Next Article in Journal
Soil Texture Mediates the Short-Term Response of Particulate and Mineral-Associated Organic Carbon to Straw Return in the Loess Plateau
Previous Article in Journal
UAV-Based Soil Erosion Assessment in Mediterranean Agricultural Orchards
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 16
Issue 6
10.3390/agronomy16060646
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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Review of the Potential Use of Oscheius Nematodes in Biological Control

by
Karolina Kralj
and
Žiga Laznik
*
Department of Agronomy, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Jamnikarjeva 101, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2026, 16(6), 646; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy16060646
Submission received: 12 February 2026 / Revised: 13 March 2026 / Accepted: 18 March 2026 / Published: 19 March 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Pest and Disease Management)
Versions Notes

Abstract

Nematodes in the genus Oscheius (Rhabditidae) have traditionally been regarded as free-living bacteriophagous or necromenic associates of insects. Over the past two decades, however, multiple Oscheius species and isolates have been shown to express facultative pathogenicity toward insects and, in some cases, parasitism of mollusks. This has stimulated interest in Oscheius as a complementary group of biological control agents that may function under conditions limiting classical entomopathogenic nematodes (EPNs) of the genera Steinernema and Heterorhabditis. Here, we synthesize current knowledge on Oscheius taxonomy and diversity, life-history strategies, bacterial associations and virulence mechanisms, evidence for control of insect and mollusk pests, and recent advances in chemo-ecology relevant to host finding. We emphasize that Oscheius represents a continuum of ecological strategies, and we adopt conservative terminology in which “entomopathogenic” is reserved for Oscheius species/isolates that meet operational criteria of insect pathogenicity. Finally, we highlight key barriers to wider implementation—strain variability, bacterial partner instability, non-target and community effects, and production/quality control needs—and propose research priorities for the development of robust, field-reliable Oscheius-based biocontrol.

1. Literature Search and Selection Criteria

This review is based on a structured survey of the scientific literature addressing the taxonomy, ecology, pathogenicity, and biological control potential of nematodes belonging to the genus Oscheius. Relevant publications were identified through searches in the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases.
Search terms included combinations of keywords such as “Oscheius”, “entomopathogenic nematodes”, “biological control”, “insect pathogenicity”, “slug parasitism”, and “nematode–bacteria associations”. The search primarily covered literature published between 1990 and 2025, although earlier foundational studies were included where relevant.
Articles were selected based on their relevance to one or more of the following topics: (i) taxonomy and systematics of Oscheius, (ii) ecological strategies and life-history traits, (iii) bacterial associations and mechanisms of pathogenicity, and (iv) experimental evidence for biological control of insect or mollusk pests. Both laboratory and field studies were considered.
Preference was given to peer-reviewed research articles, review papers, and studies providing experimental evidence or molecular characterization. Studies with unclear methodology or lacking primary data were excluded where possible.
The collected literature was analyzed qualitatively to synthesize current knowledge and identify research gaps related to the potential application of Oscheius nematodes in biological control programs.

2. Introduction

Parasitic and entomopathogenic nematodes (EPNs) are among the most intensively studied soil organisms used in biological control in agriculture, forestry, and horticulture. Entomopathogenic nematodes sensu stricto, classically represented by the genera Steinernema and Heterorhabditis, are characterized by active host seeking, rapid killing of insect hosts mediated by symbiotic bacteria, reproduction within the host cadaver, and the reassociation and transmission of these bacteria to infective stages [1,2]. These nematodes have been widely developed as biological insecticides, supported by decades of work on mass production and application technology [3,4].
In contrast, the term “parasitic nematodes” refers to a broader functional category encompassing species that parasitize insects, mollusks, vertebrates, or plants, without necessarily meeting the defining criteria of EPNs sensu stricto [2]. This distinction is important for nematodes within the family Rhabditidae, particularly those of the genus Oscheius Andrássy, 1976 [5]. Oscheius species have traditionally been regarded as free-living bacterivores or necromenic associates of insects. However, accumulating ecological and experimental evidence suggests that species within this genus occupy a continuum of ecological strategies, ranging from free-living bacteriophagy and necromeny to opportunistic scavenging, facultative parasitism, and, in some isolates, insect pathogenicity [2,6,7]. This diversity of interactions reflects the ecological plasticity of Oscheius and highlights that nematode–host relationships may not always fit strict categorical definitions.
Because the term “entomopathogenic” is applied inconsistently to Oscheius in the literature, this review adopts conservative terminology following an operational framework: “entomopathogenic” is used only when Oscheius species/isolates experimentally fulfill key criteria of entomopathogenicity, whereas other interactions (including mollusk parasitism) are described as parasitic or facultatively parasitic [2].
In recent years, the scope of nematode-based biological control has expanded beyond classical EPN systems, reflecting a broader recognition that soil food webs, microbial communities, and facultative symbioses strongly shape biocontrol outcomes [8,9,10,11]. Within this framework, Oscheius occupies a particularly informative position at the interface of free-living, necromenic, and parasitic strategies, offering insights into the evolution of pathogenicity and the functional boundaries of entomopathogenic nematodes [8,12,13].

3. Taxonomy, Systematics, and Species Diversity of Oscheius

The genus Oscheius was established by Andrássy with Oscheius insectivorus as the type species [5]. Sudhaus placed Oscheius within Rhabditidae and proposed a division into the Insectivora and Dolichura groups based on consistent morphological traits (including bursal characters, spicule morphology, and rectal structure) [6]. Species in the Insectivora group typically possess leptoderan bursae and crochet needle-shaped spicules, whereas Dolichura-group species generally show peloderan bursae and an expansile rectum [6].
Molecular phylogenetic analyses using markers such as ITS, 18S rRNA, and the D2–D3 expansion domains of 28S rRNA support the monophyly of these groups and are widely used for species identification and phylogenetic inference in nematode systematics [14,15,16]. Integrative taxonomy, combining morphological characters with molecular data, has been central to recent progress in rhabditid systematics and the identification of Oscheius species [17,18,19], consistent with broader nematode phylogenetic frameworks [20,21,22].
Phylogenomic approaches and multilocus datasets have increasingly clarified relationships within Rhabditidae, revealing frequent convergence in life-history traits and repeated transitions between free-living and parasitic lifestyles [23,24,25,26]. Such findings support the view that entomopathogenicity in Oscheius likely evolved multiple times or emerged through ecological facilitation rather than through a single obligate evolutionary trajectory, as seen in Steinernematidae and Heterorhabditidae [13,25].
Species diversity within Oscheius has been increasingly documented in recent years, largely due to intensified sampling efforts and advances in integrative taxonomy combining morphological and molecular approaches. Tabassum et al. compiled diagnostic information and described multiple new species from Pakistan, providing a major reference point for species-level identification [14]. Additional descriptions and regional surveys further increased the recognized diversity and refined species concepts [15,16,27].
Despite broad diversity, only a subset of species are experimentally supported as insect-pathogenic under laboratory and/or field conditions. Within the Insectivora group, reported entomopathogenic species include O. carolinensis [28], O. amsactae [29], O. niazii and O. siddiqii [30], O. indicus [16], and O. microvilli [31]. Within the Dolichura group, Oscheius onirici remains the most well-documented insect-pathogenic species [32,33]. Ongoing surveys continue to expand the known molecular diversity and geographic distribution of insect-associated Oscheius lineages [34].

4. Life History Strategies and Ecological Plasticity

Species of Oscheius exhibit pronounced ecological plasticity, encompassing free-living bacteriophagy, necromeny, opportunistic scavenging, kleptoparasitism, and context-dependent pathogenicity [6,7,12]. Such versatility enables these nematodes to exploit patchily distributed resources—particularly insect cadavers and microbially enriched niches—under variable soil conditions and within competitive community contexts [35,36].
This ecological plasticity complicates strict classification of Oscheius as entomopatho-genic nematodes (EPNs) sensu stricto. In contrast to classical EPNs, which are strongly coupled to specialized bacterial symbioses and obligate insect parasitism [37,38], Oscheius species frequently exhibit facultative, isolate-dependent associations with bacteria and variable infection outcomes [2,28]. Nevertheless, this continuum of life-history strategies may represent an ecologically successful route to persistence in soils where insect hosts and cadaver resources are contested by diverse organisms [12,35,36].
Field studies in agricultural soils have demonstrated frequent co-occurrence of Oscheius spp. with Steinernema and Heterorhabditis, as well as intraguild interactions in which Oscheius exploits insect cadavers and reduces the reproductive success of classical EPNs [39,40]. Such observations align with the broader understanding that the persistence and efficacy of nematode biological control agents are strongly shaped by soil ecology, inter-specific competition, and environmental constraints [41,42,43,44].
From a life-history perspective, Oscheius species align with r–K continuum models describing opportunistic colonizers capable of rapidly exploiting ephemeral resources such as insect cadavers [45,46]. Necromeny and facultative parasitism may therefore function as adaptive bet-hedging strategies that enhance persistence in spatially and temporally heterogeneous soils [35,47]. Comparable ecological flexibility has been documented in other rhabditid nematodes occupying the decomposer–parasite continuum [13,48].
Kleptoparasitism may also contribute to interactions between Oscheius and classical EPNs. In this context, kleptoparasitism refers to the exploitation of resources generated by another species, such as invading insect cadavers already killed by primary pathogens. Campos-Herrera et al. [39] demonstrated that isolates of Oscheius tipulae and O. onirici can invade cadavers previously infected by EPNs and reproduce within them, thereby displacing the progeny of species such as Steinernema kraussei.
Importantly, scavenging behavior is not unique to Oscheius. Classical EPNs such as Heterorhabditis megidis and Steinernema kraussei can also reproduce in freeze-killed insect hosts, although their reproductive success is typically reduced compared with infections in living hosts [49]. These findings indicate that competition for insect cadavers is highly context-dependent and shaped by microbial dynamics within the host resource.

5. Bacterial Associations and Mechanisms of Pathogenicity

A defining difference between classical entomopathogenic nematodes (EPNs) and many Oscheius isolates is the specificity of their bacterial associations. Classical EPNs typically rely on highly specific mutualisms—Steinernema–Xenorhabdus and Heterorhabditis–Photorhabdus—in which symbiotic bacteria drive rapid insect mortality and support nematode reproduction within host cadavers [37,38,50]. These systems are further shaped by bacterial secondary metabolites and complex symbiotic traits that regulate virulence, nutrient acquisition, and transmission between host generations [51,52].
In contrast, bacterial associations in Oscheius are often facultative and taxonomically diverse, which likely contribute to the high variability in virulence observed among isolates [28,53]. For example, in O. carolinensis, multiple bacterial associates have been isolated and shown to differ markedly in their insecticidal potential, supporting the view that pathogenicity in many Oscheius systems can be largely bacterially mediated [28]. Broader evidence indicates that facultative acquisition of bacteria can substantially alter virulence outcomes in nematode–insect interactions [53], and that microbial community dynamics may influence both efficacy and reproducibility of infection [54].
Recent microbiome-focused studies challenge the traditional monoxenic paradigm of nematode–bacterium interactions, proposing a “pathobiome” framework in which a consortia of bacteria collectively influence virulence, host immune suppression, and nematode fitness [53,55,56,57]. Such frameworks are particularly relevant for Oscheius, where bacterial turnover, horizontal acquisition, and environmental filtering may strongly affect pathogenic outcomes and experimental reproducibility [28,54,55].
Mechanistic studies have further linked Oscheius virulence to the bacterial-mediated suppression of insect immunity, including pathways associated with eicosanoid-regulated cellular immune responses [58,59]. Together, these findings support a multi-component pathogenicity model in which Oscheius functions as an ecological vector and facilitator of opportunistic bacteria rather than as an obligate partner in a fixed mutualistic system [2,28,53].
Although classical EPN systems are typically described as strict mutualisms (Steiner-nema–Xenorhabdus and Heterorhabditis–Photorhabdus), occasional associations with additional bacteria have also been reported, suggesting that bacterial partnerships in entomo-pathogenic systems may be more flexible than traditionally assumed.
Antagonistic bacterial interactions may also shape intraguild competition among nematode species. For example, Zhang et al. [60] demonstrated antagonistic interactions between Serratia nematodiphila, associated with Oscheius chongmingensis, and Xenorhabdus nematophila, the symbiont of Steinernema carpocapsae. Such microbial competition may influence the ability of Oscheius isolates to colonize insect cadavers already occupied by classical EPNs.

6. Biocontrol Potential Against Insect Pests

Studies investigating the pathogenic potential of Oscheius have included several economically important insect pests [61,62,63,64], particularly species of Lepidoptera and Diptera. For example, virulence has been evaluated against the fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda, a major pest of maize and other crops, as well as against the Mediterranean fruit fly Ceratitis capitata, a globally important pest of fruit production systems.
Several studies have demonstrated that species of the genus Oscheius possess significant pathogenic potential against insect pests [33,61,62,63]. Laboratory and field experiments indicate that certain isolates can infect and kill a range of insect hosts, including lepidopteran and coleopteran larvae. In some cases, this pathogenicity is associated with bacterial symbionts that contribute to host mortality, suggesting functional similarities with classical entomopathogenic nematodes such as Steinernema and Heterorhabditis. These findings indicate that Oscheius spp. may represent promising candidates for the biological control of agricultural insect pests.
Evidence for activity against lepidopteran and coleopteran pests is increasing. Oscheius onirici has been reported to cause high mortality of cranberry-associated lepidopteran larvae and to reduce populations of the redheaded flea beetle Systena frontalis under field conditions [33]. Surveys conducted in Guangxi, China, documented indigenous entomopathogenic nematode communities that included multiple Oscheius populations and evaluated their virulence against Spodoptera frugiperda, revealing concentration-dependent effects and stage-specific susceptibility [61]. In Thailand, several isolates of O. myriophilus were characterized and tested, supporting their potential against multiple insect pests under laboratory conditions [62]. This species has also been reported from intensively managed sugarcane soils and shown to be virulent against insect hosts in laboratory assays [63].
Dipteran insects also appear susceptible to several Oscheius isolates. Oscheius tipulae has been reported to exhibit a broad pathogenicity spectrum in laboratory bioassays [58]. In addition, isolates of O. tipulae caused mortality across life stages of Ceratitis capitata, with pupae generally more susceptible than eggs or larvae [64].
Comparative meta-analyses of soil-applied biological control agents indicate that variability in performance is a common feature of entomopathogenic nematodes and is not unique to Oscheius, particularly under fluctuating moisture and temperature regimes [42,65,66,67]. Accordingly, Oscheius species should not necessarily be viewed as replacements for classical entomopathogenic nematodes, but rather as a complementary functional group that may extend nematode-based biological control into marginal or environmentally stressful conditions [33,67,68].

7. Biocontrol of Mollusk Pests and Chemical Ecology

Several gastropod species are recognized as economically important agricultural pests, particularly in horticultural and vegetable production systems [69,70,71]. Among the most damaging species is the invasive slug Arion vulgaris, which causes significant losses in crops such as lettuce, cabbage, oilseed rape, and other leafy vegetables [69]. Other pest species include Deroceras reticulatum, Limax maximus, Helix pomatia, Tandonia budapestensis, and Cernuella virgata, which are widely distributed and frequently associated with damage to cereals, vegetables, and ornamental crops [69,70,71]. These mollusks feed on seedlings, leaves, and developing plant tissues, often causing substantial economic losses in temperate agricultural systems.
In addition to their activity against insect hosts, several Oscheius species have been investigated for their potential to control mollusk pests, particularly slugs that cause significant damage in horticultural and agricultural systems [69,70,71]. Preliminary studies indicate that certain isolates are capable of infecting pest slugs and reducing their survival under laboratory conditions [69]. Although research in this area remains limited, these findings suggest that Oscheius spp. may represent a promising alternative or complementary biological control option for managing mollusk pests within integrated pest management (IPM) programs.
Beyond insects, Oscheius has therefore emerged as a potential biological control agent against pest gastropods. A key milestone was the documentation of O. myriophilus in gastropods and its demonstrated virulence against the invasive slug Arion vulgaris [69]. This discovery links Oscheius to the broader history of nematode-based mollusk management, which has traditionally been dominated by species of the genus Pellioditis (syn. Phasmarhabditis) [70,71,72].
The identification of Oscheius species infecting gastropods also coincides with increasing regulatory pressure to reduce the use of chemical molluscicides, particularly metaldehyde-based products, due to environmental and water-quality concerns [73,74,75]. Consequently, biological alternatives based on nematodes are receiving renewed attention within sustainable agriculture and integrated pest management frameworks [70,74].
Recent studies have also integrated nematode ecology with chemical ecology, demonstrating that plant-derived volatile organic compounds (VOCs) can influence nematode behavior and potentially improve host encounter rates under realistic soil conditions. In Brassica spp. systems, VOCs associated with glucosinolate breakdown elicited strong chemotactic responses in slug-parasitic nematodes [76]. Similarly, in potato systems, potato tuber-emitted VOCs have been shown to influence nematode attraction and behavior [77]. These findings align with broader frameworks describing how herbivore-induced plant volatiles mediate tritrophic interactions and the recruitment of soil natural enemies [78,79,80,81,82,83], suggesting that chemo-ecological optimization could enhance the reliability of nematode-based biological control.
Behavioral experiments further highlight ecological differences between scavenging nematodes and true entomopathogens. Zhang et al. [60] demonstrated that the classical EPN Steinernema carpocapsae is attracted to odors emitted by live insect hosts, whereas Oscheius chongmingensis is attracted to odors from freeze-killed or previously infected cadavers. This contrasting chemotactic response is consistent with scavenger or kleptoparasitic behavior in Oscheius, and provides a useful behavioral criterion for distinguishing ecological strategies within nematode communities.

8. Environmental Adaptation and Local Strain Performance

A consistent theme in nematode biological control is that locally adapted strains can outperform non-local or standardized strains under specific soil and climatic conditions [84]. Environmental tolerance and persistence are particularly important determinants of field performance [4,42,68]. In Iraqi potato systems, indigenous Oscheius isolates (O. myriophilus and O. tipulae) outperformed a commercial EPN (Heterorhabditis bacteriophora) against the potato tuber moth Phthorimaea operculella, highlighting the practical value of local adaptation and site-specific selection [85]. Likewise, O. onirici isolates from cold, acidic marsh soils showed field-relevant performance in environments that can constrain many EPNs [33]. These findings support a shift toward region-specific strain selection and evaluation, consistent with broader literature on persistence, population dynamics, and the ecological matching of biological control agents to target agroecosystems [43,44,68].
The concept of ecological matching—aligning biological control agents with target habitats rather than relying on globally distributed commercial strains—has gained strong empirical support across multiple pest–nematode systems [43,79,86,87,88]. Oscheius, with its broad environmental tolerance and local persistence, fits well within this paradigm and may be particularly suited for region-specific development programs [33,85,87].

9. Terminological Considerations: Parasitism Versus Entomopathogenicity in Oscheius

The expanding literature on Oscheius has led to inconsistent use of “parasitic”, “entomopathogenic”, and “entomopathogenic-like”. This is not merely semantic: Oscheius represents a continuum of strategies from free-living and necromenic associations to context-dependent insect pathogenicity [2,6,12]. Following an operational framework, a nematode should be classified as entomopathogenic only when it meets defined criteria that include rapid insect mortality, bacterial contribution to host death, reproduction in the cadaver, and reassociation of bacteria with infective stages [2]. While several Oscheius species/isolates satisfy many of these criteria under experimental conditions [28,29,30,31,32,33,58], others exhibit partial or isolate-dependent fulfillment [2,53].
Importantly, when Oscheius parasitizes mollusks, these interactions should not be labeled entomopathogenic sensu stricto due to host identity and likely differences in killing mechanisms and symbiotic structure [69,70,71]. In such cases, “parasitic” or “facultatively parasitic” is more accurate.

10. Challenges, Risks, and Knowledge Gaps

Despite promise, several barriers remain before Oscheius can be widely commercialized and deployed. First, virulence often varies strongly among isolates of the same species, complicating selection and predictability—an essential requirement for commercial products [2,53]. Second, bacterial associations are diverse and dynamic; performance may depend on acquisition and the stability of key bacterial partners, which is less standardized than in classical EPN systems [28,53,54].
Third, community and non-target effects require careful assessment. Intraguild competition studies show that Oscheius can exploit cadavers and reduce EPN reproductive success, raising questions about long-term community-level outcomes under repeated application [39,40]. Fourth, production and formulation remain substantial challenges. While mass production and storage technology are well developed for classical EPNs [3], Oscheius may require additional optimization and quality control strategies because of facultative bacterial associations and isolate-specific biology.
Finally, regulatory pathways and risk assessment frameworks for biological control agents emphasize safe use, import/release considerations, and documentation of non-target risk; regional standards (e.g., EPPO guidance) illustrate the need for rigorous, transparent evaluation [89].
Beyond efficacy, regulatory approval increasingly depends on transparent risk assessment, including effects on non-target invertebrates, soil biodiversity, and microbial communities [89,90,91,92]. While rhabditid nematodes are generally considered low-risk, systematic evaluation of Oscheius under semi-field and field conditions remains limited and represents a critical knowledge gap prior to commercialization [91,92].

11. Conclusions and Future Perspectives

The accumulated evidence indicates that Oscheius is a diverse genus with exceptional ecological flexibility and promising potential as a complementary group of biological control agents. Multiple species and isolates demonstrate activity against economically important insect pests and, notably, against pest mollusks such as invasive slugs [28,29,30,31,32,33,58,61,62,63,64,69]. Unlike classical EPNs, Oscheius often associates facultatively with diverse bacteria, a trait that may confer ecological resilience but also contributes to variability and complicates product standardization [28,53,54]. Emerging chemo-ecological research indicates that plant VOCs can shape nematode behavior and may be leveraged to enhance field reliability [76,77,78,79]. Future progress will depend on (i) standardized criteria and assays for entomopathogenicity within Oscheius; (ii) identification of bacterial determinants of virulence and methods to stabilize performance; (iii) non-target and community-level risk assessment; and (iv) development of scalable production, formulation, and quality control pipelines. With interdisciplinary research integrating taxonomy, microbiology, chemical ecology, and applied entomology, Oscheius has strong potential to become a practical component of integrated pest management, particularly in environments where classical EPNs show limited performance [4,33,85].

Author Contributions

K.K. and Ž.L. analyzed the literature and wrote the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was conducted within projects J4-50135 and research program P4-0431, funded by the Slovenian Research Agency. Part of this research was funded within Professional Tasks from the Field of Plant Protection, a program funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Food of Phytosanitary Administration of the Republic of Slovenia.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

Special thanks are given to Jaka Rupnik for his technical assistance.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Kaya, H.K.; Gaugler, R. Entomopathogenic nematodes. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1993, 38, 181–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Dillman, A.R.; Chaston, J.M.; Adams, B.J.; Ciche, T.A.; Goodrich-Blair, H.; Stock, S.P.; Sternberg, P.W. An entomopathogenic nematode by any other name. PLoS Pathog. 2012, 8, e1002527. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ehlers, R.U. Mass production of entomopathogenic nematodes for plant protection. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2001, 56, 623–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ansari, M.A.; Evans, M.; Butt, T.M. Identification of pathogenic strains of entomopathogenic nematodes and fungi for wireworm control. Crop Prot. 2009, 28, 269–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Andrássy, I. Evolution as a Basis for the Systematization of Nematodes; Akadémiai Kiadó: Budapest, Hungary, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  6. Sudhaus, W.; Schulte, F. Rhabditis (Rhabditis) necromena sp. n. (Nematoda: Rhabditidae) from South Australian diplopoda with notes on its sibling species. Nematologica 1989, 35, 15–24. [Google Scholar]
  7. Campos-Herrera, R.; Barbercheck, M.; Hoy, C.; Stock, S.P. Entomopathogenic nematodes as a model system for advancing the frontiers of ecology. J. Nematol. 2012, 44, 162–176. [Google Scholar]
  8. Lacey, L.A.; Shapiro-Ilan, D.I. Microbial control of insect pests in temperate orchard systems: Potential for incorporation into IPM. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2008, 53, 121–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Duncan, L.W.; Dunn, D.C.; Bague, G.; Nguyen, K. Competition between entomopathogenic and free-living bacterivorous nematodes in larvae of the weevil Diaprepes abbreviatus. J. Nematol. 2003, 35, 187–193. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  10. Kaya, H.K.; Koppenhöfer, A.M. Effects of microbial and other antagonistic organisms and competition on entomopathogenic nematodes. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 1996, 6, 357–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Campos-Herrera, R.; Johnson, E.G.; El-Borai, F.E.; Kora, F.E.; Duncan, L.W. Long-term stability of entomopathogenic nematode spatial patterns measured by sentinel insects and real-time PCR assays. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2011, 158, 55–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sudhaus, W. Phylogenetic systematisation and catalogue of paraphyletic Rhabditidae (Secernentea, Nematoda). J. Nematode Morphol. Syst. 2011, 14, 113–178. [Google Scholar]
  13. Sudhaus, W. Evolution of insect parasitism in rhabditid and diplogastrid nematodes. In Advances in Arachnology and Developmental Biology; Makarov, S.E., Dimitrijević, R.N., Eds.; Institute of Zoology: Belgrade, Serbia, 2008; pp. 143–161. [Google Scholar]
  14. Tabassum, K.; Shahina, F.; Iqbal, E. Description of six new species of Oscheius Andrassy, 1976 from Pakistan. Pak. J. Nematol. 2016, 34, 109–161. [Google Scholar]
  15. Valizadeh, A.; Goldasteh, S.; Rafiei-Karahroodi, Z.; Pedram, M. Occurrence of three species of the genus Oscheius in Iran. J. Plant Prot. Res. 2017, 57, 248–255. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kumar, P.; Jamal, W.; Somvanshi, V.S.; Chauhan, K.; Mumtaz, S. Description of Oscheius indicus n. sp. from India. J. Nematol. 2019, 51, e2019-04. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Félix, M.-A.; Braendle, C.; Cutter, A.D. A streamlined system for species diagnosis in Caenorhabditis. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e94723. [Google Scholar]
  18. De Ley, P.; Blaxter, M.L. A new system for Nematoda. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Nematology, Tenerife, Spain, 8–13 June 2002; pp. 633–653. [Google Scholar]
  19. Abolafia, J.; Peña-Santiago, R. Morphological and molecular characterization of Oscheius saproxylicus sp. n. (Rhabditida, Rhabditidae) from decaying wood in Spain, with new insights into the phylogeny of the genus and a revision of its taxonomy. J. Nematol. 2019, 51, e2019-53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Blaxter, M.; De Ley, P.; Garey, J.R.; Liu, L.X.; Scheldeman, P.; Vierstraete, A.; Vanfleteren, J.R.; Mackey, L.Y.; Dorris, M.; Frisse, L.M.; et al. A molecular evolutionary framework for the phylum Nematoda. Nature 1998, 392, 71–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Holterman, M.; van der Wurff, A.; van den Elsen, S.; van Megen, H.; Bongers, T.; Holovachov, O.; Bakker, J.; Helder, J. Phylum-wide analysis of SSU rDNA reveals deep phylogenetic relationships among nematodes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2006, 23, 1792–1800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Woodruff, G.C.; Eke, O.; Baird, S.E.; Félix, M.-A.; Haag, E.S. Insights into species divergence and evolution of hermaphroditism. Genetics 2010, 186, 997–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Blaxter, M. Nematodes: The worm and its relatives. PLoS Biol. 2011, 9, e1001050, Correction: Nematodes: The worm and its relatives. PLoS Biol. 2011, 9. https://doi.org/10.1371/annotation/083d39ea-2269-4915-9297-bc6d9a9f7c58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. van Megen, H.H.B.; van den Elsen, S.J.J.; Holterman, M.H.M.; Karssen, G.; Mooyman, P.; Bongers, T.; Holovachov, O.; Bakker, J.; Helder, J. A phylogenetic tree of nematodes based on about 1200 full-length small subunit ribosomal DNA sequences. Nematology 2009, 11, 927–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mayer, M.G.; Sommer, R.J. Natural variation in Pristionchus pacificus dauer formation. Proc. R. Soc. B 2011, 278, 2784–2790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Haag, E.S.; Fitch, D.H.A.; Delattre, M. Evolutionary developmental biology of nematodes. Genetics 2018, 210, 397–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kuhestani, K.; Karimi, J.; Shokoohi, E.; Makhdoumi, A. Oscheius cyrus n. sp. from Iran. J. Helminthol. 2022, 96, e69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Torres-Barragan, A.; Suazo, A.; Buhler, W.; Cardoza, Y.J. Studies on the entomopathogenicity and bacterial associates of the nematode Oscheius carolinensis. Biol. Control 2011, 59, 123–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ali, S.S.; Pervez, R.; Andrabi, R.; Verma, V. Oscheius amsactae n. sp. from India. Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Prot. 2011, 44, 871–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tabassum, K.A.; Shahina, F. Two entomopathogenic Oscheius species from Pakistan. Int. J. Nematol. 2010, 20, 75–84. [Google Scholar]
  31. Zhou, G.; Yang, H.; Wang, F.; Bao, H.; Wang, G.; Hou, X.; Lin, J.; Yedid, G.; Zhang, K. Oscheius microvilli n. sp. (Nematoda: Rhabditidae): A facultatively pathogenic nematode from Chongming Island, China. J. Nematol. 2017, 49, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Torrini, G.; Mazza, G.; Carletti, B.; Benvenuti, C.; Roversi, P.F.; Fanelli, E.; De Luca, F.; Troccoli, A.; Tarasco, E. Oscheius onirici sp. n. (Nematoda: Rhabditidae): A new entomopathogenic nematode from an Italian cave. Zootaxa 2015, 3937, 533–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Ye, W.; Foye, S.; MacGuidwin, A.E.; Steffan, S. Incidence of Oscheius onirici (Nematoda: Rhabditidae), a potentially entomopathogenic nematode from the marshlands of Wisconsin, USA. J. Nematol. 2018, 50, 9–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gorgadze, O.; Fanelli, E.; Vovlas, A.; Troccoli, A.; Tarasco, E.; De Luca, F. Molecular and morphological characterization of the entomopathogenic nematode Oscheius cyrus (Nematoda: Rhabditidae) and molecular variability of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora from Georgia (Caucasus). Biology 2025, 14, 512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Poinar, G.O. Nematodes for Biological Control of Insects; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Campos-Herrera, R. (Ed.) Nematode Pathogenesis of Insects and Other Pests: Ecology and Applied Technologies for Sustainable Plant and Crop Protection; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  37. Forst, S.; Clarke, D. Bacteria–nematode symbioses. In Entomopathogenic Nematology; Gaugler, R., Ed.; CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK, 2002; pp. 57–77. [Google Scholar]
  38. Clarke, D.J. Photorhabdus: A model for the analysis of pathogenicity and mutualism. Cell. Microbiol. 2008, 10, 2159–2167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Campos-Herrera, R.; Půža, V.; Jaffuel, G.; Blanco-Pérez, R.; Čepulyte-Rakauskiene, R.; Turlings, T.C.J. Unraveling the intraguild competition between Oscheius spp. nematodes and entomopathogenic nematodes: Implications for their natural distribution in Swiss agricultural soils. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2015, 132, 216–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Jaffuel, G.; Mäder, P.; Blanco-Pérez, R.; Chiriboga, X.; Fliessbach, A.; Turlings, T.C.J.; Campos-Herrera, R. Prevalence and activity of entomopathogenic nematodes and their antagonists in soils that are subject to different agricultural practices. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 230, 329–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gaugler, R. Ecological considerations in the biological control of soil-inhabiting insects with entomopathogenic nematodes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1988, 24, 351–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Koppenhöfer, A.M.; Fuzy, E.M. Long-term effects and persistence of Steinernema scarabaei applied for suppression of Anomala orientalis (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Biol. Control 2009, 48, 63–72. [Google Scholar]
  43. Stuart, R.J.; Barbercheck, M.E.; Grewal, P.S.; Taylor, R.A.J.; Hoy, C.W. Population biology of entomopathogenic nematodes: Concepts, issues, and models. Biol. Control 2006, 38, 80–102. [Google Scholar]
  44. Campos-Herrera, R.; Stuart, R.J.; Pathak, E.; El-Borai, F.E.; Duncan, L.W. Temporal patterns of entomopathogenic nematodes in Florida citrus orchards: Evidence of natural regulation by microorganisms and nematode competitors. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2019, 128, 193–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bongers, T.; Ferris, H. Nematode community structure as a bioindicator in environmental monitoring. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1999, 14, 224–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ferris, H.; Bongers, T.; de Goede, R.G.M. A framework for soil food web diagnostics: Extension of the nematode faunal analysis concept. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2001, 18, 13–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wilson, M.; Jackson, T.A. Progress in the commercialisation of bionematicides. BioControl 2013, 58, 715–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sommer, R.J. Evolution of nematode development. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 2000, 10, 443–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Blanco-Pérez, R.; Bueno-Pallero, F.Á.; Neto, L.; Campos-Herrera, R. Reproductive efficiency of entomopathogenic nematodes as scavengers: Are they able to fight for insect cadavers? J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2017, 148, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Goodrich-Blair, H. They’ve got a ticket to ride: Xenorhabdus nematophila–Steinernema carpocapsae symbiosis. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2007, 10, 225–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Park, G.-S.; Khan, A.R.; Hong, S.-J.; Jang, E.-K.; Ullah, I.; Jung, B.K.; Choi, J.; Yoo, N.-K.; Park, K.-J.; Shin, J.-H. Draft genome sequence of entomopathogenic bacterium Photorhabdus temperata strain M1021, isolated from nematodes. Genome Announc. 2013, 1, e00747-13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Murfin, K.E.; Dillman, A.R.; Foster, J.M.; Bulgheresi, S.; Slatko, B.E.; Sternberg, P.W.; Goodrich-Blair, H. Nematode–bacterium symbioses—Cooperation and conflict revealed in the “omics” age. Biol. Bull. 2012, 223, 85–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Ogier, J.-C.; Pagès, S.; Frayssinet, M.; Gaudriault, S. Entomopathogenic nematode-associated microbiota: From monoxenic paradigm to pathobiome. Microbiome 2020, 8, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kaplan, F.; Shapiro-Ilan, D.; Schiller, K.C. Dynamics of entomopathogenic nematode foraging and infectivity in microgravity. NPJ Microgravity 2020, 6, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Brown, S.P.; Cornforth, D.M.; Mideo, N. Evolution of virulence in opportunistic pathogens: Generalism, plasticity, and control. Trends Microbiol. 2012, 20, 336–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Vayssier-Taussat, M.; Albina, E.; Citti, C.; Cosson, J.-F.; Jacques, M.-A.; Lebrun, M.-H.; Le Loir, Y.; Ogliastro, M.; Petit, M.-A.; Roumagnac, P.; et al. Shifting the paradigm from pathogens to pathobiome: New concepts in the light of meta-omics. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2014, 4, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bass, E. Ecological and Evolutionary Impacts of Root and Rhizosphere Interactions on Plant Chemical Defenses. Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  58. Abdisa, E.; Esmaeily, M.; Kwon, J.; Jin, G.; Kim, Y. A nematode isolate, Oscheius tipulae, exhibiting a wide entomopathogenic spectrum and its application to control dipteran insect pests. Arch. Insect Biochem. Physiol. 2024, 117, e22152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Loulou, A.; Mastore, M.; Caramella, S.; Bhat, A.H.; Brivio, M.F.; Machado, R.A.R.; Kallel, S. Entomopathogenic potential of bacteria associated with soil-borne nematodes and insect immune responses to their infection. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0280675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Zhang, K.; Baiocchi, T.; Lu, D.; Chang, D.Z.; Dillman, A.R. Differentiating between scavengers and entomopathogenic nematodes: Which is Oscheius chongmingensis? J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2019, 167, 107245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Wang, A.; Fang, M.; Sun, J.; Wei, X.; Ruan, W. Investigation of indigenous entomopathogenic nematodes in Guangxi and its biological control of Spodoptera frugiperda. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Onwong, R.; Sumaya, N.H.N.; Nitjarunkul, A.; Kerdim, S.; Khwanket, N.; Noosidum, A. Occurrence of entomopathogenic nematodes, Oscheius myriophilus Poinar, in Thailand: Preliminary characterization of novel isolates and biological control potential against insect pests. J. Appl. Entomol. 2023, 147, 765–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Castro-Ortega, I.D.R.; Caspeta-Mandujano, J.M.; Suárez-Rodríguez, R.; Peña-Chora, G.; Ramírez-Trujillo, J.A.; Cruz-Pérez, K.; Arenas Sosa, I.; Hernández-Velázquez, V.M. Oscheius myriophila (Nematoda: Rhabditida) isolated in sugar cane soils in Mexico with potential to be used as an entomopathogenic nematode. J. Nematol. 2020, 52, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Loulou, A.; M’saad Guerfali, M.; Muller, A.; Bhat, A.H.; Abolafia, J.; Machado, R.A.R.; Kallel, S. Potential of Oscheius tipulae nematodes as biological control agents against Ceratitis capitata. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0269106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Georgis, R.; Koppenhöfer, A.M.; Lacey, L.A.; Bélair, G.; Duncan, L.W.; Grewal, P.S.; Samish, M.; Tan, L.; Torr, P.; van Tol, R.W.H.M. Successes and failures in the use of parasitic nematodes for pest control. Biol. Control 2006, 38, 103–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Askary, T.H. Nematodes as biocontrol agents. In Sociology, Organic Farming, Climate Change and Soil Science; Lichtfouse, E., Ed.; Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Shapiro-Ilan, D.I.; Han, R.; Dolinski, C. Entomopathogenic nematode production and application technology. J. Nematol. 2012, 44, 206–217. [Google Scholar]
  68. Shapiro-Ilan, D.I.; Gouge, D.H.; Piggott, S.J.; Fife, J. Application technology and environmental considerations for use of entomopathogenic nematodes in biological control. Biol. Control 2006, 38, 124–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Laznik, Ž.; Trdan, S.; Tóth, T.; Ádám, S.; Lakatos, T.; Majić, I. Discovery of Oscheius myriophilus (Nematoda: Rhabditidae) in gastropods and its similar virulence to Phasmarhabditis papillosa against Arion vulgaris, Deroceras reticulatum, and Cernuella virgata. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Rae, R.; Verdun, C.; Grewal, P.S.; Robertson, J.F.; Wilson, M.J. Biological control of terrestrial molluscs using Phasmarhabditis hermaphrodita—Progress and prospects. Pest Manag. Sci. 2007, 63, 1153–1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Wilson, M.J.; Glen, D.M.; George, S.K. The rhabditid nematode Phasmarhabditis hermaphrodita as a potential biological control agent for slugs. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 1993, 3, 503–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Tandingan De Ley, I.; Kiontke, K.; Bert, W.; Sudhaus, W.; Fitch, D.H.A. Pellioditis pelhamensis n. sp. (Nematoda: Rhabditidae) and Pellioditis pellio (Schneider, 1866), earthworm associates from different subclades within Pellioditis (syn. Phasmarhabditis Andrássy, 1976). PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0288196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Thompson, A.R.; Edwards, C.A. Effects of pesticides on nontarget invertebrates in freshwater and soil. In Pesticides in Soil and Water; Guenzi, W.D., Ed.; ASA, CSSA, and SSSA Books: Madison, WI, USA, 1974; Chapter 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Speiser, B.; Kistler, C. Field tests with a molluscicide containing iron phosphate. Crop Prot. 2002, 21, 389–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Castle, G.; Mills, G.A.; Gravell, A.; Fones, G.R. Review of the molluscicide metaldehyde in the environment. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2017, 3, 415–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Laznik, Ž.; Tóth, T.; Ádám, S.; Trdan, S.; Majić, I.; Lakatos, T. Responses of parasitic nematodes to volatile organic compounds emitted by Brassica nigra roots. Agronomy 2025, 15, 664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Laznik, Ž.; Trdan, S.; Yonesi, M. Chemotactic responses of slug-parasitic nematodes to potato-tuber-emitted volatile organic compounds. Agronomy 2025, 15, 951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Turlings, T.C.J.; Erb, M. Tritrophic interactions mediated by herbivore-induced plant volatiles: Mechanisms, ecological relevance, and application potential. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2018, 63, 433–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Rasmann, S.; Köllner, T.G.; Degenhardt, J.; Hiltpold, I.; Toepfer, S.; Kuhlmann, U.; Gershenzon, J.; Turlings, T.C.J. Recruitment of entomopathogenic nematodes by insect-damaged maize roots. Nature 2005, 434, 732–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Flajšman, M.; Trdan, S.; Laznik, Ž. Species-Specific Chemotactic Responses of Entomopathogenic and Slug-Parasitic Nematodes to Cannabinoids from Cannabis sativa L. Agronomy 2025, 15, 1469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Sen, E.; Lakatos, T.; Tóth, T.; Trdan, S.; Laznik, Ž. Root-Emitted Volatile Organic Compounds from Daucus carota Modulate Chemotaxis in Phasmarhabditis and Oscheius Nematodes. Agronomy 2025, 15, 1793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Laznik, Ž.; Trdan, S. Chemotactic Responses of Slug-Parasitic Nematodes to Barley Root-Emitted Volatile Organic Compounds. Agronomy 2025, 15, 2162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Laznik, Ž.; Križman, M.; Senekovič, J.; Trdan, S.; Urbanek Krajnc, A. Slug Herbivory Induces Systemic Redox and Volatile Responses in Cabbage That Drive Chemotaxis of Slug-Parasitic Nematodes. Agronomy 2026, 16, 350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Berry, R.E.; Liu, J.; Reed, G. Comparison of endemic and exotic entomopathogenic nematode species for control of Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 1997, 90, 1528–1533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Naser, F.; Hanawi, M.J.; Al-Zaidawi, J. Use of entomopathogenic nematodes of the genus Oscheius as insecticides against the potato tuber moth Phthorimaea operculella (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Wasit J. Pure Sci. 2024, 3, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Campos-Herrera, R.; El-Borai, F.E.; Duncan, L.W. Modifying soil to enhance biological control of belowground dwelling insects in citrus groves under organic agriculture in Florida. Biol. Control 2015, 84, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Avila, G.A.; Seehausen, M.L.; Lesieur, V.; Chhagan, A.; Caron, V.; Down, R.E.; Audsley, N.; Collatz, J.; Bukovinszki, T.; Sabbatini Peverieri, G.; et al. Guidelines and framework to assess the feasibility of starting pre-emptive risk assessment of classical biological control agents. Biol. Control 2023, 187, 105387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Hajek, A.E.; Eilenberg, J. Natural Enemies: An Introduction to Biological Control, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO). EPPO Standards PM 6/3 (Version 2025): Safe Use of Biological Control—List of Biological Control Agents Widely Used in the EPPO Region; EPPO: Paris, France, 2025. [Google Scholar]
  90. Kaser, J.M.; Heimpel, G.E. Linking risk and efficacy in biological control host–parasitoid models. Biol. Control 2015, 90, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. van Lenteren, J.C.; Bale, J.; Bigler, F.; Hokkanen, H.M.T.; Loomans, A.J.M. Assessing risks of releasing exotic biological control agents of arthropod pests. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2006, 51, 609–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Howarth, F. Non-target effects of biological control agents. In Measures of Success in Biological Control; Gurr, G.M., Wratten, S.D., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2000; Chapter 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
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

Kralj, K.; Laznik, Ž. Review of the Potential Use of Oscheius Nematodes in Biological Control. Agronomy 2026, 16, 646. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy16060646

AMA Style

Kralj K, Laznik Ž. Review of the Potential Use of Oscheius Nematodes in Biological Control. Agronomy. 2026; 16(6):646. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy16060646

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kralj, Karolina, and Žiga Laznik. 2026. "Review of the Potential Use of Oscheius Nematodes in Biological Control" Agronomy 16, no. 6: 646. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy16060646

APA Style

Kralj, K., & Laznik, Ž. (2026). Review of the Potential Use of Oscheius Nematodes in Biological Control. Agronomy, 16(6), 646. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy16060646

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