Abstract
Bacteria are well known and extensive in the environment. They have developed a variety of interactions with pests, including essential symbiosis. The term biocontrol applies to the process where living organisms are used to check growth in the population density of specific pest to the extent that ecological balance is maintained and without making them extinct. Bacteria have been used as biocontrol agents for the biocontrol of pests for over a century. The scientific communities have also looked at them as an important component of integrated pest management to develop ecofriendly pest management system for crop protection and improvement. It became more pertinent in view of problems posed with synthetic chemicals as they induced harmful changes in nontarget insects and pests.
Microbial pesticides, as living organism or their products or byproducts, offer an environment-friendly alternative with target specificity. They control pests through their nontoxic mechanisms, which are pathogenic to them. The most studied bacterium belonging to the family Bacillaceae is Bacillus thuringiensis (BT). Besides that, some more bacteria have been reported as potent biocontrol agents, viz. B. sphaericus, Bacillus popilliae, Bacillus lentimorbus, Paenibacillus popilliae, Serratia entomophila, Brevibacillus laterosporus, Chromobacterium subtsugae, and Yersinia entomophaga.
Bacterium, as the active ingredient in living form, their products or byproducts can control many different kinds of pests. Aedes aegypti can easily be controlled by Bacillus thuringiensis. On the other hand, to check the population of Culex quinquefasciatus and other mosquitoes, B. sphaericus showed promising results. The host range of Bacillus lentimorbus is larvae (grubs) of Japanese beetle. However, specificity is also a limiting factor, as single application can be effective to a single pest species. Some physical factors, namely heat, desiccation, and radiation, and storage procedures reduce the effectiveness of these bioinsecticides. Despite that, bioinsecticides present great promise to develop better and environmentally friendly pest control programs. The aim of this chapter is to give a holistic and concise picture of insect pathogenic bacteria and their use as bioinsecticides in pest management programs.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
FormalPara Learning ObjectivesThe chapter has the following learning outcomes:
-
1.
The majority of entomopathogenic bacteria belong to the families Bacillaceae, Pseudomonadaceae, Enterobacteriaceae, Streptococcaceae, and Micrococcaceae.
-
2.
The entomopathogenic bacteria enter in insects by ingestion, where they produce toxins, disrupting epithelium of midgut that later cause death of insects.
-
3.
Use of microbes in pest management is an ecofriendly approach to control pests in agricultural crops and to reduce the use of synthetic pesticides.
2.1 Introduction
In the agricultural fields, the farmers have always encountered huge crop damages as well as losses due to pests and diseases. Pesticides that include insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides are employed in modern agriculture to control pests and diseases, and to increase the crop yield. In both developed and developing countries, the use of synthetic pesticides has increased dramatically during the last few decades, and the control of pests with synthetic chemicals results in several problems (Gamliel et al. 1997). The residues of these synthetic insecticides cause toxic effects on humans and wildlife (e.g., birds, beneficial insects like honeybees). Another environmental concern is the contamination of groundwater (Lacey and Siegel 2000).
Despite many years of effective control of pests by insecticides, the continuous use of these chemicals has threatened their effectiveness. It includes the development of insecticide resistance in the target pest species and the deregistration of insecticides due to human health and environmental issues (Nicholson 2007). Therefore, environment-friendly options are the demand of the present time. Improvement in pest control strategies and efficacies leads to higher quality and a greater quantity of agricultural produce. Therefore, there is a great need to develop effective, biodegradable, and environment-friendly biopesticides.
Thus, because of the hazardous effects of insecticides, one of the environment-friendly methods is developed to protect the plant from plant pathogens recently, that is, the use of antagonistic microorganisms called biological control agents or referred to as “biopesticides” (Mazid et al. 2011). Various researches and facts have proved that biological control is a powerful plant disease management tool that can bring huge benefits. Microorganisms that can cause disease in an insect pest and, to some extent, in other arthropods are known as entomopathogens (Tanzini et al. 2001). Many beneficial microorganisms, such as Pseudomonas fluorescens, Trichoderma spp., Bacillus subtilis, and Fusarium nonpathogen, have been studied and tested for their efficacy against various plant pathogens. Some of them have been released and marketed as biopesticides (EPA 2011).
2.2 Biological Pesticides
Biopesticides are microorganisms or their products used in pest management and are not related to synthetic pesticides. They are derived from natural enemies, such as animals, plants, bacteria, and certain minerals (EPA 2015), and can be cultured and applied. For example, rapeseed oil and baking soda have insecticidal effects and are considered biopesticides. However, Sudakin (2003) and Gupta and Dikshit (2010) pointed out a broader definition of biopesticides, that is, biopesticides are biochemical pesticides, naturally occurring substances that can control pests through their nontoxic mechanisms. They are living organisms, like viruses, bacteria, fungi, protozoans, and nematodes or their byproducts (phytochemical products and microbial products) that can be used to manage harmful pests of crops.
The unique mode of action of biopesticides makes them different from synthetic pesticides. Biopesticides are usually effective in small amounts and degrade quickly, thereby reducing environmental exposure and avoiding pollution problems. Therefore, they are safer for the environment and human health; and have not found any residual impact on humans (Gupta and Dikshit 2010). According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA 2010), to classify a substance or a mixture of substances as a biopesticide active ingredient, three conditions are essential: (i) it must be naturally occurring, (ii) must have a nontoxic mode of action against the target pest, and (iii) must have a history of nontoxic exposure to humans and the environment.
2.3 Microbial Pesticides
Biopesticides are further divided into three major categories: microbial pesticides, plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs), and biochemical pesticides (Pathak et al. 2017). Microbial pesticides belong to naturally occurring bacteria, fungi, viruses, etc. Plant-incorporated protective agents (PIP) are the pesticides produced inside the plants from their genetic material. For example, scientists have incorporated Bt insecticidal protein genes into plant genomes. However, biochemical pesticides are natural substances, such as plant extracts and fatty acids, from which pests can be controlled through nontoxic mechanisms.
Microbial pesticides can be effectively used as a substitute for chemical pesticides. They are biological pesticides derived from microorganisms, like bacteria or fungi (Pathak et al. 2017). The pathogenic effects of these microorganisms on target pests are host-specific. The mode of action of microbial insect pathogens is by invasion through the outer skin or intestinal tract of insects, which leads to the reproduction of pathogens inside the host. Further, these pathogens produce insecticidal toxins and cause the death of the host. These toxins are identified as peptides, but their structure, toxicity, and specificity greatly differ (Burges 1981).
Moreover, microbial pesticides can be used alone or in combination with other pest management tools (Rathod et al. 2014). Therefore, these microbial pesticides can effectively replace synthetic pesticides with target specificity. A comprehensive pest management plan, also termed as integrated pest management (IPM), evaluates various control measures, cultural operations, weather, potential interactions between pests and crops, and considers all available pest control measures (Flint and Van den Bosch 1981). They leave little or no residue on food crops, thus are efficient and safe for humans and nontarget animals. Since microbial pesticides are species-specific, so other natural enemies are not threatened. They are, therefore, ecologically safe and capable of maintaining biodiversity in the ecosystem.
Microbial pesticides also promote the survival of beneficial insects in treated crops (Hangay et al. 2008). For example, the bacterium, Paenibacillus popilliae, is used in biological control. It causes milky spore disease and is useful for controlling “Japanese beetles.” It is very specific to the host species and harmless to other natural enemies. That is why microbial insecticides have been widely used as biocontrol agents in the past three decades (Lacey et al. 2001).
2.4 Bacterial Insect Pathogenesis
Microorganisms that are pathogenic to arthropods, especially to insects, are called entomopathogens. Several naturally occurring bacteria, nematodes, fungi, and viruses infect various insects, mites, and ticks and play an important role to manage them (Kalha et al. 2014). Entomopathogenic bacteria are single-celled prokaryotes, whose size ranges from less than 1μm to several μm. The mode of action of pathogenesis by different bacteria is mentioned below.
2.4.1 Mode of Action
To infect any host, the first task of a pathogen is to enter the host’s cells and cavities of its body. This can take place through three main mechanisms: through a lesion, attack of the body cavity through the nematode vector, and the consumption of infected food by the host (Fig. 2.1, Vallet-Gely et al. 2008). On infection of the host, the pathogen enters the hemolymph (Evans et al. 2006). An example of infection by nematode vector is Photorhabdus luminescens and Xenorhabdus nematophila, which first colonize the gut of the nematode in a symbiotic manner. The nematode then infects the insect and allows the bacteria to colonize inside the insect. Finally, the bacteria infect and kill the insects (Forst et al. 1997).
After entry into the insect’s body, the next step is to maintain and colonize the insect. A variety of enzymes are secreted for this process, which work against the gut products of the insect, start producing biofilm, and modify the host gut (Jarrett et al. 2004; Vallet-Gely et al. 2008). AFP (antifading propagase) gene present in Serratia spp. is a good example of this. It has toxic effects on host gut epithelial cells and favors bacterial colonization (Hurst et al. 2007).
The bacteria have to escape from the host immune system while living in the gut of the insect. They do this either by avoiding recognition by the immune system or by suppressing the immune response (Vallet-Gely et al. 2008). Host insects use a mechanism to prevent itself from infection by producing reactive oxygen species (ROS) and antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) (Hinnebusch et al. 2002; Parsek and Singh 2003) (Fig. 2.2). On the contrary, bacteria produce proteins that either protect them from the effects of these compounds or degrade these compounds. For example, Pseudomonas entomophila produces zinc metalloprotease AprA that acts against host AMP’s (Liehl et al. 2006). After evading the host’s defense mechanism, the bacteria start killing the host.
Although several factors involved in the pathogenesis of bacteria have been described, it is still unclear what exactly causes the insect’s death. It seems that either excessive bacterial proliferation or the production of toxic factors cause damage to the host insect and eventually causes its death (Fig. 2.3). The different stages of infection and bacterial response are outlined in Fig. 2.4. Various degradative enzymes, such as lipases, proteases, and hemolysin, are produced by bacteria inside the host and have harmful effects on the host. For example, the metalloproteinases produced by Serratia marcescens inactivate host AMP and cause host tissue degradation (Miyoshi and Shinoda 2000; Ffrench-Constant et al. 2003).
2.5 Entomopathogenic Bacteria
Soil flora and fauna make a very closely net microbial community that includes bacteria, fungi, algae, and nematodes (Sims 1990; Jones et al. 2010). To maintain general balance, microbial communities existing in soil have various roles assigned to them, viz., decomposers, nitrogen binders, and pathogens (Waldrop et al. 2000).
Most of the entomopathogenic bacteria are both gram-negative as well as gram-positive and are soil-borne. Some important gram-negative entomopathogenic bacteria include Photorhabdus spp., Xenorhabdus spp., Serratia spp., Yersinia entomophaga, Pseudomonas entomophila, Chromobacterium spp., and Burkholderia spp. Gram-positive bacteria include Bacillus thuringiensis, Lysinibacillus sphaericus, Paenibacillus spp., Brevibacillus laterosporus, Clostridium bifermentans, Saccharopolyspora spinosa, and Streptomyces spp..
2.5.1 Types of Entomopathogenic Bacteria Other than BT
Several arthropod pathogens have been identified by the bacterial families Bacillaceae, Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonadaceae, Micrococcaceae, and Streptococcaceae so far. Usually, these families contain epiphytes, yet some pathogens have been shown to have very toxic effects on their hosts. The two genera (Photorhabdus and Xenorhabdus) carried by nematodes have been used for agricultural purposes in various ways (Toh et al. 2006; Shigenobu et al. 2000; Akman et al. 2002). They live symbiotically in the alimentary canal of entomopathogenic nematodes and produce a series of toxins (Forst et al. 1997; Ffrench-Constant et al. 2007). These toxins can be applied over leaves of crp plants as extracts or cell suspensions to control insects (Munson et al. 1991). Also, genes that encode toxins can be used to develop transgenic plants to protect crops (Ffrench-Constant and Bowen 2000).
Among entomopathogenic bacteria, the family Bacillaceae has attracted a lot of attention. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a soil-borne bacterial species and a series of many deadly pathogens. It is most widely used as a biocontrol agent for insect pests (Pigott and Ellar 2007; Bravo et al. 2007; Kalha et al. 2014). Some other bacterial species of Bacillus and Paenibacillus are also found pathogenic for coleopteran, dipteran, and lepidopteran insects. For example, B. sphaericus is highly toxic to mosquitoes, whereas Bacillus popilliae and Paenibacillus popilliae cause milk spore disease and are used against Japanese beetle larvae (Baumann et al. 1991; Charles et al. 1997; Davidson et al. 1975; Zhang et al. 1997).
Till now more than 100 species of Clostridium spp., Paenibacillus spp., and Bacillus spp. have been identified as biocontrol agents and are highly pathogenic to arthropods (Table 2.1 and Fig. 2.5). Besides, it is reported that biopesticides based on heat-inactivated Burkholderia rinojensis and Chromobacterium subtsugae can target different types of mites, as they have multiple modes of action (Burkhead et al. 1994; Janisiewicz and Roitman 1988; Martin et al. 2007). Some nonspore-forming ones that belong to the genus Pseudomonas, Xenorhabdu, Photorhabdus, Yersinia, and Serratia have also received great attention as microbial agents (Waterfield et al. 2001; Zhang et al. 2009; Marshall et al. 2012; Vodovar et al. 2005).
2.5.2 Insect Pathogenic Bacteria Belong to Different Groups/Classes
The four bacterial phyla to which entomopathogens belong are Firmicutes, Actinobacteria, Proteobacteria, and Tenericutes (Fig. 2.6). And family includes Neisseriaceae, Enterobacteriaceae, Paenibacillaceae, and Bacillaceae. Plenty of data on entomopathogens are related to the genus Bacillus.
2.5.3 Gram-Positive Entomopathogenic Bacteria
2.5.3.1 Bacillaceae
2.5.3.1.1 Bacillus thuringiensis
Bacillus thuringiensis (BT) is a soil-borne naturally occurring bacterium that has been widely studied and used for pest control naturally. During the last decades, some of its crystal-producing strains have been popularized as the main active substances used in microbial pest management programs (Vega et al. 2012). The pathogenic action of this bacterium is generally followed by spores and crystalline inclusions containing insecticidal δ-endotoxins. The δ-endotoxins interact with receptors present in the midgut epithelial cells of insects and cause cell lysis followed by gut paralysis and death (Pigott and Ellar 2007; Bravo et al. 2007).
B. thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki (Btk) is commonly used to control lepidopteran larvae. Different strains of Btk with important commercial value are ABTS-351, EG2348, HD-1, PB 54, SA-11, and SA-12. Another strain of B. thuringiensis subsp. aizawai (Bta) (ABTS-1857) is also used to suppress the populations of armyworms and diamondback moth larvae. Besides, strains belonging to subspecies israelensis (Bti) have been used to manage mosquitoes and simulids, and of tenebrionids (Btt) to fight against Coleoptera (Glare and O’Callaghan 2000).
2.5.3.1.2 Lysinibacillus Sphaericus
Entomopathogenic strains belonging to the group of Lysinibacillus sphaericus species are characterized by the production of spherical endospores. The endospores are closely related to the parasporal crystals with equivalent proportions of binary protein toxins (BinA and BinB) (Baumann et al. 1991). The insecticidal mode of action involves the lysis of the microvilli epithelial cells of the insect midgut (Charles et al. 1997). Also, the vegetative cells of certain strains produce toxins (Mtx proteins) that kill mosquitoes. Therefore, the main targets of commercially prepared L. sphaericus strains are mosquitoes, blackflies, and nonbiting midges.
2.5.3.2 Paenibacillaceae
2.5.3.2.1 Paenibacillus Spp.
Various species of the genus Paenibacillus cause pathogenicity to pests, such as American Foulbrood disease in honeybees caused by the spore-forming bacterium P. larvae subsp. larvae (Davidson 1973). Similarly, P. popilliae and P. lentimorbus cause milky diseases in phytophagous coleopteran larvae. Even though P. popilliae is not directly responsible for the insecticidal effect, the production of parasporal inclusions within the sporangial cells has been reported. After entering the host, the spores begin to germinate in the host’s midgut. The pathogenicity of this bacterium can be found as septicemia.
2.5.3.2.2 Brevibacillus laterosporus
Brevibacillus laterosporus is a pathogen of invertebrates with a wide range of antimicrobial effects (Ruiu 2013). During the sporulation process, it produces the typical canoe-like parasporal body, which is tightly combined with the sporecoat and gives the species unique morphological characteristics. The insecticidal effects of different strains of B. laterosporus on different classes of insects including Coleoptera, Diptera, and Lepidoptera, as well as phytopathogenic bacteria, nematodes, fungi, and molluscs have been reported.
Recently, the whole genome of B. laterosporus has been deciphered, revealing its ability to produce various toxins (Djukic et al. 2011; Sharma et al. 2012). Some strains that are toxic to corn rootworms (Diabrotrica spp.) and other coleopteran larvae produce insecticidal secreted proteins (ISPs). The protein acts as a binary toxin in the insect midgut and has a high degree of homology with the plant insecticidal protein produced by B. thuringiensis (Warren 1997).
2.5.3.3 Clostridiaceae
2.5.3.3.1 Clostridium bifermentans
Clostridium bifermentans strains are highly toxic to mosquitoes and black flies and produce three main proteins involved in insecticidal action (Nicolas et al. 1990). Among these mosquitocidal proteins, Cbm71 is found similar to B. thuringiensis delta endotoxins (Barloy et al. 1996).
2.5.3.4 Actinobacteria
2.5.3.4.1 Saccharopolyspora spinosa
During the screening procedure, Saccharopolyspora spinosa, a species of bacteria was found from a sugar mill rum and later revealed the insecticidal activity of its isolate “A83543” (Mertz and Yao 1990). The subsequent analysis emphasized the widespread toxicity of specific compounds isolated from the fermentation broth, which was later renamed “spinosyns.” It is a new insecticide that contains a structurally unique glycosylated macrolactone that has selective activity against a wide variety of insect pests. Spinosyns have a unique mode of action, including the postsynaptic nicotinic acetylcholine and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptors (Bond et al. 2004; Watson 2001).
The interaction of these receptors ultimately leads to the destruction of neuronal activity and the resulting paralysis and death of insects (Perry et al. 2007). Despite its widespread pathogenic activity, it has a lower risk with nontarget species than other pesticides (Sparks et al. 2001).
2.5.3.4.2 Streptomyces Spp.
Different Streptomyces spp. are related to herbivorous insects that use their cellulose decomposing properties for pathogenicity (Book et al. 2014). Other species and strains of this genus produce various metabolites as effective toxins that have high insecticidal activity (Copping and Menn 2000). Some of the insecticidal compounds produced by Streptomyces species are Antimycin A, Macrotetralides, Piericidins, Prasinons, and Flavensomycin (Ruiu 2015). Another substance “Avermectins” produced by Streptomyces avermitilis was discovered that had insecticidal and repellent activity (Turner and Schaeffer 1989). These compounds target GABA receptors present in the peripheral nervous system of the insect. The GABA binding to macrocyclic lactone derivatives produces a cascade of events that cause inhibition of neurotransmission and finally paralysis of the neuromuscular system (Bloomquist 1996).
2.5.4 Gram-Negative Entomopathogenic Bacteria
2.5.4.1 Gammaproteobacteria
2.5.4.1.1 Photorhabdus Spp. and Xenorhabdus Spp.
Entomopathogenic members of the genus Photorhabdus and Xenorhabdus are endosymbionts and are usually related to the genus Heterorhabditis and Steinernema species, respectively (Ffrench-Constant et al. 2007). Once the nematode actively enters the insect body, it releases symbiotic bacteria into the insect hemocoel under pathological action. Here, released bacteria produce and spread various antimicrobial compounds to combat the growth of other microorganisms. They also release various enzymes that contribute to the degradation of hemocoel and make an ideal environment for the development of the nematode population (Tailliez et al. 2006).
2.5.4.1.2 Serratia Spp.
The relationship of Serratia spp. with insects or insect-pathogenic nematodes has been fully proven (Zhang et al. 2009; Abebe et al. 2011; Torres-Barragan et al. 2011). The pathogen of the grass grub Costelytra zealandica produces a group of insecticidal toxins named Sep protein (SepA, SepB, SepC) that show similarities to the insecticidal toxins of P. luminescens (Jackson et al. 1992; Hurst et al. 2000). Different species of this genus produce multiple virulence factors. On the other hand, recent genome sequencing of S. nematodiphila has also highlighted other pathogenic factors of Serratia species (Kwak et al. 2015). It has recently been demonstrated that the pathogenicity of Serratia marcescens is increased by the action of serralysin metalloproteinase. It allows bacteria to suppress cellular immunity by reducing the adhesion properties of immune surveillance cells in the insect hosts (Ishii et al. 2014).
2.5.4.1.3 Yersinia entomophaga
Yersinia entomophaga is a nonspore-forming pathogenic bacterium with the characteristic of producing insecticidal toxin complex (Yen-Tc). It shows the similarity with Photorabdus spp. products (Hurst et al. 2011). These complexes include three Y protein families, A, B, and C, and two chitinases (Chi1 and Chi2) (Landsberg et al. 2011). Various studies on its wide range of toxins and its post-ingestion histopathological effects in the midgut epithelium of insects have been reported (Marshall et al. 2012). Promising research has been carried out under field conditions in which insecticides containing Y. entomophaga are used to combat the pasture pest porina (Ferguson et al. 2012).
2.5.4.1.4 Pseudomonas entomophila
A ubiquitous bacterium, P. entomophila, infects insect larvae orally in a different order and determines extensive intestinal cell damage. The host–pathogen interaction has been studied in Drosophila melanogaster that highlights specific immune responses after ingestion (Vodovar et al. 2005). The complete genome sequencing of P. entomophila recently highlighted a specific secretion system and related toxins, which may be responsible for its pathogenicity (Vodovar et al. 2006).
2.5.4.2 Betaproteobacteria
2.5.4.2.1 Chromobacterium Spp.
The Chromobacterium subtsugae strain named PRAA4-1 T was isolated from soil samples in Maryland (USA). This strain has high insecticidal activity against different species of insects, viz., the Western corn rootworm, Diabrotica virgifer, the Diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella L., the Southern corn rootworm, and Diabrotica undecimpunctata (Martin et al. 2007). This strain has broad-spectrum activity by multiple pathogenic actions, possibly due to the production of different chemical compounds. Among the bacterial metabolites, C. subtsugae specifically synthesizes the violacein, a derivative of tryptophan, which gives its colonies of the characteristic purple color. Besides, various compounds produced by this species have been characterized and found its insecticidal effects (Asolkar et al. 2019). It is reported that the biologically active compound is related to the stationary growth phase and the thermal stability of the insecticidal toxin has also been confirmed (Koivunen et al. 2009).
2.5.4.2.2 Burkholderia Spp.
Different insect species carry symbiotic bacteria, of the genus Burkholderia, most of which are related to specific intestinal areas (Kim et al. 2013; Martinson et al. 2011). In addition to their mutual interactions with insects, it has recently been reported that Burkholderia spp. affect the oviposition and fecundity of bean bug, Riptortus pedestris (Kil et al. 2014). The ability of Burkholderia species against different plant pathogens as a biocontrol agent has also been reported (Burkhead et al. 1994; Janisiewicz and Roitman 1988). The broth culture of the bacterial strain, named A396, showed oral toxicity and contact effects on Spodoptera exigua and Tetranychus urticae. Its insecticidal and acaricidal properties persist even after heat treatment. Therefore, its commercial formulations are mostly based on heat-killed cells against a variety of chewing and sucking insects and mites.
2.6 Advantages
Biocontrol agents are generally acknowledged as low-risk substances compared to traditional chemical pesticides. Various benefits are associated with the use of entomopathogenic bacteria as biocontrol agents. Like other natural enemies, insect pathogens, such as bacteria and viruses, can achieve considerable control over target populations. For example, their method of action is generally more complex than that of conventional chemicals. They target a wide variety of active sites, thereby reducing the chances of developing resistant pests. Although entomopathogenic bacteria are efficient enough for pest management in organic farming; nevertheless their rotational use and combination of chemicals are strongly promoted to achieve full efficacy and ecostability. Several studies have reported the mutual compatibility and synergistic effects of entomopathogenic bacteria and chemical substances (Morris 1972; Seleena et al. 1999; Musser et al. 2009).
The use of entomopathogenic bacteria in pest management programs has many more advantages. Organic pesticides are nontoxic and nonpathogenic during their handling, dilution, mixing, and application. This property makes them safe for the environment as well as for agricultural workers. The aggregates of these entomopathogenic bacteria and viruses spoil easily, so it leaves fewer residues on crops. Therefore, these can be used even when the crops are almost ready for the harvest. However, they are easy to incorporate into organic farming agreements. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of biopesticides is usually achieved through its correct application in the field. In the long term, organic pesticides are more effective than chemical pesticides. Therefore, it proves to be quite helpful in reducing the total load of chemical pesticides on food, feed, or fiber crops.
2.7 Disadvantages
Although these biopesticides have different benefits from chemical pesticides, their mass production is still a daunting challenge because they require a special substrate and even live host insects to grow. The special formulation and storage procedures increase its production cost and time. Thus, it makes these biopesticides more expensive and less readily available than conventional insecticides. Due to which farmers with large cropping areas may find it difficult to use biopesticides continuously.
One of the advantages of biological pesticides is its high specificity. However, this biggest advantage is also its biggest disadvantage because if the crops are attacked by nontargeted pests, they will have immunity. This means that multiple types of biological pesticides may be required to control all pests at one time. Therefore, the potential market for these products becomes restricted. Microbial pesticides are dependent on environmental biotic and abiotic factors. It has a limited lifespan. The effectiveness of many microbial pesticides is reduced by exposure to heat, solution, or ultraviolet radiation. Thus, their efficacy shows variability against the population of target pests of different areas. Consequently, the correct timing and proper application of biopesticides are particularly important. Additionally, frequent exposure to toxins puts evolutionary pressure on pests to resist that toxin. Due to this, organisms develop and increase their resistance against control treatments.
2.8 Conclusions
Currently, there is a need to feed the growing human population and limit losses in the production of major crops. On the other hand, the land available for farming and cultivation on the Earth is also limited. It, therefore, requires the development of new technologies to support productivity improvement and its continuous progress in pest management systems. To reduce the health risks caused by the increased use of chemical pesticides in agriculture, ecofriendly pest and disease management methods are being developed and evaluated globally. In view of this, entomopathogenic bacteria and viruses have a wide range of biocontrol agents.
The targeted toxicity and their nontoxic effects on nontarget organisms make biological pesticides ideal tools for integrated pest management (IPM) programs. More attention should be paid to its use in combination with chemical pesticides and the integration of biological agents into production systems. At the same time, it is also necessary to encourage public funding schemes, pesticide companies, and commercial investors to establish biological pesticide companies. Thus, biopesticides can work effectively by combining performance along with minimal application and safety benefits to humans and the environment. It may be considered that their role in agriculture and horticulture can be enriched by encouraging their use at the government and nongovernment levels shortly.
2.9 Points to Remember
-
1.
The synthetic insecticides and pesticides used in pest management cause hazardous effects on the environment and human health.
-
2.
Use of broad-spectrum pesticides destroys natural enemies of pests.
-
3.
Biological pesticides provide an ecofriendly measure for pest management.
-
4.
Entomopathogenic bacteria other than Bt can also be used in insect pest management.
-
5.
They are a valuable source of insect toxins for the biocontrol of pests.
-
6.
Discovery of new biopesticides is critical in tackling environmental degradation and pest resistance development.
References
Abebe E, Akele FA, Morrison J et al (2011) An insect pathogenic symbiosis between a Caenorhabditis and Serratia. Virulence 2:158–161
Akman L, Yamashita A, Watanabe H et al (2002) Genome sequence of the endocellular obligate symbiont of tsetse flies, Wigglesworthia glossinidia. Nat Genet 32:402–407
Asolkar R, Huang H, Koivunen M, Marrone P (2019) Chromobacterium bioactive compositions and metabolites. US Patent 10,405,555
Barloy F, Delécluse A, Nicolas L, Lecadet MM (1996) Cloning and expression of the first anaerobic toxin gene from Clostridium bifermentans subsp. Malaysia., encoding a new mosquitocidal protein with homologies to Bacillus thuringiensis delta-endotoxins. J Bacteriol 178:3099–3105
Baumann P, Clark MA, Baumann L, Broadwell AH (1991) Bacillus sphaericus as a mosquito pathogen: properties of the organism and its toxins. Microbiol Rev 55:425–436
Bloomquist JR (1996) Ion channels as targets for insecticides. Annu Rev Entomol 41:163–190
Bond JG, Marina CF, Williams T (2004) The naturally derived insecticide spinosad is highly toxic to Aedes and Anopheles mosquito larvae. Med Vet Entomol 18:50–56
Book AJ, Lewin GR, McDonald BR et al (2014) Cellulolytic Streptomyces strains associated with herbivorous insects share a phylogenetically linked capacity to degrade lignocellulose. Appl Environ Microbiol 80:4692–4701
Bravo A, Gill SS, Soberón M (2007) Mode of action of Bacillus thuringiensis cry and Cyt toxins and their potential for insect control. Toxicon 49:423–435
Burges HD (1981) Safety, safety testing and quality control of microbial pesticides. In: Burges HD (ed) Microbial control of pests and plant diseases 1970–1980. Academic Press, London, pp 739, 949 pp–767
Burkhead KD, Schisler DA, Slininger PJ (1994) Pyrrolnitrin production by biological control agent Pseudomonas cepacia B37w in culture and in colonized wounds of potatoes. Appl Environ Microbiol 60:2031–2039
Charles JF, Silva-Filha MH, Nielsen-LeRoux C, Humphreys MJ, Berry C (1997) Binding of the 51- and 42-kDa individual components from the Bacillus sphaericus crystal toxin to mosquito larval midgut membranes from Culex and Anopheles sp. (Diptera: Culicidae). FEMS Microbiol. Lett 156:153–159
Copping LG, Menn JJ (2000) Biopesticides: a review of their action, applications and efficacy. Pest Manag Sci 56:651–676
Davidson EW (1973) Ultrastructure of American foulbrood disease pathogenesis in larvae of the worker honey bee., Apis mellifera. J Invertebr Pathol 21:53–61
Davidson EW, Singer S, Briggs JD (1975) Pathogenesis of Bacillus sphaericus strain SSII-1 infections in Culex pipiens quinquefasciatus ( = C. pipiens fatigans) larvae. J Invertebr Pathol 25(2):179–184
Djukic M, Poehlein A, Thürmer A, Daniel R (2011) Genome sequence of Brevibacillus laterosporus LMG 15441, a pathogen of invertebrates. J Bacteriol 193:5535–5536
E.P.A (2011) Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/052F
E.P.A (2015) What are biopesticides?
Evans JD, Aronstein K, Chen YP et al (2006) Immune pathways and defence mechanisms in honey bees Apis mellifera. Insect Mol Biol 15:645–656
Ferguson CM, Barton DM, Harper LA et al (2012) Survival of Yersinia entomophaga MH96 in a pasture ecosystem and effects on pest and non-target invertebrate populations. N Z Plant Prot 65:166–173
Ffrench-Constant RH, Bowen DJ (2000) Novel insecticidal toxins from nematode-symbiotic bacteria. Cell Mol Life Sci 57:828–833
Ffrench-Constant RH, Dowling A, Waterfield NR (2007) Insecticidal toxins from Photorhabdus bacteria and their potential use in agriculture. Toxicon 49:436–451
Ffrench-Constant R, Waterfield N, Daborn P et al (2003) Photorhabdus: towards a functional genomic analysis of a symbiont and pathogen. FEMS Microbiol Rev 26:433–456
Flint ML, Van den Bosch R (1981) Introduction to integrated pest management. Plenum Press, New York, p 240
Forst S, Dowds B, Boemare N, Stackebrandt E (1997) Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus spp.: bugs that kill bugs. Annu Rev Microbiol 51:47–72
Gamliel A, Grinstein A, Peretz Y et al (1997) Reduced dosage of methyl bromide for controlling verticillium wilt of potato in experimental and commercial plots. Plant Dis 81:469–474
Glare TR, O’Callaghan M (2000) Bacillus thuringiensis: biology, ecology and safety. John Wiley, USA, Chichester, New York, pp 2–80
Gupta S, Dikshit AK (2010) Biopesticides: an ecofriendly approach for pest control. J Biopest 3:186–188
Hangay G, Gruner SV, Howard FW et al (2008) Microbial control of insects. In: Encyclopedia of entomology. Springer, The Netherlands, pp 2367–2373
Hinnebusch BJ, Rudolph AE, Cherepanov P et al (2002) Role of Yersinia murine toxin in survival of Yersinia pestis in the midgut of the flea vector. Science 296:733–735
Hurst MRH, Beard SS, Jackson TA, Jones SM (2007) Isolation and characterization of the Serratia entomophila antifeeding prophage. FEMS Microbiol Lett 270:42–48
Hurst MRH, Glare TR, Jackson TA, Ronson CW (2000) Plasmid-located pathogenicity determinants of Serratia entomophila, the causal agent of amber disease of grass grub, show similarity to the insecticidal toxins of Photorhabdus luminescens. J Bacteriol 182:5127–5138
Hurst MRH, Jones SA, Binglin T et al (2011) The main virulence determinant of Yersinia entomophaga MH96 is a broad-host-range toxin complex active against insects. J Bacteriol 193:1966–1980
Ishii K, Adachi T, Hamamoto H, Sekimizu K (2014) Serratia marcescens suppresses host cellular immunity via the production of an adhesion-inhibitory factor against immunosurveillance cells. J Biol Chem 289:5876–5888
Jackson TA, Pearson JF, O’Callaghan M, Mahanty HK, Willocks M (1992) Pathogen to product - development of Serratia entomophila (Enterobacteriaceae) as a commercial biological control agent for the New Zealand grass grub (Costelytra zealandica). In: Jackson TA, Glare TR (eds) Use of pathogens in scarab pest management. Intercept, Andover, pp 191–198
Janisiewicz WJ, Roitman J (1988) Biological control of blue mold and gray Mold on apple and pear with Pseudomonas cepacia. Phytopathology 78:1697
Jarrett CO, Deak E, Isherwood KE et al (2004) Transmission of Yersinia pestis from an infectious biofilm in the flea vector. J Infect Dis 190:783–792
Jones A, Jeffery S, Gardi C, Jones A, Montanarella L, Marmo L, Miko L, Ritz K, Peres G, Römbke J, van der Putten WH (2010) European atlas of soil biodiversity. European Commission: European Soil Data Centre (ESDAC), Luxembourg
Kalha CS, Singh RP, Kang SS, Hunjan MS, Gupta V, Sharma R (2014) Entomopathogenic viruses and bacteria for insect-pest control. In: Abrol DP (ed) Integrated pest management: current concepts and ecological perspectives. Academic, San Diego, pp 225–244
Kil YJ, Seo MJ, Kang DK et al (2014) Effects of Enterobacteria (Burkholderia sp.) on development of Riptortus pedestris. J Fac Agric Kyush Univ 59:77–84
Kim JK, Kim NH, Jang HA et al (2013) Specific midgut region controlling the symbiont population in an insect-microbe gut symbiotic association. Appl Environ Microbiol 79:7229–7233
Koivunen M, Chanbusarakum L, Fernández L et al (2009) Development of a new microbial insecticide based on Chromobacterium subtsugae. IOBC/WPRS Bull 45:183–186
Kwak Y, Khan AR, Shin JH (2015) Genome sequence of Serratia nematodiphila DSM 21420T, a symbiotic bacterium from entomopathogenic nematode. J Biotechnol 193:1–2
Lacey LA, Frutos R, Kaya HK, Vail P (2001) Insect pathogens as biological control agents: do they have a future? Biol Control 21:230–248
Lacey, L.A. & Siegel, J.P (2000) Safety and ecotoxicology of entomopathogenic bacteria. In: Entomopathogenic bacteria: from laboratory to field application Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 253–273
Landsberg MJ, Jones SA, Rothnagel R et al (2011) 3D structure of the Yersinia entomophaga toxin complex and implications for insecticidal activity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:20544–20549
Liehl P, Blight M, Vodovar N et al (2006) Prevalence of local immune response against oral infection in a Drosophila/Pseudomonas infection model. PLoS Pathog 2:0551–0561
Marshall SDG, Hares MC, Jones SA et al (2012) Histopathological effects of the Yen-Tc toxin complex from Yersinia entomophaga MH96 (Enterobacteriaceae) on the Costelytra zealandica (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) larval midgut. Appl Environ Microbiol 78:4835–4847
Martin PAW, Gundersen-Rindal D, Blackburn M, Buyer J (2007) Chromobacterium subtsugae sp. nov., a betaproteobacterium toxic to Colorado potato beetle and other insect pests. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 57:993–999
Martinson VG, Danforth BN, Minckley RL et al (2011) A simple and distinctive microbiota associated with honey bees and bumble bees. Mol Ecol 20:619–628
Mazid S, Kalita JC, Rajkhowa RC (2011) A review on the use of biopesticides in insect pest management. Int J Sci Adv Technol 1:169–178
Mertz FR, Yao RC (1990) Saccharopolyspora spinosa sp. nov. isolated from soil collected in a sugar mill rum still. Int J Syst Bacteriol 40:34–39
Miyoshi S, Shinoda S (2000) Microbial metalloproteases and pathogenesis. Microbes Infect 2:91–98
Morris ON (1972) Susceptibility of some forest insects to mixtures of commercial Bacillus thuringiensis and chemical insecticides, and sensitivity of the pathogen to the insecticides. Can Entomol 104:1419–1425
Munson MA, Baumann P, Kinsey MG (1991) Buchnera gen. nov. and Buchnera aphidicola sp. nov., a taxon consisting of the mycetocyte associated, primary endosymbionts of aphids. Int J Syst Bacteriol 41:566–568
Musser FR, Nyrop JP, Shelton AM (2009) Integrating biological and chemical controls in decision making: European corn borer (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) control in sweet corn as an example. J Econ Entomol 99:1538–1549
Nicholson GM (2007) Fighting the global pest problem: preface to the special Toxicon issue on insecticidal toxins and their potential for insect pest control. Toxicon 49:413–422
Nicolas L, Hamon S, Frachon E et al (1990) Partial inactivation of the mosquitocidal activity of Clostridium bifermentans serovar Malaysia by extracellular proteinases. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 34:36–41
Parsek MR, Singh PK (2003) Bacterial biofilms: an emerging link to disease pathogenesis. Annu Rev Microbiol 57:677–701
Pathak DV, Yadav R, Kumar M (2017) Microbial pesticides: development, prospects and popularization in India. In: Plant-microbe interactions in agro-ecological perspectives. Springer, Singapore, pp 455–471
Perry T, McKenzie JA, Batterham P (2007) A D α 6 knockout strain of Drosophila melanogaster confers a high level of resistance to spinosad. Insect Biochem Mol Biol 37:184–188
Pigott CR, Ellar DJ (2007) Role of receptors in Bacillus thuringiensis crystal toxin activity. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 71:255–281
Rathod NP, Vala GS, Dudhat AS, Kachhadiya NM (2014) Field efficacy of bio-pesticides alone and in combination with newer insecticides against Helicoverpa armigera of pigeonpea. Int J Plant Prot 7:128–131
Ruiu L (2013) Brevibacillus laterosporus, a pathogen of invertebrates and a broad-spectrum antimicrobial species. Insects 4:476–492
Ruiu L (2015) Insect pathogenic bacteria in integrated pest management. Insects 6:352–367
Seleena P, Lee HL, Chiang YF (1999) Compatibility of Bacillus thuringiensis serovar israelensis and chemical insecticides for the control of Aedes mosquitoes. J Vector Ecol 24:216–223
Sharma V, Singh PK, Midha S et al (2012) Genome sequence of Brevibacillus laterosporus strain GI-9. J Bacteriol 194:1279
Shigenobu S, Watanabe H, Hattori M et al (2000) Genome sequence of the endocellular bacterial symbiont of aphids Buchnera sp. APS. Nature 407:81–86
Sims GK (1990) Biological degradation of soil. In: Lal R, Stewart BA (eds) Advances in soil science: soil degradation. Springer, Berlin, pp 289–330
Sparks TC, Crouse GD, Durst G (2001) Natural products as insecticides: the biology., biochemistry and quantitative structure-activity relationships of spinosyns and spinosoids. Pest Manag Sci 57:896–905
Sudakin DL (2003) Biopesticides. Toxicol Rev 22:83–90
Tailliez P, Pagès S, Ginibre N, Boemare N (2006) New insight into diversity in the genus Xenorhabdus, including the description of ten novel species. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 56:2805–2818
Tanzini M, Alves S, Setten A, Augusto N (2001) Compatibilidad de agent estensoactivos com Beauveria bassiana y Metarhizium anisopliae. Manejo Integrado de Plagas 59:15–18
Toh H, Toh H, Weiss BL et al (2006) Massive genome erosion and functional adaptations provide insights into the symbiotic lifestyle of Sodalis glossinidius in the tsetse host. Genome Res 16:149–156
Torres-Barragan A, Suazo A, Buhler WG, Cardoza YJ (2011) Studies on the entomopathogenicity and bacterial associates of the nematode Oscheius carolinensis. Biol Control 59:123–129
Turner MJ, Schaeffer JM (1989) Mode of action of Ivermectin. In: Ivermectin and Abamectin. Springer, New York, pp 73–88
U.S.E.P.A (2010) Pesticide registration manual: chapter 3 - additional considerations for biopesticide, products. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/bluebook/chapter3.html#pheromone. Accessed 18 Aug 2020
Vallet-Gely I, Lemaitre B, Boccard F (2008) Bacterial strategies to overcome insect defences. Nat Rev Microbiol 6:302–313
Vega FE, Meyling NV, Luangsa-ard JJ, Blackwell M (2012) Fungal entomopathogens. In: Vega FE, Kaya HK (eds) Insect pathology, 2nd edn. Academic Press, San Diego, California, pp 171–220
Vodovar N, Vallenet D, Cruveiller S et al (2006) Complete genome sequence of the entomopathogenic and metabolically versatile soil bacterium Pseudomonas entomophila. Nat Biotechnol 24:673–679
Vodovar N, Vinals M, Liehl P et al (2005) Drosophila host defense after oral infection by an entomopathogenic Pseudomonas species. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:11414–11419
Waldrop MP, Balser TC, Firestone MK (2000) Linking microbial community composition to function in a tropical soil. Soil Biol Biochem 32:1837–1846
Warren G (1997) Vegetative insecticidal proteins: novel proteins for control of corn pests. In: Advances in insect control: the role of transgenic plants. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 109–121
Waterfield NR, Bowen DJ, Fetherston JD et al (2001) The tc genes of Photorhabdus: a growing family. Trends Microbiol 9:185–191
Watson GB (2001) Actions of insecticidal spinosyns on γ-aminobutyric acid responses from small-diameter cockroach neurons. Pestic Biochem Physiol 71:20–28
Zhang J, Hodgman TC, Krieger L et al (1997) Cloning and analysis of the first cry gene from Bacillus popilliae. J Bacteriol 179:4336–4341
Zhang CX, Yang SY, Xu MX et al (2009) Serratia nematodiphila sp. nov., associated symbiotically with the entomopathogenic nematode Heterorhabditidoides chongmingensis (Rhabditida: Rhabditidae). Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 59:1603–1608
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gangwar, P., Trivedi, M., Tiwari, R.K. (2021). Entomopathogenic Bacteria. In: Omkar (eds) Microbial Approaches for Insect Pest Management. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3595-3_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3595-3_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-16-3594-6
Online ISBN: 978-981-16-3595-3
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)