Journal of
Entomology and Nematology

  • Abbreviation: J. Entomol. Nematol.
  • Language: English
  • ISSN: 2006-9855
  • DOI: 10.5897/JEN
  • Start Year: 2009
  • Published Articles: 135

Review

Entomopathogenic nematodes, potential industrial pest control agents: A South African perspective

Tshikala Eddie Lulamba
  • Tshikala Eddie Lulamba
  • Department of Biotechnology and Food Technology, Faculty of Science, University of Johannesburg, Doornfontein Campus, P. O. Box 17011 Doornfontein 2028, Johannesburg, South Africa.
  • Google Scholar
Ezekiel Green
  • Ezekiel Green
  • Department of Biotechnology and Food Technology, Faculty of Science, University of Johannesburg, Doornfontein Campus, P. O. Box 17011 Doornfontein 2028, Johannesburg, South Africa.
  • Google Scholar
Mahloro Hope Serepa-Dlamini
  • Mahloro Hope Serepa-Dlamini
  • Department of Biotechnology and Food Technology, Faculty of Science, University of Johannesburg, Doornfontein Campus, P. O. Box 17011 Doornfontein 2028, Johannesburg, South Africa.
  • Google Scholar


  •  Received: 11 June 2018
  •  Accepted: 10 January 2019
  •  Published: 31 January 2019

 ABSTRACT

Entomopathogenic nematodes (EPNs) are obligate parasites to insects. They are natural enemies of numerous insects, which employ mutually related bacterial symbionts to rapidly kill their insect host. They are among the frequently used beneficial biocontrol agents of numerous insect pests in agriculture, forestry and health. These EPNs are continuing to constitute a great deal of interest for both scientists and industries. This is demonstrated from the breadth of research activities on EPNs in many countries throughout the world. More scientists are becoming trained in working with EPNs and the number of newly discovered EPN species is increasing. In South Africa (S.A.) although various studies have revealed an incredible richness of EPNs fauna with potential use as bio-control agents adapted to some soil texture and environmental conditions and underline the value of conducting more intensive surveys in natural and different parts of the country, few studies have been done in this area. This review gives an overview of the EPNs genera that include the main bio-control agents. The main species of EPNs and their symbiotic bacteria, interaction, associated effects on the insects’ host, as well as their use and main insects’ hosts range in S.A are described. In addition, their production technology is also discussed.

 

Key words: Entomopathogenic nematodes, symbiotic bacteria, bio-control, South Africa, mass production.


 INTRODUCTION

Entomopathogenic nematodes (EPNs) are obligate parasite to insects (Dillman et al., 2012; Lacey and Georgis, 2012; Malan and Ferreira, 2017). They are natural enemies of numerous insects, which: 1) employ mutually related bacterial symbionts  rapidly; 2) kill their insect host, usually within 72 h of infection (Dillman and Sternberg, 2012; Dillman et al., 2012; Stubbins et al., 2016; Malan and Ferreira, 2017); and 3) pass on the associated bacteria to future generations (Dillman et al., 2012).
 
Entomopathogenic nematodes are among the beneficial bio-control agents that are frequently used for pests control in agriculture, forestry and health (Stock, 2005; Stock and Hunt, 2005; Lacey and Georgis, 2012; Kalia et al., 2014; Devi and Nath, 2017; Edmunds et al., 2017; Torrini et al, 2017; Azazy et al., 2018; Saleh et al., 2018). As bio-control agents, EPNs possess the advantages of having a broad host range (Stubbins et al., 2016) and no known negative effect on  both environment and non-targeted organisms (Hazir et al., 2003; Lacey and Georgis,
 
 
2012). They can search and kill their hosts rapidly, are easily massed produced in vivo and in vitro, are susceptible to genetic selection of desirable traits and, are easily applied using conventional equipment (Hazir et al., 2003). In addition, they can be used with many chemical or biological pesticides or adjuvants (Rezaei et al., 2015); and need little or no registration measures in many countries (Lacey and Georgis, 2012).
 
In contrast, their disadvantages are that their broad host range can possibly include beneficial insects, are poorly tolerant to environmental conditions such as soil moisture content, UV radiation (Shapiro-Ilan et al., 2015) and have limited shelf-life (Lacey and Georgis, 2012). Entomopathogenic nematodes were first discovered during the 17th century (Nickle, 1984). However, it was only in the 1930s that serious consideration was assigned to them as controlling agents of insect pests (Glaser and Fox, 1930). This was a result from the discovery by Glaser and Fox in 1929, of a nematode infecting grubs of the Japanese beetle, Popillia japonica, at the Tavistock Golf Course in New Jersey; subsequently described as Neoaplectana (Steinernema) glaseri (Steiner, 1929). Previously, chemical-based pest control agents were utilised due to cheap prices and rapid effectiveness. However, these were recognised to possess negative effects on the environment, human and animals, which gradually prompted the need to search for biological alternatives (Adams and Nguyen, 2002; Stock, 2005). In the 1980s, research and use of EPNs as biocontrol agents were intensified (Bongers and Ferris, 1999; Adams and Nguyen, 2002). Thus, from numerous publications resulting from the plethora research efforts throughout the world and as more scientists are becoming trained in working with EPNs (Kaya et al., 2006) and the number of newly discovered EPN species is increasing (Dillman and Sternberg, 2012; Çimen et al., 2014; Nthenga et al., 2014; Cimen et al., 2015; Odendall et al., 2015; Cimen et al., 2016;  Lephoto et al., 2016; Malan and Ferreira, 2017), there is an interest to conduct further research with these nematodes. Furthermore, scientists, apart from EPNs niche markets or greenhouse uses, have developed the use of EPNs in outdoor environments to control many insect pests in various crops, such as vegetable and fruit crops (Hazir et al., 2003; Stock and Hunt, 2005; Kaya et al., 2006). This is, however, restricted by the cost of production of such amount of EPNs to satisfy this demand (Spaull, 1992). This requires a competitive cost production price, which is reportedly met only by the scale-up of the liquid culture technology of efficacious isolate strains (Ehlers and Shapiro-Ilan, 2005). This review gives an overview of EPNs used for insect pest control. Main species of both EPNs and their symbiotic bacteria as well as their occurrence globally and particularly in South Africa, interaction and associated effects on insects’ host are described. In addition, their use and production are discussed.
 


 ENTOMOPATHOGENIC NEMATODES

Nematodes are organisms grouped in the phylum Nematoda (Humphreys-Pereira and Elling, 2014; Malan and Ferreira, 2017) that is among the most abundant groups of invertebrates on the surface layers of the earth, rivalling the Arthropoda in biodiversity and species abundance (Poinar, 2011; Humphreys-Pereira and Elling, 2014). Nematodes species range from 100 000 to 10 000 000 with about 20 000 species described (Poinar, 2011). They invade more habitats on land, or in fresh and salt water than any other group of multicellular animals due to their structure, physiology, diverse reproductive patterns and adaptability (Poinar, 2011; Humphreys-Pereira and Elling, 2014). 
 
While most nematodes are free-living microbotrophs, numerous can be associated with invertebrates such as insects, mites and molluscs, ranging from casual to obligate parasitism and pathogenesis (Dillman et al., 2012; Malan and Ferreira, 2017). Parasitic forms are of great economic interest (Stock, 2005). Among these, are the entomopathogenic nematodes (EPNs), important families, commonly considered as having effective biocontrol agents of insects, are the Steinernematidae and Heterorhabditidae (Lacey and Georgis, 2012; Malan and Ferreira, 2017). They belong to the order Rhabditida (Malan and Ferreira, 2017). These families have many biological similarities though they are not closely related (Stock and Hunt, 2005; Malan and Ferreira, 2017). Their life cycle is illustrated in Figure 1. Steinernematidae has two genera, viz, Steinernema (with 100 species) and Neosteinernema (having only N. longicurvicauda) (Malan and Ferreira, 2017). Heterorhabditidae contains only one genus, viz, Heterorhabditis, with 20 species (Malan and Ferreira, 2017). However, this number is increasing as the number of novel species being described is growing every year (Malan and Ferreira, 2017).  At the IJ3 stage, the nematode infects the host; then develops to J4 and G1 (adult 1st generation). Then produce eggs (after mating) that will develop to J1. In abundance of food, J1 will successively molt to J2, J3, J4 and G2 (2nd generation adult). This process will repeat until G3 depending on the availability of food. When food is limited, J1 will molt to J2, pre-I and IJ3 that will emerge from the cadaver to search for a new insect host (Brivio and Mastore, 2018).
 
 
The biological efficiency of the Steinernema and Heterorhabditis to kill an insect host is associated with symbiotic bacteria of the genera Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus, respectively (Hazir et al., 2003; Ciche et al., 2006; Dillman et al., 2012). This association is highly specific (Hazir et al., 2003), although one bacterial species can be found associated with many species of EPNs. The best production of nematode occurs with their natural symbiont (Hazir et al., 2003). Although other nematode species (Oscheius chongmingensis and Oscheius   carolinensis)   can   also   be  associated  with symbiotic bacteria (Serratia spp.) in a parasitic form of insect hosts (Dillman et al., 2012), species from the genera Steinernema and Heterorhabditis are reportedly receiving more attention (Dillman and Sternberg, 2012; Lacey and Georgis, 2012; Malan and Ferreira, 2017).  They have been effectively adapted to soil biological control agents of numerous insect pests (Malan and Ferreira, 2017).
 
Life cycle of entomopathogenic nematodes 
 
The life cycle of both Steinernema and Heterorhabditis species comprises non-feeding, free-living infective juvenile (IJ) that infects the insect host in the soil environment, and develop into the adult life stage (Ehlers and Shapiro-Ilan, 2005; Dillman et al., 2012) as shown in Figure 1. The IJ stage is a form resulting from the depletion of food resources and adverse environmental conditions (Ehlers and Shapiro-Ilan, 2005). This stage is the only one that can occur outside of an insect (Dillman et al., 2012; Malan and Ferreira, 2017). Stock and Hunt (2005) describe Steinernematidae IJs as having collapsed stoma. The cuticle is annulated, lateral field with 6–8 ridges in middle of its body. Oesophagus and intestine collapse. Excretory pore distinct, anterior to nerve ring. Tail is conoid or filiform, with variable hyaline portion. Phasmids are prominent or inconspicuous. Heterorhabditidae IJ cuticle of second-stage juvenile has longitudinal ridges throughout most of the body length, and a tessellate pattern in anterior most region. It has lateral field with two ridges. It has prominent cuticular dorsal tooth. Excretory pore is located posterior to basal bulb. Tail is short, conoid, tapering to a small spike-like tip (Stock and Hunt, 2005).
 
These two families have a similar life cycle, but the Heterorhabditis first generation adults are hermaphroditic (Stock and Hunt, 2005). The Steinernema IJ second-stage cuticle can be easily lost, whereas the second-stage cuticle of the Heterorhabditis IJ is retained till when it is about to infect the host or shortly after the bacterial cells (200 to 2000 cells) are located in a special vesicle in the intestine of the Steinernema. In the Heterorhabditis they are located in the intestinal tract (Stock and Hunt, 2005; Ehlers and Shapiro-Ilan, 2005; Malan and Ferreira, 2017).
 
Nematode/bacterium interactions with hosts
 
The IJs locate their hosts by following cues such as host’s excreted CO2, or by attaching themselves to the host when it passes (Griffin et al., 2005). Infection occurs through natural openings, such as spiracles, thin areas of the host’s cuticle, mouth or anus (Kaya and Gaugler, 1993). The IJs use physical force (body thrusting) to pass through the cuticle or gut to get into the haemolymph.
 
Also, they can secrete proteolytic enzymes to digest the midgut or use an anterior tooth (only present within Heterorhabditis spp.) to gain access into the hemocoel (Hazir et al., 2003). Once inside the hemocoel, the nematode/bacterium duo overcomes the host’s immune response (Hazir et al., 2003), as the latter may try to resist the infestation by metabolizing antibiotics or by initiating the phagocytosis to encapsulate them and thus inactivate them (Wang et al., 1995).
 
Once the IJs penetrate the host, they release their symbiotic bacterial cells through the anus or mouth. The released bacterium will multiply exponentially while producing toxic secondary metabolites that will kill the host (Dillman et al., 2012; Noguez et al., 2012), suppressing the growth of microbial competitors and, stimulating the macromolecular degradation by producing diverse antibiotics and exo-enzymes (Chaston et al., 2011; Bai et al., 2013). The IJs transform into feeding, a stage where they feed on the bacterial cells and host’s metabolized tissues, thus eventually developing to one or more generations depending on the size of the host (Hazir et al., 2003). After the depletion of food resources, Steinernema IJs re-associate with their bacteria and transform into IJ3 that will emerge into the soil to search for new hosts (Dillman et al., 2012) (Figure 1). The Heterorhabditis associated bacteria (Photorhabdus spp.) inhabit the gut of their nematode host during its development and are passed to IJ before it emerges (Ciche et al. 2008).
 
The EPN-bacterium relationship is mutual; the EPN protects the bacterium from external environment, vectors it into the host’s haemolymph and inhibits the host’s antibacterial proteins. In turn, the bacterium produces secondary metabolites that kill the insect host, create a suitable environment for the EPN development, produce, and serve as food source for the EPN (Dillman et al., 2012).


 SYMBIOTIC BACTERIA

Both Xenorhabdus spp. and Photorhabdus spp. belong to the family Enterobacteriaceae. They are gram-negative, motile, facultative anaerobic rods and non-spore forming (Hazir et al., 2003). Twenty-one Xenorhabdus spp. are associated with the Steinernema spp., and three Photorhabdus spp. (P. luminescens, P. temperata and P. asymbiotica) are associated with Heterorhabditis (Thanwisai et al., 2012; Blackburn et al., 2016). Commonly, P. luminescens is associated with H. georgiana, H. indica and H. bacteriophora; while P. temperate with H. bacteriophora, H. downesi, H. georgiana, H. marelatus, H. megidis and H. zealandica and; P. aymbiotica with H. gerradi (Thanwisai et al., 2012). Xenorhabdus spp. are associated with numerous Steinernema spp. (Thanwisai et al., 2012). More bacterial symbionts from  novel   EPNs   species   are   still   to  be characterized (Malan and Ferreira, 2017). Malan and Ferreira (2017) presented symbiotic bacteria (Table 1) associated with EPN that occur in SA. Bacteria are important in the commercial production of EPN as they have various growth phenotypic or phase variations.
 
 
Phenotypic variant
 
Phase I variant or primary form is the original bacterium phase variant, isolated from EPN. In contrast, Phase II variant or secondary form can arise after repeated in vitro sub-culturing (Ehlers and Shapiro-Ilan, 2005),  during  the bacterial stationary non-growth stage and when nematodes emigrate from the cadaver (Hazir et al., 2003; Ehlers and Shapiro-Ilan, 2005). This phenomenon of phase variation is reversible with the Xenorhabdus and has not been reported for Photorhabdus spp. (Han and Ehlers, 2001; Hazir et al., 2003; Ehlers and Shapiro-Ilan, 2005).
 
Phase I form is unlike phase II form by producing secondary metabolites with antibacterial activity, adsorbing certain dyes and by developing large intracellular inclusions composed of crystal proteins; whereas phase II form does not or weakly produce antibacterial   secondary   metabolites,  does  not  adsorb dyes and, inefficiently produces intracellular inclusions (Dowds and Peters, 2002; Hazir et al., 2003). The primary form is also superior because it supports EPNs propagation during in vitro growth (Hazir et al., 2003). The complex nematode/symbiont bacterium is essentially monoxenic (Hazir et al., 2003).
 
USE OF NEMATODE-BACTERIUM AS BIOCONTROL AGENTS
 
The EPN-bacterium relationship for controlling insect pests has been the subject of intense laboratory and field-testing since 1930s (Glaser et al., 1940; Klein; 1990; Kaya and Gaugler, 1993; Shapiro et al., 2002; Grewal et al., 2005; Lewis and Clarke, 2012; Shapiro et al., 2012; Dillman and Sternberg, 2012; Rezaei et al., 2015). For instance, species such as S. scarabaei, H. bacteriophora strain GPS11, H. bacteriophora strain TF, H. zealandica, S. yirgalemense and H. zealandica strain X1 have been successfully used to control the Japanese beetle, Popillia japonica and the vine mealybug, Planococcus ficus (Signoret), (Grewal et al., 2005; Koppenhöfer, 2007; Klein et al., 2007; le Vieux and Malan, 2013a,b). Entomopathogenic nematodes are currently successfully used as pesticides worldwide (Dillman and Sternberg, 2012). For instance, EPNs are used to control invasive species of mole crickets, citrus root weevil in orange groves, and other damaging crop pests in Florida and California (Grewal et al., 2005; Dillman and Sternberg, 2012). Some, for instance H. bacteriophora and H. zealandica are commercially available for grub control (Grewal et al., 2005; Dillman and Sternberg, 2012). This surge of both scientific and commercial interest is the result of advances in mass-production and formulation technology of EPNs, compounded with the discovery of many efficacious isolate strains capable of reducing the use of chemical pesticides (Lacey and Georgis, 2012). Both scientists and companies are now focusing to improve both cost efficiency and better products to position themselves within the market.
 
MASS PRODUCTION
 
Entomopathogenic nematodes can be cultured easily either in vitro or in vivo (Ehlers and Shapiro-Ilan, 2005). The in vivo method is suitable method for laboratories, scientific expertise or infrastructures with no need of large investment. This is for instance to produce EPNs for niche markets, grower co-operatives or other commercial arenas lacking the capital outlay (Ehlers and Shapiro-Ilan, 2005). The in vitro method is suitable for EPNs production for commercial use (Ehlers and Shapiro-Ilan, 2005). It has a reasonable cost of production, and can supply high quality EPNs (Ehlers and Shapiro-Ilan, 2005), although some  studies considered  the  quality  of  EPNs produced in vitro lower than that of EPNs produced in vivo (Yang et al., 1997).
 
In vitro liquid culture
 
The liquid fermentation method is the one chosen for EPNs mass-production in larger companies (especially those that have industries supplying multiple products). It has economies of scale and has the lowest cost of production. This is because its scale decreased labour proportion and capital costs (Hazir et al., 2003; Ehlers and Shapiro-Ilan, 2005). Liquid culture process involves the mixture of fluids, EPNs and symbiotic bacterium in bioreactors for up to 3 weeks (Ehlers and Shapiro-Ilan, 2005). Factors influencing the successful process include suitable medium, monoxenic conditions and adequate oxygen (Hazir et al., 2003). Typically, a medium comprises yeast extract (nitrogen source), carbon source (e.g. soy flour, glucose or glycerol), various proteins and lipids (of animal and plant origin), and salts (Han et al., 1995; Surrey and Davies, 1996; Ehlers et al., 1998; Hazir et al., 2003; Ehlers and Shapiro-Ilan, 2005). Its osmotic strength is not above 600 milliosmoles per kilogram (Ehlers and Shapiro-Ilan, 2005).
 
Conventional equipment such as bioreactor has been successfully used (Surrey and Davies, 1996; Ehlers et al., 1998; Hazir et al., 2003; Ehlers and Shapiro-Ilan, 2005). A configuration of the airlift bioreactor (Spier et al., 2011), internal loop bioreactors are reported to yield the highest IJ concentration (Ehlers and Shapiro-Ilan, 2005). The schematic outline of EPNs production process is presented in Figure 2. After monoxenic cultures are established they are scaled up to a 3000 L internal loop bioreactor. After 12 days, Infective juveniles are harvested with a separator. The nematode paste is then cleaned by passing through centrifugal sifters and formulated (Adapted from Ehlers and Shapiro-Ilan, 2005).
Cultures are always pre-incubated with the specific symbiont bacterium (0.5-1%, w/v) for 24-36 h before IJs are inoculated (5-10%, v/v of the culture), calculated based on optimum number of adults per millilitre (Ehlers and Shapiro-Ilan, 2005). Few data have been published on the optimum parameters of this process (Hazir et al., 2003; Ehlers and Shapiro-Ilan, 2005). Many nematode species, such as S. carpocapsae, S. feltiae, S. glaseri, S. kushidai, S. riobrave, S. scapterisci, H. indica, H. bacteriophora and H. megidis can be successfully mass produced in 7 to 8 litres liquid media in bioreactors (Hazir et al., 2003; Ehlers and Shapiro-Ilan, 2005). Yield capacity depends on the nematode species (Hazir et al., 2003; Ehlers and Shapiro-Ilan, 2005); reportedly, H. indica yield capacity of greater than 500,000 IJ/ml has been recorded (Ehlers and Shapiro-Ilan, 2005). After, nematodes are either bulk stored or formulated immediately (Georgis and Kaya, 1998; Grewal, 2000; Hazir  et  al., 2003),  and  finally  commercialised  after its  quality being controlled (Gaugler and Han, 2002; Grewal, 2002; Hazir et al., 2003). It is worthwhile to notice that, the continuous scale-up of bioreactor volumes together with strengthening of the process stability and downstream processing, as well as increasing EPN shelf-life, improving transport logistics and marketing will bring along further reduction of production costs (Ehlers and Shapiro-Ilan, 2005).
 
 
EPN OCCURRENCE GLOBALLY AND IN SOUTH AFRICA
 
Entomopathogenic nematodes have been recovered worldwide (Hominick, 2002; Kaya et al., 2006). Species are likely to be globally distributed and are essentially ubiquitous (Hominick, 2002; Kaya et al., 2006). Although some species (S. rarum, S. kushidai, S. ritteri and H. argentinensis) appear, so far, to be more restricted to some regions, some others (S. carpocapsae and S. feltiae) are widely distributed in temperate regions, tropics and subtropics (H. indica), and some others (H. bacteriophora) in regions with continental and Mediterranean climates (Hominick, 2002). The research activities on the EPN in many countries throughout the world clearly demonstrate a great deal of interest. It is expected that the amount of published information will increase as more scientists are becoming trained in working with EPNs (Kaya et al., 2006).
 
In South Africa (S.A.),  hundreds  of  invertebrate  pests infest the agricultural industry (Hatting et al., 2018). To reduce this, the more than 500 pesticides actually allowed by the Act 36 of 1947 under the Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies continue to pose a risk on humans, animals and the environment (AVCASA, 2018; Hatting et al., 2018). Their risk awareness has been increasing; since late 1970s, several insecticides including monocrotophos, chlorpyrifos, endosulfan, aldicarb and methyl bromide have been eliminated (or restricted) by the South African government (Hatting et al., 2018). This has encouraged the establishment of a "South African National Bio-Economy Strategy" (DST, 2013) and the use of alternatives biological pest control agents (Hatting et al., 2018). These have been further compounded by a synergetic effect of biological agents to chemical insecticide (by extending their active-life through reduced selection pressure), and by increasing regulatory (on chemical pesticides) and market pressures on industries to supply the newly discovered markets from the west (Hatting et al., 2018; Malan et al., 2018). Thus, agricultural industries have been compelled towards using biological pesticides and over the past few years, multinational agricultural chemical companies have been actively purchasing biopesticide companies (Moore et al., 2015). This had led to a dramatic growth of the biopesticide market (Hatting et al., 2018). For instance, from the year 2000 to 2010, a 20-fold growth of the global market of biopesticides was estimated (Ravensberg, 2011;  Glare  et  al.,  2012)  and,  this  growth  is  likely  to continue (Hatting et al., 2018).
 
Entomopathogens pest control agents in S.A. were first used in the late 1800s (Hatting et al., 2018). The first attempts involved the use of an entomopathogenic fungi Entomophaga grylli (Entomophthorales: entomophthoraceae) against the red locust, Nomadacris septemfasciata (Orthoptera: Acrididae) (Hatting et al., 2018). Report on EPNs were first recorded in the Eastern Cape Province in early 1950s; these were collected in a maize field from the black maize beetle, Heteronychus sanctae-helenae (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) (Harington, 1953; Hatting et al., 2018). Since then, few studies have been done in the effectiveness of endemic South African EPN species against insect pests (Kaya et al., 2006; le Vieux and Malan, 2013b; Malan and Ferreira, 2017). This is important because of strict regulations preventing the import of exotic organisms (amendment of Act 18 of 1989 under the Agricultural Pest Act, No, 36 1947) (Malan et al., 2006; Malan et al., 2011). Therefore, research on EPNs in SA is mainly focused on endemic South African strains against key insect pests such as Cydia pomonella (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) and Eldana saccharina (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) (Malan and Hatting, 2015; Malan et al., 2018; Odendaal et al., 2016a,b; Hatting and Malan, 2017; Malan and Ferreira, 2017, Steyn et al., 2017). This is because of the economic damage that they may cause to agricultural industries.
 
Cydia pomonella is a key pest of apples and pears orchards (Addison, 2005). South Africa is considered as one of the biggest deciduous fruit producers in the Southern hemisphere due to its production area of 24156 and 1265 hectare (ha) of apples and pears, respectively (Addison 2005; Hortgro 2017). In 2017, it was ranked sixteenth and sixth in world apple and pear production; respectively (metric ton), and is considered among the top ten fresh apple and pear exporters in the world (Hortgro 2017). The main producing areas include the district of Ceres, Wolseley/Tulbagh, (pears only) Groenland, Villiersdorp/Vyebom and Langkloof East in the Eastern Cape Province (Hortgro 2017); representing approximately 88 and 84% of the country’s production area of apples and pears, respectively (Hortgro 2017). T. leucotreta (false codling moth) is indigenous to S.A (Newton, 1998). It is also an agent of potential economic damage on several citrus, deciduous subtropical fruit and vegetable crops in most production areas (Prinsloo and Uys, 2015). South Africa is considered as the second largest exporter of citrus worldwide, with a total production area of 77708 ha located in all provinces (CGA, 2018). Its citrus oriented industry constitutes an important source of job creation and foreign income (CGA, 2018). In 2017, more than 40% of deciduous fruits produced were exported to Western Europe and UK, 25% to Asia, 20% to the Middle East, 9% to the Eastern Europe and 7% to the Northern America; with total export earnings of R17.7 billion (CGA, 2018). Eldana  saccharina Walker is indigenous to South Africa; it was first reported in 1939 (Hatting et al., 2018). It is widespread in wetland sedges and indigenous grasses from KwaZulu-Natal and Mpumalanga Provinces, and it is the number one pest of South African sugarcane (Horton et al., 2002; Webster et al., 2006; Assefa et al., 2009). A 0.1% sucrose loss occurs per every 1% of sugarcane stalks damaged due to larval feeding; and a South African sugarcane damage of about US$10 million per annum has been estimated due to E. saccharina; (Black et al., 1995; Horton et al., 2002). Other important pests include the citrus mealybug P. citri (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae), citrus codling moth Thawnatotibia leuxotreta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) (Malan et al., 2011), obscure mealybug Pseudococcus viburni (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae), vine mealybug P. ficus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) (Stokwe and Malan, 2016; Stokwe and Malan, 2017), white grubs from the family Scarabaeidae (Coleoptera) (Abate et al., 2017) and the woodwasp Sirex noctilio (Hymenoptera: Siricidae) (Tribe, 1995; Ismail et al., 2010). Other pests of interest include fruit flies Ceratitis rosa and C. capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) (Malan and Manrakhan, 2009; James et al., 2018), stable flies, Stomoxys calcitrans (Diptera: Muschidae) (hatting and Malan, 2017), the banded fruit weevil Phyctinus callosus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) (Ferreira and Malan, 2014), African bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) (Malan and hatting, 2015), and the fungus gnats, Bradysia spp. (Diptera: Sciaridae) (Katumanyane et al., 2018).
 
Increasing numbers of EPN species with biocontrol potential are being discovered, such as Heterorhabditis zealandica, H. Noenieputensis, H. zealandica, H. bacteriophora, H. safricana (Malan et al., 2006; Malan et al., 2008; Hatting et al., 2009; de Waal et al., 2011; Malan et al., 2011; Malan et al., 2014; Malan et al., 2016), and Steinernema citrae, S. khoisanae, S. yirgalemense, S. biddulphi, S. jeffreyense, S. sacchari, S. innovation,  S. tophus (Malan et al., 2006; Nguyen et al., 2006; Hatting et al., 2009; de Waal et al., 2011; Malan et al., 2011; Stokwe et al., 2011; Nthenga et al., 2014; Çimen et al., 2014 ; Cimen et al., 2015; Cimen et al., 2016; Malan  et al., 2016), and Oscheius sp. (TEL-2014), Oscheius safricana (Lephoto et al., 2016; Serepa-Dlamini and Gray, 2018). From surveys on indigenous EPN species (Hatting et al., 2009), such as a systematic survey throughout five provinces (Gauteng, Free State, KwaZulu-Natal, Mpumalanga and Western Cape) of S.A, with typical soil forms ranging from very sandy to sandy clay loam texture (Hatting et al., 2009), species were varied and adapted to various soil texture and environmental conditions (Hatting et al., 2009). Also, the authors have revealed an incredible richness of EPNs fauna with potential use as biocontrol agents and that the country is unexplored in terms of EPN diversity (Hatting et al., 2009; Hatting et al., 2018). Malan and Ferreira (2017) presented  a  Table  (Table  2)  of a chronological timeline of EPN research in SA up to  2016.
 
 
Among the 12 Steinernema species (spp.) recovered (Malan et al., 2006; Hatting et al., 2009; Malan et al. 2011), only S. yirgalemense is not novel (Hatting and Malan, 2017); and among the 7 Heterorhabditis spp. recovered, two are novel H. safricana and H. noenieputensis (Malan and Ferreira, 2017). These were recovered more likely in citrus orchards (17% recovery rate) than in deciduous fruit orchards (5–7%) (Malan and Ferreira, 2017). From their tests in controlling insect pest (Hatting et al., 2009; Hazir, 2009; Stokwe, 2009; Stokwe and Malan, 2010; de Waal et al., 2011; Van Niekerk and Malan, 2012; Odendall et al., 2015; Malan and Ferreira, 2017), they showed promising results to control T. leucotreta  and  B.  impatient   (Diptera:   Sciaridae)  (only tested in laboratory) in both laboratory and field plots under optimized conditions (Malan et al., 2011; Malan and Moore, 2016; Katumanyane et al., 2018). There are excellent results in C. pomonella in laboratories, but variable results in the field. This is due to  suboptimal environmental conditions such as cryptic habitats (bark and pruning wounds on apple trees), low relative humidity and temperatures, wind and unpredictable rainfall in the Mediterranean climate of the Western Cape Province (De Waal et al., 2010; De Waal et al., 2011; Odendaal et al., 2016a,b; De Waal et al., 2018). There were unsuccessful against woolly apple aphid Eriosoma lanigerum (Hemiptera:Aphididae) due to their  inability to develop in the soil stage insect’s haemolymph (Stokwe and Malan, 2017).
 
Researches on the optimisation of EPNs hostile field conditions have been conducted. These include the application of irrigation system for EPNs application (Mason et al., 1999); the development of low-volume spray application system, such as the spinning disc spray application system (Mason et al., 1999) and its improved version in terms of IJs carriage in droplets presenting a better deposition of IJs per cm2 (Piggott et al., 2003); the use of appropriate adjuvants for the spray application to facilitate the infectivity (mortality and intensity of infection) of IJs; for instance, a spinning disc spray Micron Ulva and the adjuvant Micron Herbaflex significantly increased the IJs deposition (IJs/cm2) (Mason et al., 1998)  and also studies on EPNs (Rhabditida: Steinernematidae and Heterorhabditidae) water loss and survival to desiccation (Patel et al., 1997; Mason and Wright, 1997; Spence et al., 2011). Some species, such as S. carpocapsue have a slow rate of water lost among the Steinernema spp. and can survive up to 20 min (min) at a relative humidity of 0% (Patel et al., 1997). But Heterorhabditis spp. were reportedly the most promising species to be used in condition of desiccation (Mason and Wright, 1997).
 
Only flask-cultures of H. zealandica (Ferreira et al., 2014), S. innovationi (Ramakuwela et al., 2016) and S. yirgalemense (Ferreira et al., 2015) have been obtained despite several attempts for in vitro mass culturing (Hatting et al., 2018). Currently, only an imported formulation based on H. bacteriophora is produced and commercialized under the name Cryptonem® (Hatting et al., 2018). In all, there is a need for more intensive surveys in natural areas and geographic regions, including regions where surveys have not yet been done. There is need for more research efforts on EPN field application especially in areas with hostile environmental conditions and; more effort toward EPNs mass production for a broader application in agriculture. Substituting chemical pesticides will stabilize agricultural environments and crop yields (Ehlers and Shapiro-Ilan, 2005). Thus, progressing in EPNs research will be an important move toward sustainable agricultural practices.
 

 


 CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

The authors have not declared any conflict of interests.

 



 REFERENCES

Abate BA, Wingfield MJ, Slippers B, Conlong D, Way M, Burger DA, Hurley BP (2017). Efficacy of entomopathogenic nematodes against South African white grubs. In. Proceedings of the 21st Symposium of the Nematological Society of Southern Africa (NSSA), Fairmont Zimbali Resort, South Africa, 7-11 May 2017. P 19.

 

Adams BJ, Nguyen KB (2002). Taxonomy and systematics. Entomopathogenic Nematology 2002:1-33.
Crossref

 
 

Addison MF (2005). Suppression of codling moth Cydia pomonella L. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidea) populations in South African apple and pear orchards using sterile insect release. Acta Horticulturae 671:555-557.
Crossref

 
 

Assefa Y, Van den Berg J, Mitchell A, Le Ru BP, Conlong DE (2009). Record of Eldana saccharina Walker (Lep, Pyralidae) in inland South Africa and its genetic relationship with the coastal population. Journal of Applied Entomology 133:449-455.
Crossref

 
 

Agricultural and Veterinary Chemical Association of South Africa (AVCASA) (2018). Agricultural and Veterinary Chemical Association of South Africa. 

View

 
 

Azazy AM, Abdelall MFM, El-Sappagh IA, Khalil AEH (2018). Biological control of the onion thrips, Thrips tabaci Lindeman (Thysanoptera: Thripidae), in open fields using Egyptian entomopathogenic nematode isolates. Egyptian Journal of Biological Pest Control 28(1):1-6.
Crossref

 
 

Bai XD, Adams BJ, Ciche TA, Clifton S, Gaugler R, Kim K-s, Spieth J, Sternberg PW, Wilson RK, Grewal PS (2013). A lover and a fighter: the genome sequence of an entomopathogenic nematode Heterorhabditis bacteriophora. PLos One 8:e69618.
Crossref

 
 

Black KG, Huckett BI, Botha FC (1995). Ability of Pseudomonas flourescence engineered for insecticidal activity against sugarcane stalk borer, to colonise the surface of sugarcane plants. Proceedings of the South African Sugar Technologists Association 69:21-24.

 
 

Blackburn D, Wood Jr, PL, Burk TJ, Crawford B, Wright SM, Adams BJ (2016). Evolution of virulence in Photorhabdus spp., entomopathogenic nematode symbionts, Systematic and Applied Microbiology 39(3):173-179.
Crossref

 
 

Bongers T, Ferris H (1999). Nematode community structure as a bioindicator in environmental monitoring. Tree 14(6):224-228.
Crossref

 
 

Brivio MF, Mastore M (2018). Nematobacterial Complexes and insect hosts: different weapons for the same war. Insects 9(3):117.
Crossref

 
 

Citrus Growers' Association of Southern Africa (CGA) (2018). Annual report 2018. 

 
 

Chaston JM, Suen G, Tucker SL, Andersen AW, Bhasin A, Bode E, Bode HB, Brachmann AO, Cowles CE, Cowles KN, Darby C (2011). The entomopathogenic bacterial endosymbionts Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus: Convergent lifestyles from divergent genomes. PloS one 6(11):e27909.
Crossref

 
 

Ciche TA, Ciche TA, Darby C, Ehlers R-U, Forst S, Goodrich-Blair H (2006). Dangerous liaisons: The symbiosis of entomopathogenic nematodes and bacteria. Biological Control 38:22-46.
Crossref

 
 

Ciche TA, Kim, Kaufmann-Daszczuk B, Nguyen KC, Hall DH (2008). Cell invasion and matricide during Photorhabdus luminescens transmission by Heterorhabditis bacteriophora nematodes. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 74(8):2275-2287.
Crossref

 
 

Çimen H, Lee MM, Hatting J, Hazir S, Stock P (2014). Steinernema tophus sp. n. (Nematoda: Steinernematidae), a new entomopathogenic nematode from South Africa. Zootaxa 3821(3):337-353.
Crossref

 
 

Cimen H, Lee M-M, Hatting J, Hazir S, Stock SP (2015). Steinernema innovationi n. sp. (Panagrolaimomorpha: Steinernematidae), a new entomopathogenic nematode species from South Africa. Journal of Helminthology 89:415-427.
Crossref

 
 

Cimen H, Puža V, Nermuť J, Hatting J, Ramakuwela T, Hazir S (2016). Steinernema biddulphi n. sp., a new entomopathogenic nematode (Nematoda: Steinernematidae) from South Africa. Journal of Nematology 48(3):148-158.
Crossref

 
 

De Waal JY, Addison MF, Malan AP (2018). Evaluation of a South African isolate of Heterorhabditis zealandica (Rhabditida: Heterorhabditidae) for the control of codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in semi-field trials under South African conditions. International Journal of Pest Management 64(2):102-109.
Crossref

 
 

De Waal JY, Malan AP, Addison MF (2011). Efficacy of entomopathogenic nematodes (Rhabditida: Heterorhabditidae and Steinernematidae) against codling moth, Cydia pomonella (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in temperate regions. Biocontrol Science and Technology 21:1161-1176.
Crossref

 
 

De Waal JY, Malan AP, Levings J, Addison MF (2010). Key elements in the successful control of diapausing codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in fruit bins with a South African isolate of Heterorhabditis zealandica (Rhabditida: Heterorhabditidae). Biocontrol Science and Technology 20:489-502.
Crossref

 
 

Devi G, Nath D (2017). Entomopathogenic nematodes: A tool in biocontrol of insect pests of vegetables-A review. Agricultural Reviews 38(2):137-144.
Crossref

 
 

Dillman AR, Sternberg PW (2012). Entomopathogenic nematodes. Current Biology 22(11):R430-R431.
Crossref

 
 

Dillman AR, Chaston JM, Adams BJ, Ciche TA, Goodrich-Blair H, Stock SP, Sternberg PW (2012). An entomopathogenic nematode by any other name. PLoS Pathogens 8(3):e1002527.
Crossref

 
 

Dowds BCA, Peters A (2002). Virulence mechanisms. In. Gaugler R (ed), Entomopathogenic nematology. New York, NY: CABI Publishing. pp. 80-98.
Crossref

 
 

Department of Science and Technology (DST) (2013). Department of Science and Technology, 2013. The Bio-Economy Strategy. 

 
 

Edmunds CV, Wilding CS, Rae R (2017). Susceptibility of Chironomus plumosus larvae (Diptera: Chironomidae) to entomopathogenic nematodes (Rhabditida: Steinernematidae and Heterorhabditidae): Potential for control. European Journal of Entomology 114:526-532.
Crossref

 
 

Ehlers R-U, Lunau S, Krasomil-Osterfeld K, Osterfeld KH (1998). Liquid culture of the entomopathogenic nematode-bacterium complex Heterorhabditis megidis/Photorhabdus luminescens. Biocontrol 43:77-86.
Crossref

 
 

Ehlers RU, Shapiro-Ilan DI (2005). Mass production. In. Grewal PS, Ehlers R, Shapiro-Ilan DI (eds), Nematodes as biological control agents. Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing pp. 65-78.
Crossref

 
 

Ferreira T, Addison MF, Malan AP (2015). Development and population dynamics of Steinernema yirgalemense and growth characteristics of its associated Xenorhabdus symbiont in liquid culture. Journal of Helminthology 90:108-112.
Crossref

 
 

Ferreira T, Malan AP (2014). Potential of entomopathogenic nematodes for the control of the banded fruit weevil, Phlyctinus callosus (Schönherr) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Journal of Helminthology 88:293-301.
Crossref

 
 

Gaugler R, Han R (2002). Production technology. In. Gaugler R (ed), Entomopathogenic nematology. New York, NY: CABI Publishing. pp. 289-320.
Crossref

 
 

Georgis R, Kaya HK (1998). Formulation of entomopathogenic nematodes. In. Burges HD (ed), Formulation of microbial Biopesticides: Beneficial microorganisms, nematodes and seed treatments. Dordrecht, AA: Kluwer Academic Publishers pp. 289-308.
Crossref

 
 

Glare T, Caradus J, Gelernter W, Jackson T, Keyhani N, KÓ§hl J, Marrone P, Morin L, Stewart A (2012). Have biopesticides come of age?. Trends in Biotechnology 30(5):250-258.
Crossref

 
 

Glaser RW, Fox H (1930). A nematode parasite of the Japanese beetle (Popillia japonica Newm.). Science 70:16-17.
Crossref

 
 

Glaser RW, McCoy EE, Girth HB (1940). The biology and economic importance of a nematode parasitic in insects. Journal of Parasitology 26:479-495.
Crossref

 
 

Grewal PS (2000). Anhydrobiotic potential and long-term storage of entomopathogenic nematodes (Rhabditida: Steinernematidae). International Journal for Parasitology 30(9):995-1000.
Crossref

 
 

Grewal PS (2002). 13 Formulation and Application Technology. Entomopathogenic Nematology P 265.
Crossref

 
 

Grewal PS, Koppenhöfer AM, Choo HY (2005). Lawn, turfgrass and pasture applications. Nematodes as biocontrol agents. pp. 115-146.
Crossref

 
 

Griffin CT, Boemare NE, Lewis EE (2005). Biology and behaviour. Grewal PS, Ehlers R, Shapiro-Ilan DI (eds), Nematodes as biological control agents. Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing pp. 47-64.
Crossref

 
 

Han RC, Ehlers R-U (2001). Effect of Photorhabdus luminescens phase variants on the in vivo and in vitro development and reproduction of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora and Steinernema carpocapsae. FEMS Microbiology/Ecology 35:239-247.
Crossref

 
 

Han RC, Pang X, Li L (1995). Optimization of medium components for the solid culture of entomopathogenic Steinernema and Heterorhabditis nematodes. Natural Enemies of Insects 17:153-164.

 
 

Harington JS (1953). Observation on the biology, the parasites and the taxonomic position of the maize beetle, Heteronychus sanctae-helenae Blanch. South African Journal of Science 50(1):11-14.

 
 

Hatting J, Stock PS, Hazir S (2009). Diversity and distribution of entomopathogenic nematodes (Steinernematidae, Heterorhabditidae) in South Africa. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 102:120-128.
Crossref

 
 

Hatting JL, Malan AP (2017). Status of entomopathogenic nematodes in integrated pest management strategies in South Africa. In. Abd-Elgawad MMM, Askary TH, Coupland J (eds.), Biocontrol agents: Entomopathogenic and slug parasitic nematodes. Switzerland, CH: CAB International Publishing pp. 409-428.
Crossref

 
 

Hazir S, Kaya HK, Stock SP, Keskün N (2003). Entomopathogenic nematodes (Steinernematidae and Heterorhabditidae) for biological control of soil pests. Turkish Journal of Biology 27:181-202.

 
 

Hominick WM (2002). Biogeography. In. Gaugler R (ed), Entomopathogenic nematology. New York, NY: CABI Publishing. pp. 115-143.
Crossref

 
 

Hortgro (2017). Key deciduous fruit statistics 2017. HORTGRO. Available at: 

View

 
 

Horton PM, Hearne JW, Apaloo J, Conlong DE, Way MJ, Uys P (2002). Investigating strategies for minimising damage caused by the sugarcane pest Eldana saccharina. Agricultural Systems 74:271-286.
Crossref

 
 

Humphreys-Pereira DA, Elling AA (2014). Mitochondrial genomes of Meloidogyne chitwoodi and M. incognita (Nematoda: Tylenchina): Comparative analysis, gene order and phylogenetic relationships with other nematodes. Molecular and Biochemical Parasitology 194:20-32.
Crossref

Ismail R, Mutanga O, Kumar L (2010). Modeling the potential distribution of pine forests susceptible to Sirex Noctilio infestations in Mpumalanga, South Africa. Transaction in GIS 14(5):709-726.
Crossref

 

James M, Malan AP, Addison P (2018). Surveying and screening South African entomopathogenic nematodes for the control of the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann). Crop Protection 105:41-48.
Crossref

 
 

Kalia V, Sharma G, Shapiro-Ilan DI, Ganguly S (2014). Biocontrol potential of Steinernema thermophilum and its symbiont Xenorhabdus indica against Lepidopteran Pests: Virulence to egg and larval stages. Journal of Nematology 46(1):18–26.

 
 

Katumanyane A. Ferreira T, Malan AP (2018). Potential use of local entomopathogenic nematodes to control Bradysia impatiens (Diptera: Sciaridae) under laboratory conditions. African Entomology 26(2):337-349.
Crossref

 
 

Kaya HK, Aguillera MM, Alumai A, Choo HY, De la Torre M, Fodor A, Ganguly S, Hazır S, Lakatos T, Pye A, Wilson M (2006). Status of entomopathogenic nematodes and their symbiotic bacteria from selected countries or regions of the world. Biological Control 38:134-155.
Crossref

 
 

Kaya HK, Gaugler R (1993). Entomopathogenic nematodes. Annual Review of Entomology 38:181-206.
Crossref

 
 

Klein MG (1990). Efficacy against soil-inhabiting insect pests. In. Gaugler R, Kaya HK (eds), Entomopathogenic nematodes in biological control. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press pp. 195-214.

 
 

Klein MG, Grewal PS, Jackson TA, Koppenhöfer AM (2007). Lawn, turf and grassland pests. In. Lacey LA, Kaya HK (eds), Field manual of techniques in invertebrate pathology: Application and evaluation of pathogens for control of insects and other invertebrate pests. Dordrecht, AA: Springer. pp. 655-675.
Crossref

 
 

Koppenhöfer AM (2007). Nematodes. In. Lacey LA, Kaya HK (eds), Field manual of techniques in invertebrate pathology: Application and evaluation of pathogens for control of insects and other invertebrate pests. Dordrecht, AA: Springer. pp. 249-264.
Crossref

 
 

Lacey LA, Georgis R (2012). Entomopathogenic nematodes for control of insect pests above and below ground with comments on commercial production. Journal of Nematology 44(2):218-225.

 
 

le Vieux PD, Malan AP (2013a). An overview of the vine mealybug (Planococcus ficus) in South African vineyards and the use of entomopathogenic nematodes as potential biocontrol agent. South African Journal for Enology and Viticulture 34(1):108-118.

 
 

Le Vieux PD, Malan AP (2013b). The potential use of entomopathogenic nematodes to control Planococcus ficus (Signoret) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). South African Journal for Enology and Viticulture 34(1):296-306.

 
 

Lephoto TE, Mpangase PT, Aron S, Gray VM (2016). Whole genome sequence of Oscheius sp. TEL-2014 entomopathogenic nematodes isolated from South Africa. Genomics Data 7:259-261.
Crossref

 
 

Lewis EE, Clarke DJ (2012). Nematode parasites and entomopathogens. In. Vega FE, Kaya HK (eds), Insect pathology. Second ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press pp. 395-443.
Crossref

 
 

Malan AP, Ferreira T (2017). Entomopathogenic nematodes. In. Fourie H, Spaull VW, Jones RK, Daneel MS, De Waele D (eds.), Nematology in South Africa: A view from the 21st century. Switzerland, CH: Springer International Publishing pp. 459-480.
Crossref

 
 

Malan AP, Hatting JL (2015). Entomopathogenic nematode exploitation: case studies in laboratory and field applications from South Africa. In: Campos-Herrera R (ed.), Nematode pathogenesis of insects and other pests. Sustainability in plant and crop protection: ecology and applied technologies for sustainable plant and crop protection. Switzerland, CH: Springer International Publishing pp. 475-506.
Crossref

 
 

Malan AP, Knoetze R, Moore SD (2011). Isolation and identification of entomopathogenic nematodes from citrus orchards in South Africa and their biocontrol potential against false codling moth. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 108:115-125.
Crossref

 
 

Malan AP, Knoetze R, Tiedt L (2014). Heterorhabditis noenieputensis n. sp. (Rhabditida: Heterorhabditidae), a new entomopathogenic nematode from South Africa. Journal of Helminthology 88:139-151.
Crossref

 
 

Malan AP, Knoetze R, Tiedt LR (2016). Steinernema jeffreyense n. sp. (Rhabditida: Steinernematidae), a new entomopathogenic nematode from South Africa. Journal of Helminthology 90:262-278.
Crossref

 
 

Malan AP, Manrakhan A (2009). Susceptibility of the Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata) and the Natal fruit fly (Ceratitis rosa) to entomopathogenic nematodes. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 100:47-49.
Crossref

 
 

Malan AP, Moore SD (2016). Evaluation of local entomopathogenic nematodes for the control of false codling moth, Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Meyrick, 1913), in a citrus orchard in South Africa. African Entomology 24:489-501.
Crossref

 
 

Malan AP, Nguyen AP, De Waal JY, Teidt L (2008). Heterorhabditis safricana n. sp. (Rhabditida: Heterorhabditidae), a new entomopathogenic nematode from South Africa. Nematology 10:381-396.
Crossref

 
 

Malan AP, Nguyen KB, Addison MK (2006). Entomopathogenic nematodes (Steinernematidae and Heterorhabditidae) from the southwestern parts of South Africa. African Plant Protection 12:65-69.

 
 

Malan AP, von Diest JI, Moore SD, Addison P (2018). Control options for false codling moth, Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), in South Africa, with emphasis on the potential use of entomopathogenic nematodes and fungi. African Entomology 26(1):14-29.
Crossref

 
 

Mason JM, Matthews GA, Wright DJ (1998). Screening and selection of adjuvants for the spray application of entomopathogenic nematodes against a foliar pest. Crop Protection 17(5):463-470.
Crossref

 
 

Mason JM, Matthews GA, Wright DJ (1999). Evaluation of spinning disc technology for the application of entomopathogenic nematodes against a foliar pest. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 73:282-288.
Crossref

 
 

Mason JM, Wright DJ (1997). Potential for the control of Plutella xylostella larvae with entomopathogenic nematodes. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 70:234-242.
Crossref

 
 

Moore SD, Kirkman W, Richards GI, Stephan P (2015). The Cryptophlebia leucotreta granulovirus – 10 years of commercial field use. Viruses 7:1284-1312.
Crossref

 
 

Newton PJ (1998). False codling moth, Cryptophlebia leucotreta (Meyrick). In: Bedford ECG, Van den Berg MA, De Villiers EA (eds), Citrus Pests in the Republic of South Africa. Nelspruit, SA: Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Crops pp. 192-200.

 
 

Nguyen KB, Malan AP, Gozel U (2006). Steinernema khoisanae n. sp. (Rhabditida: Steinernematidae), a new entomopathogenic nematode from South Africa. Nematology 8:157-175.
Crossref

 
 

Nickle WR (1984). History, development, and importance of insect nematology. In. Nickle WR (ed), Plant and insect nematodes. New York, NW: Marcel Dekker pp. 627-653.

 
 

Noguez JH, Conner ES, Zhou Y, Ciche TA, Ragains JR, Butcher RA (2012). A novel ascaroside controls the parasitic life cycle of the entomopathogenic nematode Heterorhabditis bacteriophora. ACS Chemical Biology 7(6):961-966.
Crossref

 
 

Nthenga I, Knoetze R, Berry S, Tiedt LR, Malan AP (2014). Steinernema sacchari n. sp. (Rhabditida: Steinernematidae), a new entomopathogenic nematode from South Africa. Nematology 16:475-494.
Crossref

 
 

Odendaal D, Addison MF, Malan AP (2016a). Entomopathogenic nematodes for the control of codling moth (Cydia pomonella L.) in field and laboratory trials. Journal of Helminthology 90:615-625.
Crossref

 
 

Odendaal D, Addison MF, Malan AP (2016b). Evaluation of above-ground application of entomopathogenic nematodes for the control of diapausing codling moth (Cydia pomonella L.) under natural conditions. African Entomology 24(1):61-74.
Crossref

 
 

Odendall D, Addison MF, Malan AP (2015). Control of codling moth (Cydia pomonella) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in South Africa with special emphasis on using entomopathogenic nematodes. African Entomology 23(2):259-274.
Crossref

 
 

Patel MN, Perry RN, Wright DJ (1997). Desiccation survival and water contents of entomopathogenic nematodes, Steinernema spp. (Rhabditida: Steinernematidae). International Journal for Parasitology 27(1):16-70.
Crossref

 
 

Piggott SJ, Clayton R, Matthews GA, Wright DJ (2003). Development of a new application apparatus for entomopathogenic nematodes. Pest Management Science 59:1344-1348.
Crossref

 
 

Poinar GO Jr (2011). Nematology Monographs and Perspectives. Volume 9. In. Hunt DJ, Perry RN (eds), The Evolutionary History of Nematodes. As Revealed in Stone, Amber and Mummies. Leiden-Boston, MA: Brill pp. 1-5.

 
 

Prinsloo GL, Uys VM (2015). Insect of cultivated plants and natural pastures in Southern Africa. Entomological Society of Southern Africa, Pretoria, South Africa.

 
 

Ramakuwela T, Hatting J, Laing MD, Hazir S, Thiebaut N (2016). In vitro solid state production of Steinernema innovationi with cost analysis. Biocontrol Science and Technology 26:792-808.
Crossref

 
 

Rezaei N, Karimi J, Hosseini M, Goldani M, Campos-Herrera R (2015). Pathogenicity of two species of entomopathogenic nematodes against the greenhouse Whitefly, Trialeurodes vaporariorum (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae), in laboratory and greenhouse experiments. Journal of Nematology 47(1):60-66.

 
 

Ravensberg WJ (2011). A Roadmap to the successful development and commercialization of microbial pest control products for control of arthropods. Progress in Biological Control. Volume 10. Dordrecht, AA: Springer.

 
 

Saleh MME, Metwally HMS, Mahmoud YA (2018). Potential of the entomopathogenic nematode, Heterorhabditis marelatus, isolate in controlling the peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Diptera: Tiphritidae). Egyptian Journal of Biological Pest Control 28(1):1-6.
Crossref

 
 

Serepa-Dlamini MH, Gray VM (2018). A new species of entomopathogenic nematode Oscheius safricana n. sp. (Nematoda: Rhabditidae) from South Africa. Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection 51(5-8):309-321.
Crossref

 
 

Shapiro-Ilan DI, Bruck DJ, Lacey LA (2012). Principles of epizootiology and microbial control. In. Vega FE, Kaya HK (eds), Insect pathology. Second ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. pp. 29-72.
Crossref

 
 

Shapiro-Ilan DI, Gouge DH, Koppenhöfer AM (2002). Factors affecting commercial success: case studies in cotton, turf and citrus In. Gaugler R (ed), Entomopathogenic nematology. New York, NY: CABI Publishing. pp. 333-355.
Crossref

 
 

Shapiro-Ilan DI, Hazir S, Lete L (2015). Viability and virulence of entomopathogenic nematodes exposed to ultraviolet radiation. Journal of Nematology 47(3):184-189.

 
 

Spaull VW (1992). On the use of a methylcellulose polymer to increase the effectiveness of a Heterorhabditis species against the sugarcane stalk borer, Eldana saccharina. Fundamental and Applied Nematology 15:457-461.

 
 

Spence KO, Stevens GN, Arimoto H, Ruiz-Vega J, Kaya HK, Lewis EE (2011). Effect of insect cadaver desiccation and soil water potential during rehydration on entomopathogenic nematode (Rhabditida: Steinernematidae and Heterorhabditidae) production and virulence. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 106:268-273.
Crossref

 
 

Spier MR, de Souza Vandenberghe LP, Pedroni Medeiros AB, Soccol CR (2011). Application of different types of bioreactors in bioprocesses. In. Antolli PG, Liu Z (eds), Bioreactors: Design, Properties and Applications. New York: NY: Nova Science Publishers pp. 55-90.

 
 

Steiner G (1929). Neoaplectana glaseri n.g., n. sp. (Oxyuridae), a new nemic parasite of the Japanese beetle (Popilliajaponica Newm.) Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 19:436-440.

 
 

Steyn WP, Malan AP, Daneel MS, Slabbert RM (2017). Entomopathogenic nematodes from north-eastern South Africa and their virulence against false codling moth, Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Biocontrol Science and Technology 27(11):1265-1278.
Crossref

 
 

Stock SP (2005). Insect-parasitic nematodes: From lab curiosities to model organisms. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 89:57-66.
Crossref

 
 

Stock SP, Hunt DJ (2005). Morphology and systematics of nematodes used in biocontrol. In. Grewal PS, Ehlers R, Shapiro-Ilan DI (eds), Nematodes as biological control agents. Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing pp. 1-43.
Crossref

 
 

Stokwe NF (2009). Entomopathogenic nematodes: characterization of a new species. Long-term storage and control of obscure mealybug, Pseudococcus viburni (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) under laboratory conditions. MSc thesis, Department of Conservation Ecology and Entomology, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, 7602 Matieland (Stellenbosch), South Africa.

 
 

Stokwe NF, Malan AP (2010). Potential control of mealybugs using entomopathogenic nematodes. South African Fruit Journal 7:38-42.

 
 

Stokwe NF, Malan AP (2016). Susceptibility of the obscure mealybug, Pseudococcus viburni (Signoret) (Pseudococcidae), to South African isolates of entomopathogenic nematodes. International Journal of Pest Management 62(2):119-128.
Crossref

 
 

Stokwe NF, Malan AP (2017). Laboratory bioassays to determine susceptibility of woolly apple aphid, Eriosoma lanigerum (Hausmann) (Hemiptera: Aphididae), to entomopathogenic nematodes. African Entomology 25:123-136.
Crossref

 
 

Stokwe NF, Malan AP, Nguyen KB, Knoetze R, Teidt L (2011). Steinernema citrae n. sp. (Rhabditida: Steinernematidae), a new entomopathogenic nematode from South Africa. Nematology 13:569-587.
Crossref

 
 

Stubbins FL, Agudelo P, Reay-Jones FPF, Greene JK (2016). Agamermis (Nematoda: Mermithidae) Infection in South Carolina agricultural pests. Journal of Nematology 48(4):290-296.
Crossref

 
 

Surrey MR, Davies RJ (1996). Pilot-scale liquid culture and harvesting of an entomopathogenic nematode, Heterorhabditis bacteriophora. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 67:92-99.
Crossref

 
 

Thanwisai A, Tandhavanant S, Saiprom N, Waterfield NR, Ke Long P, Bode HB Peacock SJ, Chantratita N (2012). Diversity of Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus spp. and their symbiotic entomopathogenic nematodes from Thailand. Plos One 7(9):1-9.
Crossref

 
 

Torrini G, Mazza G, Benvenuti C, Roversi PF (2017). Susceptibility of olive fruit fly, Bactrocera oleae (Diptera: Tephritidae) pupae to entomopathogenic nematodes. Journal of Plant Protection Research 57(3):1427-4345.
Crossref

 
 

Tribe GD (1995). The woodwasp Sirex noctilio Fabricius (Hymenoptera: Siricidae), a pest of Pinus species, now established in South Africa. African Entomology 3(2):215-217.

 
 

van Niekerk S, Malan AP (2012). Potential of South African entomopathogenic nematodes (Heterorhabditidae and Steinernematidae) for control of the citrus mealybug, Planococcus citri (Pseudococcidae). Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 111:166-174.
Crossref

 
 

Wang Y, Campbell JF, Gaugler R (1995). Infection of entomopathogenic nematodes Steinernema glaseri and Heterorhabditis bacteriophora against Popillia japonica (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) larvae. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 66:178-184.
Crossref

 
 

Webster TM, Maher GW, Conlong DE (2006). An integrated pest management system for Eldana saccharinain the Midlands North region of KwaZulu-Natal. Proceedings of the South African Sugar Technologists Association 79:347-358.

 
 

Yang H, Jian H, Zhang S, Zhang G (1997). Quality of the entomopathogenic nematode Steinernema carpocapsae produced on different media. Biological Control 10:193-198.
Crossref

 
 

 




          */?>