Next Article in Journal
Optimizing Initial Nitrogen Application Rates to Improve Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Biological Nitrogen Fixation
Next Article in Special Issue
Biological Characteristics and Thermal Requirements of Telenomus podisi and Trissolcus basalis (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae) in Fresh and Cryopreserved Eggs of Euschistus heros and Nezara viridula (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae)
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Different Drip Irrigation Patterns on Grain Yield and Population Structure of Different Water- and Fertilizer-Demanding Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Varieties
Previous Article in Special Issue
Natural-Enemy-Based Biocontrol of Tobacco Arthropod Pests in China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 13
Issue 12
10.3390/agronomy13123019
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Individual and Combined Effects of Predatory Bug Engytatus nicotianae and Trichoderma atroviride in Suppressing the Tomato Potato Psyllid Bactericera cockerelli in Greenhouse Grown Tomatoes

by
Emiliano R. Veronesi
1,*,
Sarah M. Cairns
1,
Hossein Alizadeh
1,
John Hampton
1,
Robbie Maris
2,
William Godsoe
1,
Stephen L. Goldson
1,3 and
Andrea Clavijo McCormick
4,*
1
Department of Agricultural Sciences, Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand
2
School of Accounting, Finance and Economics, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand
3
AgResearch, Private Bag 4749, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand
4
School of Agriculture and Environment, Massey University, Private Bag 11 222, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2023, 13(12), 3019; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13123019
Submission received: 3 November 2023 / Revised: 19 November 2023 / Accepted: 21 November 2023 / Published: 8 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biological Pest Control in Agroecosystems)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The tomato potato psyllid (TPP) Bactericera cockerelli is a serious pest of the Solanaceae family. The management of this pest using synthetic pesticides is problematic because of the development of pesticide resistance and environmental concerns including impacts on non-target organisms. The predatory bug Engytatus nicotianae has recently been identified as a useful biocontrol agent for TPP in greenhouses. The soil fungus Trichoderma Pers. is commonly used as a plant growth enhancer and biocontrol agent against phytopathogenic fungi. Therefore, there could be advantages associated with the combined use of these biocontrol agents. Some reports in other systems suggest that Trichoderma inoculation may alter the behaviour of pests and their natural enemies by modifying plant defence metabolites such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs). For this reason, this study aimed to investigate the individual and combined efficacy of these biocontrol agents (i.e., Trichoderma atroviride and E. nicotianae) against TPP in greenhouse grown tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum cv. Merlice). To this end, we compared the effect of each biocontrol agent and their combination on TPP abundance across different developmental stages (egg, nymphs, adults) and the number of infested leaves. We also investigated plant VOC emissions under the different treatments. Across all measured TPP stages, the treatments tested (E. nicotianae alone, T. atrovirdae alone, and T. atrovirdae + E. nicotianae) significantly reduced mean TPP counts relative to the control, and no significant differences were observed in VOC emissions among treatments. Overall, T. atrovirdae alone was less effective than E. nicotianae alone and its combination with T. atrovirdae in suppressing TPP populations. However, the combined use of Trichoderma + E. nicotianae did not show significant advantages over the use of E. nicotianae alone in controlling TPP. Therefore, their combined use needs to be further assessed in light of other advantages of Trichoderma to the crop (e.g., growth promotion or pathogen defence).

1. Introduction

The tomato potato psyllid (TPP) Bactericera cockerelli (Šulc) (Hemiptera: Triozidae) is a widely recognised pest of several solanaceous crops [1,2,3,4]. All TPP nymphal stages and adults can damage host plants by injecting salivary toxins that lead to foliar symptoms, such as leaf curling and yellowing. This condition was designated by Munyaneza [5] as “psyllid yellows”. Moreover, TPP is also a vector of the bacterial pathogen Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum (CLso), which is responsible for zebra chip disease in potatoes [6,7]. Clso can cause the decline and death of infected plants [5], reducing yields and costing growers millions of dollars each year [8,9].
While there is progress towards the reduction in broad-spectrum synthetic insecticide use in New Zealand [10,11,12] these have not been fully phased out and are still routinely used in other countries [13,14,15,16]. Therefore, there is a need for alternative approaches, such as biological control and associated integrated pest management (IPM) strategies to reduce the development of insecticide resistance [17,18,19], non-target effects [20,21,22], environmental, and health impacts [23,24,25].
The predatory bug Engytatus nicotianae (Koningsberger) (Hemiptera: Miridae) has recently shown potential as a biological control agent to the extent that it can be used to prevent the establishment of TPP populations in caged greenhouse tomato plants [26,27,28,29]. However, it was found that such protection does not always off-set the potential physiological damage resulting from even limited TPP feeding [28].
Trichoderma species are soil-borne fungi commonly used as biocontrol agents against plant pathogens and as plant growth enhancers [30,31,32]. Different isolates of Trichoderma exhibit various mechanisms for their antagonistic effect. These include mycoparasitism, competition with pathogens (including nutrient and niche), antibiosis through fungal volatile and non-volatile compounds, enzyme activity, and changes in plant secondary metabolites with different bioactivities [30,33,34,35,36]. Some Trichoderma isolates have also been reported to modify the behaviour of phytophagous insects and their natural enemies through the activation of plant-defence pathways, e.g., by altering the emission of plant volatile organic compounds (VOCs) involved in host-finding and selection [37,38,39,40]. This suggests that Trichoderma may confer additional protection against insect pests.
Given the advantages associated with the individual use of E. nicotianae and Trichoderma, it would be of interest to explore the potential advantages of their combined use against TPP. However, the effect of Trichoderma on plant defence can be variable depending on the host plant, pest organism, biocontrol agent, and biotic and abiotic factors such as temperature and soil nutrients [37,40]. Likewise, VOC emission can be quite system-specific and influenced by biotic and abiotic factors [41,42]. Therefore, it is important to explore the effect of different isolates for specific plant species (or cultivars), pests, and growth conditions when developing a biocontrol and IPM strategy. To this end, the objective of this study was to explore the individual and combined efficacy of two biocontrol agents, T. atroviride and E. nicotianae, against TPP in greenhouse-grown tomato seedlings, and to explore VOC emissions under different treatments.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Seed Inoculation with T. atroviridae and Plant Growth Conditions

Seeds of Solanum lycopersicum cv. Merlice were purchased from Kings Seeds (Katikati, New Zealand). One hundred of these seeds were then sent to Agrimm Technologies Ltd., (Lincoln, New Zealand) to be commercially coated with an inert carrier containing spores of a four-strain mix of T. atroviride obtained from the Lincoln University Culture Collection (Karst bio-inoculant). These strains had been patented for the biological control of soil-borne plant pathogens and plant growth promotion [43]. The 100 seeds and a further 100 non-coated seeds were sown in a seedling-raising mix in separate 100-cell propagation trays that were placed in a glasshouse at Lincoln University.
When the plants were 15–20 cm high, a total of 42 plants (21 grown from T. atroviride coated seeds and 21 from non-coated seeds) were randomly selected and each transplanted into a 6 L pot containing the growing medium. The medium was obtained from a 500 L mix that comprised 400 L of composted bark, 100 L of pumice, 2 kg of Osmocote® NPK fertiliser (www.growwithosmocote.com, accessed on September 2023), and 500 g of horticultural lime. During the transplanting process for T. atroviridae-treated plants, pellets containing the four T. atroviride strains manufactured by Agrimm Technologies Ltd. were mixed into the growing medium at a rate of 0.3 g/6 L pot (equivalent to 15 kg/ha). For the duration of the greenhouse experiment, single plants were kept in 60 cm × 60 cm × 180 cm cages (BugDorm 6E630; www.bugdorm.com, accessed on September 2023) and trickle-irrigated daily such that each plant received 0.25 L of water. The mean ambient greenhouse temperature was 21.9 °C (max 38 °C; min 15 °C), and mean relative humidity (RH) was 61.6% (max 90.5%; min 30%)

2.2. Experimental Design

The experimental design comprised a randomised complete block design with the following treatments: TPP-only (henceforth, control), TPP + E. nicotianae, TPP + T. atroviride, and TPP + E. nicotianae + T. atroviride. These were arrayed in seven blocks. For VOC collection purposes, only two additional treatments were added to each block (uninfested plant and T. atroviride-only) to assess the baseline emission of healthy uninfested plants and of plants inoculated with T. atroviride in the absence of TPP. Each block contained one cage with a single potted tomato plant for each of the treatments. The cages were laid out in two parallel rows with a main irrigation pipe down the middle lane. The distance between the cages in each block was 30 cm with 1 m between the blocks. Once the pots were placed into cages, a thin 1.8 m support stake was inserted into the centre of the pots and a drip irrigation pipe secured at soil level. A light source (16 h light: 8 h dark) was hung above each block so that the conditions for each were uniform during the experiment. After being placed in the cages, plants were then left to acclimatise for two weeks.

2.3. Infestation of Plants with TPP and Introduction of E. nicotianae

The entomological experimental methodology used in this study was based on that of [28,29] combined with unpublished data obtained from BioForce Limited (a commercial supplier of biological control agents, Karaka, New Zealand; www.bioforce.co.nz, (accessed on 2 November 2023)). All the TPP used were young adults (5–7 days old) and all E. nicotianae adults belonged to the same cohort (adults were c. 15 days old, nymphs were c. 7 days old).
After a one-day acclimatisation period (7 December 2021), two healthy TPP males and two healthy TPP females, obtained from a rearing cage at Lincoln University, were placed in each designated cage. E. nicotianae adults and nymphs purchased from BioForce, Karaka, New Zealand. E. nicotianae were randomly selected from a shipment of 300 individuals; one adult female and two unsexed nymphal E. nicotianae were then released into each of the designated cages. The E. nicotianae nymphs were unsexed because they are cryptic, very active, and hide when exposed; it was therefore impossible to determine their sex without risking injuring the insect. A second release of both TPP and E. nicotianae was made on 16 December 2021 following the same procedure as above.

2.4. Weekly Data Collection

The TPP population within each cage was assessed once per week, between 10 am and 4 pm. During this time, the numbers of TPP eggs, nymphs, adults, and TPP-infested leaves were recorded. To assess the number of TPP (eggs, nymphs, and adults), a 5 min time limit was adopted [28,29], as the exponential growth of TPP (especially in TPP-only treatments) made a full census impractical towards the latter part of the experiment.

2.5. VOC Sampling

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were sampled between the 7 and 10 of December 2021, using a dynamic push–pull headspace sampling technique as described by Effah et al. [44,45]. For this experiment, six treatments were used with seven replicates each, as described in the experimental design section. One individual leaf per treatment was enclosed in a multi-purpose 50 cm × 30 cm cooking bag (AWZ Products Inc., China) with both ends fastened using a cable tie. Using a portable PVAS22 pump (Volatile Assay Systems, Rensselaer, NY, US), carbon-filtered air was pushed into the bags through a PTFE tube (0.9 L/min) and simultaneously pulled out through another tube (0.8 L/min), creating a slight positive pressure to reduce external contaminants.
To collect the VOCs, a volatile collection trap with 30 mg HayeSep Q adsorbent (Volatile Assay Systems, Rensselaer, NY, USA) was inserted in the pull tube. Collections of the VOCs from each target plant were conducted for two hours under greenhouse conditions. Thereafter, the foliage enclosed in the bags was removed and oven-dried to measure dry weight (grams). The collection filters were subsequently eluted using 200 μL of hexane (95% purity) with 10 ng/μL of nonyl acetate (Sigma Aldrich, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany) as an internal standard.
The VOC samples were analysed using gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry (Shimadzu, Tokyo, Japan) with a 30 m × 250 μm × 0.25 μm TG-5MS column and helium as the carrier gas. Operating conditions were as follows: injector temperature 230 °C; split ratio of 10; initial oven temperature at 50 °C, which was held for 3 min then increased to 95 °C at a rate of 5 °C/min. Tentative identification of compounds was achieved by comparing them with target spectra in the MS library from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and, when available, verified using authentic standards (Sigma Aldrich).

2.6. Statistical Analyses

All statistical analyses were conducted using the Stats package in R statistical software version 4.2.2. [46]. A non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test, followed by Dunn’s post-hoc tests was conducted to evaluate whether the treatments had significant effects on average TPP population numbers and infested leaves across the study and differences among treatments. Furthermore, to account for changes in TPP population numbers over time, mixed-effects models were used, where the response variables were assumed to be Poisson-distributed. These Poisson regression models accommodated the ‘count’ nature of the dependent variables (count of eggs, nymphs, adults, and number of infested leaves). In these models, the blocked design was accounted for by including the block number as a fixed effect. We included random intercepts for each individual plant to account for repeated-measures nature of the experimental design. The treatment groups and time (in days) were evaluated as fixed effects, and treatment x time interactions were calculated.
For VOC analyses, the random forest algorithm was used [47]. Random forest is a multivariate statistical tool suited to datasets with more variables than sample size and variables of autocorrelated nature, such as plant volatiles with common biosynthetic pathways. In this case, n = 100,000 bootstrap samples were drawn, with seven (variables) randomly selected at each node (the number of variables selected is based on the square root of all variables). The chance of a random sample being improperly classified is expressed as the out-of-bag (OOB) error rate. Lower OOB values indicate that the treatments differ substantially from one another, allowing the algorithm to classify samples correctly. In contrast, high OOB values suggest that there is poor discrimination among treatments leading to high error in the classification of a sample. It is further possible to identify which of the dependent variables (in this case individual compounds) contribute to separation between treatments. The importance of each compound for the distinction is expressed as the mean decrease in accuracy (MDA). However, this indicator is only relevant if adequate classification scores (low OOB values) are achieved.

3. Results

3.1. Average Rates of TPP Suppression

The average rates of TPP suppression per treatment across the experiment are shown in Figure 1. Across all four measured TPP variables, each of the three treatments significantly reduced the mean TPP counts relative to the control. However, T. atroviride alone was significantly less effective than either E. nicotianae or the combined treatment. Moreover, the combined treatment was no better overall than E. nicotianae alone (i.e., T. atroviride did not improve the average performance of the E. nicotianae treatment across the sampling period).

3.2. Comparison of TPP Growth Rates

We calculated the growth rates of the TPP stages under all treatments throughout the experiment. The resulting growth curves are plotted in Figure 2. A mixed-effects model based on the Poison distribution showed the significant effects of E. nicotianae, the combined treatment, and time (in days) on the different growth stages of TPP vs. the control (Table S1). However, the interaction effect of treatment x time was variable and was only significant across all measured parameters for E. nicotianae (Table S1). In contrast, the use of T. atroviride alone showed no interaction with time (except for the nymphal stages).
We further explored the effects of the treatments on the daily population growth rates of TPP and daily percentage of TPP-infested leaves over the duration of the experiment (Table 1). Here, E. nicotianae was found to consistently reduce the number of infested leaves and daily TPP population growth rates of all developmental stages. T. atroviride alone was found to have had little suppressive effect on the growth rates of TPP eggs and adults, and TPP-infested leaves, although it caused a significant reduction in the population growth rate of TPP nymphs. In contrast, the combined treatment significantly reduced all measured parameters except daily nymph population growth.

3.3. Treatment Effect of on Plant VOC Emissions

Thirty-three compounds were tentatively identified and quantified in the collected samples (Table S2). β-Phellandrene and 2-Carene were the most abundant compounds in all samples. Healthy, uninfested plants had, on average, the highest volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, while plants infested with TPP in the absence of biocontrol agents had the lowest VOC emissions (Figure 3a). However, univariate statistical analysis of the total VOC emissions (ANOVA) showed no significant differences in the total VOC emission among treatments (N = 7, F = 0.551, p = 0.737).
When comparing the entire volatile blends, a random forest analysis revealed a very high out-of-bag (OOB) error rate (83.33%) showing poor separation between treatments. The mean decrease in accuracy (MDA) values (Figure 3b) suggested that δ-eiemene, heptane and 6-isopropylidene-1-methylbicyclo [3.1.0]hexane could have played a role in the separation between treatments (Figure 3b), but individual compound exploration using ANOVA did not yield significant differences among treatments for these compounds.

4. Discussion

In this study, we explored the independent and combined effect of two biocontrol agents (T. atroviride and E. nicotianae) on suppressing populations of tomato potato psyllid (TPP). Both biocontrol agents and their combination had a significant effect in reducing TPP populations at different developmental stages (egg, nymph, and adults) and the number of infested leaves when compared to the control. However, the treatments containing the predatory bug and T. atroviride were more effective than using T. atroviride alone.
Previous studies have shown the potential of the predatory bug E. nicotianae in controlling TPP under greenhouse conditions [26,27,28,29]. However, its use alone may not be enough to manage established populations. Therefore, it was suggested that it could be used in combination with another biocontrol agent to enhance protection against TPP [28] but simultaneous use of biocontrol agents is not always positive and can result in interference, e.g., [48,49,50,51]. In this study, we observed excellent results when the predator was used in early phases of TPP establishment, and it retained its effect, even when a fungal biocontrol agent was applied simultaneously, suggesting both agents can be safely used together to reduce TPP populations. However, there seems to be no added benefit in their simultaneous use to control TPP.
To assess whether there is an economic advantage in using both biocontrol agents, we recommend further studies using a similar experimental design taking into consideration other response variables such as plant growth and yield. Growth promotion and enhanced pathogen protection have been associated with Trichoderma use in other systems [30,31,32]. However, they have been seldom explored in a setting where Trichoderma is used alongside a pest insect and its natural enemy, which more closely resembles real crop conditions.
The observed reduction in the number of TPP eggs, nymphs, and adults, and decreased number of TPP infested leaves when using T. atroviride is consistent with other observations. For example, Trichoderma atroviride strain P1 was tested against two pests with different feeding habits on tomato plants, a leaf-chewing noctuid moth (Spodoptera littoralis) and a phloem-feeding aphid (Macrosiphum euphorbiae). In both cases, Trichoderma inoculation resulted in pest reduction. The authors suggested different mechanisms for both pests. In the case of aphids, a direct reduction was associated with the up-regulation of genes involved in the oxidative burst reaction early in the defence response, while the effect on the moth was linked to the enhanced expression of protective enzymes downstream in the defence cascade, e.g., proteinase inhibitors [38]. The authors also reported an indirect effect through increased attraction of the aphid parasitoid Aphidius ervi due to an increase in emission and de novo production of plant VOCs [38].
In this study, we did not observe an increase in foliar VOC emissions using Trichoderma that could be linked to increased attraction of the natural enemy, so we assume that the observed effects on TPP are linked mainly to direct effects on the pest (probably similar to those observed for the aphid M. euphorbiae). These contrasting results are not surprising, as there is evidence that the Trichoderma effects on plants are system-specific and depend on abiotic and biotic factors. For instance, a study on tomato using T. afroharzianum T22 and T. atroviride P1 showed differential induction of plant defence responses against M. euphorbiae and S. littoralis, and temperature-dependent effects [37]. Furthermore, biotic and abiotic factors can lead to plants producing highly plastic VOC blends [44,45,52].
Interestingly, we observed lower (albeit not significant) VOC emissions in TPP-infested plants (without biocontrol agents). While chewing herbivores often induce volatile emission, this is not always the case with phloem feeders, e.g., [53,54,55]. Some phloem feeders may suppress plant signalling and defence responses through their endosymbionts [56,57,58]. In fact, TPP is known to manipulate plant responses through its associated endosymbiont Candidatus Liberibacter psyllaurous [59]. Therefore, the apparent reduction in VOCs after TPP attack observed here is not surprising and requires further investigation.
The impact of Trichoderma on other natural enemies that can provide TPP biocontrol in this system (e.g., parasitoid Tamarixia triozae) must also be investigated, since natural enemies vary in their sensitivity and attraction to plant VOCs [60,61,62], and the possibility remains that highly sensitive parasitoid antennae may respond to minor blend variations or minor compounds in the VOC blend [63]. The role of previous experience and learning in parasitoid and predator responses to plant VOCs (and other cues) could also be further studied [64,65,66,67].
In general, it is important to note that plants grown under greenhouse conditions, as described in this contribution, are often optimally resourced. They may opt for prioritising growth, reproduction, or other forms of defence, beyond the effect of volatile emissions at low infestation densities [68,69,70]. To test this, further experiments could be conducted using different herbivore densities/damage levels and varying soil nutrient conditions.

5. Conclusions

Both biocontrol agents (E. nicotianae and T. atroviride) suppressed TPP populations respective to the control when used alone and in combination. E. nicotianae alone and its combination with T. atroviride were significantly more effective in reducing initial TPP numbers than Trichoderma alone, but there was no significant difference among these treatments. We found no indication of Trichoderma-induced changes in plant VOC emissions that could potentially lead to increased natural enemy recruitment. Therefore, at least under the conditions described here, there seems to be little advantage in combining E. nicotianae and Trichoderma to suppress TPP in greenhouse tomato crops. However, other advantages of the use of Trichoderma such as enhanced resistance to pathogens and growth promotion were not considered here, and these may add value to the combined use of both agents. Hence, further research considering other aspects of Trichoderma use in this system are needed to support its use alone or in combination with other biocontrol agents.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agronomy13123019/s1, Table S1: Mixed-effects model using Poisson regression of TPP counts for eggs, nymphs, adults, and TPP- infested leaves, including the individual effect of each treatment, time, and their interactions.; Table S2: Tentative identification and quantification of compounds present in the headspace samples of tomato plants (ng × gDW−1 × h−1). UIP = uninfested plant, TRI = Trichoderma atroviride, TPP = tomato pPotato psyllid (Bactericera cockerelli), E= Engytatus nicotianae (predatory bug).

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, E.R.V., H.A., S.L.G., and A.C.M. methodology, E.R.V., H.A., J.H., and A.C.M.; data collection E.R.V., S.M.C., and A.C.M.; data analysis E.R.V., J.H., R.M., W.G., and A.C.M.; writing—original draft preparation E.R.V., S.M.C., and A.C.M.; writing—review and editing all authors. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by a Massey-Lincoln and Agricultural Industry Trust Grant (MLAIT) awarded to A.C.M., E.V., and late Professor Steve Wratten in 2021.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be provided by the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We want to express our gratitude to late Steve Wratten, without whom this work would have not been possible.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Liu, D.; Trumble, J.T. Comparative fitness of invasive and native populations of the potato psyllid (Bactericera cockerelli). Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2007, 123, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Liu, D.; Trumble, J.T. Interactions of plant resistance and insecticides on the development and survival of Bactericerca cockerelli [Sulc](Homoptera: Psyllidae). Crop Prot. 2005, 24, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Butler, C.D.; Trumble, J.T. The potato psyllid, Bactericera cockerelli (Sulc)(Hemiptera: Triozidae): Life history, relationship to plant diseases, and management strategies. Terr. Arthropod Rev. 2012, 5, 87–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Teulon, D.; Workman, P.; Thomas, K.; Nielsen, M. Bactericera cockerelli incursion dispersal and current distribution on vegetable crops in New Zealand. N. Z. Plant Prot. 2009, 62, 136–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Munyaneza, J.E. Zebra chip disease of potato: Biology, epidemiology, and management. Am. J. Potato Res. 2012, 89, 329–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hansen, A.; Trumble, J.; Stouthamer, R.; Paine, T. A new huanglongbing species, “Candidatus Liberibacter psyllaurous,” found to infect tomato and potato, is vectored by the psyllid Bactericera cockerelli (Sulc). Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2008, 74, 5862–5865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Liefting, L.W.; Sutherland, P.W.; Ward, L.I.; Paice, K.L.; Weir, B.S.; Clover, G.R. A new ‘Candidatus Liberibacter’species associated with diseases of solanaceous crops. Plant Dis. 2009, 93, 208–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Munyaneza, J.E. Zebra chip disease, Candidatus Liberibacter, and potato psyllid: A global threat to the potato industry. Am. J. Potato Res. 2015, 92, 230–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Soliman, T.; Mourits, M.; Oude Lansink, A.; Van Der Werf, W. Economic justification for quarantine status–the case study of ‘Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’ in the European Union. Plant Pathol. 2013, 62, 1106–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cameron, P.; Walker, G.; Hodson, A.; Kale, A.; Herman, T. Trends in IPM and insecticide use in processing tomatoes in New Zealand. Crop Prot. 2009, 28, 421–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Goldson, S.; Bourdôt, G.; Brockerhoff, E.; Byrom, A.; Clout, M.; McGlone, M.; Nelson, W.; Popay, A.; Suckling, D.; Templeton, M. New Zealand pest management: Current and future challenges. J. R. Soc. N. Z. 2015, 45, 31–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Walker, J.; Park, N.; Clothier, B.; Manktelow, D.; Van_Den_Dijssel, C.; Hodson, A.; Barley, M.; Hodson-Kersey, L. Progress in pesticide risk reduction in New Zealand horticulture. N. Z. Plant Prot. 2009, 62, 321–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rubio Covarrubias, O.Á.; Almeyda León, I.H.; Ireta Moreno, J.; Sánchez Salas, J.A.; Fernández Sosa, R.; Borbón Soto, J.T.; Díaz Hernández, C.; Garzón Tiznado, J.A.; Rocha Rodríguez, R.; Cadena Hinojosa, M.A. Distribución de la punta morada y Bactericera cockerelli Sulc. en las principales zonas productoras de papa en México. Agric. Técnica México 2006, 32, 201–211. [Google Scholar]
  14. Vega-Gutierrez, M.T.; Rodríguez-Maciel, J.C.; Diaz-Gomez, O.; Bujanos-Muniz, R.; Mota-Sanchez, D.; Martínez-Carrillo, J.L.; Lagunes-Tejeda, A.; Garzon-Tiznado, J.A. Susceptibility to insecticides in two Mexican populations of tomato-potato psyllid, Bactericera cockerelli (Sulc.) (Hemiptera: Triozidae). Agrociencia 2008, 42, 463–471. [Google Scholar]
  15. Guenthner, J.; Goolsby, J.; Greenway, G. Use and cost of insecticides to control potato psyllids and zebra chip on potatoes. Southwest. Entomol. 2012, 37, 263–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Anderson, J.A.; Walker, G.P.; Alspach, P.A.; Jeram, M.; Wright, P.J. Assessment of susceptibility to zebra chip and Bactericera cockerelli of selected potato cultivars under different insecticide regimes in New Zealand. Am. J. Potato Res. 2013, 90, 58–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Cerna, E.; Ochoa, Y.; Aguirre, L.; Flores, M.; Landeros, J. Determination of insecticide resistance in four populations of potato psillid Bactericera cockerelli (Sulc.) (Hemiptera: Triozidae). Phyton 2013, 82, 63. [Google Scholar]
  18. Chávez, E.C.; Bautista, O.H.; Flores, J.L.; Uribe, L.A.; Fuentes, Y.M.O. Insecticide-resistance ratios of three populations of Bactericera cockerelli (Hemiptera: Psylloidea: Triozidae) in regions of northern Mexico. Fla. Entomol. 2015, 98, 950–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Szczepaniec, A.; Varela, K.A.; Kiani, M.; Paetzold, L.; Rush, C.M. Incidence of resistance to neonicotinoid insecticides in Bactericera cockerelli across Southwest US. Crop Prot. 2019, 116, 188–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Malhotra, N.; Chen, K.H.-C.; Huang, J.-C.; Lai, H.-T.; Uapipatanakul, B.; Roldan, M.J.M.; Macabeo, A.P.G.; Ger, T.-R.; Hsiao, C.-D. Physiological effects of neonicotinoid insecticides on non-target aquatic animals—An updated review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 9591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sánchez-Bayo, F. Insecticides mode of action in relation to their toxicity to non-target organisms. J. Environ. Anal. Toxicol. 2012, 4, S4-002. [Google Scholar]
  22. Mulé, R.; Sabella, G.; Robba, L.; Manachini, B. Systematic review of the effects of chemical insecticides on four common butterfly families. Front. Environ. Sci. 2017, 5, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Özkara, A.; Akyıl, D.; Konuk, M. Pesticides, environmental pollution, and health. In Environmental Health Risk-Hazardous Factors to Living Species; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  24. Sánchez-Bayo, F. Ecological impacts of insecticides. In Insecticides: Advances in Integrated Pest Management; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2012; pp. 61–90. [Google Scholar]
  25. Yadav, I.C.; Devi, N.L. Pesticides classification and its impact on human and environment. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2017, 6, 140–158. [Google Scholar]
  26. Veronesi, E.R.; Thompson, C.J.; Goldson, S.L. Insect biological control of the tomato-potato psyllid Bactericera cockerelli, a review. N. Z. J. Crop Hortic. Sci. 2023, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Veronesi, E.R.; Olaniyan, O.; London, H.; Saville, D.J.; Wratten, S.D. Potential inter-guild interactions to enhance biological control of Bactericera cockerelli on tomatoes: A laboratory and cage study. BioControl 2021, 66, 343–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Veronesi, E.R.; Wratten, S.D.; van Koten, C.; Goldson, S.L. Potential of the mirid bug Engytatus nicotianae, and the parasitic wasp Tamarixia triozae for the biological control of the tomato-potato psyllid; a cage greenhouse assay. N. Z. J. Crop Hortic. Sci. 2022, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Veronesi, E.R.; Saville, D.J.; van Koten, C.; Wratten, S.D.; Goldson, S.L. Potential of the mirid bug, Engytatus nicotianae, for the biological control of the tomato-potato psyllid in greenhouses. Crop Prot. 2022, 156, 105941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Harman, G.E. Multifunctional fungal plant symbionts: New tools to enhance plant growth and productivity. New Phytol. 2011, 189, 647–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Harman, G.E.; Howell, C.R.; Viterbo, A.; Chet, I.; Lorito, M. Trichoderma species—Opportunistic, avirulent plant symbionts. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2004, 2, 43–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kandula, D.R.W.; Stewart, A.; McDermid, J.; Hunt, J.S. Improving pasture establishment and yield with a Trichoderma bio-inoculant. In Proceedings of the 16th Biennial Australasian Plant Pathology Society Conference, Adelaide, Australia, 24–27 September 2007. [Google Scholar]
  33. Vinale, F.; Sivasithamparam, K.; Ghisalberti, E.; Marra, R.; Barbetti, M.; Li, H.; Woo, S.L.; Lorito, M. A novel role for Trichoderma secondary metabolites in the interactions with plants. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2008, 72, 80–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Vinale, F.; Sivasithamparam, K.; Ghisalberti, E.L.; Ruocco, M.; Woo, S.; Lorito, M. Trichoderma secondary metabolites that affect plant metabolism. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2012, 7, 1934578X1200701133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Vinale, F.; Sivasithamparam, K.; Ghisalberti, E.L.; Marra, R.; Woo, S.L.; Lorito, M. Trichoderma–plant–pathogen interactions. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2008, 40, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ruano Rosa, D.; Lopez Herrera, C.J. Evaluation of Trichoderma spp. as biocontrol agents against avocado white root rot. Biol. Control 2009, 51, 66–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Di Lelio, I.; Coppola, M.; Comite, E.; Molisso, D.; Lorito, M.; Woo, S.L.; Pennacchio, F.; Rao, R.; Digilio, M.C. Temperature differentially influences the capacity of Trichoderma species to induce plant defense responses in tomato against insect pests. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 678830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Coppola, M.; Cascone, P.; Di Lelio, I.; Woo, S.L.; Lorito, M.; Rao, R.; Pennacchio, F.; Guerrieri, E.; Digilio, M.C. Trichoderma atroviride P1 colonization of tomato plants enhances both direct and indirect defense barriers against insects. Front. Physiol. 2019, 10, 813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Coppola, M.; Cascone, P.; Chiusano, M.L.; Colantuono, C.; Lorito, M.; Pennacchio, F.; Rao, R.; Woo, S.L.; Guerrieri, E.; Digilio, M.C. Trichoderma harzianum enhances tomato indirect defense against aphids. Insect Sci. 2017, 24, 1025–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hoitink, H.; Madden, L.; Dorrance, A. Systemic resistance induced by Trichoderma spp.: Interactions between the host, the pathogen, the biocontrol agent, and soil organic matter quality. Phytopathology 2006, 96, 186–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. McCormick, A.C.; Unsicker, S.B.; Gershenzon, J. The specificity of herbivore-induced plant volatiles in attracting herbivore enemies. Trends Plant Sci. 2012, 17, 303–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Clavijo McCormick, A.; Boeckler, G.A.; Köllner, T.G.; Gershenzon, J.; Unsicker, S.B. The timing of herbivore-induced volatile emission in black poplar (Populus nigra) and the influence of herbivore age and identity affect the value of individual volatiles as cues for herbivore enemies. BMC Plant Biol. 2014, 14, 304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. van Zijll de Jong, E.; Kandula, J.; Rostás, M.; Kandula, D.; Hampton, J.; Mendoza-Mendoza, A. Fungistatic activity mediated by volatile organic compounds is isolate-dependent in Trichoderma sp. “atroviride B”. J. Fungi 2023, 9, 238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Effah, E.; Barrett, D.P.; Peterson, P.G.; Wargent, J.J.; Potter, M.A.; Holopainen, J.K.; Clavijo McCormick, A. Herbivory and attenuated UV radiation affect volatile emissions of the invasive weed Calluna vulgaris. Molecules 2020, 25, 3200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Effah, E.; Barrett, D.P.; Peterson, P.G.; Godfrey, A.J.R.; Potter, M.A.; Holopainen, J.K.; Clavijo McCormick, A. Natural variation in volatile emissions of the invasive weed Calluna vulgaris in New Zealand. Plants 2020, 9, 283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Core Team: Vienna, Austria, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  47. Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 2001, 45, 5–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pérez-Hedo, M.; Bouagga, S.; Jaques, J.A.; Flors, V.; Urbaneja, A. Tomato plant responses to feeding behavior of three zoophytophagous predators (Hemiptera: Miridae). Biol. Control 2015, 86, 46–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Snyder, W.E.; Wise, D.H. Predator interference and the establishment of generalist predator populations for biocontrol. Biol. Control 1999, 15, 283–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Xu, X.; Robinson, J.; Jeger, M.; Jeffries, P. Using combinations of biocontrol agents to control Botrytis cinerea on strawberry leaves under fluctuating temperatures. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2010, 20, 359–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chong, J.-H.; Oetting, R.D. Intraguild predation and interference by the mealybug predator Cryptolaemus montrouzieri on the parasitoid Leptomastix dactylopii. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2007, 17, 933–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Holopainen, J.K.; Gershenzon, J. Multiple stress factors and the emission of plant VOCs. Trends Plant Sci. 2010, 15, 176–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Turlings, T.C.; Bernasconi, M.; Bertossa, R.; Bigler, F.; Caloz, G.; Dorn, S. The induction of volatile emissions in maize by three herbivore species with different feeding habits: Possible consequences for their natural enemies. Biol. Control 1998, 11, 122–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Tun, K.M.; Minor, M.; Jones, T.; McCormick, A.C. Volatile profiling of fifteen willow species and hybrids and their responses to giant willow aphid infestation. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Dicke, M. Induced plant volatiles: Plant body odours structuring ecological networks. New Phytol. 2016, 210, 10–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Schwartzberg, E.G.; Böröczky, K.; Tumlinson, J.H. Pea aphids, Acyrthosiphon pisum, suppress induced plant volatiles in broad bean, Vicia faba. J. Chem. Ecol. 2011, 37, 1055–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Najar-Rodriguez, A.J.; Friedli, M.; Klaiber, J.; Dorn, S. Aphid-deprivation from Brassica plants results in increased isothiocyanate release and parasitoid attraction. Chemoecology 2015, 25, 303–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Frago, E.; Mala, M.; Weldegergis, B.T.; Yang, C.; McLean, A.; Godfray, H.C.J.; Gols, R.; Dicke, M. Symbionts protect aphids from parasitic wasps by attenuating herbivore-induced plant volatiles. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 1860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Casteel, C.L.; Hansen, A.K.; Walling, L.L.; Paine, T.D. Manipulation of plant defense responses by the tomato psyllid (Bactericera cockerelli) and its associated endosymbiont Candidatus Liberibacter psyllaurous. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e35191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lins, J.C.; van Loon, J.J.; Bueno, V.H.; Lucas-Barbosa, D.; Dicke, M.; van Lenteren, J.C. Response of the zoophytophagous predators Macrolophus pygmaeus and Nesidiocoris tenuis to volatiles of uninfested plants and to plants infested by prey or conspecifics. BioControl 2014, 59, 707–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Van Oudenhove, L.; Mailleret, L.; Fauvergue, X. Infochemical use and dietary specialization in parasitoids: A meta-analysis. Ecol. Evol. 2017, 7, 4804–4811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Dickens, J.C. Predator–prey interactions: Olfactory adaptations of generalist and specialist predators. Agric. For. Entomol. 1999, 1, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Clavijo Mccormick, A.; Gershenzon, J.; Unsicker, S.B. Little peaks with big effects: Establishing the role of minor plant volatiles in plant–insect interactions. Plant Cell Environ. 2014, 37, 1836–1844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Cardé, R.T.; Bell, W.J.; Vet, L.E.; Lewis, W.J.; Cardé, R.T. Parasitoid foraging and learning. In Chemical Ecology of Insects 2; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1995; pp. 65–101. [Google Scholar]
  65. Vet, L.E.; Groenewold, A.W. Semiochemicals and learning in parasitoids. J. Chem. Ecol. 1990, 16, 3119–3135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ardanuy, A.; Albajes, R.; Turlings, T.C. Innate and learned prey-searching behavior in a generalist predator. J. Chem. Ecol. 2016, 42, 497–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. de Boer, J.; Dicke, M. Olfactory learning by predatory arthropods. Anim. Biol. 2006, 56, 143–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Koricheva, J.; Nykänen, H.; Gianoli, E. Meta-analysis of trade-offs among plant antiherbivore defenses: Are plants jacks-of-all-trades, masters of all? Am. Nat. 2004, 163, E64–E75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Ballhorn, D.J.; Kautz, S.; Lion, U.; Heil, M. Trade-offs between direct and indirect defences of lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus). J. Ecol. 2008, 96, 971–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Rudgers, J.A.; Strauss, S.Y.; Wendel, J.F. Trade-offs among anti-herbivore resistance traits: Insights from Gossypieae (Malvaceae). Am. J. Bot. 2004, 91, 871–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 13 03019 g001
Figure 1. Average counts of Bactericera cockerelli (TPP) (a) eggs, (b) nymphs, (c) adults, and (d) number of leaves infested with TPP per tomato plant by treatment group. Error bars indicate ± SEM. Control = plants infested with TPP without a biocontrol agent; Trichoderma = T. atroviride; Engytaus = E. nicotianae; Combined = T. atroviride + E. nicotianae. Letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.10) among treatments after Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Dunn’s post hoc tests.
Figure 1. Average counts of Bactericera cockerelli (TPP) (a) eggs, (b) nymphs, (c) adults, and (d) number of leaves infested with TPP per tomato plant by treatment group. Error bars indicate ± SEM. Control = plants infested with TPP without a biocontrol agent; Trichoderma = T. atroviride; Engytaus = E. nicotianae; Combined = T. atroviride + E. nicotianae. Letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.10) among treatments after Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Dunn’s post hoc tests.
Agronomy 13 03019 g001
Agronomy 13 03019 g002
Figure 2. Poisson-distributed counts for Bactericera cockerelli (TPP) (a) eggs, (b) nymphs, (c) adults, and (d) number of leaves infested with TPP per treatment over the observation period. Control = plants infested with TPP without a biocontrol agent; Trichoderma = T. atroviride; Engytaus = E. nicotianae; Combined = T. atroviride + E. nicotianae.
Figure 2. Poisson-distributed counts for Bactericera cockerelli (TPP) (a) eggs, (b) nymphs, (c) adults, and (d) number of leaves infested with TPP per treatment over the observation period. Control = plants infested with TPP without a biocontrol agent; Trichoderma = T. atroviride; Engytaus = E. nicotianae; Combined = T. atroviride + E. nicotianae.
Agronomy 13 03019 g002
Agronomy 13 03019 g003
Figure 3. (a) Total volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from tomato plants under different treatments. Error bars indicate ± SEM. Uninfested plant = healthy plant without TPP or a biocontrol agent (salmon); Trichoderma = Trichoderma atroviride (green); TPP = Bactericera cockerelli (blue); Trichoderma + TPP = T. atroviride and B. cockerelli (magenta); Engytaus + TPP = E. nicotianae and B. cockerelli (lilac); Trichoderma + Engytatus + TPP = T. atroviride, E. nicotianae and B. cockerelli (light orange). (b) Mean decrease in accuracy ranking for compounds identified on the tomato headspace samples. Top-ranked compounds: δ-eIemene (dElem), heptane (Hep) and 6-isopropylidene-1-methylbicyclo [3.1.0]hexane (X6Iso). A full list of compounds with their abbreviations is provided in Table S2.
Figure 3. (a) Total volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from tomato plants under different treatments. Error bars indicate ± SEM. Uninfested plant = healthy plant without TPP or a biocontrol agent (salmon); Trichoderma = Trichoderma atroviride (green); TPP = Bactericera cockerelli (blue); Trichoderma + TPP = T. atroviride and B. cockerelli (magenta); Engytaus + TPP = E. nicotianae and B. cockerelli (lilac); Trichoderma + Engytatus + TPP = T. atroviride, E. nicotianae and B. cockerelli (light orange). (b) Mean decrease in accuracy ranking for compounds identified on the tomato headspace samples. Top-ranked compounds: δ-eIemene (dElem), heptane (Hep) and 6-isopropylidene-1-methylbicyclo [3.1.0]hexane (X6Iso). A full list of compounds with their abbreviations is provided in Table S2.
Agronomy 13 03019 g003
Table 1. Bactericera cockerelli (TPP) daily population growth rates per developmental stage and daily percentage of TPP infested leaves per treatment.
Table 1. Bactericera cockerelli (TPP) daily population growth rates per developmental stage and daily percentage of TPP infested leaves per treatment.
TreatmentEggsNymphsAdultsLeaves with TPP
Control 6.82%6.82%8.00%6.72%
Trichoderma6.88%6.18% ***8.44%6.61%
Engytatus3.25% ***1.11% ***5.44% ***4.50% **
Combined5.87% ***7.14%6.72% *3.98% ***
Control = plants infested with TPP without a biocontrol agent; Trichoderma = T. atroviride; Engytaus = E. nicotianae; Combined = T. atroviride + E. nicotianae. Significance asterisks are in relation to the control growth rate. * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Veronesi, E.R.; Cairns, S.M.; Alizadeh, H.; Hampton, J.; Maris, R.; Godsoe, W.; Goldson, S.L.; Clavijo McCormick, A. Individual and Combined Effects of Predatory Bug Engytatus nicotianae and Trichoderma atroviride in Suppressing the Tomato Potato Psyllid Bactericera cockerelli in Greenhouse Grown Tomatoes. Agronomy 2023, 13, 3019. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13123019

AMA Style

Veronesi ER, Cairns SM, Alizadeh H, Hampton J, Maris R, Godsoe W, Goldson SL, Clavijo McCormick A. Individual and Combined Effects of Predatory Bug Engytatus nicotianae and Trichoderma atroviride in Suppressing the Tomato Potato Psyllid Bactericera cockerelli in Greenhouse Grown Tomatoes. Agronomy. 2023; 13(12):3019. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13123019

Chicago/Turabian Style

Veronesi, Emiliano R., Sarah M. Cairns, Hossein Alizadeh, John Hampton, Robbie Maris, William Godsoe, Stephen L. Goldson, and Andrea Clavijo McCormick. 2023. "Individual and Combined Effects of Predatory Bug Engytatus nicotianae and Trichoderma atroviride in Suppressing the Tomato Potato Psyllid Bactericera cockerelli in Greenhouse Grown Tomatoes" Agronomy 13, no. 12: 3019. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13123019

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop