Paper · 2022 · Insects

Control Efficacy of Entomopathogenic Fungus Purpureocillium lilacinum against Chili Thrips (Scirtothrips dorsalis) on Chili Plant

Cheerapha Panyasiri; Sumalee Supothina; Sukitaya Veeranondha; et al.

10
claims
21
verbatim quotes
19
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

In a laboratory assay, it was shown that B. bassiana BCC48145, BCC2660, and P. lilacinum TBRC10638 were the three strains that exhibited the highest insecticidal activity against chili thrips, causing 92.5% and 91.86% and 92.3% corrected mortality, respectively. The fungi B. bassiana BCC48145 and P. lilacinum TBRC10638 were selected for greenhouse spraying. Cytotoxicity test of the extracts from both fungi evaluated against 4 animal cell lines: KB; human oral cavity carcinoma, MCF7; human breast adenocarcinoma, NCI-H187; human small cell lung carcinoma and GFP-expressing Vero cells, showed none-cytotoxic to all cell lines. An efficacy validation in the greenhouse showed that P. lilacinum TBRC 10638 was more effective than B. bassiana BCC48145 and could control the thrips up to 80% when using the fungus at 108 spores/mL. The LC50 values of P. lilacinum TBRC 10638 against chili thrips based on total thrips count from two experiments were 1.42 × 108 and 1.12 × 107 spores/mL when the fungal spores were sprayed once a week. The optimal concentration of P. lilacinum TBRC 10638 spores for effective control of chili thrips was determined at 1.41 × 109 spores/mL. The average efficacy of P. lilacinum TBRC 10638 for thrips control from 3 field trials was 30.08%, 14.39%, and 29.92%. This result was not significantly different from that of the chemical insecticide treatment group, which showed efficacy at 19.27%, 14.92%, and 19.97%. Furthermore, there was no difference in productivity among the different treatment groups. Our results demonstrated that P. lilacinum TBRC 10638 is a promising biocontrol agent that could be used as an alternative to chemical insecticide for controlling chili thrips.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

B. bassiana BCC48145 caused 92.5% corrected chili thrips mortality.

Taxon
Chili Plantt0
Treatment
B. bassiana BCC48145e0
Interactor
chili thripse0pest
Second interactor
B. bassiana BCC48145e0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
chili thripse0
Direction
higheste0
Value
92.5%e0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“B. bassiana BCC48145, BCC2660, and P. lilacinum TBRC10638 were the three strains that exhibited the highest insecticidal activity against chili thrips, causing 92.5% and 91.86% and 92.3% corrected mortality, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 41–261 · show in text ↑
t0

“Chili Plant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 118–129 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

B. bassiana BCC2660 caused 91.86% corrected chili thrips mortality.

Taxon
Chili Plantt0
Treatment
BCC2660e0
Interactor
chili thripse0pest
Second interactor
BCC2660e0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
chili thripse0
Direction
higheste0
Value
91.86%e0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“B. bassiana BCC48145, BCC2660, and P. lilacinum TBRC10638 were the three strains that exhibited the highest insecticidal activity against chili thrips, causing 92.5% and 91.86% and 92.3% corrected mortality, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 41–261 · show in text ↑
t0

“Chili Plant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 118–129 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

P. lilacinum TBRC10638 caused 92.3% corrected chili thrips mortality.

Taxon
Chili Plantt0
Treatment
P. lilacinum TBRC10638e0
Interactor
chili thripse0pest
Second interactor
P. lilacinum TBRC10638Purpureocillium lilacinume0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
chili thripse0
Direction
higheste0
Value
92.3%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Purpureocillium lilacinum
Purpureocillium lilacinum · Second interactorAuthor not explicitly stated. Article is by Jeanne Carey, Ron D’Amico, Deanna A. Sutton, and Michael G. Rinald · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“P. lilacinum TBRC10638 were the three strains that exhibited the highest insecticidal activity against chili thrips, causing 92.5% and 91.86% and 92.3% corrected mortality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 76–247 · show in text ↑
t0

“Chili Plant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 118–129 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Greenhouse P. lilacinum TBRC 10638 controlled thrips up to 80% at 108 spores/mL, outperforming B. bassiana BCC48145.

Taxon
Chili Plantt0
Treatment
P. lilacinum TBRC 10638e0
Interactor
thripsThripse0pest
Second interactor
P. lilacinum TBRC 10638Purpureocillium lilacinume0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
control the thripse0
Direction
more effectivee0
Value
80%e0
Comparator
B. bassiana BCC48145e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Thrips
Thrips · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Alton N. Sparks, Jr., University of Georgia, Bugwood.org · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Purpureocillium lilacinum
Purpureocillium lilacinum · Second interactorAuthor not explicitly stated. Article is by Jeanne Carey, Ron D’Amico, Deanna A. Sutton, and Michael G. Rinald · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“P. lilacinum TBRC 10638 was more effective than B. bassiana BCC48145 and could control the thrips up to 80% when using the fungus at 108 spores/mL”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 684–830 · show in text ↑
t0

“Chili Plant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 118–129 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The first experiment gave an LC50 of 1.42 × 108 spores/mL for P. lilacinum TBRC 10638 against chili thrips.

Taxon
Chili Plantt0
Interactor
chili thripse0pest
Second interactor
P. lilacinum TBRC 10638Purpureocillium lilacinume0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
LC50 values of P. lilacinum TBRC 10638 against chili thripse0
Value
1.42 × 108e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Purpureocillium lilacinum
Purpureocillium lilacinum · Second interactorAuthor not explicitly stated. Article is by Jeanne Carey, Ron D’Amico, Deanna A. Sutton, and Michael G. Rinald · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The LC50 values of P. lilacinum TBRC 10638 against chili thrips based on total thrips count from two experiments were 1.42 × 108 and 1.12 × 107 spores/mL”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 832–985 · show in text ↑
t0

“Chili Plant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 118–129 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The second experiment gave an LC50 of 1.12 × 107 spores/mL.

Taxon
Chili Plantt0
Interactor
chili thripse0pest
Second interactor
P. lilacinum TBRC 10638Purpureocillium lilacinume0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
LC50 values of P. lilacinum TBRC 10638 against chili thripse0
Value
1.12 × 107 spores/mLe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Purpureocillium lilacinum
Purpureocillium lilacinum · Second interactorAuthor not explicitly stated. Article is by Jeanne Carey, Ron D’Amico, Deanna A. Sutton, and Michael G. Rinald · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The LC50 values of P. lilacinum TBRC 10638 against chili thrips based on total thrips count from two experiments were 1.42 × 108 and 1.12 × 107 spores/mL”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 832–985 · show in text ↑
t0

“Chili Plant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 118–129 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The optimal P. lilacinum TBRC 10638 concentration was 1.41 × 109 spores/mL.

Taxon
Chili Plantt0
Interactor
chili thripse0pest
Second interactor
P. lilacinum TBRC 10638Purpureocillium lilacinume0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
optimal concentratione0
Value
1.41 × 109 spores/mLe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Purpureocillium lilacinum
Purpureocillium lilacinum · Second interactorAuthor not explicitly stated. Article is by Jeanne Carey, Ron D’Amico, Deanna A. Sutton, and Michael G. Rinald · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The optimal concentration of P. lilacinum TBRC 10638 spores for effective control of chili thrips was determined at 1.41 × 109 spores/mL”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1035–1171 · show in text ↑
t0

“Chili Plant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 118–129 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The three field trials yielded P. lilacinum control efficacy of 30.08%, 14.39%, and 29.92%.

Taxon
Chili Plantt0
Interactor
thripsThripse0pest
Second interactor
P. lilacinum TBRC 10638Purpureocillium lilacinume0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
efficacy of P. lilacinum TBRC 10638 for thrips controle0
Value
30.08%, 14.39%, and 29.92%e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Thrips
Thrips · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Alton N. Sparks, Jr., University of Georgia, Bugwood.org · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Purpureocillium lilacinum
Purpureocillium lilacinum · Second interactorAuthor not explicitly stated. Article is by Jeanne Carey, Ron D’Amico, Deanna A. Sutton, and Michael G. Rinald · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The average efficacy of P. lilacinum TBRC 10638 for thrips control from 3 field trials was 30.08%, 14.39%, and 29.92%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1173–1290 · show in text ↑
t0

“Chili Plant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 118–129 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Fungal control efficacy did not differ significantly from chemical insecticide efficacy.

Taxon
Chili Plantt0
Treatment
P. lilacinum TBRC 10638e1
Outcome
efficacye0
Direction
not significantly differente0
Qualifier
19.27%, 14.92%, and 19.97%e0
Comparator
chemical insecticide treatment groupe0

Verbatim

e0

“This result was not significantly different from that of the chemical insecticide treatment group, which showed efficacy at 19.27%, 14.92%, and 19.97%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1292–1442 · show in text ↑
t0

“Chili Plant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 118–129 · show in text ↑
e1

“The average efficacy of P. lilacinum TBRC 10638 for thrips control from 3 field trials was 30.08%, 14.39%, and 29.92%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1173–1290 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Productivity did not differ across treatments.

Taxon
Chili Plantt0
Outcome
productivitye0
Direction
no differencee0

Verbatim

e0

“there was no difference in productivity among the different treatment groups”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1457–1533 · show in text ↑
t0

“Chili Plant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 118–129 · show in text ↑

Purpureocillium lilacinum · pest · Capsicum (peppers)Results agree

4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.