Promising potential bacterial biopesticides in pests management

M. Punithavalli1 and M. Balaji Rajkumar2 1Scientist, Sugarcane Breeding Institute, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 2Scientist, Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Bacterial biopesticides are the best alternative for chemical insecticides to manage the pests below the economic threshold level (ETL) and environmentally safe to mankind from the residual effects. They are usually specific and highly virulent on given hosts, pose little or no hazards to non-target organisms and are compatible with other management programme. Since this significant benefit, these bacterial biopesticides are emerging as viable components of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) whose role is most conspicuous and effective. Most commonly used bacterial biopesticides for managing pests in several economically important agricultural crops are Bacillus thuringiensis and Spseudomonas spps. Bacillus thuringiensis Bacillus thuringiensis, a gram positivie, soil bacteria produces a parasporal crystalline inclusion body during sporulation. Upon ingestion, the alkaline gut juices release proteins called delta endotoxin, which activates the larval midgut epithelium causing disruption in membrane integrity resulting in septicaemia and ultimately leading to insect death. Most of the B. thuringiensis products are effective against more than 55 lepidopteran species on over 200 crops. B. thuringiensis products account for 60-90 per cent of global biopesticide market. The bacterial pathogen has been extensively used against number of lepidopteran larvae and is available different trade names viz., Dipel, Delfin, Thuricide, Biolep and Spicturin. Larvicidal action
of B. thuringiensis was proved against many lepidopteron pests. B. thuringiensis named Halt was found effective in controlling pod borer complex and increasing the grain yield of pigeonpea. B. thuringiensis var kurstaki was proved promising against pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera, diamond backmoth, Plutella xylostella and leaffolder, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis in chickpea, cauliflower and rice.

Pseudomonas fluorescens Pseudomonas fluorescens is another naturally and widely occurring bacterium. It is gramnegative, strictly aerobic, polarly flagellated rods. They are aggressive colonizers of the rhizosphere of various crop plants, and have a broad spectrum antagonistic activity to pest and pathogens. Information on bacteria mediated insect control has indicated that the bacteria induced

plant chitinases may have an important role by hydrolyzing chitin, which is a structural component of insect gut linings. Several Pseudomonas strains have been used to control many fungal, bacterial, viral and insect pests. Pseudomonas treatment affected the growth and development of insects in all stages of growth (larval, pupal and adult). P. maltophia affects the growth of larval stage of Helicoverpa zea, leading to more than 60% reduction in adult emergence. The pupae and adults that emerged from bacteria infected larvae were smaller. Application of talc based formulation of P. fluorescens (Pf1 and Pf7) and its mixture (with or without chitin) through seed, root, soil and foliar spray significantly reduced the rice leaffolder population by enhancing activities of hymenopterous parasitoids and predatory spider populations in rice (Radja Commare, 2002; Punithavalli et al. 2011). Significant increase in secondary metabolites viz., phenols, peroxidase (POD) and poly phenol oxidase (PPO) was observed after the treatment of P. fluorescens in rice, banana and Tomato. References: Punithavalli, M, Raguraman, S. and M. Balaji Rajkumar. 2011. Evaluation of talc based bio formulation of Pseudomonas fluorescens for the management rice leaffolder Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Guen.) on rice. Annals Plant Protection Sciences, 20: 96-101. Radja Commare, R, Nandakumar, R, Kandan, A, Suresh, S, Bharathi, M, Raguchander, T and R. Samiyappan. Pseudomonas fluorescens based bio-formulation for the management of sheath blight disease and leaffolder insect in rice. Crop Protection, 21: 671-677.