Next Article in Journal
PdStuA Is a Key Transcription Factor Controlling Sporulation, Hydrophobicity, and Stress Tolerance in Penicillium digitatum
Next Article in Special Issue
Metabolomics Analysis of Sporulation-Associated Metabolites of Metarhizium anisopliae Based on Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry
Previous Article in Journal
Between Habitats: Transfer of Phytopathogenic Fungi along Transition Zones from Kettle Hole Edges to Wheat Ears
Previous Article in Special Issue
Reconstruction of Gut Bacteria in Spodoptera frugiperda Infected by Beauveria bassiana Affects the Survival of Host Pest
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JoF
Volume 9
Issue 9
10.3390/jof9090940
jof-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:
Review

The Registration Situation and Use of Mycopesticides in the World

by
Yali Jiang
1 and
Jingjing Wang
1,2,*
1
College of Plant Protection, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
2
College of Horticulture, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Fungi 2023, 9(9), 940; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof9090940
Submission received: 10 August 2023 / Revised: 13 September 2023 / Accepted: 14 September 2023 / Published: 16 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Application of Fungi and Their Secondary Metabolites for Pest Management)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Mycopesticides are living preparations that use fungal cells, such as spores and hyphae, as active ingredients. They mainly include mycoinsecticides, mycofungicides, mycoherbicides and nematophagous fungi. The utilization of fungi for controlling agricultural pests can be traced back to approximately 1880, when entomopathogenic fungi were initially employed for this purpose. However, it was not until 1965 that the world’s first mycopesticide, Beauveria bassiana, was registered as Boverin® in the former Soviet Union. In past decades, numerous novel mycopesticides have been developed for their lower R&D costs, as well as the environmentally friendly and safe nature. In this review, we investigated the mycopesticides situation of registration in USA, EU, China, Canada and Australia. Superisingly, it was found that the registered mycopesticides are extremely raised in recent years. Currently, the insecticides, fungicides (nematocides) and herbicides were respectively registered 27, 53 and 8 fungal strains. This paper also analyzes the main problems currently faced by mycopesticides and offers suggestions for their future development.

1. Introduction

With the rapid growth of the global population, food production faces significant challenges. The era of organic synthetic pesticides began in the early 1940s in response to the increasing demand for food. Initially, organochlorine insecticides like DDT were introduced, followed by the widespread use of chemically synthesized pesticides, which greatly enhanced the human ability to control agricultural pests. This led to increased crop production, addressing the food needs in most regions, and ensuring farmers’ income [1]. However, the extensive use of chemical pesticides has had a significant impact on the environment [2], as well as non-target organisms [3], and has resulted in the escalating issue of pesticide residues [4]. Moreover, the excessive use of chemical pesticides has led to over 500 species of pests developing resistance to one or more insecticides [5]. To mitigate reliance on chemical pesticides, various countries have implemented policies to encourage the development of biological pesticides. For instance, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the United States established the Biopesticide and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) in 1994 to streamline the registration of biopesticides. In 2009, the European Union (EU) introduced the ‘Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive’ advocating for biological control. Brazil established the Brazilian Association of Biocontrol Companies (ABCBio) in 2007 to promote biological control [6]. In 2015, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of China formulated and issued the Action Plan for Zero Growth in Pesticide Use by 2020. As of September 2022, China has completely banned the use of 48 chemical pesticides, with 21 chemical pesticides being prohibited in specific regions [7].
Compared with chemical pesticides, biopesticides are environmentally friendly, safe for non-target organisms, and less likely to develop resistance [8]. The biopesticide industry has been experiencing significant growth since 2010, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10–20% per year [9]. As of August 2022, there are 576 biopesticide products registered, of which 65% are microbial pesticides [9]. The development and market application of a novel chemical pesticide require an investment of approximately $250 million and a minimum of 10 years. On the other hand, a new microbial pesticide only requires an investment of $1–2 million and can enter the market within 3–5 years [10,11]. Reports had indicated that there are currently around 175 active substances of microbial pesticides available for agricultural production [12]. Microbial pesticides dominate the markets in Latin America and North America, while their presence in the EU market is relatively small due to strict regulatory policies [9]. Microbial pesticides encompass bacterial biopesticides, fungal pesticides, viral pesticides, actinomycetes, protozoa, and other types. In 2016, mycopesticides accounted for 10% of the global biopesticide market [13]. Mycopesticides primarily utilize fungal conidia as the main active ingredient. Mycoinsecticides that occupy major markets include Beauveria bassiana, Metarhizium spp., and Akanthomyces lecanii. Mycofungicides, on the other hand, consist of Trichoderma spp., Ampelomyces quisqualis, Paraphaeosphaeria minitans, Gliocladium spp., and there are also nematophagous fungi such as Purpureocillium lilacinum [14,15]. Mycoherbicides, however, make up only a small fraction of the biopesticide market.
Unlike bacteria and viruses, which primarily invade through the digestive tract, entomopathogenic fungi directly penetrate the cuticle of insect, exerting a strong contact effect. The main mechanism of action for entomopathogenic fungi in controlling arthropod pests involves conidia attaching to the insect cuticle; germinating to form germ tubes or appressorium; releasing proteases, chitinases, and lipases to penetrate the host cuticle; entering into the insect hemocoel; and reproducing in large numbers after successful colonization. Additionally, they produce toxins to kill the host. Finally, the fungus breaks out of the epidermis and produces conidia again to infect other insects [16,17,18]. Mycoinsecticides are more effective against certain piercing-sucking pests. The mechanism of action of mycopesticides involves direct or indirect effects, primarily through the production of metabolites or antibiotics that inhibit pathogens, mycoparasitism, competition for nutrients and sites, induction of plant resistance to pathogens, and promotion of plant growth [19]. Most mycoherbicides show strong host specificity. However, mycopesticides have some disadvantages, including an unstable control effect, slow action, and susceptibility to environmental factors, which limit their development.

2. Registration of Mycopesticide Products

In the United States (US), the EPA has less stringent data requirements for registering biopesticides compared to traditional pesticides. Additionally, the review time for biopesticides by the EPA is shorter. Mycopesticide products were registered as early as 1981, with three products of Nosema locustae registered in 1980. The number of mycopesticide products is the highest in the US compared to other countries. The registration of plant protection products in the EU is carried out according to the rules of Regulation 1107/2009. The average time for microbial biological control agents (MBCA) authorization and microbial biological control products (MBCP) approval improved from 1845 days under Directive 91/414/EEC to just 1369 days under the new Regulation (EC) 1107/2009.The approval process for MBCA is conducted at the EU level, while the approval of MBCP is done at the national level. The registration of MBCPs in the EU is more complex due to different processes at the EU and Member State (MS) levels, large actor heterogeneity, and low flexibility [20]. The number of MBCA approvals in the EU has steadily increased since 2013, but most approved strains result in MBCP were submitted for approval in only a few member states [21]. The registration of fungal pesticide products in China started relatively late, and the number of registered strains is small. Currently, only 16 fungal strains, mainly entomopathogenic fungi and mycofungicides, are registered in China. There are no fungal varieties registered for controlling weeds. However, as of 2022, the number of product registrations is increasing and approaching the level seen in the US. In 1992, Canada registered BioMal®, the first fungal herbicide product containing Colletotrichum gloeosporioides f.sp. malvae as its active ingredient. However, due to its limited market size, the product was discontinued after 2 years [22]. Since then, Canada has approved a total of 28 fungal strains and 88 fungal products for registration between 1992 and 2022. In 1996, Metarhizium-based products BioGreen® were registered for the first time as fungal biopesticides in Australia to combat pests including canegrubs, termites, and locusts. Registration of pesticides is governed by the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 and administered by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA). Small projected returns and lengthy registration procedures are expected to limit the registration of microbial pesticides in Australia. The registration of a microbial pesticide requires the assessment of a comprehensive set of data on toxicology, efficacy, storage and field residues. As Australia is an independent island nation, the assessment of harmful effects of a microbial pesticide on local species before the introduction of a new microorganism [23,24]. The development of the registration of mycopesticides in the US, China, Canada, Australia, and the EU over the last 30 years is shown in Figure 1.

3. The Development History and Application of Mycopesticides

3.1. Mycoinsecticides

According to incomplete statistics, there are over 750 species and 100 genera of fungi that can infect insects [25]. The medicinal value of white muscardine silkworm was recorded 2000 years ago in the agricultural monograph Shennong Bencao Jing, which is the earliest human record of the fungal infection of insects [26].The earliest record of entomopathogenic fungi in Europe can be traced back to 1779 when DeGeer described flies infested by Entomophthora muscae [27]. In 1835, the Italian scientist Agostino Bassi discovered that a large number of silkworms, Bombyx mori, were covered with white powder, and identified the pathogenic agent of white muscardine disease in silkworms. He also proposed that this fungus could be used to infect silkworms and other species, marking the first report of microorganisms being used to control pests [28]. In 1879, Elie Metchnikoff identified the pathogenic fungus of the wheat cockchafer Anisoplia austriaca as Entomopthora anisopliae, now known as Metarhizium anisopliae [29]. In 1888, Krassilstschik achieved the first industrial production of M. anisopliae in Russia for controlling the sugar beet weevil Bothynoderes punctiventris Germar, marking the first large-scale application of biological control in the world [30]. In 1965, the former Soviet Union approved the registration of Boverin®, a fungal insecticide based on B. bassiana, for controlling the Colorado potato beetle Leptinotarsa decemlineata and the codling moth Cydia pomonella [31]. In 1981, the US registered the first fungal pesticide under the trade name Mycar®, Hirsutella thompsonii Fisher, for controlling the citrus rust mite Phyllocoptruta oleivora Ashmead [32]. The registration and target of mycoinsecticides in the world are shown in Table 1.

3.1.1. Beauveria

There has been a total of 171 different types of fungal insecticides registered worldwide, with Beauveria being the most common, accounting for 58 types and 33.9% of the total [33]. B. bassiana is a widely distributed entomopathogenic fungus found in soil and is extensively utilized as a fungal insecticide. It has a broad range of hosts and can parasitize over 700 different insect species [34]. Beauveria insecticide products, consisting of 14 strains, have been registered in China, Canada, Australia, the EU, and the US. These products are primarily used for controlling Hemiptera, Lepidoptera, and Coleoptera pests. B. bassiana is used for large area control of pine caterpillars in China [35]. In Brazil, B. bassiana has been successfully employed to control whiteflies and coffee cherry beetles in large areas [6]. As early as 1999, the US registered the B. bassiana product ‘Mycotrol’ for the control of forestry and agricultural pests, including grasshoppers, sandflies, thrips, aphids, and others [36]. Another related species, B. brongniartii, has been used in Europe to control the European cockchafer Melolontha melolontha [37]. B. brongniartii products have been registered in Switzerland, Italy, and Austria [38].

3.1.2. Metarhizium

Metarhizium, a member of the Ascomycota phylum, is known for its parasitic ability on over 200 insects, nematodes, and mites from 8 different orders. It is commonly used for controlling various agricultural and forestry pests including locusts, cockroaches, termites, rice planthoppers, and Spodoptera litura [39]. M. anisopliae has been utilized as a biological control agent for a long time, particularly in Brazil where it has been effective against spittlebugs in sugarcane [26]. Additionally, M. acridum has been extensively produced to combat locusts. Notably, Green Muscle®, developed by CABI Bioscience, has been successfully registered and implemented for production in Africa, where it is widely employed for controlling desert locusts Schistocerca gregaria [40].

3.1.3. Cordyceps

Initially proposed by Persoon as Isaria, the entomogenous fungi of Isaria were classified in the genus Paecilomyces by Brown and Smith in 1957 [41], only to be reverted back to Isaria in 2005 [42]. In 2017, Kepler conducted a phylogenetic analysis of Cordyceps, analyzing 5 nuclear gene fragments, and classified most species in the Isaria family as Cordyceps [43]. Some commonly known species include C. farinosa, C. fumosorosea, C. javanica, C. tenuipes, and C. cateniannulata, among others. C. fumosorosea was registered in Japan in 2001 as a product preparation for the control of whiteflies and aphids [44]. C. fumosorosea currently has several products registered in the US, the EU, and Canada to control insect pests such as spider mites and whiteflies. Additionally, C. farinosa has a wide range of host species, especially lepidoptera, but there is no commercial product registration at present [45]. C. javanica has dual control effects on aphids and fungal diseases [46]. C. tenuipes exhibits significant pharmacological and medicinal effects. These effects include anti-tumor, anti-bacterial, anti-depressant, hypoglycemic, and hypolipidemic properties, as well as the ability to scavenge free radicals [47,48]. Additionally, C. cateniannulata has been found to effectively control various pests such as Tetranychus urticae Koch [49], aphid, nematode [50], and Resseliella odai [51].

3.1.4. Akanthomyces lecanii

The genus Akanthomyces was proposed by Lebert in 1858. Lecanicillium lecanii was regarded as A. lecanii in 2017 [43]. A. lecanii was first discovered by Nivter in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) in 1861 [52]. Due to its specific humidity requirements, A. lecanii commercial products are primarily used for controlling greenhouse pests. It is known for its ability to parasitize Lecani coffeae and has shown promising control efficacy against greenhouse pests such as aphids, thrips, whiteflies, and pest mites [53,54,55,56]. Additionally, it has the capability to parasitize certain plant pathogens like powdery mildew and rust fungus [57]. The safety evaluation of A. lecanii was completed in the 1970s by the United Kingdom, leading to its commercial production. The fungus has been formulated into products such as ‘Vertalec’ for aphid control and ‘Mycotal’ for whitefly and thrip control in greenhouses. These products have been registered in Denmark, Finland, The Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom [36].

3.1.5. Hirsutella thompsonii

In the 1950s, Fisher discovered a fungus known as H. thompsonii that could infect the citrus rust mite Phyllocoptruta oleivora Ashmead [58]. Subsequently, applied research on the fungus has been carried out by the US, Israel, and China. In 1972, the Citrus Research Institute of the Zhejiang Academy of Sciences in China successfully isolated H. thompsonii from citrus rust mites [59]. By the late 1970s, this fungus was processed into powder, which effectively controlled citrus rust mites. H. thompsonii is a significant parasite for various types of mites. India utilizes it to control coconut mites, while the United States employs it to control citrus rust mites P. oleivora and two-spotted spider mites Tetranychus urticae [60,61].

3.2. Mycofungicides and Nematophagous Fungi

In 1874, Roberts first demonstrated that Penicillium glaucum and bacteria had microbial antagonistic action in liquid media, introducing the term “antagonism”. In 1921, Hartley conducted an experiment to control the blight caused by Pythium by introducing 13 fungi with antagonistic potential into the soil. This marked the first attempt to use fungi to combat plant pathogens [62,63]. In 1932, Weindling demonstrated the biological control activity of Trichoderma against Rhizoctonia solani, thus recognizing the potential application of known fungal antagonists in plant disease control [64]. Subsequently, the inhibitory effects of the same species of Trichoderma against Phytophthora, Pythium, Rhizopus, and Sclerotia were observed. In 1928, Fleming’s discovery and purification of penicillin, along with its use in medicine, greatly accelerated the research on antagonists of plant pathogens [62]. The registration and target of mycofungicides or nematophagous fungi are shown in Table 2.

3.2.1. Trichoderma

In 1794, Peron first proposed Trichoderma spp. Trichoderma has been known since the 1930s for its ability to control plant pathogens and can be isolated from almost all soils containing vegetation. Trichoderma are typically anaerobic, facultative, and cosmopolitan fungi [65,66]. Trichoderma not only effectively controls plant pathogenic fungi but also enhances plant disease resistance, promotes plant growth and reproduction, modifies the rhizosphere environment, and facilitates nutrient absorption [67,68]. The mechanisms employed by Trichoderma to combat phytopathogenic fungi include competition, colonization, antibacterial activity, and direct fungal parasitism [69]. Common species of Trichoderma include T. harzianum, T. viride, T. koningii, T. lignorum, T. hamatum, T. longibrachiatum, T. polysporum, and T. virens. Trichoderma is known to parasitize at least 18 genera and 29 types of plant pathogens, including Pythium spp., Sclerotinia spp., Verticillium spp., Fusarium spp., Botrytis cinerea, and Rhizoctonia solani [70]. Currently, there are over 50 Trichoderma-based agricultural products available worldwide [71]. In countries like Brazil and other Latin American nations, Trichoderma is extensively utilized as a biocontrol agent for plant diseases. It is commonly used in seed treatment to manage seed and soil pathogens and to enhance the growth of various agricultural crops [72,73].

3.2.2. Ampelomyces quisqualis

In 1852, Cesati first discovered that Ampelomyces quisqualis was a parasite of powdery mildew [74]. This fungus is capable of parasitizing over 65 species from 9 different genera within the powdery mildew. The Ampelomyces strain AQ10 or M-10, which was isolated from an Oidium sp. infecting Catha edulis in Israel, has been registered in the US and the EU as an active ingredient in the AQ10® biofungicide product. The product is used specifically to control powdery mildew in various crops, particularly in grapes. Another biofungicide product, Q-fect®, has an active ingredient of Ampelomyces strain 94,013 that was isolated from Podosphaera Phaseolus on Phaseolus angularis in Korea. This product is primarily used for controlling cucumber powdery mildew in Korea [75,76].

3.2.3. Paraphaeosphaeria minitans

Coniothyrium minitans was initially discovered by Campbell in 1947 on the parasitized sclerotia of Sclerotinia sclerotia in the US, and it has since been observed on all continents except South America [77,78]. Based on analyses of concatenated internal transcribed spacer regions of the nrDNA operon (ITS), large subunit rDNA (LSU), gamma-actin, and beta-tubulin gene sequences, C. minitans was reclassified as Paraphaeosphaeri minitans [79]. The application of P. minitans can be categorized into two approaches: soil application to minimize the amount of sclerotia inoculum, and spraying spores on diseased plants or crops to disinfect them. Numerous studies have reported the ability of P. minitans to infect and degrade sclerotia present in the soil [80]. There are registered products in the US, EU, Canada, and China for the prevention and treatment of Sclerotinia.

3.2.4. Paecilomyces

The form genus Paecilomyces was first established by Bainier in 1907 with the description of a single species, P. varioti. Since then, several researchers including Thom (1910), Westling (1911), Sopp (1912), Zaleski (1927), Raper & Thom (1949), and Brown & Smith (1957) have conducted extensive research on this genus. In 1974, Samson described the morphology of the genus in detail and divided it into different species [41]. Some species in Paecilomyces retain their original genus, and some have been reclassified to other genera. For example, P. lilacinus (Thom) Samson has been assigned to the genus Purpureocillium, and P. fumosoroseus and P. farinosus were assigned to the genus Cordyceps. Within the genus Paecilomyces, P. varioti is not only effective against a variety of phytopathogenic fungi such as Pythium spinosum [81], Fusarium oxysporum [82], and Phytophthora cinnamomic [83], but also a potent nematophagous fungus, especially against the root-knot nematode Meloidogyne spp. [84,85]. Of course, Purpureocillium lilacinum is one of the most potential nematophagous fungus and can control various nematodes in different crops, although it is no longer in the genus Paecilomyces [86].

3.3. Mycoherbicides

The use of Fusarium oxysporum fungus in Hawaii during the 1940s to suppress the tree cactus Opuntia megacantha was the first attempt at using fungi to manage weed infestations. Although this endeavor was unsuccessful, it paved the way for future research [87,88]. Another notable example occurred in the 1960s when the US effectively controlled the persimmon trees Diospyros virginiana using hyphomycetous fungus Acremonium diospyri [89]. A highly successful case took place in Australia in 1971, where Puccinia chondrillina was employed to manage the rush skeleton weed Chondrilla juncea [90,91]. In 1981, the world’s first fungal herbicide, DeVine, was registered in the US. DeVine is a suspension of chlamydospores from the pathogenic strain of Phytophthora palmivora, which is utilized to control milkweed vine Morrenia odorala in citrus orchards, with a control efficacy of over 90% [92]. In the 1960s, China isolated the diseased soybean dodder Cuscuta australis and obtained Colletotrichum gloeossporioides f. sp. cuscuata ‘Lubao No. 1’, which proved to be highly effective in controlling soybean dodder and has since been widely applied in production [93]. The registration and target of mycoherbicides are shown in Table 3.

3.3.1. Phytophthora palmivora

In 1981, DeVine, a fungal herbicide, was registered in the US by Abbott Laboratories. This suspension was prepared from chlamydospores of Phytophthora palmivora and was the first fungal herbicide to be registered globally. It was primarily used for spraying on citrus orchards to control weeds [94].

3.3.2. Colletotrichum gloeosporioides

Colletotrichum gloeosporioides f. sp. aeschynomene strain ATCC 20358 is a fungus known for its herbicidal activity on leguminous plants and rice fields. In 1982, it was approved by the US as an active ingredient in the product Collego®, which is used for controlling northern jointvetch Aeschynomene virginica [95]. Additionally, Colletotrichum gloeosporioides f.sp. malvae spores were registered in Canada in 1992, making them the first fungal herbicides to be registered in Canada for controlling round-leaved mallow Malva pusilla [96].

3.3.3. Chondrostereum purpureum

Chondrostereum purpureum, a widely distributed fungus in deciduous trees in northern temperate regions, invades trees through fresh wounds [97,98]. It develops in the xylem of infected broad-leaved trees and shrubs, where the fungus plugs the xylem vessels, causing the cambium to die, rot, and discolor the wood center. This ultimately leads to plant wilting [99,100]. Additionally, the fungus produces a specific enzyme called endopolygalacturonase (endoPG), which moves to the leaves and causes silvery-gray symptoms, resulting in silver leaf disease in orchard trees [101,102]. The fungus has been developed as a biocontrol agent in North America, various European countries, and New Zealand to manage broadleaf weed trees in coniferous forests [103,104].

4. Problems and Development Trend of Mycopesticides

4.1. Problems

4.1.1. Environmental Limitations

Ultraviolet light is a common stressor in outdoor environments. When fungi are exposed to ultraviolet irradiation, they experience DNA damage and produce cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers and pyrimidine–pyrimidone photoproduct These photoproducts can be cytotoxic and lead to gene mutations, growth defects, and cell death. While filamentous fungal cells have a DNA photolyase to repair damaged cells under visible light, their activity is diminished under strong light conditions [105,106,107]. Temperature is another crucial factor that affects the effectiveness of fungal pesticides in the field. The optimal temperature for the germination and growth of entomopathogenic fungi is between 23 and 28 °C [108]. Additionally, humidity plays a role in conidia germination. For example, it took 20 h to germinate B. bassiana at 25 °C and 95.5% relative humidity, whereas it took 72 h to germinate at 90% relative humidity [109].

4.1.2. Virulence

Virulence is a crucial parameter for evaluating the effectiveness of fungal control. After successive subculture, strains often encounter the issue of degeneration, resulting in a decline in desirable traits and a significant decrease in virulence [110,111]. Continuous cultivation resulted in Aspergillus flavus-reduced spore production, the proliferation of aerial hyphae and inability to produce sclerotia [112,113,114]. The pathogenicity of strains can also be influenced by factors like medium composition, environmental conditions, and contamination [115]. B. bassiana showed decreased virulence to Dociostaurus maroccanus after two passages on the sabouraud dextrose agar medium but increased virulence after two subcultures on malt agar medium [116].

4.1.3. Difficulties in Promotion

Fungal pesticides are living preparations that have a short storage time, slow effect in the field, and high prices. These factors present challenges for fungal pesticides in terms of the market. The effect of fungi on target insects takes about 3–15 days, and a large number of fungal spores is required to effectively suppress the pest population, which severely limits the application of mycopesticides in a cost-effective manner [117]. Environmental factors also limit the promotion of mycopesticides. For the BioMal® mycoherbicide registered in Canada, is more effective in infection with dew 12–15 h after spraying, or rain greater than 6 mm within 48 h, and a temperature of about 20 °C [118].

4.2. Development Trend

4.2.1. Virulence Enhancement by Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering techniques can be employed to breed highly virulent strains. The first step involves identifying the target gene, which can be obtained from pathogenic fungi or biological toxin genes. Subsequently, a highly active promoter is screened to effectively express the target gene, followed by the construction of a high-efficiency transformation system. Genetic engineering is the most versatile method in strain manipulation, caused by adding either pathogenicity determining genes, stress resistance genes, or other factor that can increase the applicability of mycopesticides [117]. Currently, widely used methods include protoplast transformation, restriction enzyme-mediated transformation, electroporation, particle gun, and the agrobacterium-mediated method [119,120]. Fang et al. utilized the agrobacterium-mediated method to overexpress the chitinase Bbchit1 in engineered fungus of B. bassiana, thereby enhancing its virulence against aphids [121]. Wang and St Leger employed genetic engineering to transfer the insect-specific neurotoxin AaIT from scorpion Androctonus australis into M. anisopliae, resulting in the development of a highly virulent strain. This strain exhibited a 22-fold increase in toxicity towards tobacco hornworm Manduca sexta and a 9-fold increase in virulence towards adult yellow fever mosquitoes Aedes aegypti [122]. B. bassiana expressed the fire ant Solenopsis invicta pyrokinin β-neuropeptide (β-NP). the lethal dose (LD50) and lethal time (LT50) of the fungus to kill the target red fire ants were reduced, which was host specific [123]. However, there is some controversy with this approach. There is concern that enhanced fungal virulence through genetic engineering could affect non-target or beneficial insects.

4.2.2. Fermentation Improvement

The fermentation process has a significant impact on the activity and virulence of fungi. Liquid fermentation is characterized by its fast speed, short cycle, and high yield. However, it is not resistant to storage, and blastospores have poor stress resistance. Higher quality blastospores can be obtained by improving culture conditions. Mascarin et al. found that at appropriate carbon nitrogen ratios, high glucose titers, and aeration rates, B. bassiana could achieve higher blastospore yields with low hyphal growth by liquid fermentation [124]. B. bassiana and Cordyceps fumosorosea produced higher concentrations of blastospores by using fermentation media containing more economical cottonseed flour than acid hydrolyzed casein as the nitrogen source. Moreover, blastospores of B. bassiana and C. fumosorosea killed whitefly nymphs faster and required lower concentrations compared with aerial conidia [125]. C. fumosorosea produced high concentrations and desiccation tolerant blastospores in a liquid medium containing 80 g/L glucose and 13.2 g/L casamino acids [126].
In solid state fermentation, there is no free water in the whole fermentation system, and the solid substrate provides carbon source, nitrogen source, water, and inorganic substances required for fungal growth. Solid substrates can be agricultural crops, agro-industrial residues, or inert materials impregnated with nutrients. Solid state fermentation takes advantage of low-cost agricultural residues, resolves the problem of solid waste disposal, and has higher fermentation productivity, as well as a higher end-concentration of products, higher product stability, and lower catabolic repression. Solid state fermentation produces aerial conidia, but it has a longer fermentation cycle [127,128]. Solid state fermentation is the most commonly used fermentation process for the production of mycopesticides due to its low cost and easy large-scale production of aerial conidia [129]. Zhang et al. found that the solid-state fermentation of Trichoderma Brev T069 was based on agricultural waste cassava peels, and the fermentation parameters were optimized by Response Surface Methodology (RSM). The spore production of Trichoderma was 9.31 × 109 spores/g at 3rd days [130].
Another approach is solid–liquid two-phase fermentation, which combines the advantages of both liquid and solid-state fermentation. It involves first producing a large amount of highly active mycelium and blastospore through liquid fermentation and then transferring them to a solid medium to produce aerial conidia. This method reduces the fermentation period and enhances the stress resistance of conidia. However, the whole process increases the production cost of mycopesticides, and the risk of pollution also increases. At present, the main production process of B. bassiana products is solid–liquid two-phase fermentation [129].

4.2.3. Combined Use

Mycopesticides have a prolonged period of infection, and when combined with other pesticides, they can enhance insecticidal efficiency. The mixture of B. bassiana and the resistance inducer potassium silicate had a higher control effect on Frankliniella schultzei [131]. Additionally, the combination of Akanthomyces attenuatus and Botanical Insecticide matrine demonstrated a significant synergistic effect on Megalurothrips usitatus [132]. Moreover, B. bassiana showed good compatibility with the acaricide pyridaben, and their interaction can be utilized for controlling Tetranychus cinnabarinus eggs effectively [133]. The combined treatment at the high dose of the entomopathogenic fungus B. bassiana and the entomopathogenic nematode Steinernema carpocapsae resulted in higher mortality rates in pests of the stored grains Tribolium castaneum, Trogoderma granarium, Oryzaephilus surinamensis, Sitophilus oryzae, Rhyzopertha dominica, and Cryptolestes ferrugineus compared with single treatments [134]. Rizwan et al. found that B. bassiana and diatomaceous earth (DE) are more effective in combination against Tribolium castaneum on wheat, which is due to the ability of DE to destroy the insect cuticle [135,136]. Wakil et al. demonstrated that simultaneous use of B. bassiana and the chemical insecticide spinetoram significantly reduced onion thrip larvae and adults and increased onion production [137].

5. Conclusions and Prospects

From the perspective of the number of mycopesticides applied worldwide, the proportion of mycopesticides is still very low. In recent years, more fungal strains have been registered in various countries. However, mycopesticides face certain limitations such as unstable control effects, low toxicity, slow effectiveness, strain degradation, and susceptibility to environmental influences. These limitations hinder their widespread application and development. At present, aerial conidia are the main active ingredients of mycopesticides. But the contamination of fungi during fermentation also limits their large-scale application. To overcome these challenges, it is essential to develop more mycopesticide formulations that can adapt to different environments. Additionally, genetic engineering can be utilized to breed highly virulent strains of fungi. Improving the culture conditions of spores can increase the spore yield and enhance the infection ability. other pesticides compatible with fungi can be screened for formulation. Furthermore, there is a need to expedite the translation of laboratory research findings into practical applications and create a market for mycopesticides.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft preparation, Y.J.; writing—review and editing, J.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (U1901205).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Schreinemachers, P.; Tipraqsa, P. Agricultural pesticides and land use intensification in high, middle and low income countries. Food Policy 2012, 37, 616–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Jennings, A.A.; Li, Z. Scope of the worldwide effort to regulate pesticide contamination in surface soils. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 146, 420–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Hallmann, C.A.; Foppen, R.P.B.; van Turnhout, C.A.M.; de Kroon, H.; Jongejans, E. Declines in insectivorous birds are associated with high neonicotinoid concentrations. Nature 2014, 511, 341–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Chung, S.W.C. How effective are common household preparations on removing pesticide residues from fruit and vegetables? A review. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2018, 98, 2857–2870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kumar, D.; Kalita, P. Reducing Postharvest Losses during Storage of Grain Crops to Strengthen Food Security in Developing Countries. Foods 2017, 6, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Mascarin, G.M.; Lopes, R.B.; Delalibera, I., Jr.; Fernandes, E.K.K.; Luz, C.; Faria, M. Current status and perspectives of fungal entomopathogens used for microbial control of arthropod pests in Brazil. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2019, 165, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Institute for the Control of Agrochemicals, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs. List of Prohibited and Restricted Pesticides. Available online: http://www.chinapesticide.org.cn/zgnyxxw/zwb/detail/13081 (accessed on 10 March 2023).
  8. Marrone, P.G. Pesticidal natural products—Status and future potential. Pest Manag. Sci. 2019, 75, 2325–2340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Marrone, P.G. Status of the biopesticide market and prospects for new bioherbicides. Pest Manag. Sci. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Seiber, J.N.; Coats, J.; Duke, S.O.; Gross, A.D. Biopesticides: State of the Art and Future Opportunities. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014, 62, 11613–11619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Singh, S.; Pandey, R.K.; Goswami, B.K. Bio-control activity of Purpureocillium lilacinum strains in managing root-knot disease of tomato caused by Meloidogyne incognita. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2013, 23, 1469–1489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Singh, H.B. Management of Plant Pathogens with Microorganisms. Proc. Indian Natl. Sci. Acad. 2014, 80, 443–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zaki, O.; Weekers, F.; Thonart, P.; Tesch, E.; Kuenemann, P.; Jacques, P. Limiting factors of mycopesticide development. Biol. Control 2020, 144, 104220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Thakore, Y. The biopesticide market for global agricultural use. Ind. Biotechnol. 2006, 2, 194–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lacey, L.A.; Grzywacz, D.; Shapiro-Ilan, D.I.; Frutos, R.; Brownbridge, M.; Goettel, M.S. Insect pathogens as biological control agents: Back to the future. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2015, 132, 1–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hajek, A.E.; St. Leger, R.J. Interactions Between Fungal Pathogens and Insect Hosts. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1994, 39, 293–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zimmermann, G. Review on safety of the entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium anisopliae. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2007, 17, 879–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Nisa, H.; Kamili, A.N.; Nawchoo, I.A.; Shafi, S.; Shameem, N.; Bandh, S.A. Fungal endophytes as prolific source of phytochemicals and other bioactive natural products: A review. Microb. Pathog. 2015, 82, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Heydari, A.; Pessarakli, M. A Review on Biological Control of Fungal Plant Pathogens Using Microbial Antagonists. J. Biol. Sci. 2010, 10, 273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Helepciuc, F.-E.; Todor, A. EU microbial pest control: A revolution in waiting. Pest Manag. Sci. 2022, 78, 1314–1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Frederiks, C.; Wesseler, J.H.H. A comparison of the EU and US regulatory frameworks for the active substance registration of microbial biological control agents. Pest Manag. Sci. 2019, 75, 87–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bailey, K.L.; Boyetchko, S.M.; Laengle, T. Social and economic drivers shaping the future of biological control: A Canadian perspective on the factors affecting the development and use of microbial biopesticides. Biol. Control 2010, 52, 221–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kabaluk, J.T.; Svircev, A.M.; Goettel, M.S.; Woo, S.G. The Use and Regulation of Microbial Pesticides in Representative Jurisdictions Worldwide; International Organization for Biological Control of Noxious Animals and Plants (IOBC): Denver, CO, USA, 2010; pp. 80–88. [Google Scholar]
  24. Singh, P.; Mazumdar, P. Chapter 5—Microbial pesticides: Trends, scope and adoption for plant and soil improvement. In Biopesticides; Rakshit, A., Meena, V.S., Abhilash, P.C., Sarma, B.K., Singh, H.B., Fraceto, L., Parihar, M., Singh, A.K., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2022; Volume 2, pp. 37–71. [Google Scholar]
  25. Singh, S.; Singh, A.; Chaurasiya, D.; Mukherjee, S.; Mondal, G. Entomopathogenic Fungi as Biocontrol Agents in Agriculture. Res. Today 2020, 2, 264–266. [Google Scholar]
  26. Li, Z.; Alves, S.B.; Roberts, D.W.; Fan, M.; Delalibera, I., Jr.; Tang, J.; Lopes, R.B.; Faria, M.; Rangel, D.E.N. Biological control of insects in Brazil and China: History, current programs and reasons for their successes using entomopathogenic fungi. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2010, 20, 117–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Roberts, D.W.; Humber, R.A. 21—Entomogenous Fungi. In Biology of Conidial Fungi; Cole, G.T., Kendrick, B., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1981; Volume 2, pp. 201–236. [Google Scholar]
  28. Rajitha, K.; Savithri, G. Original Research Article Studies on symptomological and economic parameters of silk cocoons of Bombyx mori inoculated with Beauveria Bassiana (Bals.) Vuill. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2015, 4, 44–54. [Google Scholar]
  29. Sharma, R.; Sharma, P. Fungal entomopathogens: A systematic review. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2021, 31, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lord, J.C. From Metchnikoff to Monsanto and beyond: The path of microbial control. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2005, 89, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zimmermann, G. Review on safety of the entomopathogenic fungi Beauveria bassiana and Beauveria brongniartii. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2007, 17, 553–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Klein, M.G. Pest management of soil-inhabiting insects with microorganisms. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1988, 24, 337–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Faria, M.R.d.; Wraight, S.P. Mycoinsecticides and Mycoacaricides: A comprehensive list with worldwide coverage and international classification of formulation types. Biol. Control 2007, 43, 237–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ortiz-Urquiza, A.; Keyhani, N.O. Chapter Six—Molecular Genetics of Beauveria bassiana Infection of Insects. In Advances in Genetics; Lovett, B., St. Leger, R.J., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016; Volume 94, pp. 165–249. [Google Scholar]
  35. Feng, M.G.; Poprawski, T.J.; Khachatourians, G.G. Production, formulation and application of the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana for insect control: Current status. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 1994, 4, 3–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Shah, P.A.; Pell, J.K. Entomopathogenic fungi as biological control agents. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2003, 61, 413–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. van Lenteren, J.C.; Bolckmans, K.; Kohl, J.; Ravensberg, W.J.; Urbaneja, A. Biological control using invertebrates and microorganisms: Plenty of new opportunities. Biocontrol 2018, 63, 39–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mayerhofer, J.; Enkerli, J.; Zelger, R.; Strasser, H. Biological control of the European cockchafer: Persistence of Beauveria brongniartii after long-term applications in the Euroregion Tyrol. BioControl 2015, 60, 617–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. St. Leger, R.J.; Wang, C. Genetic engineering of fungal biocontrol agents to achieve greater efficacy against insect pests. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2010, 85, 901–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Peng, G.; Wang, Z.; Yin, Y.; Zeng, D.; Xia, Y. Field trials of Metarhizium anisopliae var. acridum (Ascomycota: Hypocreales) against oriental migratory locusts, Locusta migratoria manilensis (Meyen) in Northern China. Crop Prot. 2008, 27, 1244–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Brown, A.H.S.; Smith, G. The genus Paecilomyces Bainier and its perfect stage Byssochlamys Westling. Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc. 1957, 40, 17–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hodge, K.T.; Gams, W.; Samson, R.A.; Korf, R.P.; Seifert, K.A. Lectotypification and status of Isaria pers. Fr. Taxon 2005, 54, 485–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kepler, R.M.; Luangsa-Ard, J.J.; Hywel-Jones, N.L.; Quandt, C.A.; Sung, G.H.; Rehner, S.A.; Aime, M.C.; Henkel, T.W.; Sanjuan, T.; Zare, R.; et al. A phylogenetically-based nomenclature for Cordycipitaceae (Hypocreales). IMA Fungus 2017, 8, 335–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kunimi, Y. Current status and prospects on microbial control in Japan. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2007, 95, 181–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zimmermann, G. The entomopathogenic fungi Isaria farinosa (formerly Paecilomyces farinosus) and the Isaria fumosorosea species complex (formerly Paecilomyces fumosoroseus): Biology, ecology and use in biological control. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2008, 18, 865–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kang, B.R.; Han, J.H.; Kim, J.J.; Kim, Y.C. Dual Biocontrol Potential of the Entomopathogenic Fungus, Isaria javanica, for Both Aphids and Plant Fungal Pathogens. Mycobiology 2018, 46, 440–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Seo, D.-S.; Kang, J.-K.; Jeong, M.-H.; Kwon, M.; Park, C.-B. Anti-diabetic Effects of Isaria tenuipes in OLETF Rats as an Animal Model of Diabetes Mellitus Type II. J. Food Hyg. Saf. 2013, 28, 152–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zhang, X.; Hu, Q.; Weng, Q. Secondary metabolites (SMs) of Isaria cicadae and Isaria tenuipes. Rsc Adv. 2019, 9, 172–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zhang, X.-N.; Guo, J.-J.; Zou, X.; Jin, D.-C. Pathogenic differences of the entomopathogenic fungus Isaria cateniannulata to the spider mite Tetranychus urticae (Trombidiformes: Tetranychidae) and its predator Euseius nicholsi (Mesostigmata: Phytoseiidae). Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2018, 75, 69–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Liang, Z.Q.; Han, Y.F.; Chu, H.L.; Liu, A.Y. Studies on the genus Paecilomyces in China. I. Fungal Divers. 2005, 20, 83–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Shimazu, M. Paecilomyces cateniannulatus Liang, a commonly found, but an unrecorded entomogenous fungus in Japan. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 2001, 36, 283–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Xie, Y.P.; Xue, J.L.; Zhang, Z.J.; Liu, W.M.; Yang, Q.; Fan, J.H. Entomopathogenic fungal parasites of scale insects and their potential in biological control. MYCOSYSTEMA 2012, 31, 307–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hayden, T.P.; Bidochka, M.J.; Khachatourians, G.G. Entomopathogenicity of Several Fungi toward the English Grain Aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae) and Enhancement of Virulence with Host Passage of Paecilomyces farinosus. J. Econ. Entomol. 1992, 85, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Annamalai, M.; Kaushik, H.; Krishnan, S. Pathogenicity of Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) Vuillemin and Lecanicillium lecanii Zimmerman against Onion Thrips, Thrips tabaci Lindeman. Biopestic. Int. 2013, 9, 148–156. [Google Scholar]
  55. Diaz, B.M.; Oggerin, M.; Lastra, C.C.L.; Rubio, V.; Fereres, A. Characterization and virulence of Lecanicillium lecanii against different aphid species. Biocontrol 2009, 54, 825–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Cuthbertson, A.G.S.; Blackburn, L.F.; Eyre, D.P.; Cannon, R.J.C.; Miller, J.; Northing, P. Bemisia tabaci: The current situation in the UK and the prospect of developing strategies for eradication using entomopathogens. Insect Sci. 2011, 18, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kiss, L. A review of fungal antagonists of powdery mildews and their potential as biocontrol agents. Pest Manag. Sci. 2003, 59, 475–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Gerson, U.; Gafni, A.; Paz, Z.; Sztejnberg, A. A tale of three acaropathogenic fungi in Israel: Hirsutella, Meira and Acaromyces. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2008, 46, 183–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. McCoy, C.W. Chapter 2.4 Pathogens of eriophyoid mites. In World Crop Pests; Lindquist, E.E., Sabelis, M.W., Bruin, J., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1996; Volume 6, pp. 481–490. [Google Scholar]
  60. Kumar, K.K.; Sridhar, J.; Murali-Baskaran, R.K.; Senthil-Nathan, S.; Kaushal, P.; Dara, S.K.; Arthurs, S. Microbial biopesticides for insect pest management in India: Current status and future prospects. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2019, 165, 74–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Rosas-Acevedo, J.L.; Boucias, D.G.; Lezama, R.; Sims, K.; Pescador, A. Exudate from sporulating cultures of Hirsutella thompsonii inhibit oviposition by the two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus urticae. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2003, 29, 213–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Baker, K.F. Evolving Concepts of Biological Control of Plant Pathogens. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1987, 25, 67–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Khan, M.R.; Anwer, M.A. Fungal Bioinoculants for Plant Disease Management. In Microbes and Microbial Technology; Ahmad, I., Ahmad, F., Pichtel, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 447–488. [Google Scholar]
  64. Adams, P.B. The Potential of Mycoparasites for Biological Control of Plant Diseases. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1990, 28, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Samuels, G.J. Trichoderma: A review of biology and systematics of the genus. Mycol. Res. 1996, 100, 923–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Bissett, J.; Szakacs, G.; Nolan, C.A.; Druzhinina, I.; Gradinger, C.; Kubicek, C.P. New species of Trichoderma from Asia. Can. J. Bot. 2003, 81, 570–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Rajesh, R.W.; Rahul, M.S.; Ambalal, N.S. Trichoderma: A significant fungus for agriculture and environment. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2016, 11, 1952–1965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Keswani, C.; Mishra, S.; Sarma, B.K.; Singh, S.P.; Singh, H.B. Unraveling the efficient applications of secondary metabolites of various Trichoderma spp. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2014, 98, 533–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Howell, C.R. Mechanisms employed by Trichoderma species in the biological control of plant diseases: The history and evolution of current concepts. Plant Dis. 2003, 87, 4–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Elad, Y.; Kapat, A. The Role of Trichoderma harzianum Protease in the Biocontrol of Botrytis cinerea. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 1999, 105, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Woo, S.L.; Scala, F.; Ruocco, M.; Lorito, M. The molecular biology of the interactions between Trichoderma spp., phytopathogenic fungi, and plants. Phytopathology 2006, 96, 181–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Costa Carvalho, D.D.; Marques de Mello, S.C.; Martins, I.; Lobo, M., Jr. Biological control of Fusarium wilt on common beans by in-furrow application of Trichoderma harzianum. Trop. Plant Pathol. 2015, 40, 375–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. de Aguiar, R.A.; da Cunha, M.G.; Lobo Junior, M. Management of white mold in processing tomatoes by Trichoderma spp. and chemical fungicides applied by drip irrigation. Biol. Control 2014, 74, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kiss, L.; Russell, J.C.; Szentiványi, O.; Xu, X.; Jeffries, P. Biology and biocontrol potential of Ampelomyces mycoparasites, natural antagonists of powdery mildew fungi. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2004, 14, 635–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Sztejnberg, A.; Galper, S.; Mazar, S.; Lisker, N. Ampelomyces quisqualis for Biological and Integrated Control of Powdery Mildews in Israel. J. Phytopathol. 1989, 124, 285–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Legler, S.E.; Pintye, A.; Caffi, T.; Gulyás, S.; Bohár, G.; Rossi, V.; Kiss, L. Sporulation rate in culture and mycoparasitic activity, but not mycohost specificity, are the key factors for selecting Ampelomyces strains for biocontrol of grapevine powdery mildew (Erysiphe necator). Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2016, 144, 723–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Campbell, W.A. A New Species of Coniothyrium Parasitic on Sclerotia. Mycologia 1947, 39, 190–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sandys-Winsch, C.; Whipps, J.M.; Gerlagh, M.; Kruse, M. World distribution of the sclerotial mycoparasite Coniothyrium minitans. Mycol. Res. 1993, 97, 1175–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Verkley, G.J.M.; Dukik, K.; Renfurm, R.; Goker, M.; Stielow, J.B. Novel genera and species of coniothyrium-like fungi in Montagnulaceae (Ascomycota). Persoonia 2014, 32, 25–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. de Vrije, T.; Antoine, N.; Buitelaar, R.M.; Bruckner, S.; Dissevelt, M.; Durand, A.; Gerlagh, M.; Jones, E.E.; Luth, P.; Oostra, J.; et al. The fungal biocontrol agent Coniothyrium minitans: Production by solid-state fermentation, application and marketing. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2001, 56, 58–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Al-Sheikh, H.; Abdelzaher, H.M.A. Isolation of Aspergillus sulphureus, Penicillium islandicum and Paecilomyces variotii from Agricultural Soil and their Biological Activity Against Pythium spinosum, the Damping-Off Organism of Soybean. J. Biol. Sci. 2010, 10, 178–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Wahid, O.A.; Moustafa, A.F.; Ibrahim, M.E. Integrated control of tomato Fusarium-wilt through implementation of soil solarization and filamentous fungi. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2001, 108, 345–355. [Google Scholar]
  83. Rodrigo, S.; Santamaria, O.; Halecker, S.; Lledó, S.; Stadler, M. Antagonism between Byssochlamys spectabilis (anamorph Paecilomyces variotii) and plant pathogens: Involvement of the bioactive compounds produced by the endophyte. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2017, 171, 464–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Moreno-Gavíra, A.; Huertas, V.; Diánez, F.; Sánchez-Montesinos, B.; Santos, M. Paecilomyces and Its Importance in the Biological Control of Agricultural Pests and Diseases. Plants 2020, 9, 1746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Ahmad, R.Z.; Sidi, B.B.; Endrawati, D.; Ekawasti, F. Paecilomyces lilacinus and P. variotii as a predator of nematode and trematode eggs. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 299, 012056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Flores Francisco, B.G.; Ponce, I.M.; Plascencia Espinosa, M.Á.; Mendieta Moctezuma, A.; López y López, V.E. Advances in the biological control of phytoparasitic nematodes via the use of nematophagous fungi. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2021, 37, 180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Fullaway, D.T. Biological Control of Cactus in Hawaii. J. Econ. Entomol. 1954, 47, 696–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Wilson, C.L. Use of Plant Pathogens in Weed Control. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1969, 7, 411–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Aneja, K.R.; Kumar, V.; Jiloha, P.; Kaur, M.; Sharma, C.; Surain, P.; Dhiman, R.; Aneja, A. Potential Bioherbicides: Indian Perspectives. In Biotechnology: Prospects and Applications; Salar, R.K., Gahlawat, S.K., Siwach, P., Duhan, J.S., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 197–215. [Google Scholar]
  90. HASAN, S. Specificity and host specialization of Puccinia chondrillina. Ann. Appl. Biol. 1972, 72, 257–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Watson, A.K. The Classical Approach with Plant Pathogens. In Microbial Control of Weeds; TeBeest, D.O., Ed.; Springer US: Boston, MA, USA, 1991; pp. 3–23. [Google Scholar]
  92. Auld, B.A.; Morin, L. Constraints in the Development of Bioherbicides. Weed Technol. 1995, 9, 638–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Aneja, K.R.; Khan, S.A.; Aneja, A. Bioherbicides: Strategies, Challenges and Prospects. In Developments in Fungal Biology and Applied Mycology; Satyanarayana, T., Deshmukh, S.K., Johri, B.N., Eds.; Springer Singapore: Singapore, 2017; pp. 449–470. [Google Scholar]
  94. Boyette, C.D.; Quimby, P.C.; Connick, W.J.; Daigle, D.J.; Fulgham, F.E. Progress in the Production, Formulation, and Application of Mycoherbicides. In Microbial Control of Weeds; TeBeest, D.O., Ed.; Springer US: Boston, MA, USA, 1991; pp. 209–222. [Google Scholar]
  95. Bailey, K.L. Chapter 13—The Bioherbicide Approach to Weed Control Using Plant Pathogens. In Integrated Pest Management; Abrol, D.P., Ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2014; pp. 245–266. [Google Scholar]
  96. Mortensen, K.; Makowski, R.M.D. Effects of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides f. sp. malvae on plant development and blomass of non-target field crops under controlled and field conditions. Weed Res. 1997, 37, 351–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Scheepens, P.C.; Hoogerbrugge, A. Control of Prunus serotina in forests with the endemic fungus Chondrostereum purpureum. In Proceedings of the VIII International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, Rome, Italy, 2–7 February 1992. [Google Scholar]
  98. De Jong, M.D. The BioChon story: Deployment of Chondrostereum purpureum to suppress stump sprouting in hardwoods. Mycologist 2000, 14, 58–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Vartiamäki, H.; Uotila, A.; Vasaitis, R.; Hantula, J. Genetic diversity in Nordic and Baltic populations of Chondrostereum purpureum: A potential herbicide biocontrol agent. For. Pathol. 2008, 38, 381–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Vartiamaki, H.; Hantula, J.; Uotila, A. Susceptibility of Silver Birch Pruning Wounds to Infection by White-Rot Fungus (Chondrostereum purpureum), a Potential Bioherbicide. Silva Fenn. 2009, 43, 537–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Simpson, R.M.; van_Hekezen, R.; van_Lune, F.; Brewster, D.; Christeller, J.T.; Spiers, A.G. Extracellular enzymes of Chondrostereum purpureum causal fungus of silverleaf disease. New Zealand Plant Prot. 2001, 54, 202–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Senda, M.; Narita, T.; Akada, S.; Okuno, T.; Miyairi, K. Characterization of an endopolygalacturonase Gene cppg1 from Phytopathogenic Fungus Chondrostereum purpureum. J. Gen. Plant Pathol. 2001, 67, 41–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Becker, E.; Shamoun, S.F.; Hintz, W.E. Efficacy and environmental fate of Chondrostereum purpureum used as a biological control for red alder (Alnus rubra). Biol. Control 2005, 33, 269–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Bellgard, S.E.; Johnson, V.W.; Than, D.J.; Anand, N.; Winks, C.J.; Ezeta, G.; Dodd, S.L. Use of the silverleaf fungus Chondrostereum purpureum for biological control of stump-sprouting, riparian weedy tree species in New Zealand. Australas. Plant Pathol. 2014, 43, 321–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Sancar, A. Structure and Function of DNA Photolyase and Cryptochrome Blue-Light Photoreceptors. Chem. Rev. 2003, 103, 2203–2238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Yasui, A.; Eker, A.P.; Yasuhira, S.; Yajima, H.; Kobayashi, T.; Takao, M.; Oikawa, A. A new class of DNA photolyases present in various organisms including aplacental mammals. EMBO J. 1994, 13, 6143–6151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. de Laat, W.L.; Jaspers, N.G.; Hoeijmakers, J.H. Molecular mechanism of nucleotide excision repair. Genes Dev. 1999, 13, 768–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Jaronski, S.T. Ecological factors in the inundative use of fungal entomopathogens. BioControl 2010, 55, 159–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Luz, C.; Fargues, J. Temperature and moisture requirements for conidial germination of an isolate of Beauveria bassiana, pathogenic to Rhodnius prolixus. Mycopathologia 1997, 138, 117–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Liu, Q.; Wang, F.; Liu, K.; Dong, C. Influence of Strain Preservation Methods on Fruiting Body Growth and Metabolite Production by the Medicinal Mushroom Cordyceps militaris (Ascomycetes). Int. J. Med. Mushrooms 2018, 20, 1003–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Zhu, W.; Hu, J.; Chi, J.; Li, Y.; Yang, B.; Hu, W.; Chen, F.; Xu, C.; Chai, L.; Bao, Y. Label-Free Proteomics Reveals the Molecular Mechanism of Subculture Induced Strain Degeneration and Discovery of Indicative Index for Degeneration in Pleurotus ostreatus. Molecules 2020, 25, 4920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Mayne, R.Y.; Bennett, J.W.; Tallant, J. Instability of an Aflatoxin-Producing Strain of Aspergillus parasiticus. Mycologia 1971, 63, 644–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Torres, J.; Guarro, J.; Suarez, G.; Suñe, N.; Calvo, M.A.; Ramírez, C. Morphological changes in strains of Aspergillus flavus link ex fries and Aspergillus parasiticus speare related with aflatoxin production. Mycopathologia 1980, 72, 171–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Bennett, J.W. Loss of Norsolorinic Acid and Aflatoxin Production by a Mutant of Aspergillus parasiticus. Microbiology 1981, 124, 429–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Chen, X.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, X.; Cui, B.; Miao, W.; Cheng, W.; Zhao, F. Characteristics Analysis Reveals the Progress of Volvariella volvacea Mycelium Subculture Degeneration. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 2045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Santoro, P.H.; Zorzetti, J.; Constanski, K.; Neves, P.M.O.J. Conidial production, virulence, and stress tolerance of Beauveria bassiana conidia after successive in vitro subculturing. Rev. Colomb. De Entomol. 2014, 40, 85–90. [Google Scholar]
  117. Keyhani, N.O. Using host molecules to increase fungal virulence for biological control of insects. Virulence 2012, 3, 415–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Morin, L.; Derby, J.-A.L.; Kokko, E.G. Infection process of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides f. sp. malvae on Malvaceae weeds. Mycol. Res. 1996, 100, 165–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Turgeon, B.G.; Condon, B.; Liu, J.; Zhang, N. Protoplast Transformation of Filamentous fungi. In Molecular and Cell Biology Methods for Fungi; Sharon, A., Ed.; Humana Press: Totowa, NJ, USA, 2010; pp. 3–19. [Google Scholar]
  120. Huang, H.; Wang, Z.; Cheng, J.; Zhao, W.; Li, X.; Wang, H.; Zhang, Z.; Sui, X. An efficient cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) protoplast isolation and transient expression system. Sci. Hortic. 2013, 150, 206–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Fang, W.G.; Leng, B.; Xiao, Y.H.; Jin, K.; Ma, J.C.; Fan, Y.H.; Feng, J.; Yang, X.Y.; Zhang, Y.J.; Pei, Y. Cloning of Beauveria bassiana chitinase gene Bbchit1 and its application to improve fungal strain virulence. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 71, 363–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Wang, C.; St. Leger, R.J. A scorpion neurotoxin increases the potency of a fungal insecticide. Nat. Biotechnol. 2007, 25, 1455–1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Fan, Y.; Pereira, R.M.; Kilic, E.; Casella, G.; Keyhani, N.O. Pyrokinin β-Neuropeptide Affects Necrophoretic Behavior in Fire Ants (S. invicta), and Expression of β-NP in a Mycoinsecticide Increases Its Virulence. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e26924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Mascarin, G.M.; Iwanicki, N.S.; Ramirez, J.L.; Delalibera, Í., Jr.; Dunlap, C.A. Transcriptional Responses of Beauveria bassiana Blastospores Cultured Under Varying Glucose Concentrations. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2021, 11, 644372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Mascarin, G.M.; Jackson, M.A.; Kobori, N.N.; Behle, R.W.; Delalibera, I. Liquid culture fermentation for rapid production of desiccation tolerant blastospores of Beauveria bassiana and Isaria fumosorosea strains. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2015, 127, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Jackson, M.A.; McGuire, M.R.; Lacey, L.A.; Wraight, S.P. Liquid culture production of desiccation tolerant blastospores of the bioinsecticidal fungus Paecilomyces fumosoroseus. Mycol. Res. 1997, 101, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Pandey, A. Solid-state fermentation. Biochem. Eng. J. 2003, 13, 81–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Singhania, R.R.; Patel, A.K.; Soccol, C.R.; Pandey, A. Recent advances in solid-state fermentation. Biochem. Eng. J. 2009, 44, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Mascarin, G.M.; Jaronski, S.T. The production and uses of Beauveria bassiana as a microbial insecticide. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2016, 32, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Zhang, C.; Ali Khan, R.A.; Wei, H.; Wang, R.; Hou, J.; Liu, T. Rapid and mass production of biopesticide Trichoderma Brev T069 from cassava peels using newly established solid-state fermentation bioreactor system. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 313, 114981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Pereira, A.I.A.; da Silva, C.M.; Curvelo, C.R.S.; Pontes, N.D.; Pereira, J.L.; Tavares, W.D.; Zanuncio, J.C.; Luz, J.M.Q. Mixtures between Beauveria bassiana and potassium silicate to manage thrips in tomato plants for industrial processing. Hortic. Bras. 2020, 38, 415–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Wu, J.; Yang, B.; Zhang, X.; Cuthbertson, A.G.S.; Ali, S. Synergistic Interaction between the Entomopathogenic Fungus Akanthomyces attenuatus (Zare & Gams) and the Botanical Insecticide Matrine against Megalurothrips usitatus (Bagrall). J. Fungi 2021, 7, 536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Shi, W.B.; Jiang, Y.; Feng, M.G. Compatibility of ten acaricides with Beauveria bassiana and enhancement of fungal infection to Tetranychus cinnabarinus (Acari: Tetranychidae) eggs by sublethal application rates of pyridaben. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 2005, 40, 659–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Wakil, W.; Kavallieratos, N.G.; Eleftheriadou, N.; Yaseen, T.; Rasool, K.G.; Husain, M.; Aldawood, A.S. Natural Warriors against Stored-Grain Pests: The Joint Action of Beauveria bassiana and Steinernema carpocapsae. J. Fungi 2023, 9, 835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Rizwan, M.; Atta, B.; Rizwan, M.; Sabir, A.M.; Shah, Z.U.; Hussain, M. Effect of the entomopathogenic fungus, Beauveria bassiana, combined with diatomaceous earth on the red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Tenebrionidae: Coleoptera). Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2019, 29, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Akbar, W.; Lord, J.C.; Nechols, J.R.; Howard, R.W. Diatomaceous earth increases the efficacy of Beauveria bassiana against Tribolium castaneum larvae and increases Conidia attachment. J. Econ. Entomol. 2004, 97, 273–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Wakil, W.; Gulzar, S.; Prager, S.M.; Ghazanfar, M.U.; Shapiro-Ilan, D.I. Efficacy of entomopathogenic fungi, nematodes and spinetoram combinations for integrated management of Thrips tabaci. Pest Manag. Sci. 2023, 79, 3227–3238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jof 09 00940 g001
Figure 1. The cumulative evolution of mycopesticide products in the United States, Canada, Australia, China, and the European Union from 1992 to 2022. Mycopesticide products are on the rise in various countries. For the same active ingredients, the product names may be different in the EU member states, and the final statistical results are not very accurate. a Mycopesticide products in the 13 EU member states (The Netherlands, France, Portugal, Poland, Spain, Germany, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Austria, Belgium, Cyprus and Norway) were counted. Different member states of the EU choose the earliest registration year for the same product. b If the product is currently cancelled, the product is still counted at that time.
Figure 1. The cumulative evolution of mycopesticide products in the United States, Canada, Australia, China, and the European Union from 1992 to 2022. Mycopesticide products are on the rise in various countries. For the same active ingredients, the product names may be different in the EU member states, and the final statistical results are not very accurate. a Mycopesticide products in the 13 EU member states (The Netherlands, France, Portugal, Poland, Spain, Germany, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Austria, Belgium, Cyprus and Norway) were counted. Different member states of the EU choose the earliest registration year for the same product. b If the product is currently cancelled, the product is still counted at that time.
Jof 09 00940 g001
Table 1. The registration and target of mycoinsecticides.
Table 1. The registration and target of mycoinsecticides.
Mycoinsecticides aCountry/Region b Where Approved/RegisteredTarget(s)
Akanthomyces muscarius Ve6 (formerly Lecanicillium muscarium)EU, CAWhiteflies, thrips
Beauveria bassianaCHN, AUSRice leaf folder Cnaphalocrocis medinalis, aphids, termites
Beauveria bassiana strain 147EUPaysandisia archon,
Rhynchophorus ferrugineus
Beauveria bassiana strain 203EURhynchophorus ferrugineus
Beauveria bassiana strain 447USAAnts
Beauveria bassiana strain ANT-03USA, CAFoliar-feeding pests and certain grubs
Beauveria bassiana strain ATCC 74040USA, EUAnts, aphids, armyworms, whiteflies
Beauveria bassiana strain CFL-ACAAnnual bluegrass weevil larvae Listronotus maculicollis, asiatic garden beetle Maladera castanea
Beauveria bassiana strain GHAUSA, EU, CAScarab beetles, leaf-feeding beetles, whiteflies, aphids, thrips
Beauveria bassiana strain HF23USA, CAHouseflies
Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339USA, EU, CACertain piercing, sucking, and chewing pests (insects and mites)
Beauveria bassiana strain R444CABlack cutworm, corn flea beetle, nematodes
Beauveria bassiana strain IMI389521EUColeoptera pests Oryzaephilus surinamensis, Sitophilus granaries, Cryptolestes ferrugineus
Beauveria bassiana strain NPP111B005EUCosmopolites sordidus, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus
Beauveria bassiana strain ZJU435CHNFall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda, whitefly Trialeurodes vaporariorum
Conidiobolus majorCHNWhiteflies, aphids
Cordyceps javanica Ij01
(formerly Isaria javanica, Paecilomyces javanicus)		CHNSpodoptera litura Fabricius
Cordyceps javanica JS001
(formerly Isaria javanica, Paecilomyces javanicus)		CHNWhitefly Bemisia tabaci
Cordyceps fumosorosea strain Apopka 97
(formerly Isaria fumosorosea, Paecilomyces fumosoroseus)		USA, EUWhiteflies, thrips, aphids, spider mites
Cordyceps fumosorosea strain FE 9901
(formerly Isaria fumosorosea, Paecilomyces fumosoroseus)		USA, EU, CAAphids, weevils, whiteflies
Metarhizium anisopliaeCHNThrips, locusts, Carposina niponensisi, Spodoptera exigua
Metarhizium anisopliae strain CQMa421CHNChilo suppressalis, Spodoptera frugiperda
Metarhizium anisopliae strain ESF1USATermites
Metarhizium acridum
(formerly Metarhizium anisopliae var. acridum)		AUSAustralian plague locust—nymphs, grasshoppers
Metarhizium brunneum strain Ma 43 (formerly Metarhizium anisopliae var. anisopliae)EUJapanese beetle Popillia japonica,
Garden chafer Phyllopertha horticola,
Summer chafer Amphimallon solstitialis, European chafer Amphimallon majalis
Metarhizium brunneum strain F52 (formerly known as Metarhizium anisopliae strain F52)USA, CAMites, thrips, ticks, weevils and whiteflies
Nosema locustaeUSA, CA, CHNGrasshoppers, Mormon cricket
a Current names according to the database Index Fungorum http://www.indexfungorum.org/. b United States of America (USA), Australia (AUS), Canada (CA), China (CHN), European Union (EU). Source: (USA) https://ordspub.epa.gov/ords/pesticides/f?p=chemicalsearch:1, (AUS) https://portal.apvma.gov.au/pubcris, (CA) http://pr-rp.hc-sc.gc.ca/ls-re/result-eng.php?p_search_label, (CHN) http://www.chinapesticide.org.cn/, (EU) https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/pesticides_en (accessed on 22 July 2023).
Table 2. The registration and target of mycofungicides or nematophagous fungi.
Table 2. The registration and target of mycofungicides or nematophagous fungi.
Mycofungicides or Nematophagous FungiCountry/Region Where Approved/RegisteredTarget(s)
Ampelomyces quisqualis strain AQ10USA, EUPowdery mildew
Aspergillus flavus strain AF36USAStrains of the fungus Aspergillus flavus that produce aflatoxin
Aspergillus flavus strain NRRL 21882USAStrains of the fungus A. flavus that produce aflatoxin
Aureobasidium pullulans strains DSM 14940 and DSM 14941USA, EU, CA, AUSBacterial and fungal flower and foliar diseases
Candida oleophila isolate I-182USAPost-harvest fungicide
Candida oleophila strain OUSA, EUFor post-harvest control of gray mold Botrytis cinerea and blue mold Penicillium expansum
Clonostachys rosea strain CR-7USABotrytis, Colletotrichum, Monilinia, Sclerotinia, Alternaria, Fusarium, and Didymella
Clonostachys rosea strain J1446USA, EU, CASeed borne and soil borne fungi, such as Fusarium, Pythium and Phytophtora, foliar fungal diseases
Paraphaeosphaeria minitans (formerly Coniothyrium minitans) strain CON/M/91-08USA, EU, CASclerotinia spp.
Paraphaeosphaeria minitans (formerly Coniothyrium minitans) strain ZB-1SBCHNSclerotinia spp.
Paraphaeosphaeria minitans (formerly Coniothyrium minitans) Campbell CGMCC8325CHNSclerotinia spp.
Duddingtonia flagrans strain IAH 1297USANematodes
Gliocladium virens GL-21USAFungi that cause “damping off” disease and root rot.
Muscodor albus strain QST 20799USABacteria, fungi, and nematodes
Muscodor albus strain SA-13USASoil-borne plant diseases and plant-parasitic nematodes
Metschnikowia fructicola strain NRRL Y-27328USA, EUMonilinia fructigena, Monilia laxa, Botrytis cinerea
Myrothecium verrucaria dried fermentation solids and solublesUSANematodes
Purpureocillium lilacinum
[formerly Paecilomyces lilacinus (Thom) Samson]		CHNRoot-knot nematodes Meloidogyne spp.
Purpureocillium lilacinum strain 251 (formerly Paecilomyces lilacinus strain 251)USA, EURoot-knot nematodes Meloidogyne spp., cyst nematodes Geterodera spp. and Globodera spp.
Purpureocillium lilacinum strain PL 11USA, EURoot-knot nematodes Meloidogyne spp.
Pseudozyma flocculosa strain PF-A22 ULUSAPowdery mildew
Pseudozyma flocculosaCA Soil-borne diseases caused by fungus
Phlebiopsis gigantea strain VRA 1992USA, CAHeterobasidion spp.
Phlebiopsis gigantea strain VRA 1835, VRA 1984 and FOC PG 410.3EUHeterobasidion spp.
Saccharomyces cerevisiae extract hydrolysateUSABacterial diseases
Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain LAS02EUStorage diseases Monilinia spp., Botrytis cinerea
Trichoderma asperellum strain ICC 012USA, EU, CAFungal soil diseases in vegetables and ornamentals
Trichoderma asperellum strain T25EUPhythophthora sp.
Fusarium sp.
Pythium sp.
Trichoderma asperellum strain TV1EUPythium spp.
Rhizoctonia spp.
Fusarium spp.
Trichoderma asperellum strain T34USA, EU, CAFusarium oxysporum f.sp. dianthi
Trichoderma asperelloides strain JM41RUSARhizoctonia spp.
Fusarium spp.
Trichoderma atroviridestrain SC1 USA, EUWood and canker diseases
Trichoderma atrobrunneum (formerly Trichoderma harzianum) strain ITEM 908EUPythium spp., Rhizoctonia spp., Fusarium spp.
Trichoderma atroviride strain IMI 206040EUPythium spp., Rhizoctonia spp., Fusarium spp.
Trichoderma atroviride strain T11EUPythium spp., Rhizoctonia spp., Fusarium spp.
Trichoderma atroviride strain I-1237EUWood decay diseases
Trichoderma gamsii strain ICC 080USA, EU, CAFungal soil diseases in vegetables and ornamentals
Trichoderma harzianumCHN, AUSClubroot disease, Botrytis cinerea, Rhizoctonia spp., downy mildew
Trichoderma harzianum LTR-2CHNBrown spot, grey mould Botrytis cinerea
Trichoderma harzianum DS-10CHNGrey mould Botrytis cinerea
Trichoderma harzianum T-39USABotrytis cinerea
Trichoderma harzianum strain T78USAFusarium, Phytophthora spp., Pythium spp., Rhizoctonia, Sclerotium spp.
Trichoderma hamatum isolate 382USADiseases caused by soil borne plant pathogens
Trichoderma harzianum rifai strain T-22USA, EU, CAVarious fungi that cause seed rot, diseases of plant roots, and other plant diseases
Trichoderma harzianum rifai strain KRL-AG2USA, CARoot pathogens in greenhouse tomatoes, cucumbers, and ornamentals
Trichoderma polysporum ATCC 20475USAFungi that infect tree wounds
Trichoderma viride ATCC 20476USAFungi that infect tree wounds
Trichoderma virens strain G-41USA, CAFungal soil diseases in vegetables, ornamentals
Trichoderma spp.CHNVarious fungi that cause seed rot, diseases of plant roots, and other plant diseases
Typhula phacorrhiza strain 94671USA, CASnow molds in turf
Ulocladium oudemansii strain U3USABotrytis cinerea and Sclerotinia sclerotiorum
Verticillium dahliae strain WCS850USA, EU, CADutch elm disease
Verticillium chlamydosporium GoddardCHNRoot-knot nematodes
Table 3. The registration and target of mycoherbicides.
Table 3. The registration and target of mycoherbicides.
MycoherbicidesCountry/Region Where Approved/RegisteredTarget(s)
Alternaria destruens strain 059USADodder Cuscuta spp.
Chondrostereum purpureum strain PFC 2139USA, CAInhibits the sprouting and regrowth of shrubs and hardwood trees
Chondrostereum purpureum strain HQ1USAInhibits the sprouting and regrowth of shrubs and hardwood trees
Colletotrichum gloeosporioides f. sp aeschynomeneUSANorthern jointvetch Aeschynomene virginica
Phoma macrostomaCABroadleaved weeds like dandelion, Canada thistle, and clover
Phytophthora palmivora MWVUSAMorenia orderata, commonly known as strangler vine or milkweed vine
Puccinia thlaspeos strain woad (dyer’s woad rust)USADyer’s woad
Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae NT039, Macrophomina phaseolina NT094, Neoscytalidium novaehollandiae QLD 003AUSParkinsonia spp.
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

Jiang, Y.; Wang, J. The Registration Situation and Use of Mycopesticides in the World. J. Fungi 2023, 9, 940. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof9090940

AMA Style

Jiang Y, Wang J. The Registration Situation and Use of Mycopesticides in the World. Journal of Fungi. 2023; 9(9):940. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof9090940

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jiang, Yali, and Jingjing Wang. 2023. "The Registration Situation and Use of Mycopesticides in the World" Journal of Fungi 9, no. 9: 940. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof9090940

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