Abstract Integrating entomopathogenic fungi (EPF) into crop protection programs requires ensuring their compatibility with insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides to enable simultaneous applications and reduce operational costs. Compatibility is typically assessed by incorporating pesticides into growth media and measuring toxicity through germination, growth, and sporulation (Biological Index). However, field applications mainly expose conidia directly to pesticides, potentially leading to mismatches between laboratory and real-world outcomes. Here, we evaluated the compatibility of 5 fungicides (copper oxychloride, fosetyl + proamocarb, potassium phosphonate, difenoconazole, and fluopyram + tebuconazole) and 4 herbicides (diflufenican, oxyfluorfen, MCPA, and glyphosate) with 2 virulent EPF strains (Metarhizium brunneum and Beauveria bassiana) selected for efficacy against olive fruit fly, Bactrocera oleae (Rossi) (Diptera: Tephritidae), comparing the conventional medium-amendment approach (MAA) with a direct conidial-pesticide mixture method (CPM), and relating both to in vivo biological activity. For M. brunneum, only one of 4 herbicides was compatible using MAA, whereas CPM classified all 4 as compatible. Of the 5 fungicides, MAA classified 3 as compatible and 2 as toxic, while CPM classified 3 as compatible and 2 as moderately toxic. In vivo bioassays using adults of the tephritid model Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) indicated that CPM results aligned more closely with observed efficacy. B. bassiana showed similar results, with lower virulence and fungicide compatibility, and CPM again better reflecting in vivo biological activity. Overall, results suggest that CPM may provide a more realistic approach than MAA for assessing EPF compatibility with agrochemicals and could facilitate EPF integration into crop protection.
Bouketta et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: