Endophytic Colonization by Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae in Maize Plants Affects the Fitness of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

Abstract

The fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Noctuidae; Lepidoptera), is a serious threat to food security as it has the potential to feed on over 353 plant species. To control this insect pest, endophytic colonization of entomopathogenic fungi (EPF) in plants is being considered as a safer and more effective alternative. This study evaluated the efficacy of two EPFs, Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae, for endophytic colonization using foliar spray and seed treatment methods on maize plants, and their impact on the survival, development, and fecundity of S. frugiperda. Both EPF effectively colonized the maize plants with foliar spray and seed treatment methods, resulting in 72–80% and 50–60% colonization rates, respectively, 14 days after inoculation. The EPF negatively impacted the development and fecundity of S. frugiperda. Larvae feeding on EPF-inoculated leaves had slower development (21.21 d for M. anisopliae and 20.64 d for B. bassiana) than the control treatment (20.27 d). The fecundity rate was also significantly reduced to 260.0–290.1 eggs/female with both EPF applications compared with the control treatment (435.6 eggs/female). Age-stage-specific parameters showed lower fecundity, life expectancy, and survival of S. frugiperda when they fed on both EPF-inoculated leaves compared with untreated leaves. Furthermore, both EPFs had a significant effect on population parameters such as intrinsic (r = 0.127 d⁻¹ for B. bassiana, and r = 0.125 d⁻¹ for M. anisopliae) and finite rate (λ = 1.135 d⁻¹ for B. bassiana, and λ = 1.1333 d⁻¹ for M. anisopliae) of S. frugiperda compared with the control (r = 0.133 d⁻¹ and λ = 1.146 d⁻¹). These findings suggest that EPF can be effectively used for the endophytic colonization of maize plants to control S. frugiperda. Therefore, these EPFs should be integrated into pest management programs for this pest.

1. Introduction

The fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Noctuidae; Lepidoptera), is an invasive insect pest that attacks various economically important crops. It is native to tropical and subtropical regions of the Americas and has rapidly spread to other countries worldwide due to its strong flying capacity and migratory behavior [1]. This pest has a polyphagous feeding habit and is known to feed on over 353 plant species, with corn being its most preferred host, causing significant annual losses in corn production [2]. S. frugiperda’s extensive feeding on economically important crops is increasingly threatening agricultural productivity and exacerbating food insecurity [3]. Since its introduction to Pakistan in 2019 [4], S. frugiperda has caused significant damage to the maize crop, leading to substantial losses.

Farmers commonly rely on synthetic insecticides to control insect pests in their fields, but this approach can lead to a host of problems, such as insect resistance, harm to non-target organisms, and environmental damage [5]. Consequently, alternative strategies for pest management are needed. One such strategy is microbial control, which has proven to be highly effective against insect pests [6,7]. Entomopathogenic fungi (EPF) are particularly promising for integrated pest management, as they are cost-effective and have no harmful effects on humans or the environment [8,9]. There are around 750 known EPF species that infect various insects and mites, each with its own specific target [8]. The genera Beauveria, and Metarhizium are especially effective against lepidopterous insect pests [10]. In addition to their use as biological insecticides, many EPF species are capable of colonizing plant tissues [11,12]. Although only a few EPF species occur naturally as endophytes, numerous successful attempts have been made to introduce various EPFs into plants using different techniques [12]. This endophytic colonization of EPF can help improve plant growth and reduce pest densities in a variety of economically important crops [13,14,15,16].

The ability of B. bassiana to colonize maize plants and produce secondary plant metabolites that infect herbivorous insects is considered highly effective [17,18]. Endophytically colonized entomopathogenic fungi have been recovered from different parts of plants, such as leaves, stems, and roots, and these colonized plants show high virulence against insect herbivory [19,20]. M. anisopliae has been introduced as an endophyte in several plants, including tomato, cassava, and oilseed rape, with negative effects on the larvae of Plutella xylostella [21,22,23]. The insecticidal effect of such endophytic EPF colonization on major plant insect pests can be useful in IPM strategies. The main objective of our study was to evaluate the endophytic effect of B. bassiana and M. anisopliae on the biology and survival of S. frugiperda.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Insect Culture

The eggs and larvae of S. frugiperda were obtained from a maize field located at the research farm (32°07′57.3″ N 72°41′30.2″ E) of the University of Sargodha. The culture was maintained under controlled conditions of 65 ± 5% relative humidity and 27 ± 2 °C at the Biocontrol laboratory of the Entomology Department at the University of Sargodha. Neonate larvae were fed an artificial diet prepared using the method suggested by Sorour et al. [24]. The adults were moved to plastic cages (30 × 30 × 30 cm) and provided with a 10% sugar solution for food. Muslin cloth was provided in plastic jars to facilitate oviposition. The F3 generation was used for further experiments.

2.2. Plant Culture

The researchers purchased hybrid maize seeds (Zea mays L.; var. HY-CORN 11 Plus, ICI Pakistan Ltd., Lahore, Pakistan) from a local market in Sargodha. The seeds were sterilized by soaking them in a 70% ethanol solution for two minutes. The seeds were washed with 1.0% sodium hypochlorite (DAEJUNG Chemicals & Metals Co., Ltd., Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea) for 2 min followed by three times washing with distilled water, after which they were soaked in distilled water at 4 °C for 24 h before planting. The seeds were then sown in plastic pots (11 × 12 cm) containing a mixture of soil, perlite, and vermiculite in equal proportions (1:1:1), and the planting medium was autoclaved three times for 45 min at 121 °C with an interval of 24 h between each autoclave. The plants were grown in a greenhouse and irrigated as needed, without the application of any pesticides or fertilizers throughout the experiment.

2.3. Entomopathogenic Fungi

Entomopathogenic fungi, B. bassiana and M. anisopliae were obtained from AgriLife SOM Phytopharma (Hyderabad, Telangana. India) Limited in talc form [25]. The conidial spore suspension for both fungi was adjusted to 1 × 10⁸ conidia mL⁻¹ by using Neubauer hemocytometer [26]. A germination test [27] was performed for both fungi to evaluate the viability of conidial spores. The conidial suspensions with ≥90% germination were used for plant inoculation.

2.4. Plant Inoculation with Entomopathogenic Fungi by Foliar Application

Maize seeds that had been sterilized were planted in pots containing a sterile planting medium, as described earlier. When the maize seedlings were three weeks old at the growth stage BBCH 15 (5 leaves unfolded) [28], they were sprayed using a hand sprayer with an average of 3 mL of spore suspensions of each fungus in distilled water with 0.01% Tween 80. In the control treatment, plants were sprayed with 3 mL of a solution consisting of distilled water and 0.01% Tween 80. Each treatment was sprayed directly onto the leaves. To prevent conidial runoff, the surface of each pot was covered with aluminum foil while spraying. The experiment was repeated four times and 5 plants were selected randomly, totaling 20 plants for each treatment. Independent batches of plants and EPF were used in each treatment. In order to neutralize the effect of position, pots of each treatment were placed in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) in a greenhouse.

2.5. Plant Inoculation with Entomopathogenic Fungi through Seed Treatment

In this method, surface-sterilized maize seeds were dipped in 10 mL of conidial spore suspension of each fungus for 24 h. A sterilized paper towel was used to dry the seeds for 30 min prior to sowing in pots containing the sterile planting medium as discussed above. In the control treatment, seeds were soaked in distilled water with 0.01% Tween 80 solution for 24 h prior to sowing. The same numbers of replications and designs were used as in the foliar application method.

2.6. Colonization of Plants by Endophytic Entomopathogenic Fungi

Leaf samples were collected 14 and 28 days after the inoculation of EPF. For each sampling day, ten plants were selected, and the fourth true leaf was taken from each plant for each treatment. The leaves were washed with distilled water, sterilized with 70% ethanol for 2 min, and then with 1.0% sodium hypochlorite for 2 min. The samples were then rinsed twice with sterile distilled water. Sterilized scalpels were used to slash the leaves into small pieces. Each piece of the leaf was plated individually on Potato Dextrose Agar (PDA) medium. On each sampling day, an average of four pieces of leaves were collected from each plant. The samples were placed in Petri plates containing 20 mL of PDA and incubated at 25 °C in the dark. The plates were observed after 7 and 15 days of PDA inoculation to record fungal growth. The percent colonization frequency was calculated using the following formula:

$\mathrm{C}\mathrm{F}=\frac{No. of plant pieces showing fungal growth}{Total no. of plated plant pieces}\times 100$

2.7. Endophytic Effects of Entomopathogenic Fungi on Life Table Parameters of S. frugiperda

The most effective method of plant inoculation was determined based on the highest colonization rate of EPF (Figure 1). Highly colonized plants from the foliar spray method (highly effective) were used in the life table study. In each treatment, eighty 2-day-old first instar larvae were separated from the rearing colony and placed in Petri plates (one per plate). Treated maize leaves were provided as needed until pupation. In the control group, non-inoculated plant leaves were provided. The developmental period of each stage and survival rate were recorded daily. After pupal formation, all pupae were placed in separate Petri plates lined with cotton, and the pupal period was recorded. Adults from each treatment were paired and released into transparent plastic boxes (30 × 30 × 30 cm) with a honey solution provided as food. A healthy potted plant was placed in each cage, and muslin cloth was hung in the plastic boxes to facilitate oviposition. Newly laid eggs were transferred to Petri plates, and the total numbers of eggs were recorded daily. This experiment was conducted under controlled conditions at 25 ± 1 °C, 60–70% relative humidity, and a 16:8 h (light: dark) photoperiod. The life stages, including the egg incubation period, duration of each larval stage, total larval development time, pupal duration, pupal emergence into adults (females and males), the number of eggs laid by each female, and adult life were recorded.

2.8. Statistical Analyses

For percent colonization, data were analyzed by three-way ANOVA by keeping EPF, inoculation method, and time interval as main factors. Means were separated by LSD all-pairwise comparison test at a 5% level of significance. The development duration and survival rate from raw data were analyzed using age-stage, two-sex life table procedures using the TWO SEX-MS Chart program [29]. For the calculation of standard error, bootstrapping method (with 100,000 random samplings) was used by using the MS Chart program.

3. Results

Before being inoculated in maize plants, the viability of two entomopathogenic fungi, B. bassiana and M. anisopliae, was assessed on PDA plates. Both fungi had a germination rate of over 90% and were successfully inoculated in the maize plants. The frequency of endophytic colonization (CF) by B. bassiana and M. anisopliae varied significantly (F = 5.78, p < 0.05) depending on the inoculation method used. The highest CF percentage for both fungi was observed when using the foliar spray method compared with seed treatment. The colonization rate of both fungi was highest at 14 days after inoculation, compared with 28 days. At 14 days, the CF percentage of M. anisopliae was 80.0% using the foliar spray method and 65.0% using the seed inoculation method, while the CF percentage of B. bassiana was 72.5% when applied by foliar spray and 50.0% by seed inoculation method (Figure 1).

Table 1 presents the development period for each stage of S. frugiperda when feeding on leaves inoculated with EPF. The larval instars showed significant differences in their developmental period, except for L2 and L4 (p > 0.05). The larvae took 20.64 days to complete their developmental period when fed on B. bassiana-inoculated leaves, 21.21 days when fed on M. anisopliae-inoculated leaves, and 20.27 days when fed on untreated leaves. The pupal duration was extended to 8.20 days when B. bassiana was applied and 7.43 days when M. anisopliae was applied, compared to 6.91 days in the control. The longevity of female adults was longer than that of male adults in all treatments. However, when larvae were fed on M. anisopliae-inoculated leaves, female adult longevity was shorter (9.73 days) compared to adults in the control group (11.47 days) (Table 1).

The study found that the control group had a shorter adult pre-oviposition period (APOP) of 2.35 days, while the APOP period was longer in the B. bassiana and M. anisopliae treatments (2.67 days and 2.55 days, respectively). However, the total pre-oviposition period (TPOP) was longer in the control group (35.3 days) compared with the B. bassiana and M. anisopliae treatments (33.3 days). When immature stages were fed on EPF-inoculated leaves, the oviposition period of females was shorter (3.6–3.8 days) compared with the control group (4.58 days). The lowest fecundity rate was recorded in the M. anisopliae treatment (260.0 eggs/female), followed by 290.1 eggs/female in B. bassiana, compared with the control group (435.6 eggs/female). All reproductive parameters, including intrinsic increase rate (r) and finite increase rate (λ), net reproductive rate (Ro), and generation time (T) of S. frugiperda, were reduced in both EPF treatments compared with the control group (Table 2).

Figure 2 displays the age-stage-specific survival rate (s_xj) of S. frugiperda after treatment with EPF. The curve represents the survival rate from the egg stage to age x and stage j. Male and female adults emerged on the 29th day in the control group and the 26th day in the M. anisopliae treatment group. In the B. bassiana group, the male emerged on the 28th day and the female on the 27th day (Figure 2). The life expectancy rate (e_xj) curve shows the expected survival time of individuals of age x and stage j. The e_xj curves of larvae and adults of S. frugiperda treated with both EPF were lower compared with the untreated (control) group. At age zero (e₀₁), the e_xj of S. frugiperda was 43.1 days in the control group, 33.5 days in the B. bassiana treatment group, and 30 days in the M. anisopliae treatment group (Figure 3). Females were predicted to live for 13.5 days and 13.7 days, while males were predicted to live for 11.5 days and 12 days when fed on maize plants inoculated with B. bassiana and M. anisopliae, respectively. In non-inoculated maize plants, females and males were predicted to live for 14.45 and 15.08 days (Figure 3).

Figure 4 displays the age-specific survival rate (l_x), age-stage-specific fecundity (f_xj), age-specific fecundity (m_x), and age-specific maternity (l_xm_x) of S. frugiperda after EPF application. The fecundity rate of female S. frugiperda appeared on the 31st day in control, 29th day in B. bassiana, and on the 28th day in M. anisopliae. Overall, the maternity rate of S. frugiperda peaked on the 39th day in control and B. bassiana, and 43rd day in M. anisopliae (Figure 4). The age-stage reproductive value (v_xj) indicates the future population growth of individuals of age x and stage j. At age zero (v₀₁), the v_xj of S. frugiperda was 1.146 d⁻¹ in control, 1.135 d⁻¹ in B. bassiana, and 1.133 d⁻¹ in M. anisopliae. The highest reproductive value of female was observed in the case of control at age 36 days (v_36,9 = 247.07 d⁻¹). However, the v_xj value was highest (v_33,9 = 177.92 d⁻¹) on the 33rd day in B. bassiana, and in the case of M. anisopliae, higher peaks of v_xj were recorded; v_32,9 = 154.39 d⁻¹ at 32 days and v_34,9 = 154.46 d⁻¹ at 34 days (Figure 5).

4. Discussion

Entomopathogenic fungi (EPF) have been found to be effective in controlling several economic insect pests, providing an alternative to chemical control. However, unfavorable weather conditions may hinder the exposure of fungal spores in the field, thereby reducing their efficiency and level of utilization [30]. To address this, inoculating EPF as fungal endophytes can be a useful approach to reducing the negative effects of abiotic stressors [12], rather than relying on inundative methods. Previous studies have identified a variety of EPF as natural endophytes of important crops such as potato, maize, cotton, tomato, and chickpea [11,31,32,33]. Of the various EPF, B. bassiana and M. anisopliae are well-known for their ability to colonize plants endophytically [11]. In general, many recent investigations stated that numerous B. bassiana and M. anisopliae isolates have shown the high efficiency of these fungi in the infection and control of S. frugiperda larvae [34,35,36,37,38]. We conducted this study to investigate the endophytic effects of two different entomopathogenic fungi, B. bassiana, and M. anisopliae, using two inoculation methods: foliar spray and seed inoculation. The foliar spray method was found to be more effective in terms of high percent colonization in the leaves compared to seed inoculation. The choice of inoculation method may depend on the targeted plant part for endophytic colonization or the insect species to be controlled, such as sucking insects, root and stem borers, or leaf-chewing insects. According to [39], the foliar spray method is the easiest to use in the field. However, some studies have reported no colonization of EPF into the stem or leaf through seed inoculation [19,32], which could be due to the negative effects of microorganisms present in the soil that act as antagonists for EPF. The presence of both EPFs was higher 14 days after inoculation, but the percentage decreased on the 28th day. The percent colonization rate may depend on the fungal strains and plant species. The plant growth stage can also be another factor affecting the colonization rate of EPF. Rajab et al. [40] reported that the fungus was able to colonize cucumber plants more efficiently in the first stage of plant growth compared to the seedling stage. Rondot and Reineke [41] recorded the existence of B. bassiana in grapevine plants after 28 days of inoculation, while Akello et al. [42] reported it could be re-isolated up to 120 days after inoculation from banana plants. Posada et al. [39] isolated B. bassiana at low rates from coffee tissues after 120 days of inoculation.

Our study revealed that the larval and pupal stages were negatively impacted when feeding on leaves inoculated with EPF, particularly M. anisopliae. The developmental period was extended in larvae that fed on EPF-inoculated leaves compared to those that consumed untreated leaves. Our findings are consistent with previous research indicating that EPF can increase the developmental time of insects [43,44]. The prolonged development of immature stages of insects may be attributed to the reduced conversion of ingested and digested food after exposure to fungi, leading to slower larval development [43].

Our study found that feeding larvae on EPF-inoculated leaves, particularly M. anisopliae, adversely affected their larval and pupal periods. The developmental time was longer for those larvae fed on EPF-inoculated leaves than for those fed on untreated leaves. Our findings regarding the extended developmental time of insects due to EPF are consistent with previous studies [43,44]. This increase in developmental time could be due to a decrease in the conversion of digested and ingested food after fungal exposure, which slows the development of larvae [43].

The longevity of adults was reduced when their immature stages were fed on EPF-inoculated leaves. Similarly, the fecundity rate of female adults that emerged from surviving pupae fed on EPF-inoculated leaves was considerably reduced compared to the control. Other population parameters, such as Ro, r, λ, and T, were also reduced when using fungal endophytes. Therefore, inoculating plants with EPF can significantly reduce the feeding and oviposition of insect pests, as previously reported in studies on the bean stem maggot, Ophiomyia phaseoli, in bean plants [45] and the cotton leafworm, S. littoralis, in wheat plants [46]. Plants colonized by fungal endophytes exhibit feeding deterrence or antibiosis against their insect pests, which could be due to the synthesis of secondary metabolites by endophytic fungi. Plants colonized with EPF are less favorable to insects and indirectly affect the fitness of pests, as reported in previous studies [14,16,47,48,49,50]. Our findings are similar to previous studies showing the negative impact of endophytic fungi on the reproductive potential and lifespan of insects [51,52]. These negative effects could be due to secondary metabolites or the induction of a systemic response in the colonized plants [52]. The endophytic colonization of EPF in plants induces indirect detrimental impacts on target pests through various non-pathogenic mechanisms, including antixenosis, antibiosis, and induced systemic resistance [53]. The most commonly known endophytic fungi are Beauveria and Metarhizium spp., which can synthesize various secondary metabolites with antifungal, antibacterial, and insecticidal properties [54]. In this study, we did not evaluate the effect of these EPFs on the plant. However, Rajab et al. [40] reported no negative effects of B. bassiana colonization in cucumber plants on their pathogenicity. As an advantage, EPF can increase plant growth, as Rivas-Franco et al. [55] concluded that Metarhizium promoted maize vegetative growth. However, this depends on the EPF strains used.

Our study revealed that the survival rate of S. frugiperda was significantly lower when they fed on leaves inoculated with fungal endophytes, compared to those fed on untreated leaves. Distinctive symptoms were observed in the dead larvae, characterized by their shrunken and rigid mummy-like appearance. The larvae’s bodies were covered with fungal mycelia and changed color to either white or green, depending on the fungal species that infect and demise them. Larvae that consumed leaves contaminated with B. bassiana and M. anisopliae resulted in cadavers exhibiting white and green colors, respectively.

Additionally, all life table parameters, including survival rate, life expectancy, reproductive values, fecundity, and maternity rate were adversely affected by the application of fungal endophytes compared with the control. Previous studies have also reported the negative impact of endophytic EPF on the life history parameters of insect pests [56,57,58]. Mortality rates of insect pests using EPF depend on various factors such as the larval developmental stage [32], fungal strain [59], and inoculation method [51]. For example, Ramirez-Rodriguez et al. [60] reported that B. bassiana isolates from soil caused 98.3% mortality of 3rd instar larvae of S. frugiperda, whereas the same strain isolated from endophytically colonized maize plants caused 75% mortality.

Our study demonstrates that the endophytic colonization of plants with EPF can have a negative impact on the population of S. frugiperda. Our results showed that larvae and pupae had a prolonged developmental period, and both fecundity and survival rates were reduced. Previous studies have also reported the effectiveness of various EPFs, such as B. bassiana and M. anisopliae, in suppressing insect pests [14,52,61,62,63,64].

5. Conclusions

The results of our study indicated that endophytic fungi, when applied to maize plants, had a negative impact on the population of S. frugiperda. We observed a reduction in key life history parameters such as developmental period, reproduction potential, and survival rate of the pest. These findings suggest that both EPFs have potential as endophytes in integrated pest management (IPM) strategies to protect maize plants against this destructive pest. It is worth noting, however, that our study was conducted under controlled conditions and further research is needed to confirm the EPFs’ effectiveness in field conditions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.I.U. and M.A. (Muhammad Afzal); methodology, M.I.U. and N.A.; software, M.R. and M.A. (Muhammad Arshad); validation, M.I.U., L.A.A.-S., S.S.A., S.S. and M.A. (Muhammad Afzal); formal analysis, M.R. and M.A. (Muhammad Arshad); investigation, M.A. (Muhammad Afzal); resources, M.I.U.; data curation, S.A., L.A.A.-S., S.S.A. and N.A.; writing—original draft preparation, S.A. and N.A.; writing—review and editing, M.A. (Muhammad Arshad), L.A.A.-S., S.S.A. and S.S.; visualization, L.A.A.-S., S.S.A. and S.S.; supervision, M.I.U. and M.A. (Muhammad Afzal); project administration, N.A. and M.A. (Muhammad Afzal); funding acquisition, L.A.A.-S., S.S.A. and S.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Data Availability Statement

All data analyzed in this study are included in this article.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University Researchers Supporting Project number (PNURSP2023R365), Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia The data used in this manuscript are part of the PhD research of the first author (Nimra Altaf) to fulfill the prerequisite for the award of the PhD degree.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Percent colonization (means ± SE) of entomopathogenic fungi on maize with two inoculation methods at 14 and 28 days after inoculation (DAI) (LSD test after three-way ANOVA). Different letters above bars indicate significantly different means.

Figure 2. Age-stage-specific survival rate (sxj) of Spodoptera frugiperda fed on endophytic colonized and non-colonized plants.

Figure 3. Age-stage-specific life expectancy (exj) of Spodoptera frugiperda fed on endophytic colonized and non-colonized plants.

Figure 4. Age-stage-specific survival rate (lx), age-stage specific fecundity (fxj), age-specific fecundity (mx) and age-specific maternity (lxmx) of Spodoptera frugiperda fed on endophytic colonized and non-colonized plants.

Figure 5. Age-stage-specific reproductive value (vxj) of Spodoptera frugiperda fed on endophytic colonized and non-colonized plants.

Table 1

Development period (average no. of days) of Spodoptera frugiperda fed on maize plants colonized with Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae in comparison with untreated plants.

Life Stages	n	B. bassiana	n	M. anisopliae	n	Control
Egg incubation	80	3.15 ± 0.059 b	80	2.90 ± 0.083 c	80	3.44 ± 0.061 a
L1	80	3.49 ± 0.056 a	80	3.31 ± 0.055 b	80	3.52 ± 0.056 a
L2	79	3.47 ± 0.065 a	79	3.39 ± 0.058 a	79	3.53± 0.074 a
L3	76	3.41 ± 0.065 b	77	3.77 ± 0.086 a	79	3.44 ± 0.057 b
L4	71	3.56 ± 0.069 a	69	3.49 ± 0.064 a	77	3.62 ± 0.064 a
L5	65	3.29 ± 0.065 b	59	3.51 ± 0.086 a	77	2.98 ± 0.062 c
L6	60	3.42 ± 0.083 b	51	3.74 ± 0.068 a	77	3.18 ± 0.118 b
Pupa	54	8.20 ± 0.081 a	44	7.43 ± 0.110 b	75	6.91± 0.109 c
Adult Longevity	53	10.3 ± 0.237 b	44	9.73 ± 0.135 c	75	11.4 ± 0.086 a
Male adult Longevity	23	9.74 ± 0.310 b	15	9.20 ± 0.170 b	35	11.4 ± 0.130 a
Female adult Longevity	30	10.8 ± 0.320 b	29	10.0 ± 0.160 b	40	11.4 ± 0.110 a

SE was estimated by Bootstrapping (100,000 replications), and L1–L6 indicates the larval instar. n = shows the number of individuals; means sharing similar letters are not significantly different determined using the paired bootstrap test (p < 0.05); L1–L6 shows the larval instars.

Table 2

Comparison of reproductive and life table parameters (mean ± SE) of Spodoptera frugiperda fed on maize plants colonized with Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae in comparison with untreated plants.

Parameters	B. bassiana	M. anisopliae	Control
APOP	2.67 ± 0.110 a	2.55 ± 0.090 ab	2.35 ± 0.080 b
TPOP	33.3 ± 0.270 b	33.3 ± 0.400 b	35.3 ± 0.280 a
Oviposition days	3.80 ± 0.120 b	3.62 ± 0.090 b	4.58 ± 0.090 a
Fecundity	290.1 ± 9.870 b	260.0 ± 8.030 c	435.6 ± 10.930 a
Ro (offspring individual−1)	108.7 ± 16.11 b	94.30 ± 14.31 c	217.8 ± 24.99 a
T (d)	36.8 ± 0.300 b	36.3 ± 0.430 b	39.3 ± 0.280 a
r (d−1)	0.127 ± 0.004 b	0.125 ± 0.004 b	0.133 ± 0.003 a
λ (d−1)	1.135 ± 0.004 b	1.133 ± 0.005 b	1.146 ± 0.003 a

SE was estimated by bootstrapping (100,000). Whereas R₀ = Net reproductive rate, r = Intrinsic rate of increase, λ = Finite rate of increase, T = Mean generation time; means sharing similar letters are not significantly different as determined using the paired bootstrap test (p < 0.05).

References

1. Li, X.J.; Wu, M.F.; Ma, J.; Gao, B.Y.; Wu, Q.L.; Chen, A.D.; Hu, G. Prediction of migratory routes of the invasive fall armyworm in eastern China using a trajectory analytical approach. Pest Manag. Sci.; 2020; 76, pp. 454-463. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ps.5530] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31237729]

2. Montezano, D.G.; Specht, A.; Sosa-Gómez, D.R.; Roque-Specht, V.F.; Sousa-Silva, J.C.; Paula Moraes, S.V.; Peterson, J.A.; Hunt, T.E. Host plants of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in the Americas. Afr. Entomol.; 2018; 26, pp. 286-300. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4001/003.026.0286]

3. Day, R.; Abrahams, P.; Bateman, M.; Beale, T.; Clottey, V.; Cock, M.; Colmenarez, Y.; Corniani, N.; Early, R.; Godwin, J. et al. Fall armyworm: Impacts and implications for Africa. Outlooks Pest Manag.; 2017; 28, pp. 196-201. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1564/v28_oct_02]

4. Naeem-Ullah, U.; Ashraf Ansari, M.; Iqbal, N.; Saeed, S. First authentic report of Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith) (Noctuidae: Lepidoptera) an alien invasive species from Pakistan. Appl. Sci. Bus. Econ.; 2019; 6, pp. 1-3.

5. Guo, J.; Wu, S.; Zhang, F.; Huang, C.; He, K.; Babendreier, D.; Wang, Z. Prospects for microbial control of the fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda: A review. Biocontrol; 2020; 65, pp. 647-662. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10526-020-10031-0]

6. Mahar, A.; Jan, N.; Mahar, G.M.; Mahar, A.Q. Control of insects with entomopathogenic bacterium Xenorhabdus nematophila and its toxic secretions. Int. J. Agric. Biol.; 2008; 10, pp. 52-56.

7. Shawer, R.; Donati, I.; Cellini, A.; Spinelli, F.; Mori, N. Insecticidal Activity of Photorhabdus luminescens against Drosophila suzukii. Insects; 2018; 9, 148. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/insects9040148] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30360545]

8. Inglis, G.D.; Goettel, M.S.; Butt, T.M.; Strasser, H. Use of hyphomycetous fungi for managing insect pests. Fungi as Biocontrol Agents; CABI International: Wallingford, UK, 2001; pp. 23-69.

9. Lacey, L.A. Microbial Control of Insect and Mite Pests: From Theory to Practice; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016.

10. Wraight, S.P.; Ramos, M.E.; Avery, P.B.; Jaronski, S.T.; Vandenberg, J.D. Comparative virulence of Beauveria bassiana isolates against lepidopteran pests of vegetable crops. J. Invertebr. Pathol.; 2010; 103, pp. 186-199. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2010.01.001]

11. Vega, F.E.; Posada, F.; Aime, M.C.; Pava-Ripoll, M.; Infante, F.; Rehner, S.A. Entomopathogenic fungal endophytes. Biol. Control; 2008; 46, pp. 72-82. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2008.01.008]

12. Vega, F.E. The use of fungal entomopathogens as endophytes in biological control: A review. Mycologia; 2018; 110, pp. 4-30. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00275514.2017.1418578]

13. Powell, W.A.; Klingeman, W.E.; Ownley, B.H.; Gwinn, K.D. Evidence of endophytic Beauveria bassiana in seed-treated tomato plants acting as a systemic entomopathogen to larval Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Entomol. Sci.; 2009; 44, pp. 391-396. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18474/0749-8004-44.4.391]

14. Akutse, K.S.; Maniania, N.K.; Fiaboe, K.K.M.; Van den Berg, J.; Ekesi, S. Endophytic colonization of Vicia faba and Phaseolus vulgaris (Fabaceae) by fungal pathogens and their effects on the life-history parameters of Liriomyza huidobrensis (Diptera: Agromyzidae). Fungal Ecol.; 2013; 6, pp. 293-301. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.funeco.2013.01.003]

15. Jaber, L.R.; Enkerli, J. Effect of seed treatment duration on growth and colonization of Vicia faba by endophytic Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium brunneum. Biol. Control; 2016; 103, pp. 187-195. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2016.09.008]

16. Dash, C.K.; Bamisile, B.S.; Keppanan, R.; Qasim, M.; Lin, Y.; Islam, S.U.I.; Hussain, M.; Wang, L. Endophytic entomopathogenic fungi enhance the growth of Phaseolus vulgaris L. (Fabaceae) and negatively affect the development and reproduction of Tetranychus urticae Koch (Acari: Tetranychidae). Microb. Pathog.; 2018; 125, pp. 385-392. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2018.09.044] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30290267]

17. Tefera, T.; Pringle, K.L. Evaluation of Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae for controlling Chilo partellus (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) in maize. Biocontrol. Sci. Technol.; 2004; 14, pp. 849-853. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0958315041000172707]

18. McKinnon, A.C.; Saari, S.; Moran-Diez, M.E.; Meyling, N.V.; Raad, M.; Glare, T.R. Beauveria bassiana as an endophyte: A critical review on associated methodology and biocontrol potential. Biocontrol; 2017; 62, pp. 1-17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10526-016-9769-5]

19. Tefera, T.; Vidal, S. Effect of inoculation method and plant growth medium on endophytic colonization of sorghum by the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana. Biocontrol; 2009; 54, pp. 663-669. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10526-009-9216-y]

20. Sánchez-Peña, S.R.; Casas-De-Hoyo, E.; Hernandez-Zul, R.; Wall, K.M. A comparison of the activity of soil fungal isolates against three insect pests. J. Agric. Urban Entomol.; 2007; 24, pp. 43-48. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3954/1523-5475-24.1.43]

21. Garcia, J.E.; Posadas, J.B.; Perticari, A.; Lecuona, R.E. Metarhizium anisopliae (Metchnikoff) Sorokin promotes growth and has endophytic activity in tomato plants. Adv. Biol. Res.; 2011; 5, pp. 22-27.

22. Batta, Y.A. Efficacy of endophytic and applied Metarhizium anisopliae (Metch.) Sorokin (Ascomycota: Hypocreales) against larvae of Plutella xylostella L. (Yponomeutidae: Lepidoptera) infesting Brassica napus plants. Crop Prot.; 2013; 44, pp. 128-134. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2012.11.001]

23. Greenfield, M.; Gómez-Jiménez, M.I.; Ortiz, V.; Vega, F.E.; Kramer, M.; Parsa, S. Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae endophytically colonize cassava roots following soil drench inoculation. Biol. Control; 2016; 95, pp. 40-48. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2016.01.002] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27103778]

24. Sorour, M.A.; Khamiss, O.; El-Wahab, A.S.E.; El-Sheikh, M.A.K.; Abul-Ela, S. An economically modified semi-synthetic diet for mass rearing the Egyptian cotton leaf worm Spodoptera littoralis. Acad. J. Entomol.; 2011; 4, pp. 118-123.

25. Rizwan, M.; Atta, B.; Arshad, M.; Khan, R.R.; Dageri, A.; Rizwan, M.; Ullah, M.I. Nondetrimental impact of two concomitant entomopathogenic fungi on life history parameters of a generalist predator, Coccinella septempunctata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Sci. Rep.; 2021; 11, 20699. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-00037-8] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34667179]

26. Gurulingappa, P.; Sword, G.A.; Murdoch, G.; McGee, P.A. Colonization of crop plants by fungal entomopathogns and their effects on two insect pests when in planta. Biol. Control; 2010; 55, pp. 34-41. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2010.06.011]

27. Lane, B.S.; Humphreys, B.S.A.M.; Thompson, K.; Trinci, A.P.J. ATP content of stored spores of Paecilomyces farinosus and the use of ATP as criterion of spore viability. Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc.; 1988; 90, pp. 109-111. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0007-1536(88)80186-4]

28. Meier, U. Growth Stages of Mono-and Dicotyledonous Plants; BBCH Monograph. Federal Biological Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry: Bonn, Germany, 2001; 158.

29. Chi, H. TIMING-MSChart: A Computer Program for the Population Projection Based on Age-Stage, Two-Sex Life Table; National Chung Hsing University: Taichung, Taiwan, 2020.

30. Dong, T.; Zhang, B.; Jiang, Y.; Hu, Q. Isolation and classification of fungal whitefly entomopathogens from soils of Qinghai-Tibet Plateau and Gansu Corridor in China. PLoS ONE; 2016; 11, e0156087. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156087]

31. Arnold, A.E.; Lewis, L.C. Ecology and evolution of fungal endophytes, and their roles against insects. Insect-Fungal Associations: Ecology and Evolution; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 74-96.

32. Qayyum, M.A.; Wakil, W.; Arif, M.J.; Sahi, S.T.; Dunlap, C.A. Infection of Helicoverpa armigera by endophytic Beauveria bassiana colonizing tomato plants. Biol. Control; 2015; 90, pp. 200-207. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2015.04.005]

33. Wakil, W.; Tahir, M.; Al-Sadi, A.M.; Shapiro-Ilan, D. Interactions between two invertebrate pathogens: An endophytic fungus and an externally applied bacterium. Front. Microbiol.; 2020; 11, 2624. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.522368]

34. Mwamburi, L.A. Endophytic fungi, Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae, confer control of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), in two tomato varieties. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control; 2021; 31, 7. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41938-020-00357-3]

35. Montecalvo, M.P.; Navasero, M.M. Comparative virulence of Beauveria bassiana (Bals.) Vuill. AND Metarhizium anisopliae (Metchnikoff) Sorokin TO Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Int. Soc. Southeast Asian Agric. Sci.; 2021; 27, pp. 15-26.

36. Idrees, A.; Afzal, A.; Qadir, Z.A.; Li, J. Bioassays of Beauveria bassiana Isolates against the Fall Armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda. J. Fungi; 2022; 8, 717. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jof8070717] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35887472]

37. Idrees, A.; Afzal, A.; Qadir, Z.A.; Li, J. Virulence of entomopathogenic fungi against fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) under laboratory conditions. Front. Physiol.; 2023; 14, 1107434. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2023.1107434] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36969609]

38. Fazlullah,; Shahid, H.; Muzammil, F.; Aslam, M.N.; Zada, N. Insecticidal potential of eco-friendly mycoinsecticides for the management of fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) under in vitro conditions. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci.; 2023; 29, pp. 124-130.

39. Posada, F.; Aime, M.C.; Peterson, S.W.; Rehner, S.A.; Vega, F.E. Inoculation of coffee plants with the fungal entomopathogen Beauveria bassiana (Ascomycota: Hypocreales). Mycol. Res.; 2007; 111, pp. 748-757. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mycres.2007.03.006] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17604149]

40. Rajab, L.; Ahmad, M.; Gazal, I. Endophytic establishment of the fungal entomopathogen, Beauveria bassiana (Bals.) Vuil., in cucumber plants. J. Biol. Pest Control; 2020; 30, 143. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41938-020-00344-8]

41. Rondot, Y.; Reineke, A. Endophytic Beauveria bassiana in grapevine Vitis vinifera (L.) reduces infestation with piercing-sucking insects. Biol. Control; 2018; 116, pp. 82-89. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2016.10.006]

42. Akello, J.; Dubois, T.; Gold, C.S.; Coyne, D.; Nakavuma, J.; Paparu, P. Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) Vuillemin as an endophyte in tissue culture banana (Musa spp.). J. Invertebr. Pathol.; 2007; 96, pp. 34-42. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2007.02.004]

43. Hussain, A.; Tian, M.Y.; He, Y.R.; Ahmed, S. Entomopathogenic fungi disturbed the larval growth and feeding performance of Ocinara varians (Lepidoptera: Bombycidae) larvae. Insect Sci.; 2009; 16, pp. 511-517. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7917.2009.01272.x]

44. Lopez, D.C.; Sword, G.A. The endophytic fungal entomopathogens Beauveria bassiana and Purpureocillium lilacinum enhance the growth of cultivated cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and negatively affect survival of the cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa zea). Biol. Control; 2015; 89, pp. 53-60. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2015.03.010]

45. Mutune, B.; Ekesi, S.; Niassy, S.; Matiru, V.; Bii, C.; Maniania, N.K. Fungal endophytes as promising tools for the management of bean stem maggot Ophiomyia phaseoli on beans Phaseolus vulgaris. J. Pest Sci.; 2016; 89, pp. 993-1001. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10340-015-0725-4]

46. Sánchez-Rodríguez, A.R.; Raya-Díaz, S.; Zamarreño, Á.M.; García-Mina, J.M.; del Campillo, M.C.; Quesada-Moraga, E. An endophytic Beauveria bassiana strain increases spike production in bread and durum wheat plants and effectively controls cotton leafworm (Spodoptera littoralis) larvae. Biol. Control; 2018; 116, pp. 90-102. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2017.01.012]

47. Akello, J.; Sikora, R. Systemic acropedal influence of endophyte seed treatment on Acyrthosiphon pisum and Aphis fabae offspring development and reproductive fitness. Biol. Control; 2012; 61, pp. 215-221. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2012.02.007]

48. Muvea, A.M.; Meyhöfer, R.; Subramanian, S.; Poehling, H.M.; Ekesi, S.; Maniania, N.K. Colonization of onions by endophytic fungi and their impacts on the biology of Thrips tabaci. PLoS ONE; 2014; 9, e108242. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108242]

49. Jaber, L.R.; Ownley, B.H. Can we use entomopathogenic fungi as endophytes for dual biological control of insect pests and plant pathogens?. Biol. Control; 2018; 116, pp. 36-45. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2017.01.018]

50. Mantzoukas, S.; Kitsiou, F.; Natsiopoulos, D.; Eliopoulos, P.A. Entomopathogenic Fungi: Interactions and Applications. Encyclopedia; 2022; 2, pp. 646-656. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia2020044]

51. Jaber, L.R.; Vidal, S. Fungal endophyte negative effects on herbivory are enhanced on intact plants and maintained in a subsequent generation. Ecol. Entomol.; 2010; 35, pp. 25-36. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.2009.01152.x]

52. Russo, M.L.; Scorsetti, A.C.; Vianna, F.; Cabello, M.N.; Ferreri, N.; Pelizza, S.A. Endophytic effects of Beauveria bassiana on corn (Zea mays) and its herbivore, Rachiplusia nu (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Insects; 2019; 10, 110. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/insects10040110]

53. Hartley, S.E.; Gange, A.C. Impacts of plant symbiotic fungi on insect herbivores: Mutualism in a multitrophic context. Annu. Rev. Entomol.; 2009; 54, pp. 323-342. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.54.110807.090614]

54. Krasnoff, S.B.; Keresztes, I.; Gillilan, R.E.; Szebenyi, D.M.; Donzelli, B.G.; Churchill, A.C.; Gibson, D.M. Serinocyclins A and B, cyclic heptapeptides from Metarhizium anisopliae. J. Nat. Prod.; 2007; 70, pp. 1919-1924. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/np070407i]

55. Rivas-Franco, F.; Hampton, J.G.; Morán-Diez, M.E.; Narciso, J.; Rostás, M.; Wessman, P.; Jackson, T.A.; Glare, T.R. Effect of coating maize seed with entomopathogenic fungi on plant growth and resistance against Fusarium graminearum and Costelytra giveni. Biocontrol Sci. Technol.; 2019; 29, pp. 877-900. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09583157.2019.1611736]

56. Klieber, J.; Reineke, A. The entomopathogen Beauveria bassiana has epiphytic and endophytic activity against the tomato leaf miner Tuta Absol. J. Appl. Entomol.; 2016; 140, pp. 580-589. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jen.12287]

57. Garrido-Jurado, I.; Resquín-Romero, G.; Amarilla, S.P.; Ríos-Moreno, A.; Carrasco, L.; Quesada-Moraga, E. Transient endophytic colonization of melon plants by entomopathogenic fungi after foliar application for the control of Bemisia tabaci Gennadius (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae). J. Pest Sci.; 2017; 90, pp. 319-330. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10340-016-0767-2]

58. González-Mas, N.; Cuenca-Medina, M.; Gutiérrez-Sánchez, F.; Quesada-Moraga, E. Bottom-up effects of endophytic Beauveria bassiana on multitrophic interactions between the cotton aphid, Aphis gossypii, and its natural enemies in melon. J. Pest Sci.; 2019; 92, pp. 1271-1281. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10340-019-01098-5]

59. Vidal, S.; Jaber, L.R. Entomopathogenic fungi as endophytes: Plant–endophyte–herbivore interactions and prospects for use in biological control. Curr. Sci.; 2015; 109, pp. 46-54.

60. Ramirez-Rodriguez, D.; Sánchez-Peña, S.R. Endophytic Beauveria bassiana in Zea mays: Pathogenicity against larvae of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda. Southwest Entomol.; 2016; 41, pp. 875-878. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3958/059.041.0330]

61. Jaber, L.R.; Araj, S.E. Interactions among endophytic fungal entomopathogens (Ascomycota: Hypocreales), the green peach aphid Myzus persicae Sulzer (Homoptera: Aphididae), and the aphid endoparasitoid Aphidius colemani Viereck (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Biol. Control; 2018; 116, pp. 53-61. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2017.04.005]

62. Manoussopoulos, Y.; Mantzoukas, S.; Lagogiannis, I.; Goudoudaki, S.; Kambouris, M. Effects of three strawberry entomopathogenic fungi on the prefeeding behavior of the aphid Myzus persicae. J. Insect Behav.; 2019; 32, pp. 99-108. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10905-019-09709-w]

63. Kuchár, M.; Glare, T.R.; Hampton, J.G.; Dickie, I.A.; Christey, M.C. Virulence of the plant-associated endophytic fungus Lecanicillium muscarium to diamondback moth larvae. N. Z. Plant Prot.; 2019; 72, pp. 253-259. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.30843/nzpp.2019.72.257]

64. Ramakuwela, T.; Hatting, J.; Bock, C.; Vega, F.E.; Wells, L.; Mbata, G.N.; Shapiro-Ilan, D. Establishment of Beauveria bassiana as a fungal endophyte in pecan (Carya illinoinensis) seedlings and its virulence against pecan insect pests. Biol. Control; 2020; 140, 104102. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2019.104102]