Advertisement

Assessing the Impacts of Metarhizium and Beauveria on Bumblebees

  • Heikki M. T. Hokkanen
  • Qing-Qi Zeng
  • Ingeborg Menzler-Hokkanen
Chapter
Part of the Progress in Biological Control book series (PIBC, volume 1)

Abstract

In this chapter we present as an example a specific case study from the ecological safety evaluation of the Hyphomycete fungi Metarhizium anisopliae (Metsch.) Sorokin and Beauveria bassiana (Bals.) Vuill., carried out in Finland during the ERBIC-research project. Only the part concerning the safety to bumblebees is presented here (for a full report see Hokkanen et al., 2003). Metarhizium anisopliae and Beauveria bassiana are two well-studied, commercialised, and commonly used entomopathogenic fungi (EPF), also occurring naturally in Finland. We decided to focus on bumblebees because they are the most important group of natural pollinators of crop plants and wild flowers in the temperate zone. While possible impacts of Metarhizium and Beauveria on the honeybee have been addressed by several authors in many publications, to our knowledge no earlier information exists on the possible impact of these fungal pathogens on bumblebees. These pollinators are also abundant in our model agroecosystem, turnip oilseed rape, which was chosen because both the key pest, the pollen beetle (Meligethes aeneus), and its natural enemy complex have been well studied under Scandinavian conditions. Background information was already available on the occurrence of deuteromycetous EPF in the model system (Vä nninen et al. 1989), on the persistence of augmented fungal propagules in cultivated soils of the study area in question (southern Finland) (Vänninen et al. 2000), and on the impact of entomopathogenic fungi on the pollen beetle (Hokkanen 1993). In addition, entomopathogenic fungi and nematodes are a possible future option for managing the soil-dwelling stages of the pollen beetle and other pests in this system via incorporation in the soil (Butt et al. 1994). Fungi can also be used against foliage-dwelling stages of the pest either by spraying, or when vectored by honeybees (Butt et al. 1998). Different application strategies for entomopathogens could therefore be considered, linked to differing non-target risk scenarios based on the impact of the application strategies on key components of the ecosystem.

Keywords

Entomopathogenic Fungus Beauveria Bassiana Metarhizium Anisopliae Pollen Beetle Control Hive 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ball, B.V., Pye, B.J., Carreck, N.L., Moore, D. & Bateman, R.P. 1994. Laboratory testing of a mycopesticide on non-target organisms: the effects of an oil formulation of Metarhizium flavoviride applied to Apis mellifera. Biocontrol Science and Technoogy. 4: 289–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Butt, T.M., Ibrahim, L., Ball and, B.V. & Clark, S.J. 1994. Pathogenicity of the entomogenous fungi Metarhizium anisopliae and Beauveria bassiana against crucifer pests and the honey bee. Biocontrol. Science and Technology 4: 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Butt, T.M., Carreck, N.L., Ibrahim, L. & Williams, LH. 1998. Honey bee mediated infection of pollen beetle (Meligethes spp.) by the insect-pathogenic fungus, Metarhizium anisopliae. Biocontrol Science and Technology 8: 533–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Butt, T.M. & Goettel, M.S. 2000. Bioassays of Entomogenous Fungi. In Bioassays of Entomopathogenic Microbes and Nematodes (eds Navon, A. & Ascher, K.R.S. ), pp. 141–195. CAB International, Wallingford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Goettel, M.S. & Hajek, A.E. 2001. Evaluation of non-target effects of pathogens used for management of arthropods. In Evaluating Indirect Ecological Effects of Biological Control (eds Wajnberg, E, Scott, J.K. & Quimby, P.C. ), pp. 81–97. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
  6. Goettel, M.S., Poprawski, T.J., Vandenberg, J.D., Li, Z. & Roberts, D.W. 1990. Safety of nontarget invertebrates of fungal biocontrol agents. In Safety of Microbial Insecticides (eds Laird, M., Lacey, L.A. & Davidson, E.W. ), pp. 209–232. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Florida.Google Scholar
  7. Hajek, A.E. & Butler, L. 2000. Predicting the host range of entomopathogenic fungi. In Nontarget Effects of Biological Control (eds Follett, P.A. & J.J. Duan ), pp. 263–276. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hokkanen, H.M.T. 1993. Overwintering survival and spring emergence in Meligethes aeneus: effects of body weight, crowding, and soil treatment with Beauveria bassiana. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 67: 241–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hokkanen, H.M.T., D. Babendreier, F. Bigler, G. Burgio, S. Kuske, J.C. van Lenteren, A.J.M. Loomans, I. Menzler-Hokkanen, P.C.J. van Rijn, M.B. Thomas, M.G. Tommasini and Q.-Q. Zeng, 2003. Evaluating Environmental Risks of Biological Control Introductions into Europe. Final report of project EU-FAIR5–CT97-3489 (’ERBIC’), Commission of the European Communities, Brussels. Available at: http://honeybee.helsinki.fi/MMSBL/MAEL/Hankkeet/ERBIC/index.htm Google Scholar
  10. Husberg, G.-B. & Hokkanen, H.M.T. (2001) Effects of Metarhizium anisopliae on the pollen beetle Meligethes aeneus and its parasitoids Phradis morionellus and Diospilus capito. BioControl 46: 261–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rosengaus, R.B., A. Maxmen, L. Coates & J.F.A. Traniello J.F.A. 1998. Disease resistance: a benefit of sociality in the dampwood termite Zootermopsis angusticollis (Isoptera: Termopsidae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 44: 125–134.Google Scholar
  12. Vandenberg, J.D. 1990. Safety of four entomopathogens for caged adult honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 83, 755–759.Google Scholar
  13. Vänninen, I. 1999. The distribution, ecological fitness and virulence of Deuteromycetous entomopathogenic fungi in Finland. PhD-Thesis, University of Helsinki, Department of Applied Zoology, Reports 27.Google Scholar
  14. Vänninen, I., Husberg, G.-B. & Hokkanen, H.M.T. 1989. Occurrence of entomopathogenic fungi and nematodes in cultivated soils in Finland. Acta Entomologica Fennica 53: 65–71.Google Scholar
  15. Vänninen, L, Tyni-Juslin, J. & Hokkanen, H. 2000. Persistence of augmented Metarhizium anisopliae and Beauveria bassiana in Finnish agricultural soils. BioControl 45: 201–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Vogt, F.D. 1986a. Thermoregulatio in bumblebee colonies. I. Thermoregulatory versus brood-maintenance behaviors during acute changes in ambient temperature. Physiological Zoology 59: 55–59.Google Scholar
  17. Vogt, F.D. 1986b. Thermoregulation in bumblebee colonies. II. Behavioral and demographic variation throughout the colony cycle. Physiological Z000gy. 59: 60–68.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heikki M. T. Hokkanen
  • Qing-Qi Zeng
  • Ingeborg Menzler-Hokkanen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations