Evaluation of entomopathogenic fungi for management of white grub and termite and their impact on groundnut growth under pots & field conditions

Introduction

Groundnut or Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) is an important legume nut as well as one of the most important cash crops of our country. It is a low-priced commodity but a valuable source of all nutrients. In the farming of groundnut, India is the world leader with 4.12 million hectares of cultivated area with 3.77 million tonnes production during 2018-19 (Acc. to SEA report). It has been reported that the groundnut is native of Brazil to Peru, Argentina & Ghana. It was introduced into India during the first half of the 16 th century from one of the Pacific Islands of China Groundnut (Arachis hypogea L.) is a member of subfamily-Papilionaceae of family Leguminosae. It is a self-pollinated annual legume. At the locations where bee activity is high, some cross pollination can occur. Groundnut is called as ''King of oilseeds'' and the 6 th most important oilseed crop in the world. It contains 48-50% of oil and 26-28% of protein, and is a rich source of dietary fibre, minerals and vitamins. It is also used in soap making, and manufacturing cosmetics and lubricants, olein stearin and their salts. Kernels are rich in protein and vitamin A, B and some members of B 2 group. Their calorific value is 349/100gm. The Hand-Picked Selection (HPS) types of kernels are exported to foreign. Its oil is extensively used as a cooking medium as both refined oil and Vanaspati Ghee. The residual oilcake after extraction of oil, contains 7-8% of N, 1.5% of P 2 O 5 and 1.2% of K2O making it useful as a fertilizer. Groundnut cultivating farmers face the huge loss due to the major destructive pest White grub (Holotrichia consanguinea) and Termites (Odontotermes spp. and Microtermes spp.) with wide distribution especially in the dry & sand-rich soils.

White grubs cause the damage by eating the nodules, the rootlets and may also girdle the main root ultimately killing the plants.Termite is another important pest of groundnut. These are widely distributed in sand rich soils having areas. Mainly Odontotermes spp. and Microtermes spp. can cause damage to groundnut crop. They cause damage by entering the root system and burrow inside the root as well as stem. They bore holes in pods and damage the seed and remove the soft corky tissues from between the veins of pods. (ICRISAT) For the control of white grub and termites in groundnut, farmers are using heavy and repeated dose of chemical pesticides in injudicious manner which is detoriaing the natural soil flora and fauna. Biopesticides generally affect only the target pest and closely related organisms, when used as a component of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs, biopesticides can greatly reduce the use of conventional pesticides, while crop yields remain high

Material and method

The variety of groundnut HGN-123 was choosen for experimental purpose. This is Virginia Bunch high yielding variety with Salmon colored Kernels and high Shelling turnover.

Collection of white grub and termite colonies-

Holotrichia species of white grub is majorly habitual species of this region. The grubs were collected and graded (stage wise) in laboratory. As the attack of termite was very common in this area so the colonies of termite were collected very easily.

Soil Testing

The soil sample was taken from the experimental field by following the standard method of soil sampling. The taken soil was tested in the laboratory of Krishi Vigyan Kendra-II, Katiya, Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh.

Treatment in Pots

To check the best concentration of Metarhizium anisopliae and Beauvaria bassiana individually and also in combined form, we conducted a pot experiment a few days earlier than the main (plot) experiment. The sterilized soil of the constant weight was filled in each pot. The same spp. of white grub and same amount of termite colonies were released in the pots after sowing. In pots, four doses 2 x 10 5 , 2 x 10 6 , 2 x 10 7 , 2 x 10 8 and 2 x 10 9 in Colony Forming Unit (CFU) per millilitre were examined of Metarhizium anisopliae and Beauvaria bassiana individually and the combination of both. Yubak Dhoj G.C. 2006 used 1 x 10 7 /ml concentration of entomopathogenic fungi Metarhizium anisopliae in his experiment against White grub and got 67.5% mortality. Three replications R 1 , R 2 and R 3 were used for each treatment. The above treatments and replications were applied for Metarhizium anisopliae, Beauvaria bassiana and for the combination of both fungi.

Observation of growth parameters

The growth parameters of each plot were recorded at different crop growing stages of groundnut for the observation.

Plant Height

The average height of groundnut plant was measured by selecting the plants. The plants were choosen randomly with square meter quadrate from every replication of the relevant treatment at 90 days after sowing (DAS).

No. of leaves

At 90 days after sowing of crops, we counted the average number of leaves from each replication of the treatments by selecting the plants in random manner by using square m quadrate.

No. of nodes/plant

At 90 days after sowing the crop in plots, the average number of nodes were recorded from each replication of all treatments. To record this data some plants randomly selected from every plot.

No. of pods/plant

At the stage of harvesting, we recorded the data of pods. The average numbers of pods were counted from some randomly selected plants after harvesting.

No. of damaged pods/plant

On harvesting, the average number of damaged pods by white grub and termite were also recorded from all the replicated plots.

Yield

Yield per plot was recorded among the all-experimental plots randomly selected in square meter quadrates. The average mean yield/plot was recorded per replication plot. The application of entomopathogenic fungi significantly reduced pod damage caused by termite and white grub at harvest compared to the untreated control. The data presented in Table 3 clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of both Metarhizium anisopliae and Beauveria bassiana, with the combined application producing the lowest damage percentages.

Results and Discussions

In the control plots (T 0 ), average pod damage was 11.3% by termite and 16.2% by white grub. Application of M. anisopliae (T 1 ) reduced pod damage to 0.7% by termite and 1.2% by white grub. Similarly, B. bassiana (T 2 ) treatment lowered pod damage to 1.1% by termite and 1.3% by white grub.

The combined application of M. anisopliae and B. bassiana (T 3 ) was most effective, reducing pod damage to 0.5% by termite and 0.7% by white grub. This represents a reduction of more than 95% compared to the control, highlighting the synergistic effect of the two fungi in minimizing pestinduced losses at harvest. The application of entomopathogenic fungi had a significant impact on the yield and economic returns of groundnut under field conditions. The data presented in Table 4 show that both Metarhizium anisopliae and Beauveria bassiana, when applied individually, improved yield and profitability compared to the untreated control, while their combined application produced the highest yield and economic benefit.

In the control plots (T 0 ), the yield was 12.4 q/ha, with a gross cost of Rs. [1] , as well as their combinations with some insecticides (Rivero-Borja et al., 2018) [20] , with various chemical compounds, such as thymol, and application methods (Sinia and Guzmán-Novoa, 2018) [19] showed pest control significantly. In general, the research deals with formulations, mortality and virulence (Oliveira et al., 2018) [21] , laboratory bioassays, field evaluation, and their evaluation for the control of various pests.

Conclusion

The present study clearly demonstrates that the application of entomopathogenic fungi, Metarhizium anisopliae and Beauveria bassiana, plays a significant role in reducing pest incidence and improving growth and yield of groundnut. Both fungi, when applied individually, effectively reduced losses caused by white grub and termite and enhanced plant growth parameters as well as yield attributes compared to the untreated control. However, the combined application of M. anisopliae and B. bassiana proved to be the most effective treatment across all parameters. It showed a synergistic effect by minimizing pest-induced losses to the greatest extent, significantly reducing pod damage and improving both external and internal plant growth characteristics. This combined treatment also resulted in the highest yield and maximum economic returns, indicating its practical feasibility and profitability for farmers.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementThe authors sincerely thank the Krishi Vigya Kedra Katiya-II, Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh, India, for providing facilities, guidance and support for this research. Gratitude is extended to all individuals who directly or indirectly contributed to the successful completion of this study.

References

1. Barbosa TDS, De Andrade DJ, Polanczyk RA, Duarte RT. Susceptibility of Tetranychus ogmophallos (Acari: Tetranychidae) to Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae. Florida Entomologist. 2018;101(2):249-253.
2. Bugeme DM, Maniania MK, Knapp M, Boga HI. Effect of temperature on virulence of Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae isolates to Tetranychus evansi. Experimental and Applied Acarology. 2008;46:275285.
3. Erler F, Ates AO. Potential of two entomopathogenic fungi, Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae, as biological control agents against the June beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Journal of Insect Science. 2015;15(1):44-62.
4. Jarquin ELDS. Analysis of research on Metarhizium anisopliae in the last 40 years. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas. 2019;(Special Issue 22):155-162.
5. Espinoza F, Vidal S, Rautenbach F, Lewu F, Nchu F. Effects of Beauveria bassiana (Hypocreales) on plant growth and secondary metabolites of hydroponically cultivated chive Allium schoenoprasum L. (Amaryllidaceae). Heliyon. 2019;5:1-5.
6. Senthilraja G, Anand T, Durairaj C, Kennedy JS, Suresh S, Raguchander T, et al. A new microbial consortia containing entomopathogenic fungus, Beauveria bassiana and plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria, Pseudomonas fluorescens, for simultaneous management of leaf miners and collar rot disease in groundnut. Biocontrol Science and Technology. 2009;20(5):449-464.
7. Gadhiya HA, Borad PK, Bhut J. Evaluation of different biopesticides against Spodoptera litura (Fabricius) infesting groundnut. AGRES-An International eJournal. 2014;3(1):73-79.
8. GC YD, Keller S. Association of fungal pathogens with white grubs. In: Neupane FP, editor. Integrated Pest Management in Nepal. Kathmandu: Himalayan Resources Institute; 2002. p. 25-26.
9. GC YD, Keller S, Nagel P. Microbial control of white grubs with entomopathogenic fungi and its value in integrated pest management (IPM) in Nepal. Journal of Tribhuvan University. 2004;24:37-47.
10. GC YD, Keller S, Nagel P, Kafle LN. Virulence of Metarhizium anisopliae and Beauveria bassiana against common white grubs in Nepal. Formosan Entomology. 2008;28:1-10.
11. Keppanan R, Sivaperumal S, Ramos Aguila LC, Hussain M, Bamisile BS, Dash CK, et al. Isolation and characterization of Metarhizium anisopliae TK29 and its mycoinsecticide effects against subterranean termite Coptotermes formosanus. Microbial Pathogenesis. 2018;123:52-59.
12. Kin PK, Moslim R, Azmi WA, Kamarudin N, Ali SRA. Genetic variation of entomopathogenic fungi, Metarhizium anisopliae and Isaria amoenerosea, and their pathogenicity against subterranean termite, Coptotermes curvignathus. Journal of Oil Palm Research. 2017;29(1):35-46.
13. Ghanbary MAT, Asgharzadeh AR, Hadizadeh AR, Mohammadi Sharif M. A quick method for Metarhizium anisopliae isolation from cultural soils. American Journal of Agricultural and Biological Sciences. 2009;4(2):152-155.
14. Greenfield M, Gomez-Jimenez MI, Ortiz V, Vega FE, Kramer M, Parsa S. Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae endophytically colonize cassava roots following soil drench inoculation. Biological Control. 2016;95:40-48.
15. Junagadh (IN): Junagadh Agricultural University; 2018. International Journal of Advanced Biochemistry Research https://www.biochemjournal.com
16. Patel BD, Patel GM. Efficacy of new insecticidal formulations as seed treatment against white grub in groundnut. Gujarat Agricultural University Journal. 2000;25(2):27-33.
17. Pradnya BM, Pandurang BM. Efficacy of newer insecticidal molecules against white grub, Leucopholis lepidophora, infesting sugarcane in Western Maharashtra. Journal of Global Biosciences. 2015;4:2431-2436.
18. Chandel RS, Soni S, Vashisth S, Pathania M, Mehta PK, Rana A, et al. The potential of entomopathogens in biological control of white grubs. International Journal of Pest Management. 2018;65(4):348-362.
19. Sinia A, Guzman-Novoa E. Evaluation of the entomopathogenic fungi Beauveria bassiana GHA and Metarhizium anisopliae UAMH 9198 alone or in combination with thymol for the control of Varroa destructor in honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies. Journal of Apicultural Research. 2018;57(2):308-316.
20. Rivero-Borja M, Guzmán-Franco AW, Rodríguez-Leyva E, Santillán-Ortega C, Pérez-Panduro A. Interaction of Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae with chlorpyrifos ethyl and spinosad in Spodoptera frugiperda larvae. Pest management science. 2018 Sep;74(9):2047-52.
21. Oliveira CB, Maher CG, Pinto RZ, Traeger AC, Lin CW, Chenot JF, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain in primary care: an updated overview. European spine journal. 2018 Nov;27(11):2791-2803.