Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research
  • Open Access

Efficacy of entomopathogenic nematode isolates from Turkey and Kyrgyzstan against the larvae of the mosquito species Culex pipiens L. (Diptera: Culicidae) under laboratory conditions

Egyptian Journal of Biological Pest Control201828:84

https://doi.org/10.1186/s41938-018-0088-2

  • Received: 6 July 2018
  • Accepted: 12 October 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) are among the most important of the pests in urban entomology, and they not only disturb people but they are also an important health hazard as they are diseases’ vectors. The biological control methods against this pest, which is difficult to fight off, have recently gained importance. A total of five different entomopathogenic nematodes (EPNs), Steinernema feltiae (Aydın isolate), S. carpocapsae (Karadeniz isolate), and Heterorhabditis bacteriophora (Aydın isolate) isolated from Turkey and S. feltiae (KG3) and H. bacteriophora (KG81) isolated from Kyrgyzstan, were tested against the mosquito species Culex pipiens L. (Diptera: Culicidae) larvae under laboratory conditions. The experimental nematode suspensions were determined as 500, 1000, and 1500 IJs ml−1. The mortality rates in the trial were recorded after 24, 48, 72, 96, and 120 h. Dead mosquitoes were dissected under a microscope and confirmed to have died by the EPNs. Larval mortality was observed in all EPN species compared to the control group. H. bacteriophora (KG81) and S. carpocapsae isolates were found to be the most effective isolates with 100% larval mortality. The other isolates were H. bacteriophora (Aydın isolate) (70%), S. feltiae (KG3) (66.67%), and the most ineffective isolate S. feltiae (Aydın isolate) (13.3%).

Keywords

  • Biological control
  • Entomopathogenic nematodes
  • Culex pipiens
  • Larvae
  • Efficacy
  • Turkey
  • Kyrgyzstan

Background

Pests in urban entomology can be described as insects that affect human health. Insects in urban entomology include cockroaches, ants, termites, houseflies, ticks, insects and mites, bedbugs, lice, and mosquitoes (Robinson 2005).

Mosquitoes are one of the most important urban pests that belong to the Culicidae family of the Nematocera suborder. These pests are found in temperate and tropical regions of the world, except the polar regions (Lancaster and Briers 2008). These pests not only disturb people but they are also an important health hazard as diseases’ vectors that spread malaria, dengue, yellow fever, and an important virus of the recent years Zika (Epstein et al. 1998). There are 112 genera and 3539 species belonging to the Anophelinae and Culicinae subfamilies of the Culicidae family (Harbach 2014). About 50 species of mosquitoes have been identified in Turkey until today (Muslu et al. 2011). Six mosquito species, including Culex pipiens Linnaeus, 1758; C. martini Medschid, 1930; C. deserticola Kirkpatrick, 1924; Aedes caspius Pallas, 1771; Anopheles superpictus Grassi, 1899; and Culiseta longiareolata Macquart, 1838, were found in Antalya; the dominant type was identified as C. pipiens (Çetin and Yanıkoğlu 2004).

Control methods against mosquitos’ larvae include mechanical, biological, chemical, and an integrated approach where all of the above are used (Alten and Çağlar 1998). The chemical control targeted both larvae and adults, but larvae being the important ones. These pests live in water at all stages, except the adult stage. Today, insecticides used as larvicides are of biological origin, but they are very limited in number. Because of the environmental problems caused by insecticides and the effects of non-target organisms, alternative methods of combating these pests are sought. For a sustainable environment, the importance of biological control is increasing among these applications. But unfortunately, the high price of these biological agents at the moment makes it difficult for their broader implementation in the systems of production (Laznik and Trdan 2011).

One of the most successful groups of biological agents for controlling soil insect pests is the entomopathogenic nematodes (EPNs) in the families Steinernematidae and Heterorhabditidae. Nematodes in both families are obligate insect-parasitic organisms that are mutualistically associated with bacteria from the genera Photorhabdus (heterorhabditids) and Xenorhabdus (steinernematids), which are carried within the nematode digestive tracts (Kaya and Gaugler 1993). Nematodes in the infective juvenile (IJ) stages search for an adequate host in the soil and enter the insect host through natural openings (mouth, anus, and spiracles) or through the cuticle. The symbiotic bacteria are then released into the insect hemocoel (Dowds and Peters 2002) at which point the bacteria multiply and produce toxins. The nematodes also contribute to this process, and insect host is killed within 48 h by septicemia and toxemia (Kaya and Stock 1997; Duchaud et al. 2003). Once nutrients within the insect cadaver are exhausted, progeny nematodes develop into the IJ stages and emerge from the cadaver into the soil to search for another host (Griffin et al. 2005). A total of 86 species of EPN have been identified worldwide (64 belonging to Steinernema, 1 to Neosteinernema, and 21 to Heterorhabditis) (Kepenekci 2014).

The first EPN belonging to the genus Steinernema, detected in Turkey, in soil samples collected from Rize (Turkey), was identified by Özer et al. (1995) as S. feltiae. Kepenekci et al. (1999) identified the first nematode in Turkey from the genus Heterorhabditis as H. bacteriophora, which was found in an Aelia population (Aelia rostrata Boh.) collected from Ekecik (Aksaray, Turkey) winter quarters. To utilize EPNs in the biological control of pathogens in Turkey, the principal species and hosts, present, should be determined. Although several surveys have been conducted on this subject, there is not yet sufficient information (Kepenekci and Atay 2014).

Narksuwan et al. (2004) tested the EPNs S. carpocapsae (Weiser), S. siamkayai, S. feltiae, H. indica, and H. bacteriophora against Aedes aegypti (L.), Culex quinquefasciatus, C. gelidus, Anopheles dirus, and A. minimus mosquito species, and all of them were successfully suppressed A. aegypti (L.), C. quinquefasciatus, C. gelidus species (Edmunds et al. 2017). Kepenekci et al. (2014) evaluated the efficacy of S. feltiae, S. carpocapsae, S. kraussei, and H. bacteriophora against Chironomidae family members in their study. They determined that these EPN species could survive for up to 96 h in water and even after that they could parasitize the larvae of Chironomus plumosus. They caused more than 20% mortality after 24 h.

In this study, efficacy of five EPN species, isolated from Kyrgyzstan and Turkey, was evaluated against C. pipiens larvae collected from the stagnant waters in paddy fields at Samsun (Turkey)’s Bafra province under laboratory conditions.

Materials and methods

The experiment was carried out at the Entomology Laboratory of Ondokuz Mayıs University (Samsun, Turkey). Five different EPN species were applied to the larvae of C. pipiens. The experiment was carried out in six replications and two repetitions.

Nematode sources

Five Turkish and Kyrgyz EPN isolates, Steinernema feltiae (Aydin isolate) from a vegetable garden in Aydın, S. carpocapsae (Karadeniz isolate) from a grassland in Rize, and Heterorhabditis bacteriophora (Aydın isolate) from a peach orchard in Aydın (Turkey), were obtained from the Entomopathogenic Nematode Laboratory of Adnan Menderes University (Aydın, Turkey). S. feltiae (KG3) from an apricot orchard in Talas and H. bacteriophora (KG81) from a potato field in Tokmok (Kyrgyzstan) were also obtained from the Nematology and Taxonomy Laboratory of Gaziosmanpaşa University (Tokat, Turkey).

Production of nematodes

Last instar larvae of the greater wax moth (Galleria mellonella L., Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) was used to culture the nematodes at room temperature (23–24 °C) as described by Kaya and Stock (1997). The new-generation IJs emerged from cadavers were harvested from nematode-infected larvae which were placed on white traps (White 1927). IJs were collected and rinsed three times in sterile distilled water. Using a tetrapack juice box, each species was kept separately before refrigerating at 10 °C (Gülcü and Hazir 2012). The harvested IJs were used within 2 weeks after emergence for the experiments.

Production of Culex pipiens

Third and fourth larval instars of C. pipiens were collected from the stagnant water deposits in paddy fields located in the province of Bafra in Samsun (Turkey). The larvae were placed into 10 × 10 × 10 cm containers and 10 larvae were placed in each one. The larvae were fed fishmeal to survive. Identification of mosquitoes brought to the laboratory was carried out by Prof. Dr. İzzet AKÇA (Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey).

Bioassay

Each EPN species was applied at three concentrations (500, 1000, and 1500 IJs ml−1) (approximately 7.5, 15, and 30 IJs cm2) at 25 °C temperatures. One milliliter of distilled water without nematode was used as control. Each plastic container contained moistened filter paper on the bottom. The studies were conducted at the Entomological Laboratory of Ondokuz Mayıs Univ. in Samsun. Plastic containers were placed in incubators adjusted at 25 ± 1 °C temperatures and 90 ± 5% R.H. The data for mortality was recorded after 24-, 48-, 72-, 96-, and 120-h intervals. Dead insects were dissected under a stereomicroscope to verify that they were killed by the nematodes.

Statistical analysis

One-way ANOVA was used to compare mortality rates of C. pipiens treatments. Means were compared at the P < 0.05 level, and Tukey’s test was used to separate means. Serial time-mortality data from bioassays were analyzed by probit analysis program (SPSS, Version 21) to calculate 50% lethal concentration (LC50) and 90% lethal concentration (LC90).

Results and discussion

The efficacy of five different EPN isolates and three EPN species [Steinernema feltiae (Aydın isolate), S. carpocapsae (Karadeniz isolate), and Heterorhabditis bacteriophora (Aydın isolate) isolated from Turkey and S. feltiae (KG3) and H. bacteriophora (KG81) from Kyrgyzstan] on C. pipiens was determined. When counts were taken 24 h after inoculation of the EPNs, H. bacteriophora (KG81) 1500 ml−1 was found to have the highest effect (43.33%). The difference was statistically significant when compared to the control and other concentrations, while no deaths were observed in any concentration of the S. feltiae (Aydın isolate) and in the control group. Deaths in other isolates and concentrations were observed at different rates. After 48 h from inoculation, it was determined that the most effective concentrations and preparations were H. bacteriophora (KG81) 1500 ml−1 (56.67%), followed by the same isolates 500 ml−1 (40.00%), S. carpocapsae (Karadeniz isolate) 1000 ml−1, and S. feltiae (KG3) 500 ml−1 (33.33%). After 72 h, a mortality rate of up to 90% was determined. H. bacteriophora (KG81) (500 ml−1) was found to be the most effective concentration and preparation. Very little efficacy was determined in all the concentrations of S. feltiae (Aydın isolate) isolate. The first 100% mortality rate was recorded 96 h post treatment at the concentration of 1500 ml− 1 for S. carpocapsae (Karadeniz isolate) isolate which was determined to be the most effective one, followed by 500, 1000, and 1500 ml−1 concentrations of the H. bacteriophora (KG81), respectively. According to the results obtained by the end of the experiment (120 h), 100% mortality rate at the concentration of 1500 ml−1 for S. carpocapsae (Karadeniz isolate) and for H. bacteriophora (KG81) at concentrations 500, 1000, and 1500 ml−1 was found. This was followed by isolates and a concentration of 1500 ml−1 for H. bacteriophora and S. feltiae, respectively. The lowest mortality rate was determined at 500 ml−1, 1000 ml−1 and 1500 ml−1 concentrations of S. feltiae (Aydın isolate) isolate. At least 50% mortality rate was detected in other concentrations and preparations (Table 1). In addition, the mortality rates at the LC50 and LC90 values are shown in Table 2.
Table 1

Effect of entomopathogenic nematode isolates on mortality of Culex pipiens

Entomopathogenic nematodes/concentration

Mortality % (hours)

24

48

72

96

120

H.b Aydın

 500*

0.00 ± 0.00f

10.00 ± 4.49ef

30.00 ± 4.49cd

36.67 ± 3.35e

53.33 ± 4.23ef

 1000

0.00 ± 0.00f

20.00 ± 0.00de

26.67 ± 4.23d

40.00 ± 0.00e

60.00 ± 0.00de

 1500

6.67 ± 4.23ef

26.67 ± 4.23cd

43.33 ± 6.17b

60.00 ± 0.00bc

70.00 ± 4.49ac

H.b KG81

 500

13.33 ± 6.69de

40.00 ± 7.33b

90.00 ± 4.49a

93.33 ± 4.23a

100.00 ± 0.00a

 1000

23.33 ± 3.35bcd

30.00 ± 4.49bcd

50.00 ± 8.60b

93.33 ± 4.23a

100.00 ± 0.00a

 1500

43.33 ± 6.17a

56.67 ± 3.35a

86.67 ± 6.69a

96.67 ± 3.35a

100.00 ± 0.00a

S.c K

 500

13.33 ± 4.23de

26.67 ± 4.23cd

43.33 ± 3.35b

50.00 ± 4.49 d

53.33 ± 4.23ef

 1000

33.33 ± 6.69ab

33.33 ± 6.69bc

50.00 ± 4.49b

56.67 ± 6.17cd

90.00 ± 6.86b

 1500

30.00 ± 4.49bc

30.00 ± 4.49bcd

50.00 ± 4.49b

100.00 ± 0.00a

100.00 ± 0.00a

S.f Aydın

 500

0.00 ± 0.00f

0.00 ± 0.00f

0.00 ± 0.00e

13.33 ± 4.23f

20.00 ± 0.00g

 1000

0.00 ± 0.00f

3.33 ± 3.35f

10.00 ± 4.49e

16.67 ± 3.35f

20.00 ± 0.00g

 1500

0.00 ± 0.00f

6.67 ± 4.23f

6.67 ± 4.23e

10.00 ± 4.49f

13.33 ± 4.23g

S.f KG3

 500

13.33 ± 4.23de

33.33 ± 4.23bc

40.00 ± 0.00bc

40.00 ± 0.00e

50.00 ± 4.49f

 1000

20.00 ± 0.00cd

30.00 ± 4.49bcd

36.67 ± 3.35bcd

60.00 ± 0.00bc

60.00 ± 0.00de

 1500

26.67 ± 4.23bc

26.67 ± 4.23cd

40.00 ± 0.00bc

66.67 ± 4.23b

66.67 ± 4.23cd

Control

 500

0.00 ± 0.00f

0.00 ± 0.00f

0.00 ± 0.00e

0.00 ± 0.00g

0.00 ± 0.00h

 1000

0.00 ± 0.00f

0.00 ± 0.00f

0.00 ± 0.00e

0.00 ± 0.00g

0.00 ± 0.00h

 1500

0.00 ± 0.00f

0.00 ± 0.00f

0.00 ± 0.00e

0.00 ± 0.00g

0.00 ± 0.00h

 

F (1.25) = 15.50

F (1.25) = 17.15

F (1.25) = 43.74

F (1.25) = 119.94

F (1.25) = 154.12

Values followed by different letters in the same column differ significantly at P < 0.05 according to Tukey’s test

*Steinernema feltiae (Aydın isolate) (S.f Aydın), S. feltiae (S.f KG3), and S. carpocapsae (Karadeniz isolate) (S.c K) and Heterorhabditis bacteriophora (H.b Aydın) and H. bacteriophora (H.b KG81) from Kyrgyzstan

Table 2

LC50 and LC90 for Culex pipiens treated with entomopathogenic nematode isolates

Entomopathogenic nematodes

Concentration

LC50

LC90

Heterorhabditis bacteriophora (KG81)

500

3.22

4.35

1000

3.47

5.61

1500

2.20

4.52

H. bacteriophora (Aydın isolate)

500

5.15

7.13

1000

5.15

7.46

1500

4.33

6.46

Steinernema feltiae (KG3)

500

3.47

5.61

1000

4.44

7.20

1500

4.23

6.90

S. feltiae (Aydın isolate)

500

5.78

6.68

1000

6.77

9.26

1500

8.47

12.28

S. carpocapsae (Karadeniz isolate)

500

4.60

7.30

1000

4.27

7.97

1500

3.30

5.35

As a result, the effectiveness of H. bacteriophora (KG81), S. feltiae (KG3), S. feltiae (Aydın isolate), S. carpocapsae (Karadeniz isolate), and H. bacteriophora (Aydın isolate) species against C. pipiens larvae was determined, even if at different rates. Especially after 120 h, 100% mortality rates were recorded.

Chaudhary et al. (2017) found that S. kraussie and H. bacteriophora were the most effective EPNs between 20 and 30 °C in a study on the mortality of A. aegypti in two different concentrations and three different temperature environments. At 100 IJs, concentration of S. kraussie and A. aegypti was found to have 100% mortality at 48 and 96 h. H. bacteriophora was found to have 100% mortality rate at 30 °C with 100 IJs concentration after 96 h. In the present study, the KG81 isolate caused 93.33–96.67% death after 96 h. Oğuzoğlu and Özer (2007) recorded low mortality rate of S. feltiae (Karadeniz isolate) and one isolate belonging to H. bacteriophora, collected from Turkey, on A. aegypti which agrees with the obtained results on C. pipiens. In another study, Peschiutta et al. (2014) analyzed the effectiveness of H. bacteriophora on A. aegypti and found a mortality rate of up to 84%. Obtained data of Kyrgyzstan and Aydın isolates of H. bacteriophora was effective on C. pipiens.

Cagnolo and Almirón (2010) tested six different concentrations of S. rarum (OLI strain) against the larvae of C. apicinus and recorded that the mortality rate increased as the dose increases. They recorded a 75% mortality rate at a 400:1 dose at 25 °C. Pandii et al. (2008) tested S. carpocapsae and H. indica (local Thai strain) against C. gelidus. S. carpocapsae showed more effectiveness than H. indica. In the present study, 100% mortality rate for S. carpocapsae (Karadeniz isolate) was recorded, especially after 96 and 120 h.

In a study evaluating the efficacy of H. bacteriophora, H. indica, S. carpocapsae, and S. feltiae on C. quinquefasciatus, H. bacteriophora and H. indica were successfully inhibited to C. quinquefasciatus, while S. carpocapsae and S. feltiae showed low mortality rate (Zohdy et al. 2013). In the present study, S. feltiae showed low activity against C. pipiens, whereas H. bacteriophora had the highest effect.

Conclusion

Culex pipiens is a well-known species among the mosquitoes found in Turkey. Entomopathogenic nematodes (EPNs) are among the alternative methods to chemical pesticides that give hopeful results in mosquito control. In recent years, studies regarding these have gained speed around the world as well as in Turkey. The EPNs have been shown to be a fairly good alternative method for controlling C. pipiens. Future field trials are needed to demonstrate their effectiveness under natural conditions.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Prof. Dr. Selçuk Hazır (Adnan Menderes Univ., Fac. of Arts and Sciences, Dept. of Biology, Aydın-Turkey) who supplied the Turkey isolates of EPNs and Prof. Dr. İlker Kepenekci (Gaziosmanpaşa Univ., Fac. of Agriculture, Dept. of Plant Protection, Tokat, Turkey) who supplied the Kyrgyzstan isolates of EPNs.

Funding

No funding

Availability of data and materials

All data are available at the end of the article, and the materials used in this work are of high quality and grade.

Authors’ contributions

ST and IS designed the study, supervised the work, and wrote the manuscript with input from all authors. ST and IS carried out the experiments. IS analyzed the data. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Plant Protection, Ondokuz Mayis University, Atakum, 55139 Samsun, Turkey

References

  1. Alten S B, Çağlar S S (1998) Vektor ekolojisi ve mucadelesi (sıtma vektorunun biyo-ekolojisi mucadele organizasyonu ve yontemleri). Turkish Ministry of Health Bizim Buro Ankara, (in Turkish), 242 pGoogle Scholar
  2. Cagnolo SR, Almirón WR (2010) Capacity of the terrestrial entomopathogenic nematode Steinernema rarum (Rhabditida: Steinernematidae) to parasite Culex apicinus larvae (Diptera: Culicidae). Rev Soc Entomol Argentina 69(1–2):141–145Google Scholar
  3. Çetin H, Yanıkoğlu A (2004) Antalya kentinde bulunan Sivrisinek (Diptera: Culicidae) türleri, üreme alanları ve baskın tür Culex pipiens L.'in bazı özellikleri Mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) species, their breeding sites and some biological aspects of dominant species Culex pipiens L. in Antalya, Turkey. Turkish J Entomol 28(4):283–294Google Scholar
  4. Chaudhary MZ, Majeed S, Tayyib M, Javed N, Farzand A, Moosa A, Shehzad M, Mushtaq F (2017) Antagonistic potential of Steinernema kraussei and Heterorhabditis bacteriophora against dengue fever mosquito Aedes aegypti. J Entomol Zool Stud 5(5):865–869Google Scholar
  5. Dowds BCA, Peters A (2002) Virulence mechanisms. In: Gaugler, R. (Ed.), Entomopathogenic Nematology. CABI Publishing, Oxon, UK, pp 79–98Google Scholar
  6. Duchaud E, Rusniok C, Frangeul L, Buchrieser C, Givaudan A, Taourit S, Dassa E (2003) The genome sequence of the entomopathogenic bacterium Photorhabdus luminescens. Nat Biotechnol 21(11):1307View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Edmunds CV, Wilding CS, Rae R (2017) Susceptibility of Chironomus plumosus larvae (Diptera: Chironomidae) to entomopathogenic nematodes (Rhabditida: Steinernematidae and Heterorhabditidae): potential for control. Eur J Entomol 114:526–532View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Epstein PR, Diaz HF, Elias S, Grabherr G, Graham NE, Martens WJ, Susskind J (1998) Biological and physical signs of climate change: focus on mosquito-borne diseases. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 79(3):409–417View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Griffin CT, Boemare NE, Lewıs EE (2005) In: Grewal PS, Ehlers RU, Shapiro-Ilan DI (eds) Biology and behaviour. In: Nematodes as biocontrol agents. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp 47–59View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Gülcü B, Hazir S (2012) An alternative storage method for entomopathogenic nematodes. Turkish Journal of Zoology 36(4):562–565Google Scholar
  11. Harbach R E (2014) Mosquito taxonomic inventory. ht tp. Mosquito-taxonomic-inventory. Info/valid-species-list (Accessed 17 May 2018)Google Scholar
  12. Kaya HK, Gaugler R (1993) Entomopathogenic nematodes. Annu Rev Ent 38:181–206View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Kaya HK, Stock SP (1997) Techniques in insect nematology. In: Lacey L (ed) Manual of techniques in insect pathology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 281–324View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Kepenekci I (2014) Entomopathogenic nematodes (Steinernematidae, Heterorhabditidae: Rhabditida) of Turkey. Pak J Nematol 32(1):59–65Google Scholar
  15. Kepenekci I, Atay T (2014) Evaluation of aqueous suspension and entomopathogenic nematodes infected cadaver applications against the great spruce bark beetle Dendroctonus micans (Kugelann),(Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Egypt J Biol Pest Contr 24(2):335Google Scholar
  16. Kepenekci İ, Babaroğlu N E, Öztürk G, S Halıcı (1999) Türkiye için yeni bir Entomopatojen nematod Heterorhabditis bacteriophora Poinar 1976 (Rhabditida: Heterorhabditidae). 4. Biyolojik Mücadele Kongresi, Adana, 587–596Google Scholar
  17. Kepenekci İ, Tülek A, Erdoğuş D, Evlice E, Toktay H, Devran Z, Hazır S (2014) Türkiye Ayrıntılı Nematoloji Bibliyografyası (1934–2014), Nematoloji'de 80 yıl. ISBN: 978-605-4627-63-9, Siyasal Kitabevi, 444Google Scholar
  18. Lancaster J, Briers R A (Eds.) (2008) Aquatic Insects: Challenges to Populations: Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society's 24th Symposium. CABI. 332 pGoogle Scholar
  19. Laznik Ž, Trdan S (2011) Entomopathogenic nematodes (Nematoda: Rhabditida) in Slovenia: from tabula rasa to implementation into crop production systems. In: PERVEEN F (ed) Insecticides - advances in integrated pest management. InTech, Rijeka, pp 627–656Google Scholar
  20. Muslu H, Özgür T, Özbilgin A (2011) Evaluation of mosquito species (Diptera: Culicidae) identified in Manisa province according to their breeding sites and seasonal differences. Türkiye Parazitolojii Dergisi 35(2):100PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Narksuwan M, Rojanawatsirivet C, Buafeungklin A (2004) Biological control of mosquitoes larvae by using entomopathogenic nematodes. Disease Control J 30:158–166Google Scholar
  22. Oğuzoğlu I, Özer N (2007) Bioassays of entomopathogen nematode Steinernema feltiae all type (Rhabditida: Steinernematidae) and Heterorhabditis bacteriophora Tur-H2 (Rhabditida: Heterorhabditidae). Hacettepe J Biol Chem 35(1):39–44Google Scholar
  23. Özer N, Keskin N, Kırbaş Z (1995) Occurrence of entomopathogenic nematodes (Steinernematidae: Heterorhabditidae) in Turkey. Nematologica 41:639–640View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Pandii W, Maharmart S, Boonchuen S, Silapanuntakul S, Somsook V (2008) Efficacy of entomopathogenic nematodes (Nematoda: Rhabditida) against Culex gelidus (Diptera: Culicidae) larvae. J Vect Borne Dis 5:24–35Google Scholar
  25. Peschiutta ML, Cagnolo SR, Almirón WR (2014) Susceptibilidad de larvas de Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus)(Diptera: Culicidae) al nematodo entomopatógeno Heterorhabditis bacteriophora (Poinar)(Rhabditida: Heterorhabditidae). Rev Soc Entomol Argentina 73(3–4):99–108Google Scholar
  26. Robinson WH (2005) Urban insects and arachnids: a handbook of urban entomology. Cambridge University Press, UK, 490 pGoogle Scholar
  27. White GF (1927) A method for obtaining infective nematode larvae from cultures. Science 66:302–303View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Zohdy N, Shamseldean M, El-Samiee EA, Hamama HM (2013) Efficacy of the Steinernematid and Heterorhabditid nematodes for controlling the mosquito, Culex quinquefasciatus Say (Diptera: Culicidae). J Mosquito Res 3(1):33–44Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2018

Advertisement