. Phylogenetic tree representing distances based on the 16S rRNA sequences acquired from isolates within insect pathogenic nematodes that infected pomegranate plants.
Figure 1. Phylogenetic tree representing distances based on the 16S rRNA sequences acquired from isolates within insect pathogenic nematodes that infected pomegranate plants.
Biology 11 00295 g001
Biology 11 00295 g002 550
Figure 2. Mortality percentage (mean ± SE) of the pomegranate butterfly, Virachola livia, exposed to different levels (5, 10, 20, 40, 80, and 160 IJ/Larva) of Steinernema spp. (A) and Heterorhabditis spp. (B) at different exposure times (24, 48, 72, and 96 h). Bars annotated with the same letter are not significantly different (p < 0.05, based on Duncan test).
Figure 2. Mortality percentage (mean ± SE) of the pomegranate butterfly, Virachola livia, exposed to different levels (5, 10, 20, 40, 80, and 160 IJ/Larva) of Steinernema spp. (A) and Heterorhabditis spp. (B) at different exposure times (24, 48, 72, and 96 h). Bars annotated with the same letter are not significantly different (p < 0.05, based on Duncan test).
Biology 11 00295 g002
Biology 11 00295 g003 550
Figure 3. Mortality percentage (mean ± SE) of the carob moth, Ectomyelois ceratoniae, exposed to different levels (5, 10, 20, 40, 80, and 160 IJ/Larva) of Steinernema spp. (A) and Heterorhabditis spp. (B) at different exposure times (24, 48, 72 and 96 h). Bars annotated with the same letter are not significantly different (p < 0.05, based on Duncan test).
Figure 3. Mortality percentage (mean ± SE) of the carob moth, Ectomyelois ceratoniae, exposed to different levels (5, 10, 20, 40, 80, and 160 IJ/Larva) of Steinernema spp. (A) and Heterorhabditis spp. (B) at different exposure times (24, 48, 72 and 96 h). Bars annotated with the same letter are not significantly different (p < 0.05, based on Duncan test).
Biology 11 00295 g003
Table
Table 1. Characterization of the vegetation and the sampling sites.
Table 1. Characterization of the vegetation and the sampling sites.
LocationVegetationEntomopathogenic Nematodes
Thomala (32) *Citrus (6) *, Grapevine (7), Pomegranate (10), Uncultivated (9)+ (10) **
Al-Haweyia (32)Fig (8), Mango (7), Citrus (10), Grapevine (7)+ (7)
Al-Mathnah (32)Grapevine (13), Fig (9), Pomegranate (10)-
Liyah (32)Mango (13), Apple (12), Uncultivated (7)-
Bani-Malik (32)Citrus (10), Grapevine (7), Pomegranate (10), Uncultivated (5)+ (5)
Al-Hada (32)Grapevine (6), Uncultivated (9), Roses (17)-
Al-Shafa (32)Citrus (9), Uncultivated (6), Apple (17)+ (6)
Taif University (32)Pomegranate (5), Citrus (5), Roses (19), Uncultivated (3)+ (3)
Alsail Alkabir (32)Apple (11), Pomegranate (5), Fig (11), Roses (4), Uncultivated (1)+ (2)
Garoah (32)Fig (12), Mango (20)+ (2)
* Numbers between parentheses are the number of collected samples from each site and vegetation. ** Number between parentheses indicates the number of EPNs isolates recovered from each positive site.
Table
Table 2. Occurrence of EPNs isolated from the rhizosphere of vegetation at Taif governorate, Saudi Arabia.
Table 2. Occurrence of EPNs isolated from the rhizosphere of vegetation at Taif governorate, Saudi Arabia.
EPNsSteinernema sp.Heterorhabditis sp.Total of EPNs IsolatesFrequency of Occurrence %
Vegetation
Citrus (40)+ (7) *+ (6)2 (13)32.5
Pomegranate (40)+ (5)+ (4)2 (9)22.5
Grapevine (40)+ (4)+ (3)2 (7)17.5
Fig (40)+ (2)-1 (2)5
Apple (40)-+ (1)1 (1)2.5
Mango (40)+ (1)+ (1)2 (2)5
Roses (40)+ (1)-1 (1)2.5
Uncultivated (40)--00
Total of positive vegetation6 (20)5 (15)11 (35)
Frequency of occurrence %6.254.6910.94
* Numbers between parentheses are the number of positive samples.
Table
Table 3. Pathogenicity of two EPNs against the pomegranate butterfly, Virachola livia.
Table 3. Pathogenicity of two EPNs against the pomegranate butterfly, Virachola livia.
EPNsExposure
Time (h)		LC50 IJ/Larva
(95% LCL–UCL)		LC90 IJ/Larva
(95% LCL–UCL)		Slope ± SEInterceptX2p-Value
Steinernema spp.2443 (29.8–66.3)352.8 (179.6–1254.9)0.11 ± 0.024.940.740.007
4818.5 (11.2–27.9)208.1 (106.3–793.4)0.095 ± 0.0199.41.560.008
7213.6 (8.6–19.3)97.9 (59.6–238)0.103 ± 0.02110.63.470.007
9612.9 (8.2–18.2)85.5 (53.5–194.2)0.101 ± 0.02411.012.700.014
Heterorhabditis spp.24118 (82.8–210.7)586.2 (295.2–2421.9)0.092 ± 0.0120.491.580.002
4852 (37–79.9)359.6 (189.7–1177.3)0.108 ± 0.0223.83.870.008
7232.4 (22.7–47.4)243.9 (134.3–720.1)0.109 ± 0.0246.11.750.011
9628.3 (19.4–41.3)226 (124.2–674.6)0.105 ± 0.02570.800.014
LC50—lethal concentration that kills 50% of insects; LC90—lethal concentration that kills 90% of insects; LCL—lower confidence limit; UCL—upper confidence limit; X2—chi-square value; SE—standard error; p-value—probability.
Table
Table 4. Pathogenicity of two EPNs against the carob moth, Ectomyelois ceratoniae.
Table 4. Pathogenicity of two EPNs against the carob moth, Ectomyelois ceratoniae.
EPNsExposure
Time (h)		LC50 IJ/Larva
(95% LCL–UCL)		LC90 IJ/Larva
(95% LCL–UCL)		Slope ± SEInterceptX2p-Value
Steinernema spp.2428.1 (19.4–40.8)217.5 (120.8–628.7)0.11 ± 0.0236.70.640.009
489 (4.3–14.1)97.7 (54.9–311.2)0.085 ± 0.01512.94.170.005
726.6 (3.1–10.2)51.4 (32.2–123.8)0.077 ± 0.02114.95.870.021
965.7 (2.3–9.1)47 (29.3–116)0.07 ± 0.0215.85.40.026
Heterorhabditis spp.2468.3 (48.2–110.2)451.9 (230.4–1622.4)0.104 ± 0.0182.72.300.004
4834.4 (24.4–49.9)237.1 (133.7–656.5)0.114 ± 0.0225.51.180.007
7226.6 (19.1–36.6)151.5 (94–338.7)0.119 ± 0.0286.63.310.014
9620.2 (13.8–28.4)138.1 (82.9–338.1)0.102 ± 0.0229.36.90.01
LC50—lethal concentration that kills 50% of insects; LC90—lethal concentration that kills 90% of insects; LCL—lower confidence limit; UCL—upper confidence limit; X2—chi-square value; SE—standard error; p-value—probability.
Table
Table 5. Larvicidal activity of two bacterial species cells on the pomegranate butterfly, Virachola livia, under laboratory conditions.
Table 5. Larvicidal activity of two bacterial species cells on the pomegranate butterfly, Virachola livia, under laboratory conditions.
Bacterial SpeciesConcentration(CFU/mL)* Mortality %Bacterial Species Means
6 h12 h24 h48 h
Pseudomonas mosselii102** 32 ± 8 j48 ± 4.9 i56 ± 7.5 ghi64 ± 7.5 efg66 b
10452 ± 4.9 hi60 ± 9 fgh68 ± 4.9 ef80 ± 0 cd
10660 ± 6.3 fgh72 ± 4.9 de80 ± 0 cd84 ± 4 bc
10864 ± 9.8 efg68 ± 4.9 ef80 ± 6.3 cd88 ± 4.9 bc
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia10248 ± 4.9 i52 ± 4.9 hi56 ± 7.5 ghi72 ± 4.9 de78.5 a
10472 ± 4.9 de80 ± 0 cd84 ± 4 bc88 ± 4.9 bc
10672 ± 4.9 de80 ± 0 cd88 ± 4.9 bc92 ± 4.9 ab
10884 ± 4 bc88 ± 4.9 bc100 ± 0 a100 ± 0 a
Control0 ± 0 k0 ± 0 k0 ± 0 k0 ± 0 k0 c
Exposure Time Means40.3 d45.7 c51 b55.7 a
* Each treatment in this experiment was represented by five replicates, each with five larvae insects. ** Numbers in each column indicate mortality ± standard error. Means with different letters within the same column or row differ significantly (p < 0.05 using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test).
Table
Table 6. Lethal concentrations of Pseudomonas mosselii and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia on the pomegranate butterfly, Virachola livia, under laboratory conditions.
Table 6. Lethal concentrations of Pseudomonas mosselii and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia on the pomegranate butterfly, Virachola livia, under laboratory conditions.
Bacterial SpeciesExposure
Time (h)		LC50 CFU/mL
(95% LCL–UCL)		LC90 CFU/mL
(95% LCL–UCL)		Slope ± SEInterceptX2p-Value
Pseudomonas mosselii6* 4.1 (1.7–7.2)15 (13–17.9)2.0 ± 0.422.60.1230.019
122.9 (0.5–4.4)13.3 (10.4–15.6)2.1 ± 0.614.20.0870.044
241.5 (0–2.8)11.3 (7.7–13.2)2.3 ± 0.7450.2020.052
481 (0–2.2)9.4 (5.4–11.5)2.5 ± 0.8860.0560.069
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia62.1 (0.3–3.2)13.4 (7.5–15.8)2.4 ± 0.654.20.6120.034
121.7 (0.3–2.7)9.1 (5.8–14)2.6 ± 0.754.80.6890.043
241.3 (0.2–2.1)5 (3.6–8.4)2.8 ± 0.8762.040.051
480.8 (0–1.7)3.9 (1.9–6.5)2.7 ± 1.17.41.490.089
LC50—lethal concentration that kills 50% of insects; LC90—lethal concentration that kills 90% of insects; LCL—lower confidence limit; UCL—upper confidence limit; X2—chi-square value; SE—standard error; p-value—probability. * Each figure is represented as a power of 10.
Table
Table 7. Larvicidal activity of two bacterial species cells on the carob moth, Ectomyelois ceratoniae, under laboratory conditions.
Table 7. Larvicidal activity of two bacterial species cells on the carob moth, Ectomyelois ceratoniae, under laboratory conditions.
Bacterial SpeciesConcentration
(CFU/mL)		* Mortality %Bacterial Species Means
6 h12 h24 h48 h
Pseudomonas mosselii102** 40 ± 6.3 h52 ± 4.9 g60 ± 6.3 fg68 ± 4.9 ef71.3 b
10460 ± 0 fg68 ± 4.9 ef76 ± 4 de84 ± 4 cd
10660 ± 6.3 fg76 ± 4 de84 ± 4 cd92 ± 4.9 abc
10868 ± 8 ef76 ± 4 de84 ± 4 cd92 ± 4.9 abc
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia10252 ± 4.9 g56 ± 4 g60 ± 6.3 fg76 ± 4 de82.3 a
10476 ± 4 de84 ± 4 cd88 ± 4.9 bc92 ± 4.9 abc
10676 ± 4 de84 ± 4 cd92 ± 4.9 abc96 ± 4 ab
10888 ± 4.9 bc96 ± 4 ab100 ± 0 a100 ± 0 a
Control0 ± 0 i0 ± 0 i0 ± 0 i0 ± 0 i0 c
Exposure Time Means43.3 d49.3 c53.7 b58.3 a
* Each treatment in this experiment was represented by five replicates, each with five larvae insects. ** Numbers in each column indicate mortality ± standard error. Means with different letters within the same column or row differ significantly (p < 0.05 using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test).
Table
Table 8. Lethal concentrations of Pseudomonas mosselii and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia on the carob moth, Ectomyelois ceratoniae, under laboratory conditions.
Table 8. Lethal concentrations of Pseudomonas mosselii and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia on the carob moth, Ectomyelois ceratoniae, under laboratory conditions.
Bacterial SpeciesExposure
Time (h)		LC50 CFU/mL
(95% LCL–UCL)		LC90 CFU/mL
(95% LCL–UCL)		Slope ± SEInterceptX2p-Value
Pseudomonas mosselii6* 2.6 (0–4.3)13.4 (11.6–15.6)2.1 ± 0.563.80.0870.036
121.7 (0–3.1)11.3 (8.9–14.2)2.2 ± 0.724.80.1800.055
241.2 (0–2.4)9.4 (6.2–13.5)2.4 ± 0.835.60.1700.063
481 (0.01–2)5.9 (3.9–8.1)2.6 ± 0.946.40.1720.070
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia61.8 (0.2–2.8)10.5 (6.4–12.8)2.5 ± 0.704.60.6870.038
121.7 (0.5–2.5)6.2 (4.5–9.3)2.8 ± 0.7751.220.038
240.97 (0.02–1.8)4 (2.6–6.3)2.7 ± 171.330.076
480.68 (0–1.5)3 (0.6–5)2.7 ± 1.280.6970.106
LC50—lethal concentration that kills 50% of insects; LC90—lethal concentration that kills 90% of insects; LCL—lower confidence limit; UCL—upper confidence limit; X2—chi-square value; SE—standard error; p-value—probability. * Each figure is represented as a power of 10.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Alotaibi, S.S.; Darwish, H.; Zaynab, M.; Alharthi, S.; Alghamdi, A.; Al-Barty, A.; Asif, M.; Wahdan, R.H.; Baazeem, A.; Noureldeen, A. Isolation, Identification, and Biocontrol Potential of Entomopathogenic Nematodes and Associated Bacteria against Virachola livia (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) and Ectomyelois ceratoniae (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Biology 2022, 11, 295. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11020295

AMA Style

Alotaibi SS, Darwish H, Zaynab M, Alharthi S, Alghamdi A, Al-Barty A, Asif M, Wahdan RH, Baazeem A, Noureldeen A. Isolation, Identification, and Biocontrol Potential of Entomopathogenic Nematodes and Associated Bacteria against Virachola livia (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) and Ectomyelois ceratoniae (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Biology. 2022; 11(2):295. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11020295

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alotaibi, Saqer S., Hadeer Darwish, Madiha Zaynab, Sarah Alharthi, Akram Alghamdi, Amal Al-Barty, Mohd Asif, Rania H. Wahdan, Alaa Baazeem, and Ahmed Noureldeen. 2022. "Isolation, Identification, and Biocontrol Potential of Entomopathogenic Nematodes and Associated Bacteria against Virachola livia (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) and Ectomyelois ceratoniae (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)" Biology 11, no. 2: 295. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11020295

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