Abstract
This paper gives an overview on the unique concept of the entomovector technology to employ pollinating insects, including honey bees and bumble bees in the context of biological control of insect pests and diseases. After a brief introductory description, the multifaceted aspects of this intriguing technology are highlighted by describing the most significant results and achievements of research groups around the world concerning: (1) the importance of vector selection, as this determines the transport efficacy of biocontrol agents into the crop and is influenced by the vector–plant interactions, (2) the different potential biocontrol agents used so far, (3) the significance of the diluent and formulation for an increased vector loading and transport, (4) the different dispenser types developed over the past 20 years, and (5) the safety of this technology to the environment and humans. For all these interactions, we identify in a critical manner the limitations and the successes obtained so far. The needs for further research are also discussed to increase the potential of the entomovector technology in practical use.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
In agriculture and horticulture pollination plays a key role in the establishment of successful fruit setting, which is of high economic importance with an annual worldwide value estimated to be 153 billion euro (Velthuis and van Doorn 2006; Gallai et al. 2009). Since the dawn of their existence insects and plants have co-evolved to benefit from each other, but also plant pathogens have co-adapted for optimal dispersion. Short and long distance dispersion of diseases is mediated by abiotic factors, but also insect vectors such as pollinators can contribute to this process. Indeed they are known for their capacity to transmit viruses and fungal and bacterial spores together with pollen (Card et al. 2007). Based on this, the concept originated of using pollinators as vectors in a new, environmentally friendly control strategy to disseminate control agents against plant pathogens and insect pests into crop flowers (Peng et al. 1992). In this context pollinators are not only important for their pollination services, but they fulfil an important dual role.
The term “entomovector technology” was first used by Hokkanen and Menzler-Hokkanen (2007), and the approach incorporates different ecological components such as pollinators, biocontrol agents and plant pathogens/insect pests (Kevan et al. 2008). However, its success is based on mutual and suited interactions between the appropriate components of vector, control agent, formulation and dispenser, and it needs to be safe for the environment and the human health (Fig. 1).
Since the first report by Peng et al. (1992) almost 20 years ago, three vector species have been used in entomovectoring studies, namely honey bees (Apis mellifera Linnaeus (Hymenoptera: Apidae)), bumble bees (Bombus impatiens Cresson (Hymenoptera: Apidae) and Bombus terrestris Linnaeus (Hymenoptera: Apidae)) and in some particular cases the mason bee (Osmia cornuta Latreille (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae)). The limited number of vector species can be explained by their commercial availability. Bumble bees and honey bees are available the year around, allowing pollination to be synchronized with the blooming period of crops, whereas Osmia management remains a challenge. Several laboratories, however, are making progress to develop standardized protocols to control the time of emergence of Osmia (Pitts-Singer 2008; Sgolastra et al. 2010).
The primary reasons to introduce the entomovector technology as biocontrol strategy were to reduce the application of synthetic pesticides because of concerns of their impact on human health and the environment, and because of the development of resistance by pests against commonly used chemical pesticides. Also the poor control results achieved by spraying biocontrol agents, contributed to the employment of the entomovector technology. The assumption was that the entomovector technology performs better than spraying of a biocontrol agent because of the ability to deliver the agents directly onto the target location, i.e. the flowers. Moreover, flowers of crops play an important role in the life cycle of several important plant pathogens (reviewed by Ngugi and Scherm 2006) and after successful infection result in economic losses. Similarly, pests inhabiting flowers are also known to affect yields (Jones 2004; Dedryver et al. 2010). In this context, we discuss in this review the role of microbial control agents (MCAs) including fungi, bacteria and viruses, and the usefulness of vectoring by pollinating insects in the control of economically important diseases and pests in agriculture and horticulture.
For transport of the MCAs by the entomovector to the target, the formulation of the MCA is of crucial importance. As many commercial, powdery MCA formulations are developed for a water-spray application, these can be improved for an optimal transport by vectors. However, the acquisition of the product on the body of the vector is not only affected by the formulation, as also the dispenser needs to be appropriate. Over the past 20 years, multiple authors have reported on the development of different dispenser systems to allow the loading of vectors with a biocontrol agent. To date, eight dispenser types and a few modified versions have been designed for A. mellifera (Fig. 2). In parallel, six dispensers were developed for bumble bees, whereof two and a modified version for B. impatiens and three for B. terrestris (Fig. 3), and one type for the solitary orchard pollinator O. cornuta (Fig. 4). However, so far only few have been used in practice, and thus the efficacy and limitations of each system will be discussed on a more general level.
A final aspect to which attention must be drawn is the environmental and human safety of the entomovector strategy. The MCAs used so far have been isolated from the environment and thus are present in the target ecosystem. However, considering their niche, which mainly is the soil or the foliage, vectors rarely come into contact with them under natural conditions, and thus their safety towards the vector must be evaluated. So far vectoring studies only observed mortality when disseminating insecticidal MCAs, but care is needed as sublethal effects are not always obvious.
The aim of this review is to demonstrate the capacity of the entomovector technology for the dissemination of MCAs in the context of the biological control of plant diseases and insect pests, as explored since the early 1990s.
Selection of the vector
It is evident that success in dissemination and deposition of the MCA is crucial in an entomovector strategy. Therefore it is of paramount importance that the most efficient vector should be selected, and this selection depends on the species, the crop visitation rate by the vector, and the deposition capacity of the MCA by the vector to the target.
As listed in Table 1, honey bees and solitary mason bees are used to vector MCAs onto crops under field conditions. However, it is known that honey bee foraging activity is sensitive to environmental conditions. A good example is that honey bee workers do not fly, or fly only poorly during rainy days, and as a consequence, unvisited flowers are less protected and are likely to become infected. Indeed Vanneste (1996) and Maccagnani et al. (1999) postulated that weather conditions affect the capacity of the bees to transmit biocontrol agents. However, future studies should investigate the impact of weather, specifically dry conditions, on the potency of the MCA and/or the vectoring activity. For honey bees, it is also well known that they are less appropriate to be used for pollination in greenhouse long-blooming crops (Cribb and Hand 1993; Guerra-Sanz 2008). For O. cornuta, it should be mentioned that studies have been performed in orchard crops only so far (see for review Bosch and Kemp 2002). In contrast, for bumble bees, most entomovector studies have been conducted under greenhouse conditions (Table 1) as they are economically widely used to pollinate greenhouse crops because of their tolerance to the high temperature fluctuations typical to the greenhouse (Guerra-Sanz 2008). However, bumble bees are also suitable pollinators in open fields, and Goulson (2010) defined them as bad weather foragers compared to honey bees. Another important vector-species dependent factor is the range of foraging. Compared to honey bees, O. cornuta and bumble bees like B. terrestris stay in the close proximity of their nests, ranging between 100 and 200 m (Vicens and Bosch 2000) and 800–1,500 m (Wolf and Moritz 2008; Osborne et al. 2008), whereas effective foraging distances up to 3 km have been reported for honey bees.
Major factors determining the crop visitation rate by the vector are the vector–plant interactions. Kovach et al. (2000) reported on the impact of the attractiveness of strawberry crops for honey bees in open field trials. Similarly in a vectoring study, Peng et al. (1992) sprayed a bee-attractant (Bee-Scent®) to increase attractiveness, whereas other vectoring studies assured honey bee visits by increasing the colony size from 5,000 to 9,000 bees/hive (Shafir et al. 2006) and even up to 50,000 bees/hive (Escande et al. 2002). In addition, in open fields the population levels of other bees in the vicinity might affect the frequency of bee visits to the crop (Vanneste 1996). Here the decision of a bee to visit a flower is driven by floral-related cues such as size (Spaethe et al. 2001; Lunau et al. 2009), colour (Forrest and Thomson 2009), odour (Farina et al. 2007; Molet et al. 2009), temperature (Rands and Whitney 2008; Whitney et al. 2008) and by the floral reward (Stout and Goulson 2002; Raine and Chittka 2007; Gil 2010). Wolf et al. (1999) and Roldàn-Serrano et al. (2005) showed that varying nectar sugar concentration among plant cultivars affected the bumble bee visitation rate. Therefore many vectoring studies used up to four plant cultivars per field plot to increase bee attraction (Yu and Sutton 1997; Kovach et al. 2000; Escande et al. 2002). Since the rapid decline of the nectar sugar concentration during anthesis and the correlation between flower age and host susceptibility (Ngugi et al. 2002), vectoring should start before most of the flowers are open.
Deposition of the MCA on the target is necessary for the success of the entomovector technology. However to guarantee deposition on the flower organs the vector needs to be an efficient pollinator of the crop. Indeed, a good control of Erwinia amylovora (Burrill) Winslow (Enterobacteriales: Enterobacteriaceae) was achieved in studies when the MCA was directly applied on the stigma of flowers (Scherm et al. 2004), or when it was established before the presence of the plant pathogen (Wilson et al. 1992; Johnson et al. 1993a, b; Wilson and Lindow 1993; Alexandrova et al. 2002).
Selection of the biocontrol agent
Criteria for suitable biocontrol agents
Potential biocontrol agents for use in the entomovector technology need to fulfil the criteria as defined for agents against postharvest diseases by Droby et al. (2009) and Sharma et al. (2009): (a) genetically stable, (b) effective at low concentrations, (c) not fastidious in its nutrient requirements, (d) able to survive adverse environmental conditions, (e) resistant to pesticides, (f) non pathogenic to the host, (g) not detrimental to human health, and (h) preparable in a form that can effectively be stored and disseminated. In addition to these criteria three extra characteristics should be included for a suitable MCA, namely (i) effective against aerial and/or foliar plant pathogens/insect pests, (j) safe for the vector and the crop, and (k) able to survive and grow under conditions present in the flower.
What has already been done with the entomovector technology?
Contribution of pollinators to the control of plant pathogens
In the past, honey bees have been used with success for the dissemination of MCAs against economically important plant pathogens of orchard fruits (apple and pear), strawberry, raspberry, blueberry and sunflowers (Table 1). Under open field conditions, the success of suppression of plant diseases was shown to depend on the frequency of the visits by the vector to the crop. Indeed as long as a high frequency of bee visits to the crop was maintained, the vectoring of Clonostachys rosea (Link.: Fr.) Schroers, Samuels, Seifert & Gams (formerly Gliocladium roseum Bainier) (Hypocreales: Bionectriaceae) reduced the incidence of Botrytis cinerea Pers.:Fr. (Helotiales: Sclerotiniaceae) on strawberry flower organs from 53 to 35% in stamens and in the petals from 18 to 15% (Peng et al. 1992). Similarly, a high density of honey bees vectoring a combination of Trichoderma species protected sunflower crops until physiological maturity of the flower (Escande et al. 2002). A significant suppression of plant pathogens was also obtained when experiments were performed in covered areas such as cages placed in open field and in greenhouses. Good examples are: Monilinia vaccinii-corymbosi (JM Reade) Honey (Helotiales: Sclerotiniaceae) incidence was reduced from 21–67% to 7–44% in blueberries by vectoring Bacillus subtilis (Ehrenberg) Cohn (Bacillales: Bacilaceae) QRD132 (Dedej et al. 2004), B. cinerea was suppressed from 90 to 68%, and from 64 to 48% in raspberries and strawberries, respectively, when G. roseum was vectored (Peng et al. 1992; Yu and Sutton 1997), and sunflower Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary (Helotiales: Sclerotiniaceae) infection was suppressed by vectoring Trichoderma species up to 31 days after application of the pathogen (Escande et al. 2002). Therefore it can be concluded that when a satisfactory level of the MCA into flowers is realized, a good control level can be achieved. To date, all studies performed with honey bees as vector reported a mean MCA deposition between 103 and 104 CFU/flower. Interestingly, these numbers of CFU per flower agree with Elad and Freeman (2002) who reported that this amount is sufficient to suppress the plant pathogen B. cinerea. However, several authors reported a high variability in numbers of CFU per flower when vectored by honey bees, ranging between 0 and 104 CFU (Thomson et al. 1992; Kovach et al. 2000; Shafir et al. 2006; Albano et al. 2009). As a consequence, the efficacy of suppression was also variable, and even in some cases there was a failure of control when the disease pressure was high (Shafir et al. 2006). In addition, it is to be remarked that the vectoring was favourable for the viability of the MCA. Yu and Sutton (1997) and Kovach et al. (2000) reported higher numbers of CFU per flower after delivery via honey bees, and also a higher viability, compared to spray application. Typically, <10 CFU were scored in the flower within 2 days after a spray application.
For bumble bees, the few studies conducted under field conditions (i.e. open fields and/or greenhouses) demonstrated the potency of these vectors in raspberry, strawberry, tomato and sweet pepper. Yu and Sutton (1997), Kapongo et al. (2008a) and Albano et al. (2009) reported a good dissemination of the MCA by B. impatiens into flowers of several different crops. For instance, 1,000–5,000 CFU were deposited per flower by B. impatiens, resulting in a suppression by 57–59% of B. cinerea in tomato and sweet pepper (Kapongo et al. 2008a). Similarly, B. cinerea could be suppressed in raspberry and strawberry in a satisfactory manner (Yu and Sutton 1997; Kovach et al. 2000). Based on these results it can be concluded that vectoring by B. impatiens having a colony size that is only 1/60 of that of the honey bees, results in an equal suppression of the plant pathogen compared to honey bees. In addition, studies with B. terrestris workers documented a lower amount of MCA deposited into the flowers: 70 ± 31 CFU/flower and 135 ± 106 CFU/flower, and a high variability in the numbers of flowers containing MCA (67.5 ± 33.8%) (Maccagnani et al. 2005). However, according to Mommaerts et al. (2010b), the low transport efficacy can be explained by the use of inefficient dispensers, as these authors demonstrated a ten times higher acquisition on the bumble bee workers with a newly developed dispenser, compared to the one-way side-by-side passageway (SSP) dispenser. Moreover, drawing conclusions about the vector efficiency for both B. impatiens and B. terrestris is difficult due to difference in size of the experimental plots used: cages and small greenhouses of 6, 10 or 80 m2 (Yu and Sutton 1997; Kapongo et al. 2008a; Albano et al. 2009), whereas the vector capacity of B. terrestris was evaluated under more realistic conditions, namely in a greenhouse of 480 and 800 m2 (Maccagnani et al. 2005; Mommaerts et al. 2010b).
It is of interest that besides its presence in the flowers, MCA was also recovered on the leaves as result of load loss during flight. Kapongo et al. (2008a) showed that 90% of the sampled tomato leaves and 76% of the sampled sweet pepper leaves contained C. rosea, vectored by B. impatiens. Therefore, it is likely that the entomovector technology can be of help in protecting also other plant structures against B. cinerea, a fungus known to grow on every plant part (Mertley et al. 2002; Williamson et al. 2007), and to control foliar diseases such as powdery mildews.
So far one study has been conducted using the mason bee Osmia cornuta (Latreille) (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) as vector (Maccagnani et al. 2006). In general, the study indicated that O. cornuta was better suited than honey bees to disseminate powdery MCA formulations into pear flowers, as higher CFU per flower (104 vs. 104–107) were obtained, and a higher deposition of CFU/flower up to the 6th consecutively visited flower. However, firm conclusions can only be drawn in future studies when biocontrol activity will be considered.
Contribution of pollinators to insect pest control
Multiple studies have reported on the success of both honey bees and bumble bees to vector different entomopathogenic control agents into flowers to control pest insects which feed on, or inhabit, the flowers. An overview is given in Table 1.
As for the control of plant pathogens, successful control of several pest insects was achieved when honey bees were placed in caged field plots. For field crops such as for crimson clover, mortality of Helicoverpa zea Boddy (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) larvae was 74–87% when Heliothis nuclear polyhedrosis virus (HNPV) was vectored (Gross et al. 1994). Similarly, the vectoring of M. anisopliae on oil seed rape and canola resulted in high mortality of insect pests, including larvae/adults of Meligethes aeneus Fabricius (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) and Ceuthorhynchus assimilis Dejean (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) (Butt et al. 1998; Carreck et al. 2007). Jyoti and Brewer (1999) demonstrated that larvae of Cochylis hospes in sunflowers could be controlled by vectoring of B. thuringiensis var kurstaki (Bt), and that control levels were comparable or even higher than achieved by a spray application of Bt. Also vectoring of B. bassiana GHA in canola killed 22–56% of Lygus lineolaris (Palisot de Beauvois) (Hemiptera: Miridae) (Al-mazra’awi et al. 2006a). Overall, studies with honey bees reported high mortality rates of the target pest, indicating that sufficient amount of the MCA had been transported to the target; however, this was not investigated. Besides, MCAs such as B. bassiana and M. anisopliae have been indicated in the past as inefficient when applied as spray application, but this was due to the difficulty of suspending the conidia in water because of their hydrophobic cell walls (Noma and Strickler 2000), and the adverse effects on the viability of the conidia (Nilsson and Gripwall 1999). Consequently, this first success of insect pest control on field crops via the entomovector technology stimulated research on insect pest control in greenhouses.
To date the bumble bee B. impatiens is the only vector used for insect pest control in greenhouses. Here vectoring of B. bassiana GHA against major greenhouse pests such as thrips (Frankliniella occidentalis Pergande (Thysanoptera: Thripidae)), tarnished plant bug (L. lineolaris), whiteflies (Trialeurodes vaporariorum Westwood (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) and aphids (Myzus persicae Sulzer (Hemiptera: Aphididae) resulted in infection rates of 34-70% of the insect pests in tomato and in sweet pepper (Al-mazra’awi et al. 2006b; Kapongo et al. 2008a, b). The latter greenhouse studies achieved control with 103–104 CFU/flower. Although these results are promising, validation under more realistic conditions is still needed as the studies performed by Al-mazra’awi et al. (2006b) and Kapongo et al. (2008a) were done in cages of 6–8 m2 which is only a fraction of the size of a commercial greenhouse or an open field.
In addition, in studies using cages and/or greenhouses the MCA was also recovered at high amounts on the sampled leaves: 92% for tomato, 87–92% for sweet pepper and 70–82% for canola (Al-mazra’awi et al. 2006a; Kapongo et al. 2008b). Therefore, it can be concluded as above for plant pathogens that the entomovector technology is not limited to targeting insect pests of flowers only.
Alternatives to commercial MCAs to enhance control success by using the entomovector technology
To date entomovector studies achieved suppression of plant pathogens and insect pests after vectoring a MCA. However, the sensitivity of these control agents to environmental conditions might reduce their activity (Williamson et al. 2007). A valuable alternative that several authors have suggested is to use mixtures of MCAs, whose components differ in their mode of action, in order to achieve higher control levels. It should be stressed here, however, that good knowledge of the mode of action is crucial so that antagonistic interactions can be avoided. For instance, Robinson-Boyer et al. (2009) reported a lower control after a simultaneous application of Sentinel (based on Trichoderma atroviride P. Karsten (Hypocreales: Hypocreaceae) LC52) and Trianum (based on T. harzianum T22), whereas sequential applications resulted in a higher biocontrol efficacy. However, successes via enhancing control of B. cinerea by co-application has already been reported by multiple authors on cucumber, tomato and strawberry leaves when MCAs were used which either differ in their ecological requirements for survival, development and biocontrol activity (Elad et al. 1998; Guetsky et al. 2001; 2002), or inhabit different niches such as the foliar biocontrol agent U. atrum and the mycorrhizal fungus Glomus mosseae (T.H. Nicolson & Gerd.) Gerd. & Trappe (Glomerales: Glomeraceae) (Møller et al. 2009). A final promising alternative to enhance control is the use of a combination of a MCA and a control agent which is not influenced by environmental conditions (e.g. synthetic fungicides). Such combined use was already proven successful against post-harvest diseases (Zhou et al. 2002; Errampalli and Brubacher 2006; Sugar and Basile 2008; Nallathambi et al. 2009). For example, isolates of Trichoderma viride combined with 50 μg/g of the synthetic fungicide mancozeb were shown to control the plant pathogen Alternaria alternate Fr. (Kleissler) (Pleosporales: Pleosporaceae) by >70%. Also in the control of B. cinerea, Elad et al. (1993) reported reduced pathogen incidence on cucumber leaves after alternated/simultaneous use of T. harzianum and the chemical botryticide iprodione. Here it is evident that the compatibility between the control agents needs to be assessed. For instance, captan decreased the mycelium growth of C. rosea by 75% and that of conidia by 65% (Cota et al. 2009). Moreover, before use in practice can be recommended, additional tests on residues, consumer safety and development of resistance are needed for all MCAs. Indeed in the past, resistance of pathogenic strains was reported after repeated fungicidal spray applications (Dianez et al. 2002; Myresiotis et al. 2007; Bardas et al. 2008; Kretschmer et al. 2009). However, in future the entomovector technologies may also face the common problem of resistance evolution. Finally, there is a growing interest in the biocontrol activity of fungal metabolites. A good example is the biscorbicillinoids from Trichoderma, which strongly interfere with the biology of aphids (Evidente et al. 2009).
Dilutions and formulations
The products that have been disseminated in entomovector studies are typically powdery MCA formulations of a commercial product, or of a self-prepared mixture of a carrier and a microorganism. The purpose of the carrier is to make transport possible by reducing displacement due to air movement caused by bee wing beats during flight. Therefore, an appropriate carrier needs to fulfil three criteria (Kevan et al. 2008): (a) No effect on the life span of the MCA. A good example is that the germination of Trichoderma spp. and B. bassiana spores was significantly slower when formulated with talc (Hjeljord et al. 2000); (b) Safe for the vector. In the past, minerals such as talc were shown to adversely affect the honey bee brood (Pettis et al. 2004) and to be irritating, causing honey bees to groom (Israel and Boland 1993), whereas with flours as carrier grooming decreased by 50% (Kevan et al. 2008); (c) Enhance the transport capacity of the vector. In this context, Al-mazra’awi et al. (2007) showed that direct honey bee load increased with decreasing carrier particle size and moisture content. So far potential, known carrier substances are corn flour (Al-mazra’awi et al. 2006b), corn meal (Peng et al. 1992), bentonite (Kevan et al. 2008) and polystyrene beads (Butt et al. 1998). Despite the high efficiency of the latter carrier, these beads are prohibitively expensive for commercial formulations, whereas flours and meals have the advantage to be easily available and inexpensive, safe and food grade qualified. Unfortunately until today—20 years after the first entomovector study—there is still inadequate information on the potential of different carriers and their role in vector acquisition.
Dispenser
An optimal dispenser system needs to fulfil three criteria: (a) loads the vector with a sufficient amount of the powdery MCA product, (b) does not interfere with the foraging behaviour of the vector, and (c) has long refilling intervals (>1 day). Overall, the dispensers so far developed can be classified into two groups, namely the one-way type dispensers, where the chamber through which the bees enter or leave the dispenser is the same (or is not completely separated), and the two-way type dispensers where the chamber (with control agent) through which bees leave the dispenser is separated from the chamber (without control agent) via which they enter the dispenser.
Studies evaluating the efficiency of dispenser types report that one-way type dispensers are less suitable for use in the entomovector technology. Indeed for honey bees the Hardwood-dispenser and Tub-dispenser, which were initially designed to disseminate pollen, loaded the vector poorly, resulted in the vector searching for alternative routes to minimize powder contact, and needed to be daily refilled to obtain a satisfactory vector load of >104 CFU/bee (Thomson et al. 1992; Johnson et al. 1993a; Dag et al. 2000; Bilu et al. 2004).
Similarly the one-way SSP-dispenser developed for B. terrestris is not compatible as it resulted in poor loading: only 13% of the bumble bees had detectable amounts of the control agent. In addition, the bees exhibited strong grooming behaviour, and significantly reduced foraging activity (Maccagnani et al. 2005; Mommaerts et al. 2010b). In contrast, for another bumble bee species B. impatiens the over-and-under one-way dispenser developed by Yu and Sutton (1997) and its modified version (Kapongo et al. 2008b) resulted in a high loading of >104 CFU/bee immediately after leaving the dispenser.
To overcome the negative experiences, two-way type dispensers were developed. For honey bees this has resulted in six dispenser types, which are all based on an over-and-under design (see Fig. 2) and which load the vector with a higher amount. For example for the Tray-, Peng- and Triwaks-dispensers, a load of >105 CFU per honey bee was realized (Kovach et al. 2000; Bilu et al. 2004), Also for the Gross-dispenser satisfactory levels of pathogen suppression and decreased pest survival were obtained (Gross et al. 1994; Jyoto et al. 1999; Dedej et al. 2004). In contrast for the Houle-dispenser, which is an optimisation of the Gross and Tray-dispensers, the honey bee load after leaving the dispenser was only 4 ± 2 × 102 CFU/bee (Albano et al. 2009), but the amounts of CFU per gram of the powdery MCA product used was also 100 times less than that applied in the previous studies of Dedej et al. (2004) and Kovach et al. (2000). Further it is to be remarked that it is difficult to decide which dispenser is optimal due to the different experimental setups, formulations and concentrations used over the various studies. So far, there is only one comparative study (Bilu et al. 2004), reporting that the Triwaks-dispenser performed better than the Peng-dispenser: 1.5 × 105 CFU/honey bee versus 1.1 × 105 CFU/honey bee. In the latter study, it became also clear that the dispenser efficiency depends on the effects on foraging activity, and on the refilling intervals. In conclusion, the different two-way type dispensers developed for honey bees appear satisfactory.
In parallel, for B. terrestris Maccagnani et al. (2005) developed the two-way overlapping-passageway (OP)-dispenser, which resulted in a higher bumble bee loading as compared with the SSP-dispenser, but here it should be remarked that the initial CFU concentration was 10 times higher. However, further information on the impact of dispenser types on the foraging activity and on the refilling intervals are lacking. Recently Mommaerts et al. (2010b) designed a new two-way dispenser realizing a high loading of B. terrestris workers at >104 CFU/bee, with no adverse effects on the foraging activity, and with refilling at 3-day intervals. However, the dispenser developed by Mommaerts et al. (2010b) is not yet commercially available, as at the moment validation experiments are being performed under greenhouse conditions. Also for another greenhouse pollinator, a two-way Houle-dispenser was developed, which loaded the vector with >104 CFU/bumble bee (Albano et al. 2009), but no further information is given by the authors.
To date only one dispenser, a two-way dispenser, has been developed for O. cornuta (Maccagnani et al. 2006). The authors reported an average of 104–107 CFU per solitary bee, which is high compared to honey bees and bumble bees, but it should be remarked that here a very high CFU in the powdery MCA formulation (1010–1011 CFU/g) was used. Moreover, the strong avoidance behaviour for the powder immediately after filling of the dispenser might be a limiting factor for the system. Overall, it can be concluded that O. cornuta is suitable as a vector, and that the dispenser developed appears useful, however, no validation results so far are available from practice in the field.
Environmental and human safety of the entomovector technology
MCAs used in agriculture and horticulture are registered plant protection products, and thus adverse effects on non-target organisms have been evaluated. However, authorization has been given for spray applications, or for mixing in the soil, with fixed doses, whereas in the entomovector technology the MCAs will be disseminated continuously and potentially also on non-target sites (Brimmer and Boland 2003), where they can as in the case of Trichoderma spp. compete with the naturally occurring microflora for nutrients (Vinale et al. 2008).
Besides guaranteeing MCA transport into the flowers, the health of the vector needs to be assessed. For example when considering the use of entomopathogenic control agents, the risks to the vector need to be determined as the agents usually are not host specific. Side effects need to be assessed at three levels: short (acute) and long term (chronic) loss of survival (toxicity), sublethal effects on worker and nest (population) reproduction, and effects on the pollinator foraging behaviour. So far the MCAs used for insect pest control include Bt, B. bassiana GHA, M. anisopliae and HNPV. Based on the results obtained by several authors it can be concluded that entomopathogenic MCAs can adversely affect vector longevity, although the side-effects depend on the pollinator species used, and on the stage (adult vs. larval instar) considered (Vandenbergi 1990; Kangha et al. 2002, 2006; Hokkanen et al. 2004; Kapongo et al. 2008b; Kevan et al. 2008, Mommaerts et al. 2008, 2009, 2010a). Bt has been shown to be safe for adult honey bees (Vandenberg and Shimanuki 1986), while dependent on the Bt strain Mommaerts et al. (2010a) reported mortality in B. terrestris workers. For B. bassiana GHA bumble bees were found more susceptible to mycosis by this entomopathogen than honey bees. Indeed, the pathogen was able to grow on the insect body after dermal contact with a suspension of the commercial compound Botanigard resulting in the death of the insect (Mommaerts et al. 2008), but the risks are small as Kapongo et al. (2008b) obtained an acceptable level of vector mortality of 14% and a satisfactory efficacy level of pest control, 40% mortality of the pest by adjusting the initial concentration to 6 × 1010 conidia/g product. Also the use of M. anisopliae possesses some risks for bumble bees (Hokkanen et al. 2004) and honeybees. For the latter, however, the control agent has been used for the control of Varroa mites (James et al. 2006); so risks are probably minimal. Similarly, HNPV is highly host specific and effective only against certain Lepidopteran pests.
Within the current registration requirements, risk assessment studies with MCAs are to be conducted for the vector A. mellifera, and in addition, potential detrimental side-effects of different MCAs have also been evaluated for bumblebees such as B. terrestris (Mommaerts et al. 2008, 2009). Although most chemical products and MCAs used for plant disease control can be considered as safe, it is advisable to conduct more risk assessment studies especially when different vectors such as mason bees are considered. In addition, previous studies have demonstrated that simple extrapolation of toxicity values between honey bees and bumble bees is not possible (Thompson and Hunt 1999; Mommaerts et al. 2006).
Besides the reduction in survival, potential sublethal effects should also be evaluated. Although van der Steen et al. (2003) and Mommaerts et al. (2008, 2009) did not report of detrimental sublethal effects on honey bee and bumble bee reproduction, respectively, care is needed as subtle sublethal effects are not always directly obvious. Various pesticides at sublethal concentrations can induce significant changes in the physiology and behaviour of the insect pollinator (e.g. orientation and feeding) (reviewed by Desneux et al. 2007). Behavioural changes affecting the nest performance of B. terrestris have been reported after ad libitum uptake of sugar water dosed with sublethal concentrations of B. bassiana GHA (Mommaerts et al. 2009). Also other effects such as on orientation performance and learning/olfactory/memory can be assessed. For example in the laboratory, sublethal effects on honeybees have been assessed by a complex maze and the proboscis extension response (PER) (Zhang et al. 1996; Guez et al. 2001; Lambin et al. 2001; Abramson et al. 2004; Decourtye et al. 2003, 2004a, b; El Hassani et al. 2005), whereas in the field various authors have used automatic tracking with a harmonic radar and radio frequency identification devices to follow honey bee behaviour (Reynolds and Riley 2002). Recently, also for bumble bees a test has been developed in the laboratory—the foraging behaviour test—to assess potential risks of sublethal concentrations on the foraging behaviour of free flying bees (Mommaerts et al. 2010c). To date, PER for bumble bees has only been used in the context of studies on associative learning, but not to assess the impact of a pesticide exposure on olfaction and memory (Laloi et al. 1999; Toda et al. 2009).
In addition, the entomovector technology requires the exposure assessment of MCAs as a dry formulation. Behavioural changes have been observed in previous studies upon exposure to dust (Israel and Boland 1993; Vanneste 1996; Pettis et al. 2004). However, the present experimental designs do not allow such assessment and thus the development of an appropriate methodology is needed.
For humans no additional risks are connected with this technology, as the active substances of commercial MCAs are already registered according to the EU Directive 91/414/EEC.
General conclusions and research perspectives
Since the first studies in the early 1990s on the entomovector technology, recent advances have resulted in (i) the development of suitable dispensers for the three vectors that so far have been used; (ii) the efficiency of several pollinators has been evaluated; (iii) potential carriers have been identified; and (iv) several MCAs are now commercially available. At present the entomovector technology is already recommended for practice and is used with success in some countries such as BeeTreat in Finland (Hokkanen and Menzler-Hokkanen 2007, 2009; Hokkanen et al. 2011), but the system will benefit from further improvements. First, the reliability of the system needs to be improved under diverse environmental conditions, and combinations of different MCA strains and/or mixtures of MCAs with low risk chemical pesticides and naturally occurring antimicrobial substances can be investigated in combination with other cultural strategies. Second, to augment MCA deposition in the flowers for a better control capacity under high disease or pest pressure, commercial products need to be further fine-tuned. At present several candidate carries have been identified, but in future their compatibility with the vectors and their effect for a better acquisition on the bee body after flight should be determined. In this context it might also be of interest to investigate the potential of mixtures. Finally, we envisage that further studies on the understanding of the foraging behaviour of pollinators, the vector–plant interactions and the new insights obtained on the mode of action of antagonists under various environmental conditions and during interaction with different plant pathogens will contribute to the increasing success of this control strategy in the future. However it should be remarked that whatever system will be developed and recommended, its practical uptake will be directly dependent on its simplicity and its ease of use, while still providing good control at a low cost.
References
Abramson CI, Squire J, Sheridan A, Mulder PG (2004) The effect of insecticides considered harmless to honey bees (Apis mellifera): proboscis conditioning studies by using the insect growth regulators tebufenozide and diflubenzuron. Environ Entomol 33:378–388
Albano S, Chagon M, de Oliveira D, Houle E, Thibodeau PO, Mexia A (2009) Effectiveness of Apis mellifera and Bombus impatiens as dispensers of the Rootshield® biofungicide (Trichoderma harzianum, strain T-22) in a strawberry crop. Hell Plant Prot J 2:57–66
Alexandrova M, Bazzi C, Lameri P (2002) Bacillus subtilis strain BS-F3: colonisation of pear organs and its action as a biocontrol agent. Acta Hort 590:291–297
Al-mazra’awi MS, Shipp JL, Broadbent AB, Kevan PG (2006a) Dissemination of Beauveria bassiana by honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) for control tarnished plant bug (Hemiptera: Miridae) on canola. Biol Control 35:1569–1577
Al-mazra’awi MS, Shipp JL, Broadbent AB, Kevan PG (2006b) Biological control of Lygus lineolaris (Hemiptera: Miridae) and Frankiniella occidentalis (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) by Bombus impatiens (Hymenoptera: Apidae) vectored Beauveria bassiana in greenhouse sweet pepper. Biol Control 37:89–97
Al-mazra’awi MS, Kevan PG, Shipp L (2007) Development of Beauveria bassiana dry formulation for vectoring by honey bees Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae) to the flowers of crops for pest control. Biocontrol Sci Technol 17:733–741
Bardas GA, Myresiotis CK, Karaoglanidis GS (2008) Stability and fitness of anilinopyrimidine-resistant strains of Botrytis cinerea. Phytopathol 98:443–450
Bilu A, Dag A, Elad Y, Shafir S (2004) Honey bee dispersal of biocontrol agents: an evaluation of dispensing devices. Biocontrol Sci Technol 14:607–617
Bosch J, Kemp WP (2002) Developing and establishing bee species as crop pollinators: the example of Osmia spp. (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) and fruit trees. Bull Entomol Res 92:3–16
Brimmer TA, Boland GJ (2003) A review of the non-target effects of fungi used to biologically control plant diseases. Agri Ecos Environ 100:3–16
Butt TM, Carreck NL, Ibrahim L, Williams IH (1998) Honey bee-mediated infection of pollen beetle (Meligethes aeneus Fab.) by the insect-pathogenic fungus, Metarhizium anisopliae. Biocontrol Sci Technol 8:533–538
Card SD, Pearson MN, Clover GRG (2007) Plant pathogens transmitted by pollen. Austr Plant Pathol 36:455–461
Carreck NL, Butt TM, Clark SJ, Ibrahim L, Isger EA, Pell JK, Williams IH (2007) Honey bees can disseminate a microbial control agent to more than one inflorescence pest of oilseed rape. Biocontrol Sci Technol 17:179–191
Cota LV, Maffia LA, Mizubuti ESC, Macedo PEF (2009) Biological control by Clonostachys rosea as a key component in the integrated management of strawberry gray mold. Biol Control 50:222–230
Cribb DM, Hand DW (1993) A comparative study of the effects of using the honeybee as a pollinating agent of glasshouse tomato. J Hortic Sci 68:79–88
Dag A, Weinbaum SA, Thorp R, Eiskowitch D (2000) Evaluation of pollen dispensers (‘inserts’) effect on fruit set and yield in almond. J Apic Res 39:117–123
Decourtye A, Lacassie E, Pham-Delegue MH (2003) Learning performances of honeybees (Apis mellifera L.) are differentially affected by imidacloprid according to the season. Pest Manag Sci 59:269–278
Decourtye A, Armengaud C, Renou M et al (2004a) Imidacloprid impairs memory and brain metabolism in the honeybee (Apis mellifera L.). Pestic Biochem Physiol 78:83–92
Decourtye A, Devillers J, Cluzeau S et al (2004b) Effects of imidacloprid and deltamethrin on associative learning in honeybees under semi-field and laboratory conditions. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 57:410–419
Dedej S, Delaplane KS, Scherm H (2004) Effectiveness of honey bees in delivering the biocontrol agent Bacillus subtilis to blueberry flowers to suppress mummy berry disease. Biol Control 31:422–427
Dedryver CA, Le Ralec A, Fabre F (2010) The conflicting relationships between aphids and men: a review of aphid damage and control strategies. C R Biol 333:539–553
Desneux N, Decourtye A, Delpuech JM (2007) The sublethal effects of pesticides on beneficial arthropods. Annu Rev Entomol 52:81–106
Dianez F, Santos M, Blanco R, Tello JC (2002) Fungicide resistance in Botrytis cinerea isolates from strawberry crops in Huelva (southwestern Spain). Phytoparasitica 30:529–534
Droby S, Wisniewski M, Macarisin D, Wilson C (2009) Twenty years of posthavest biocontrol research: is it time for a new paradigm? Postharv Biol Technol 52:137–145
El Hassani AK, Dacher M, Gauthier M, Armengaud C (2005) Effects of sublethal doses of fipronil on the behavior of the honeybee (Apis mellifera). Pharmacol Biochem Behav 82:30–39
Elad Y, Freeman S (2002) Biological control of fungal plant pathogens. In: Kempken F (ed) The Mycota, a comprehensive treatise on fungi as experimental systems for basic and applied research. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany
Elad Y, Zimand G, Zaqs Y, Zuriel S, Chet I (1993) Use of Trichoderma harzianum in combination or alternation with fungicides to control cucumber grey mould (Botrytis cinerea) under commercial greenhouse conditions. Plant Pathol 42:324–332
Elad Y, Kirshner B, Sztejnberg A (1998) Management of powdery mildew and gray mold of cucumber by Trichoderma harzianum T39 and Ampelomyces quisqualis AQ10. Biocontrol 43:241–251
Errampalli D, Brubacher NR (2006) Biological and integrated control of postharvest blue mold (Penicillium expansum) of apples by Pseudomonas syringae and cyprodinil. Biol Control 36:49–56
Escande AR, Laich FS, Pedraza MV (2002) Field testing of honeybee-dispersed Trichoderma spp. to manage sunflower head rot (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum). Plant Pathol 51:346–351
Evidente A, Andolfi A, Cimmino A, Ganassi S, Altomare C, Favilla M, De Cristofaro A, Vitagliano S, Sabatini MA (2009) Bisorbicillinoids produced by the fungus Trichoderma citrinoviride affect feeding preference of the aphid schizaphis graminum. J Chem Ecol 35:533–541
Farina WM, Gruter C, Acosta L, SMc Cabe (2007) Honeybees learn floral odors while receiving nectar from foragers within the hive. Naturwissensch 94:55–60
Forrest J, Thomson JD (2009) Background complexity affects colour preference in bumblebees. Naturwissensch 96:921–925
Gil M (2010) Reward expectations in honeybees. Commun Integr Biol 3:95–100
Goulson D (2010) Bumblebees behaviour and ecology. Oxford University Press, New York, p 317
Gross HR, Hamm JJ, Carpenter JE (1994) Design and application of a hive-mounted device that uses honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) to disseminate Heliothis nuclear polyhedrosis virus. Biol Control 23:492–501
Guerra-Sanz JM (2008) Crop pollination in greenhouses. In: James RR, Pitts-Singer T (eds) Bee pollination in agriculture ecosystems. Oxford University Press, New York
Guetsky R, Shtienberg D, Elad Y (2001) Combining biocontrol agents to reduce the variability of biological control. Phytopathol 92:621–622
Guetsky R, Elad DSY, Fischer E, Dinoor A (2002) Improving biological control by combining biocontrol agents each with several mechanisms of disease suppression. Biol Control 92:976–985
Guez D, Suchail S, Gauthier M, Maleszka R, Belzunces LP (2001) Contrasting effects of imidacloprid on habituation in 7- and 8-day-old honeybees (Apis mellifera). Neurobiol Learn Mem 76:183–191
Hjeljord LG, Stensvand A, Tronsmo A (2000) Effect of temperature and nutrient stress on the capacity of commercial Trichoderma products to control Botrytis cinerea and Mucor piriformis in greenhouse strawberries. Biol Control 19:149–160
Hokkanen HMT, Menzler-Hokkanen I (2007) Use of honeybees in the biological control of plant diseases. Entomol Res 37:A62–A63
Hokkanen HMT, Menzler-Hokkanen I (2009) Successful use of honey bees for grey mould biocontrol on strawberries and raspberries in Finland. Apidologie 40:659
Hokkanen HMT, Zeng QQ, Menzler-Hokkanen I (2004) Assessing the impact of Metarhizium and Beauveria on bumblebees. In: Hokkanen H, Hajek EA (eds) Environmental impacts of microbial insecticides, needs and methods for risk assessment, vol 1. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands
Hokkanen HMT, Menzler-Hokkanen I, Mustalahti A-M (2011) Honey bees (Apis mellifera) for precision biocontrol of grey mould (Botrytis cinerea) with Gliocladium catenulatum on strawberries and raspberries in Finland. Arthropod-Plant Interact
Israel MS, Boland GJ (1993) Influence of formulation on efficacy of honey bees to transmit biological controls for management of Sclerotinia stem rot of canola. Can J Plant Pathol 14:244
James RR, Hayes GW, Leland JE (2006) Field trials on the microbial control of varroa with the fungus Metarhizium anisopliae. Am Bee J 146:968–972
Johnson KB, Stockwell VO, Mclaughlin RJ (1993a) Effect of antagonistic bacteria on establishment of honey bee-dispersed Erwinia amylovora in pear blossoms and on fire blight control. Phytopathol 83:995–1002
Johnson KB, Stockwell VO, Burgett DM, Sugar D, Loper JE (1993b) Dispersal of Erwinia amylovora and Pseudomonas fluorescens by honeybees from hives to apple and pear blossoms. Phytopathol 83:478–484
Jones RA (2004) Using epidemiological information to develop effective integrated virus disease management strategies. Virus Res 100:5–30
Jyoti JL, Brewer GJ (1999) Honeybees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) as vector of Bacillus thuringiensis for control of branded sunflower moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Environ Entomol 28:1172–1176
Kangha LHB, James RR, Boucias DG (2002) Hirsutella thompsonii and Metarhizium anisopliae as potential microbial control agents of Varroa destructor, a honey bee parasite. J Invertebr Pathol 81:175–184
Kangha LHB, Jones WA, Gracia C (2006) Efficacy of strips coated with Metarhizium anisopliae for control of Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae) in honey bee colonies in Texas and Florida. Exp Appl Acarol 40:249–258
Kapongo JP, Shipp L, Kevan P, Sutton JC (2008a) Co-vectoring of Beauveria bassiana and Clonostachys rosea by bumblebees (Bombus impatiens) for control of insect pests and suppression of grey mould in greenhouse tomato and sweet pepper. Biol Control 46:508–514
Kapongo JP, Shipp L, Kevan P (2008b) Optimal concentration of Beauveria bassiana vectored by bumble bees in relation to pest and bee mortality in greenhouse tomato and sweet pepper. Biocontrol 53:797–812
Kevan PG, Kapongo J-P, Al-mazra’awi M, Shipp L (2008) Honey bees, bumble bees and biocontrol. In: James RR, Pitts-Singer T (eds) Bee pollination in agriculture ecosystems. Oxford University Press, New York
Kovach J, Petzoldt R, Harman GE (2000) Use of honeybees and bumble bees to disseminate Trichoderma harzianum 1295–22 to strawberries for Botrytis control. Biol Control 18:235–242
Kretschmer M, Leroch M, Mosbach A, Walker AS, Fillinger S, Mernke D, Schoonbeek HJ, Pradier JM, Leroux P, De Waard MA, Hahn M (2009) Fungicide-driven evolution and molecular basis of multidrug resistance in field populations of the grey mould fungus Botrytis cinerea. PLoS Pathog 5(12):e1000696. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1000696
Laloi D, Sandoz JC, Picard-Nizou AL, Marchesi A, Pouvreau A, Tasei JN, Poppy G, Pham-Delegue MH (1999) Olfactory conditioning of the proboscis extension in bumble bees. Entomol Exp Appl 90:123–129
Lambin M, Armengaud C, Raymond S (2001) Imidacloprid induced facilitation of the proboscis extension reflex habituation in the honeybee. Arch Insect Biochem Physiol 48:129–134
Lunau K, Unseld K, Wolter F (2009) Visual detection of diminutive floral guides in the bumblebee Bombus terrestris and in the honeybee Apis mellifera. J Comp Physiol 195A:1121–1130
Maccagnani B, Mocioni M, Gullino ML, Ladurner E (1999) Application of Trichoderma harzianum by using Apis mellifera as a vector for the control of grey mold of strawberry: first results. IOBC Bull 22:161–164
Maccagnani B, Mocioni M, Ladurner E, Gullino ML, Maini S (2005) Investigation of hive-mounted devices for the dissemination of microbiological preparations by Bombus terrestris. Bull Insectol 58:3–8
Maccagnani BBC, Biondi E, Tesoriero D, Maini S (2006) Potential of Osmia cornuta as a carrier of antagonist bacteria in biological control of fire blight: a comparison with Apis mellifera. Acta Hort (ISHS) 704:379–386
Mertley JC, Mackenzie SJ, Legard DE (2002) Timing of fungicide applications for Botrytis cinerea based on development stage of strawberry flowers and fruit. Plant Dis 86:1019–1024
Molet M, Chittka L, Raine NE (2009) How floral odours are learned inside the bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) nest? Naturwissensch 96:213–219
Møller K, Kristensen K, Yohalem D, Larsen J (2009) Biological management of gray mold in pot roses by co-inoculation of the biocontrol agent Ulocladium atrum and the mycorrhizal fungus Glomus mosseae. Biol Control 49:120–125
Mommaerts V, Sterk G, Smagghe G (2006) Hazards and uptake of chitin synthesis inhibitors in bumblebees Bombus terrestris. Pest Manag Sci 62:752–758
Mommaerts V, Platteau G, Boulet J, Sterk G, Smagghe G (2008) Trichoderma-based biological control agents are compatible with the pollinator Bombus terrestris: a laboratory study. Biol Control 46:463–466
Mommaerts V, Sterk G, Hofmann L, Smagghe G (2009) A laboratory evaluation to determine the compatibility of microbiological control agents with the pollinator Bombus terrestris. Pest Manag Sci 65:949–955
Mommaerts V, Jans K, Smagghe G (2010a) Side effects of commercial Bacillus thuringiensis insecticides on micro-colonies of Bombus terrestris. Pest Manag Sci 66:520–525
Mommaerts V, Kurt P, Vandeven J, Jans K, Sterk G, Hoffmann L, Smagghe G (2010b) Development of a new dispenser for microbiological control agents and evaluation of dissemination by bumblebees in greenhouse strawberries. Pest Manag Sci 66:1199–1207
Mommaerts V, Reynders S, Boulet J, Besard L, Sterk G, Smagghe G (2010c) Risk assessment for side-effects of neonicotinoids against bumblebees with and without impairing foraging behavior. Ecotoxicology 19:207–215
Myresiotis CK, Karaoglanidis GS, Tzavella-Monari K (2007) Resistance of Botrytis cinerea isolates from vegetable crops to anilinopyrimidine, phenylpyrrole, hydroxyanilide, benzimidazole, and dicarboximide fungicides. Plant Dis 91:407–413
Nallathambi P, Ulmamaheswari C, Thakore BBL, More TA (2009) Post-harvest management of ber (Ziziphus mauritiana Lamk) fruit rot (Alternaria alternate Fr. Keissler) using Trichoderma species, fungicides and their combinations. Crop Prot 28:525–532
Ngugi HK, Scherm H, Lehman JS (2002) Relationship between blueberry flower age, pollination and conidal infection by Monilinia vaccinii-corymbosi. Ecol Popul Biol 92:1104–1109
Nilsson U, Gripwall E (1999) Influence of application technique on the viability of the biological control agents Verticillium lecanii and Stenernema feltiae. Crop Prot 18:53–59
Noma T, Strickler K (2000) Effects of Beauveria bassiana on Lygus hesperus (Hemiptera: Miridae) feeding and oviposition. Environ Entomol 29:394–402
Osborne JL, Martin AP, Carreck NL, Swain JL, Knight ME, Goulson D, Hale RJ, Sanderson RA (2008) Bumblebee flight distances in relation to the forage landscape. J Anim Ecol 77:401–415
Peng G, Sutton JC, Kevan PG (1992) Effectiveness of honeybees for applying the biocontrol agent Gliocladium rosea to strawberry flowers to suppress Botrytis cinerea. Can J Plant Pathol 14:117–129
Pettis JS, Kochansky J, Feldlaufer MF (2004) Larval Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae) mortality after topical application of antibiotics and dusts. J Econ Entomol 97:171–176
Pitts-Singer TL (2008) Past and present management of alfalfa bees. In: James RR, Pitts-Singer T (eds) Bee pollination in agriculture ecosystems. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 105–122
Raine NE, Chittka L (2007) The adaptive significance of sensory bias in a foraging context: floral colour preferences in the bumblebee Bombus terrestris. PLoS ONE 2(6):e556. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000556
Rands SA, Whitney HM (2008) Floral temperature and optimal foraging: Is heat a feasible floral reward for pollinators? PLoS ONE 3(4):e2007. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002007
Reynolds DR, Riley JR (2002) Remote-sensing, telemetric and computer-based-technologies for investigating insect movement: a survey of existing and potential techniques. Comput Electron Agric 35:271–307
Robinson-Boyer L, Jeger MJ, Xu X-M, Jeffries P (2009) Management of strawberry grey mould using mixtures of biocontrol agents with different mechanisms of action. Biocontrol Sci Technol 19:1051–1065
Roldàn-Serrano AS, Guerra-Sanz JM (2005) Reward attractions of zucchini flowers (Cucurbita pepo L.) to bumblebees (Bombus terrestris L.). Europ J Hort Sci 70:23–28
Scherm H, Ngugi HK, Savelle AT, Edwards JR (2004) Biological control of infection of blueberry flowers caused by Monilinia vaccinii-corymbosi. Biol Control 29:199–206
Sgolastra F, Bosch J, Molowny-Horas R, Maini S, Kemp WP (2010) Effect of temperature regime on diapause intensity in an adult-wintering Hymenopteran with obligate diapause. J Insect Physiol 56:185–194
Shafir S, Dag A, Bilu A, Abu-Toamy M, Elad Y (2006) Honeybee dispersal of the biocontrol agent and Trichoderma harzianum T39: effectiveness in suppressing Botrytis cinerea on strawberry under field conditions. Eur J Plant Pathol 116:119–128
Sharma RR, Singh D, Singh R (2009) Biological control of postharvest of fruits and vegetables by microbial antagonists: a review. Biol Control 50:205–221
Spaethe J, Tautz J, Chittka L (2001) Visual constraints in foraging bumblebees: flower size and color affect search time and flight behaviour. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:3898–3903
Stout JC, Goulson D (2002) The influence of nectar secretion rates on the responses of bumblebees (Bombus spp.) to previously visited flowers. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52:239–246
Sugar D, Basile SR (2008) Timing and sequence of postharvest fungicide and biocontrol agent applications for control of pear decay. Postharv Biol Technol 49:107–112
Thompson HM, Hunt LV (1999) Extrapolation from honeybees to bumblebees in pesticide risk assessment. Ecotoxicology 8:147–166
Thomson SV, Hansen DR, Flint KM, Vandenberg JD (1992) Dissemination of bacteria antagonistic to Erwinia amylovora by honey bees. Plant Dis 76:1052–1056
Toda NRT, Song J, Nieh JC (2009) Bumblebees exhibit the memory spacing effect. Naturwissensch 96:1185–1191
van der Steen JJM, Langerak CJ, Van Tongeren CAM, Dik AJ (2003) Aspects of the use of honeybees and bumblebees as vector of antagonistic micro-organisms in plant disease control. Proc Neth Entomol Soc Meeting 15:41–46
Vandenberg JD, Shimanuki H (1986) Two commercial preparations of the beta exotoxin of Bacillus thuringiensis influence the mortality of caged adult honeybees Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Environ Entomol 15:166–169
Vandenbergi JD (1990) Safety of four entomopathogens for caged adult honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). J Econ Entomol 83:755–759
Vanneste JL (1996) Honey bees and epiphytic bacteria to control fire blight, a bacterial disease of apple and pear. Biocont News Inform 17:67N–78N
Vicens N, Bosch J (2000) Pollinating efficacy of Osmia cornuta and Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae, Apidae) on ‘Red Delicious’ apple. Environ Entomol 29:235–240
Vinale F, Sivasithamparam K, Ghisalberti EL, Marra R, Barbetti MJ, Li H, Woo SL, Lorito M (2008) A novel role for Trichoderma secondary metabolites in the interactions with plants. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 72:80–86
Whitney HM, Dyer A, Chittka L, Rands SA, Glover BJ (2008) The interaction of temperature and sucrose concentration on foraging preferences in bumblebees. Naturwissensch 95:845–850
Williamson B, Tudzynski B, Tudzynski P, Van Kan JAL (2007) Botrytis cinerea: the cause of grey mold disease. Mol Plant Pathol 8:561–580
Wilson M, Lindow SE (1993) Interactions between the biological control agent Pseudomonas fluorescens A506 and Erwinia amylovora in pear blossoms. Phytopathol 83:117–123
Wilson M, Epton HAS, Sigee DC (1992) Interactions between Erwinia herbicola and E. amylovora on the stigma of hawthorn blossoms. Phytopathol 82:914–918
Wolf S, Moritz RFA (2008) Foraging distance in Bombus terrestris L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Apidologie 39:419–427
Wolf TJ, Ellington CP, Begley IS (1999) Foraging costs in bumblebees: field conditions cause large individual differences. Insectes Soc 46:291–295
Yu H, Sutton JC (1997) Effectiveness of bumblebees and honeybees for delivering inoculum of Gliocladium roseum to raspberry flowers to control Botrytis cinerea. Biol Control 10:113–122
Zhang SW, Bartsch K, Srintvasan MV (1996) Maze learning by honeybees. Neurobiol Learn Mem 66:267–282
Zhou T, Northover J, Schneider KE, Lu XW (2002) Interactions between Pseudomonas syringae MA-4 and cyprodinil in the control of blue mold and gray mold of apples. Can J Plant Pathol 24:154–161
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the Special Research Fund of VUB (Brussels, Belgium), and a PhD fellowship of the Luxembourg Ministry for Culture, Higher Education and Research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
Handling Editors: Sam Cook and Heikki Hokkanen.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mommaerts, V., Smagghe, G. Entomovectoring in plant protection. Arthropod-Plant Interactions 5, 81–95 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11829-011-9123-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11829-011-9123-x