APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY, July 2008, p.

43814389
0099-2240/08/$08.000 doi:10.1128/AEM.00484-08
Copyright 2008, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Vol. 74, No. 14

Effectiveness of Bacillus thuringiensis-Transgenic Chickpeas and the

Entomopathogenic Fungus Metarhizium anisopliae in Controlling
Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)
N. C. Lawo,1,4 R. J. Mahon,2 R. J. Milner,2 B. K. Sarmah,3 T. J. V. Higgins,4 and J. Romeis1*
Agroscope Reckenholz-Ta
nikon Research Station ART, Reckenholzstr. 191, 8046 Zurich, Switzerland1; CSIRO Entomology,
GPO Box 1700, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia2; Department of Agricultural Biotechnology, Assam Agricultural University,
Jorhat 785 013, India3; and CSIRO Plant Industry, GPO Box 1600, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia4
Received 28 February 2008/Accepted 10 May 2008

The use of genetically modified (Bt) crops expressing lepidopteran-specific Cry proteins derived from the soil
bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis is an effective method to control the polyphagous pest Helicoverpa armigera. As
H. armigera potentially develops resistance to Cry proteins, Bt crops should be regarded as one tool in
integrated pest management. Therefore, they should be compatible with biological control. Bioassays were
conducted to understand the interactions between a Cry2Aa-expressing chickpea line, either a susceptible or
a Cry2A-resistant H. armigera strain, and the entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium anisopliae. In a first
concentration-response assay, Cry2A-resistant larvae were more tolerant of M. anisopliae than susceptible
larvae, while in a second bioassay, the fungus caused similar mortalities in the two strains fed control chickpea
leaves. Thus, resistance to Cry2A did not cause any fitness costs that became visible as increased susceptibility
to the fungus. On Bt chickpea leaves, susceptible H. armigera larvae were more sensitive to M. anisopliae than
on control leaves. It appeared that sublethal damage induced by the B. thuringiensis toxin enhanced the
effectiveness of M. anisopliae. For Cry2A-resistant larvae, the mortalities caused by the fungus were similar
when they were fed either food source. To examine which strain would be more likely to be exposed to the
fungus, their movements on control and Bt chickpea plants were compared. Movement did not appear to differ
among larvae on Bt or conventional chickpeas, as indicated by the number of leaflets damaged per leaf. The
findings suggest that Bt chickpeas and M. anisopliae are compatible to control H. armigera.
component of integrated pest management programs, with
many environmental, economic, and health benefits (34, 35).
As with cotton, the expression of B. thuringiensis cry genes is
an option to protect chickpeas from damage by H. armigera
(41). Chickpea plants that express either Cry1Ac or Cry2Aa, or
both proteins, are currently under development and could become commercially available in the future (28, 43).
The deployment of insect-resistant GM plants poses two
potential problems. First, the target pest may develop resistance to the expressed insecticidal protein(s) due to the strong
and continued selection pressure imposed on the insect populations (16, 48, 49). This is particularly the case for H. armigera, for which populations resistant to single Cry proteins
have been selected in the laboratory (9). To manage insect
resistance development, the use of high-dose-expressing Bt
plants, along with an adjacent refuge of non-Bt plants, is considered to be the most effective strategy (9, 49). Most resistance alleles are recessive, and the frequency of such alleles in
pest populations is generally very low before resistance becomes evident (9). However, recently, a relatively high baseline
frequency of resistance alleles for Cry2Ab (0.0033) has been
reported in an Australian H. armigera population prior to the
widespread adoption of Bollgard II (Monsanto Company, St.
Louis, MO) cotton, which expresses this protein in combination (pyramided) with Cry1Ac (26, 27).
The second area of concern is the possible effect of insectresistant GM crops on nontarget organisms, especially those
that provide important ecological services, such as biological
control (39, 42). These organisms are important, since they

Helicoverpa armigera (Hu

bner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) is
one of the most important insect pests in the Old World due to
its mobility, high polyphagy, short generation duration, and
high reproductive rate (11, 45). Currently, the application of
chemical spray insecticides is the most common method of
controlling this pest on crops, including cotton (7, 22) and
chickpea (44, 46). H. armigera is known to develop resistance to
almost all the insecticides used for its control (14, 23). These
chemical sprays are also of environmental concern and are
responsible for human health problems (34, 35). Thus, alternative control methods are increasingly being employed. The
use of genetically modified (GM) crops that express insecticidal genes, such as those derived from the soil bacterium
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt crops), provide a powerful option to
control pest Lepidoptera (48). This technology, for example, is
applied to protect cotton plants by the expression of B. thuringiensis cry genes, i.e., cry1Ac and cry2Ab, either alone or in
combination, from damage by the budworm/bollworm complex
[Helicoverpa/Heliothis spp. and Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders)]. These B. thuringiensis-transgenic cotton plants are
highly resistant to damage by lepidopteran pests, and consequently, the application of chemical insecticides has been
greatly reduced (12, 32). This makes Bt cotton a valuable

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Agroscope ReckenholzTanikon Research Station ART, Reckenholzstr. 191, 8046 Zurich,
Switzerland. Phone: 41-44-377 72 99. Fax: 41-44-377 72 01. E-mail:
joerg.romeis@art.admin.ch.

Published ahead of print on 16 May 2008.

4381

4382

LAWO ET AL.

help to keep other herbivores that are not affected by the

insecticidal GM protein under their economic thresholds, but
also because they potentially help to kill target insects that
have developed resistance against the GM trait. Biological
control of arthropods is thus considered during the environmental-risk assessment of insecticidal GM crops (42), and a
great deal of research has been conducted to assess the impact
of B. thuringiensis-transgenic crops on arthropod predators and
parasitoids (40). Overall, studies have not revealed any direct
effects of the B. thuringiensis Cry proteins on natural enemies.
In contrast to arthropod natural enemies, insect pathogens
have received little attention. This needs to be addressed, since
it is known that the activity of entomopathogens is affected by
host plant resistance factors. Hare (19) has compiled a comprehensive literature review of the interactions between host
plants, herbivores, and pathogens. Additive effects of these
interactions were reported in over half of the published studies, while approximately one-third reported synergistic effects.
However, little attention has been given to the interactions of
Bt plants with entomopathogenic fungi, despite evidence that
H. armigera is attacked by a variety of entomopathogens, such
as Nomuraea rileyi, Beauveria bassiana, and Metarhizium anisopliae (18). Since the application of M. anisopliae is a promising
method to control H. armigera in India (29, 30, 31), it was
selected for our investigations.
To evaluate the complementarity of a pathogen and a Bt
plant for insect pest control, we studied the interaction of the
entomopathogenic fungus M. anisopliae, a susceptible and a
Cry2A-resistant strain of H. armigera, and Cry2Aa-expressing
chickpea plants (transformation line BS 5A). Previous bioassays have shown that this line caused approximately 36% mortality among neonate H. armigera larvae (S. Acharjee, B. K.
Sarmah, P. A. Kumar, K. M. Olsen, R. J. Mahon, W. J. Moar,
A. Moore, and T. J. V. Higgins, unpublished data). This lowcry2Aa-expressing line was chosen in order to examine the
combined effects of M. anisopliae and Bt chickpea plants on the
susceptible H. armigera strain. To determine the responses of
susceptible and Cry2A-resistant H. armigera larvae to M. anisopliae on control (non-Bt) plants, a concentration-response
curve was established. Using this knowledge, we examined
whether the fungus could complement the mortality induced
by the toxin in the Bt plant in laboratory and greenhouse
studies. Subsequently, we evaluated the feeding behavior of
susceptible and Cry2A-resistant H. armigera larvae when exposed to control and Bt chickpeas.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Plants. B. thuringiensis-transgenic chickpea (Cicer arietinum var. Desi) plants
(transformation line BS 5A; families, 5A.6.14.1, 5A.6.17.3, and 5A.6.17.4),
(Acharjee et al., unpublished) expressing a full-length Cry2Aa toxin (Bt plants)
and the corresponding nontransformed near-isoline cv. Semsen (control plants)
were used in the bioassays. Seeds were germinated in a climate chamber at 24C
1C before being planted. The plants were grown individually in sandy soil
(70% compost, 15% sand, 15% perlite) in plastic pots (15 cm in diameter; 14
cm high) at a temperature of 25 to 32C during the day and 15 to 20C at night
with an 12-h photoperiod in the greenhouse. Plants 5 to 8 weeks old were
used in all bioassays.
Expression of Cry2Aa protein in plants. To ensure that presumptive transgenic chickpea plants were expressing the Cry2Aa protein, Western blot analyses
were conducted on a total of 152 plants.
In the laboratory bioassay examining the complementarity of Bt chickpeas and
M. anisopliae, 47 presumptive transgenic plants of the families used in the

APPL. ENVIRON. MICROBIOL.

FIG. 1. Western blot of chickpea leaf proteins (40 g per lane).

Lane 6H contained protein from a high-expressing line that caused
98% mortality in H. armigera larvae, lane C contained protein from a
nontransgenic chickpea leaf, and lanes 1 to 7 contained proteins from
individual Bt chickpea plants used in the bioassays. The numbers on
the y axis (Mr) refer to the relative molecular masses of markers (103).
The arrow indicates the position of full-length Cry2Aa protein.

bioassay were analyzed. In 6% of the plants, no Cry2Aa protein could be detected. Because of the presence of nonexpressors, all transgenic plants were
tested before use in subsequent bioassays. A two- to threefold variation in
expression of the Cry2Aa toxin among expressors was also observed (Fig. 1).
Leaves of untransformed chickpea plants were used as a negative control,
while a high-expressing line, BS 6H, which caused 98% mortality in H. armigera
larvae (Acharjee et al., unpublished) was used as a positive control. Protein was
extracted from 80 to 100 mg of a young, fully expanded leaf into 400 l of
extraction buffer {0.1 M TES (N-tris[hydroxymethyl]methyl-2-aminoethane-sulfonic acid) (Sigma catalog no. T-5691) pH 7.6, 0.2 M NaCl, 1 mM PMSF, 1 mM
EDTA}. The suspension was centrifuged at 13,000 rpm for 5 min, and the
resultant supernatant was used for protein determination (6). Forty micrograms
of protein (with disulfide bonds reduced in the presence of -mercaptoethanol)
from each sample was separated by size fractionation in a NuPage precast 10%
Bis-Tris polyacrylamide gel system (Invitrogen catalog no. NP0315), using a
MOPS (morpholinepropanesulfonic acid)-sodium dodecyl sulfate running buffer
(50 mM MOPS, 50 mM Tris base, 3.5 mM sodium dodecyl sulfate, 1 mM
EDTA). The protein was transferred electrophoretically to a nitrocellulose membrane (200 mA for 90 min) using transfer buffer (25 mM Bicine, 25 mM Bis-Tris,
1 mM EDTA, 10% methanol). The nitrocellulose membrane was blocked in
Tris-buffered saline solution (20 mM Tris, pH 7.5, 0.5 M NaCl) and 5% skim milk
powder for 1 h. The membrane was washed in Tris-buffered saline solution and
0.1% Tween 20 (TTBS). The primary anti-Cry2Aa antibody, raised in rabbit, was
diluted in TTBS and incubated with the membrane for 1 h before being washed
briefly with TTBS. The secondary antibody, anti-rabbit immunoglobulin G (Fc)alkaline phosphatase conjugate (Promega catalog no. S3731), was diluted in
TTBS and incubated with the membrane for 1 h before being washed briefly in
TTBS. Cry2Aa protein bands were detected by the addition of BCIP (5-bromo4-chloro-3-indolylphosphate)/Nitro Blue Tetrazolium substrate (Sigma catalog
no. B5655).
Insect material. Strains of susceptible and Cry2A-resistant H. armigera were
provided by CSIRO Entomology, Canberra, Australia. The Cry2A-resistant
strain (SP15) was established from a single H. armigera pair collected as eggs on
corn near Griffith, NSW (27). To maintain fitness vigor, the Cry2A-resistant
strain was outcrossed with a susceptible strain (GR). After three outcrosses to
the susceptible strain, the Cry2A-resistant colony was genetically very similar
(87% isogenic) to the susceptible strain (with the exception of the linkage group
containing the gene conferring resistance) (27).
Larvae were reared as described by Teakle and Jensen (50), except that three
or four neonates were kept in each well (3 cm by 3 cm by 2 cm) of a 32-well
plastic tray (Oliver Products Company, Grand Rapids, MI) until they reached
the third instar. Subsequently, the larvae were separated and kept in individual
wells on a fresh diet. Larvae used to evaluate the sensitivity of H. armigera to M.
anisopliae were treated as described above. For bioassays involving Bt chickpea
plants, 50 neonates were reared in plastic boxes (12 cm in diameter; 6 cm high)
on control chickpea leaves (10 to 12 weeks old) until they reached the third
instar. Two pieces (ca. 5 ml) of 2% agar were included in the box to raise the
humidity in order to limit leaf desiccation. The larvae were refed after 2 or 3 days
if necessary. Early-third-instar larvae were used in all bioassays. Adults were
housed as described by Mahon et al. (26).
Fungus. M. anisopliae var. anisopliae (FI-1248) from the CSIRO Insect Pathogen Culture collection was used in the experiments. The strain was originally
isolated from a termite, Mastotermes darwiniensis, collected near Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia, in 1997. M. anisopliae was grown on Oxoid Sabourauds

VOL. 74, 2008

Bt CHICKPEA AND M. ANISOPLIAE FOR H. ARMIGERA CONTROL

dextrose agar plus 1% yeast extract for 3 weeks at 24C under natural daylight
conditions. Spores were harvested by scraping them from the agar surface using
a loop and stored at 4C until they were used. Clumps of spores were then
dispersed in 0.5% Tween 80 using a magnetic stirrer for 1 h. The concentration
of conidia was estimated using a Petroff-Hausser counting chamber (Hausser
Scientific Partnership, Horsham, PA; 1/400 mm2; 0.02 mm deep). The initial
suspension was serially diluted with 0.5% Tween 80 to the concentrations used in
the experiments.
Prior to each bioassay, a sample of spores was taken to determine viability by
germinating conidia on thin plates of Sabourauds dextrose agar with 0.1%
chloramphenicol. A droplet of spore suspension (107 spores/ml) was pipetted
onto the plate, covered with a thin coverslip, and incubated at 28C in the dark
for 24 h. The plate was examined using a phase-contrast microscope (Leitz,
Wetzlar, Germany) at 400 magnification. One hundred spores were examined
at three locations on each plate and scored as either germinated (viable) or not
germinated (dead). A spore was considered to have germinated if the germ tube
was clearly visible. Germination was 90% in all bioassays.
Sensitivities of susceptible and Cry2A-resistant H. armigera larvae to M.
anisopliae: first laboratory bioassay. Control chickpea leaves (8 leaflets each)
were dipped into six M. anisopliae Tween 80-based spore suspensions prepared
as fivefold serial dilutions ranging from 9.6 105 to 3 109 spores/ml. A 0.5%
Tween 80 solution was used as a control. The dipped chickpea leaves were placed
on the surface of 4 to 5 ml cooled 2% agar in wells of 32-well plastic trays. After
2 to 3 h of exposure to air (to allow the leaves to dry), a single early-third-instar
H. armigera larva was placed on each leaf. The trays were then heat sealed with
a vented acetate cover and maintained at 28C 1C. To give the fungus optimal
conditions for germination, the trays were wrapped in damp tissues and enclosed
in a plastic bag to provide a humid environment for the first 24 h. On days 2, 4,
and 6, dead larvae were removed and fresh untreated leaves (8 to 10 leaflets
each) were provided to each living larva. On day 8, survivors from each treatment
were pooled, and their fresh weight and larval stage were recorded. Dead larvae
were incubated at 28C and 90% rH for up to 10 days and examined regularly
for evidence of conidial growth. The bioassay was repeated twice, resulting in the
exposure of a total of 55 to 61 larvae to each spore concentration. Slopes,
intercepts, and 50% lethal concentration (LC50) estimates for the two H. armigera strains were calculated using the software package POLO-PC (LeOra
Software, Berkeley, CA).
Bt chickpeas and M. anisopliae in combination to control H. armigera. (i)
Second laboratory bioassay. Control and Bt chickpea leaves (eight leaflets each)
were dipped either in a Tween 80-based suspension of a low (L) spore suspension (1.2 108 spores/ml), in a medium (M) spore suspension (5.7 108
spores/ml), or in 0.5% Tween 80 (0) as a control. The L and M spore suspensions
were chosen to lie approximately midway between the LC30s (L) or LC50s (M) of
the two H. armigera strains, respectively, as determined in the concentrationresponse assay. The bioassays were set up as described above, except that the
larvae used in the experiments were reared on control chickpea leaves until they
reached the third instar. The larvae were fed with eight leaflets each (four leaflets
each from two plants to provide a mixture of plants that might have different
expression levels). The leaves were changed on days 2, 4, and 6. The parameters
assessed were larval survival, weight, and instar after 8 days and the proportion
of larvae producing M. anisopliae spores. The bioassay was repeated four times,
with 30 to 32 larvae tested at each spore concentration.
Larval survival was analyzed using the Cox proportional-hazard model. Bonferroni-Holm correction was performed when required. Each run was analyzed
separately, comparing the fungus treatments (L and M) and the controls (susceptible/Cry2A-resistant strain on control/Bt leaves with no fungus application).
Where no larvae died in a control group, one additional dead larva was added to
each treatment to enable statistical analysis. This procedure was necessary for
susceptible larvae, run B on control plants, and for Cry2A-resistant larvae, runs
C and D on Bt plants. Data on larval weights after 8 days of feeding were checked
for normality and homogeneity of variances prior to analysis. Since all assumptions were met, the data were analyzed for all repeated experiments (runs),
together with a three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (factors: plant, fungus,
and H. armigera strain; n 125 to 128). For all tests, the -level was set at 5%.
Statistical analyses were conducted using the software package Statistica (version
6; StatSoft Inc., Tulsa, OK).
(ii) Greenhouse bioassay. Half of the available control and Bt chickpea plants
were sprayed until runoff with an M. anisopliae spore suspension containing 5.4
108 spores/ml. The remainder were sprayed with 0.5% Tween 80 as a control.
After the plants were allowed to dry for 1 h, 10 susceptible early-third-instar
larvae were placed on each plant, each on a separate leaf. The plants were then
enclosed in a cloth bag, which was sealed to the pot to ensure that the larvae
could not escape. To provide humid conditions, the plants were enclosed in a

4383

plastic bag for the first 24 h. The plants were watered every 2 days by placing the
pots into water-filled dishes (17 cm in diameter; 2 cm deep) for 2 to 3 h. The
mortality of the larvae was evaluated after 10 days. In total, three to five plants
were used for each of the four treatments. The plants were placed at randomized
positions in the greenhouse. During the experiment, the greenhouse temperature
varied between 15C and 35C with an 12-h photoperiod and 40% rH.
Feeding behavior of susceptible and Cry2A-resistant H. armigera larvae on
control and Bt chickpeas. Control or Bt chickpea leaves of similar sizes and
structures (10 leaflets each) were placed in petri dishes (9 cm in diameter; 2 cm
high). Subsequently, one early-third-instar H. armigera larva, either susceptible
or Cry2A resistant, was placed on the lowest leaflet of either control or Bt leaves.
The petri dishes were stored at 25 1C, 40 5% rH, and a 14-h photoperiod.
After 24 h, the larvae were removed and leaf feeding activity was evaluated using
a nine-category scale according to the damage inflicted by the feeding larvae
(categories: 0, 0% damage; 1, 1%; 2, 2 to 5%; 3, 5 to 10%; 4, 10 to 20%; 5, 20
to 30%; 6, 30 to 50%; 7, 50 to 70%; 8, 70 to 80%; 9, 80%). Feces produced
during the exposure period by each larva were collected and stored in a desiccator containing silica gel for at least 24 h before storage at 80C. Samples were
dried further at 50C in an oven for at least 4 days before being weighed on a
microbalance (Mettler Toledo MX5; division, 1 g; tolerance, 2 g). The
experiment was repeated twice, resulting in a total of 32 to 43 larvae per treatment. The data on feeding damage and feces weight were evaluated by KruskalWallis ANOVA, followed by pairwise comparisons using the Mann-Whitney U
test adjusted for ties and Bonferroni-Holm correction. The importance of two
factors, plant (control or Bt) and strain (susceptible or Cry2A-resistant), was
evaluated.

RESULTS
Sensitivities of susceptible and Cry2A-resistant H. armigera
larvae to M. anisopliae: first laboratory bioassay. The concentration response of the two H. armigera strains to M. anisopliae
is given in Fig. 2, and details of the mortality, sporulation,
weight, and larval instar of survivors are shown in Table 1. The
LC50 for the susceptible strain was determined to be 1.9 108
spores/ml (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5 107, 8.1 108),
while for the Cry2A-resistant strain, it was 7.8 108 spores/ml
(95% CI, 4.5 108, 1.3 109). The slope of the line for
susceptible larvae (0.95 0.187) differed significantly from that
of the Cry2A-resistant strain (1.94 0.370; P 0.002).
Bt chickpeas and M. anisopliae in combination to control H.
armigera. (i) Second laboratory bioassay. The performances of
larvae on control and Bt chickpea leaves at different concentrations of fungal spores are shown in Fig. 3. For the control
chickpea leaves, mortality rates in the H. armigera strains were
similar (P 0.05); however, a marked fungus effect (P
0.0001) was observed. For the Bt chickpea leaves, both strain
(P 0.0001) and fungus (P 0.0001) effects were recorded.
The data were thus analyzed separately for each H. armigera
strain. Since larval survival differed significantly between bioassay runs for control and Bt leaves (P 0.003; P 0.018),
each run was evaluated separately (runs A to D in Fig. 3).
While the L spore concentration did not increase mortality
among susceptible H. armigera larvae feeding on control leaves
(P 0.05), a significant increase was observed in two of the
four runs when the larvae were fed Bt leaves (run A, P 0.006;
run C, P 0.0001). In contrast, the M spore concentration
caused a significant level of mortality in susceptible H. armigera
larvae on control leaves in three of the four runs (run A, P
0.009; run B, P 0.001; run D, P 0.033) and in all four runs
on Bt leaves (run A, P 0.035; run B, P 0.022; run C, P
0.0001; run D, P 0.002). Mortality was not increased at the
L spore concentration on control plants in the Cry2A-resistant
strain in any of the runs (P 0.05). The M spore concentration

4384

LAWO ET AL.

APPL. ENVIRON. MICROBIOL.

FIG. 2. Proportions of dead susceptible and Cry2A-resistant H. armigera larvae (95% CI) fed on control chickpea leaves treated with six
different spore concentrations of M. anisopliae differing fivefold (n 55 to 61). Third-instar larvae were treated with the fungus.

caused significant mortality among Cry2A-resistant larvae in

two runs (run A, P 0.009; run B, P 0.005) when control
leaves were fed and in one run (run B, P 0.014) when the
larvae were feeding on Bt leaves.
A three-way ANOVA evaluating the factors fungus (0, L, or
M), H. armigera strain (susceptible or Cry2A resistant), and
plant (control or Bt) indicated that a significant decrease in
larval weight occurred after 8 days due to the factors strain and
plant (P 0.0001). However, the factor fungus did not significantly contribute to this decrease (P 0.05) (Table 2).
(ii) Greenhouse bioassay. The greenhouse bioassay was conducted only with susceptible H. armigera larvae, since the second laboratory bioassays revealed no interaction of Bt plants
and fungal efficacy for the Cry2A-resistant H. armigera strain.
Hardly any larval mortality was observed on the untreated

control plants. Approximately 50% of the H. armigera larvae

died on untreated Bt plants and fungus-treated control plants.
Combining the B. thuringiensis protein and the fungus caused a
mortality rate of 89%. Consequently, the greenhouse bioassay
suggested an additive effect of the B. thuringiensis toxin and the
fungus on the mortality of susceptible H. armigera larvae (Fig.
4). Of the larvae that had fed on fungus-treated leaves, 25 to
100% of the larvae from the control plants and 20 to 86% of
the larvae from the Bt plants produced fungal spores. None of
the dead larvae on the control treatments produced M. anisopliae spores.
Toward the end of the experimental period, an incursion of
an unknown insect pathogen, or perhaps insecticide use in
neighboring glasshouses, caused mortality to insects in all
treatments, including controls. This prevented planned repli-

TABLE 1. Evaluation of the sensitivities of susceptible and Cry2A-resistant H. armigera larvae to M. anisopliaea

Spore concn
(no. of spores/ml)

H. armigera strain

No. of
larvae
exposed

No. of dead
larvae (no.
of larvae
producing
spores)

Mortality
(%)

Distribution of larval instars (%)

Mean wt
(mg)
L3

L4

L5

Susceptible
Cry2A resistant

60
60

6 (0)
6 (0)

10.0
10.0

68.0
77.7

0
0

48.2
37.0

51.9
63.0

9.6 105

Susceptible
Cry2A resistant

59
59

11 (0)
5 (0)

18.6
8.5

68.1
67.2

0
0

51.1
59.3

48.9
40.7

4.8 106

Susceptible
Cry2A resistant

61
61

24 (6)
6 (1)

39.3
9.8

66.7
75.9

0
0

75.7
65.5

24.3
34.6

2.4 107

Susceptible
Cry2A resistant

55
57

19 (6)
8 (2)

34.5
17.0

63.3
83.1

0
0

81.1
69.4

18.9
30.6

1.2 108

Susceptible
Cry2A resistant

59
58

25 (15)
16 (8)

42.4
27.6

59.3
76.9

0
0

88.2
63.4

11.8
36.6

6 108

Susceptible
Cry2A resistant

60
57

37 (27)
26 (24)

61.7
45.6

63.2
72.4

12.0
0

48.0
56.7

40.0
43.3

3 109

Susceptible
Cry2A resistant

59
59

51 (48)
47 (46)

86.4
79.7

51.2
57.9

0
9.1

100
72.7

0
18.2

a
Larvae were exposed to chickpea leaves treated with six different spore concentrations for 2 days, differing fivefold in their spore concentrations. Subsequently, the
larvae were provided with untreated chickpea leaves every other day until day 8. Weight is shown as the mean weight of all survivors per treatment. The larval instar
reached by surviving larvae at the completion of the experiment is given as the percentage of survivors. n 55 to 61.

VOL. 74, 2008

Bt CHICKPEA AND M. ANISOPLIAE FOR H. ARMIGERA CONTROL

4385

FIG. 3. Proportions of dead susceptible and Cry2A-resistant H. armigera larvae (95% CI) fed on control or Bt chickpea leaves treated with
different concentrations of M. anisopliae spores [0 (0.5% Tween 80), L (1.2 108 spores/ml), and M (5.7 108 spores/ml)]. The experiment was
repeated four times (runs A to D) with an n of 30 to 32 per run. Statistical comparisons were made separately for each H. armigera strain and for
control or Bt chickpea leaves. Statistical significances are shown between the fungus treatments (L and M) and the controls (susceptible/Cry2aresistant strains on control/Bt leaves with no fungus application). No control mortality occurred for susceptible larvae in run B and on Bt leaves
for Cry2A-resistant larvae in runs C and D. *, P 0.05; **, P 0.01; ***, P 0.001; Cox proportional-hazard model. Sporulation (percent) in
dead larvae is given for each treatment. Open symbols refer to the control treatments; filled symbols refer to the fungus treatments.

cation of this bioassay. Thus, no statistical analyses were performed.

Feeding behavior of susceptible and Cry2A-resistant H. armigera larvae on control and Bt chickpeas. There was a high
correlation between feeding damage caused by H. armigera
larvae on the chickpea leaves and the weight of feces they
excreted (R2 0.716). For the susceptible H. armigera strain,
leaf damage was significantly higher for control leaves than for
Bt chickpea leaves after 24 h of feeding (P 0.001) (Fig. 5A).
The difference in feeding activities on the two plant types was
also evident in the feces weight measurements (P 0.001)
(Fig. 5B). In contrast, the Cry2A-resistant strain inflicted similar levels of feeding damage (P 0.05) and produced similar
amounts of feces (P 0.05). On control plants, the two strains
inflicted similar levels of leaf damage; however, significantly
more feces were produced by susceptible larvae (P 0.007).

Data for the two experimental runs were combined for the
analysis, since they revealed similar patterns.
No significant difference was observed in the number of
leaflets damaged per leaf provided to the two strains on either
plant type during 24 h (means for the susceptible strain, 8.1 to
9.3 leaflets damaged/leaf; Cry2A-resistant strain, 8.7 to 9.1
leaflets damaged/leaf).

DISCUSSION
Our studies revealed that M. anisopliae is effective at killing
both susceptible and Cry2A-resistant H. armigera larvae on
control and Bt chickpeas and that the number of larvae producing M. anisopliae spores did not differ between the two H.
armigera strains. In some treatments, 20 to 100% of larvae that
were apparently killed by the fungus did not produce fungal

4386

LAWO ET AL.

APPL. ENVIRON. MICROBIOL.

TABLE 2. Weights and developmental stages of susceptible and Cry2A-resistant H. armigera larvae after 8 days of feeding on either control
or Bt chickpea leaves treated with different spore concentrations of M. anisopliaea
Plant

Control

Fungusb

0
L
M

Bt

0
L
M

H. armigera strain

Mean wt (mg) SEc

Distribution of larval instars (%)d

L3

L4

L5

2.5

56.6
52.9
37.2
36.9
34.2
21.8
10.6
51.7
8.9
41.8
21.7
46.0

Susceptible
Cry2A resistant
Susceptible
Cry2A resistant
Susceptible
Cry2A resistant

42.0 0.7 a
45.1 0.5 a
38.6 0.7 a
35.8 0.6 a
34.3 0.7 a
35.6 0.4 a

12.3
5.1

41.0
47.1
57.9
63.1
53.4
73.1

Susceptible
Cry2A resistant
Susceptible
Cry2A resistant
Susceptible
Cry2A resistant

16.8 0.8 b
42.3 0.9 a
28.0 0.2 b
41.7 1.1 a
16.0 0.7 b
37.8 1.1 a

41.2
1.7
37.8
4.5
17.4
3.4

48.2
46.6
53.3
53.6
60.9
50.6

5.0

Data from the four runs (Fig. 3) were pooled (n 125 to 128).
0, control; L, 1.2 108 spores/ml; M, 5.7 108 spores/ml.
Weight is shown as the mean weight of all surviving larvae per treatment. Different letters indicate significant differences (P 0.05) between means of a group (i.e.,
a certain plant and fungus treatment).
d
The larval instar reached after 8 days is given as a percentage of the survivors.
a
b
c

spores. It is known that entomopathogenic fungi can cause

high mortality with little sporulation (47). It was suggested in
earlier studies that the insects were killed by toxins, such as
destruxins, produced by M. anisopliae (21, 51).
The Cry2A-resistant strain of H. armigera appeared to be
more tolerant of M. anisopliae than the susceptible strain in the
concentration-response bioassay in which larvae were fed control chickpea leaves treated with various spore concentrations
of the entomopathogenic fungus. However, this finding was not
confirmed in the second laboratory bioassay, in which larvae
received control or Bt chickpea leaves treated with no fungus
or an L or an M spore concentration. In this bioassay, no
difference in larval susceptibility to M. anisopliae was observed
between the two H. armigera strains while feeding on fungustreated control chickpea leaves.
A number of studies have shown significant fitness costs with
some laboratory-selected B. thuringiensis-resistant strains of
different species of Lepidoptera (2). Fitness costs may be ex-

FIG. 4. Proportions of dead susceptible H. armigera larvae (95%

CI) fed on control or Bt chickpea leaves treated with M. anisopliae
(5.4 108 spores/ml) or 0.5% Tween 80 in the greenhouse. The
mortality of susceptible H. armigera larvae was recorded after 10 days.
n 3 to 5 plants per treatment.

pressed in a variety of forms, e.g., reduced survival rates; diminished fertility, fecundity, and mating ability; and increased
overwintering mortality and developmental rates. For larvae of
a Cry1Ac-resistant strain of H. armigera, a reduced survival
rate and an increased development time on different host
plants were observed (1, 5). These fitness costs can also be
expressed as an increased susceptibility to natural enemies,
such as entomopathogenic nematodes (15) or insect viruses
(38). However, we did not detect a higher susceptibility of
Cry2A-resistant H. armigera larvae to infection by M. anisopliae,
which is supported by the fact that previous studies had revealed that the two H. armigera strains used in our study are
indistinguishable in a number of life table parameters (R. J.
Mahon, unpublished data). Our findings are consistent with
the study by Johnson et al. (20), who did not find a higher
fungal infection rate with N. rileyi in B. thuringiensis-resistant
Heliothis virescens larvae. Likewise, susceptibility to nucleopolyhedrovirus infection was not increased in a B. thuringiensis-resistant Plutella xylostella strain (37) and B. thuringiensis
resistance in larvae of the flour moth Ephestia kuehniella had
no effect on parasitism by an endoparasitoid (36).
Interestingly, a greater susceptibility to M. anisopliae occurred when susceptible H. armigera larvae fed on Bt chickpea
leaves than when they fed on control leaves. On control leaves,
the L spore concentration of the fungus did not cause mortality, while significantly increased mortality (31 to 65%) due to
the M spore concentration was observed in three out of four
bioassays (Fig. 3A, B, and D) (the L spore concentration refers
to the approximate LC30 calculated in the concentration-response curve and the M spore concentration refers to the
LC50). When susceptible H. armigera larvae fed on Bt chickpea
leaves treated with M. anisopliae, an additive effect occurred at
an M spore concentration, with larval mortalities between 53
and 97%, whereas at an L spore concentration, the effect was
more than additive in two out of four bioassays, resulting in 72
and 87% mortality (Fig. 3A and C). Interestingly, this was
observed when the untreated Bt leaves caused little mortality

VOL. 74, 2008

Bt CHICKPEA AND M. ANISOPLIAE FOR H. ARMIGERA CONTROL

4387

FIG. 5. Boxplots showing the distribution of feeding damage (percent; n 32 to 43) (A) and feces weights (g; n 27 to 40) (B) for susceptible
and Cry2A-resistant H. armigera larvae fed for 24 h on control or Bt chickpea leaves. *, P 0.01; **, P 0.001. The nonoutlier range is the range
of values that fall above the upper outlier limit (1.5 the height of the box) and above the below-outlier limit (1.5 the height of the box).

to susceptible H. armigera larvae (9 and 20%). In the two runs

(runs B and D) in which larval mortality was already substantial on the Bt leaves (39 and 59%,) no significant increase in
larval mortality due to an L M. anisopliae spore concentration
was observed (52 and 72%). Varying levels of mortality on Bt
chickpea leaves in susceptible H. armigera larvae probably reflected varying expression levels in the Bt chickpea plants to
which they were exposed. The variation may be due to segregation of at least two copies of the gene present at different loci
(Acharjee et al., unpublished). As the leaves provided to the H.
armigera larvae were always taken from two different plants
during each feeding regime and a weight reduction in survivors
was measured in each experimental run, it can be concluded
that larvae always ingested at least low doses of B. thuringiensis
toxin, which caused sublethal damage that subsequently resulted in the enhanced efficacy of the entomopathogenic fungus. The Cry2A-resistant larvae showed no indication of deleterious effects of very high levels of Cry2Ab toxin and were
cross-resistant to Cry2Aa (27). Therefore, it was not surprising
that mortalities of resistant insects induced by M. anisopliae did
not differ when larvae fed on either control or Bt chickpea
leaves. Once higher-expressing Bt chickpeas are available that
are appropriate for H. armigera control in the field, additional
studies should examine the effect of the entomopathogenic
fungus on Cry2A-resistant larvae in more detail. Those data
would also be valuable in the context of resistance management.
The application of pathogens as a biopesticide in combination with B. thuringiensis-transgenic plants to control pest Lepidoptera has previously been examined in the laboratory. For
susceptible H. virescens larvae, a synergistic effect was observed
between Cry1Ab-expressing tobacco plants and the entomopathogenic fungus N. rileyi (20). Unlike bacteria and viruses, fungi can infect insects not only through the gut, but also
through spiracles and, in particular, through the surface of the
integument (10). This leads to the possibility of infecting insects independently of their feeding activity. A previous study
reported that susceptible larvae of H. virescens moved more
than resistant larvae on B. thuringiensis (Cry1Ab)-expressing

tobacco plants (20). Consequently, when the plants were

treated with a pathogen, susceptible larvae were more likely to
be infected than B. thuringiensis-resistant larvae. Similarly, a
higher level of activity was reported for B. thuringiensis-susceptible Spodoptera exigua larvae when feeding on a B. thuringiensis-containing diet than on a control diet (4). Interestingly, in
some cases of orally active pathogens, such as nucleopolyhedrovirus, antagonistic effects by B. thuringiensis were reported (8, 25, 37). This could be due to the feeding-deterrent
effect of the B. thuringiensis toxin, which reduces the consumption rate of plant material and thus ingestion of the virus.
In our studies, the movements of larvae of both H. armigera
strains were similar on both Bt and non-Bt chickpea leaves, as
indicated by the number of leaflets damaged per leaf. This
finding is supported by behavioral observations made over an
11-h period of the movements of susceptible and Cry2A-resistant larvae on either control or Bt chickpea leaves, which did
not reveal any obvious differences (data not presented). One
possible explanation for the lack of activity differences observed in this study is that the B. thuringiensis expression level
in the chickpea plants employed may have been simply too low
to cause behavioral effects in H. armigera, as has been suggested for H. virescens on low-expressing Bt cotton lines (3).
However, the chickpea plants were clearly expressing at some
level, as susceptible H. armigera larvae caused significantly less
damage to Bt chickpea leaves than to control leaves. In the
case of the Cry2A-resistant strain, no difference in feeding
activity between the plant types was observed. In contrast to
the leaf damage data, our study revealed a difference in feces
production within 24 h by both H. armigera strains while feeding on control chickpea leaves. A reason for this difference is
not obvious, but it could be a discrepancy in food utilization
between strains. If food utilization differences were responsible, one would expect to see differential larval and pupal
weights. However, such differences were not seen when the two
genotypes were fed an artificial diet, cotton or pigeonpea
plants (Mahon, unpublished).
Our laboratory/glasshouse studies with low-expressing Bt
chickpea plants and M. anisopliae have shown that the two

4388

LAWO ET AL.

APPL. ENVIRON. MICROBIOL.

control methods are generally complementary for the control

of H. armigera. Bt chickpea plants that are developed for commercial release will need to provide much greater control than
the plants used in our study. Furthermore, they are likely to
express two Cry proteins that are sufficiently different that
insects resistant to one would still be susceptible to the other.
Such a pyramid of cry genes should provide good control, as
well as reduce the likelihood of the development of resistance
by the target pest (2, 9). Nevertheless, it is likely that some H.
armigera larvae will survive in a Bt chickpea crop. First, we do
not expect that the Bt technology will provide 100% control,
and therefore, occasional susceptible larvae will survive. This
could occur, for example, through selective feeding on lowerexpressing tissues, or the toxin concentration could decline in
chickpea plants after flowering, as has been documented in
cotton crops (13, 24, 33). Secondly, larvae might survive on Bt
chickpeas through possession of a level of tolerance or resistance to the expressed Cry proteins. In both cases, the impact
of natural enemies, such as M. anisopliae, will help to kill
survivors and potentially decrease the speed of resistance development (17, 38).

13.

14.

15.

16.
17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Andy Moore from CSIRO Plant Industry for conducting
the Western blot analyses and the B. thuringiensis resistance group at
CSIRO Entomology for support and advice on Lepidoptera rearing,
especially Su Young, who always knew an easier way.
The study was funded by the Pulse Network of the Indo-Swiss
Collaboration in Biotechnology (ISCB) and the graduate school of the
National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) Plant Survival.

22.

23.

24.

REFERENCES
1. Akhurst, R. J., W. James, L. J. Bird, and C. Beard. 2003. Resistance to
the Cry1Ac -endotoxin of Bacillus thuringiensis in the cotton bollworm,
Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 96:
12901299.
2. Bates, S. L., J.-Z. Zhao, R. T. Roush, and A. M. Shelton. 2005. Insect
resistance management in GM crops: past, present and future. Nat. Biotechnol. 23:5762.
3. Benedict, J. H., D. W. Altman, P. F. Umbeck, and D. R. Ring. 1992. Behavior,
growth, survival, and plant injury by Heliothis virescens (F) (Lepidoptera,
Noctuidae) on transgenic Bt cotton. J. Econ. Entomol. 85:589593.
4. Berdegue, M., J. T. Trumble, and W. J. Moar. 1996. Effect of Cry1C toxin
from Bacillus thuringiensis on larval feeding behavior of Spodoptera exigua.
Entomol. Exp. Appl. 80:389401.
5. Bird, L. J., and R. J. Akhurst. 2007. Effects of host plant species on fitness
costs of Bt resistance in Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Biol.
Contr. 40:196203.
6. Bradford, M. M. 1976. A rapid and sensitive method for the quantification of
microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal. Biochem. 72:248254.
7. Durairay, C., G. V. Subbaratnam, T. V. K. Singh, and T. G. Shanower. 2005.
Helicoverpa in India: spatial and temporal dynamics and managment options,
p. 91117. In H. C. Sharma (ed.), Heliothis/Helicoverpa management: emerging trends and strategies for future research. IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi,
India.
8. Farrar, R. R., M. Shapiro, and B. M. Shepard. 2004. Activity of the nucleopolyhedrovirus of the fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on foliage
of transgenic sweet corn expressing a Cry1A(b) toxin. Environ. Entomol.
33:982989.
9. Ferre, J., J. van Rie, and S. C. MacIntosh. 2008. Insecticidal genetically
modified crops and insect resistance management (IRM), p. 4185. In J.
Romeis, A. M. Shelton, and G. G. Kennedy (ed.), Integration of insectresistant genetically modified crops within IPM programs. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
10. Ferron, P. 1978. Biological control of insect pests by entomogenous fungi.
Annu. Rev. Entomol. 23:409442.
11. Fitt, G. P. 1989. The ecology of Heliothis species in relation to agroecosystems. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 34:1752.
12. Fitt, G. P. 2008. Have Bt crops led to changes in insecticide use patterns and

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

impacted IPM?, p. 303328. In J. Romeis, A. M. Shelton, and G. G. Kennedy

(ed.), Integration of insect-resistant genetically modified crops within IPM
programs. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Fitt, G. P., C. L. Mares, and D. J. Llewellyn. 1994. Field evaluation and
potential ecological impact of transgenic cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) in
Australia. Biocontr. Sci. Technol. 4:535548.
Forrester, N. W., M. Cahill, L. Bird, and J. K. Layland. 1993. Management
of pyrethoid and endosulfan resistance in Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera:
Noctuidae) in Australia. Bull. Entomol. Res. Suppl. Ser. 1:1132.
Gassmann, A. J., S. P. Stock, Y. Carriere, and B. E. Tabashnik. 2006. Effect
of entomopathogenic nematodes on the fitness cost of resistance to Bt toxin
Cry1Ac in pink bollworm (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). J. Econ. Entomol.
99:920926.
Gould, F. 1998. Sustainability of transgenic insecticidal cultivars: integrating
pest genetics and ecology. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 43:701726.
Gould, F., G. G. Kennedy, and M. T. Johnson. 1991. Effects of natural
enemies on the rate of herbivore adaptation to resistant host plants. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 58:114.
Grzywacz, D., A. Richards, R. J. Rabindra, H. Saxena, and O. P. Rupela.
2005. Efficacy of biopesticides and natural plant products for Heliothis/Helicoverpa control, p. 371389. In H. C. Sharma (ed.), Heliothis/Helicoverpa
management. Emerging trends and strategies for future research. IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi, India.
Hare, J. D. 2002. Plant genetic variation in tritrophic interactions, p. 843. In
T. Tscharntke, and B. A. Hawkins (ed.), Multitrophic interactions level.
Cambridge University, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Johnson, M. T., F. Gould, and G. G. Kennedy. 1997. Effects of natural
enemies on relative fitness of Heliothis virescens genotypes adapted and not
adapted to resistant host plants. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 82:219230.
Kershaw, M. J., E. R. Moorhouse, R. Bateman, S. E. Reynolds, and A. K.
Charnley. 1999. The role of destruxins in the pathogenicity of Metarhizium
anisopliae for three species of insect. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 74:213223.
King, A. B. S. 1994. Heliothis/Helicoverpa (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), p. 39
106. In G. A. Matthews and J. P. Tunstall (ed.), Insect pests of cotton. CAB
International, Wallingford, Oxon, United Kingdom.
Kranthi, K. R., D. R. Jadhav, S. Kranthi, R. R. Wanjari, S. S. Ali, and D. A.
Russell. 2002. Insecticide resistance in five major insect pests of cotton in
India. Crop Prot. 21:449460.
Kranthi, K. R., S. Naidu, C. S. Dhawad, A. Tatwawadi, K. Mate, E. Patil,
A. A. Bharose, G. T. Behere, R. M. Wadaskar, and S. Kranthi. 2005. Temporal and intra-plant variability of Cry1Ac expression in Bt cotton and its
influence on the survival of the cotton bollworm Helicoverpa armigera (Hu
bner) (Noctuidae: Lepidoptera). Curr. Sci. 89:291298.
Liu, X. X., Q. W. Zhang, B. L. Xu, and J. C. Li. 2006. Effects of Cry1Ac toxin
of Bacillus thuringiensis and nuclear polyhedrosis virus of Helicoverpa armigera (Hu
bner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on larval mortality and pupation.
Pest Manag. Sci. 62:729737.
Mahon, R. J., K. M. Olsen, S. Downes, and S. Addison. 2007. Frequency of
alleles conferring resistance to the Bt toxins Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab in Australian populations of Helicoverpa armigera (Hu
bner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 100:18441853.
Mahon, R. J., K. M. Olsen, K. A. Garsia, and S. R. Young. 2007. Resistance
to Bacillus thuringiensis toxin Cry2Ab in a strain of Helicoverpa armigera
(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Australia. J. Econ. Entomol. 100:894902.
McPhee, K. E., J. Croser, B. Sarmah, S. S. Ali, D. V. Amla, P. N. Rajesh,
H.-B. Zhang, and T. J. Higgins. 2007. Development of transgenics in chickpea, p. 458473. In S. S. Yadav, R. J. Redden, W. Chen, and B. Sharma (ed.),
Chickpea breeding and management. CAB International, New Delhi, India.
Nahar, P., V. Ghormade, and M. V. Deshpande. 2004. The extracellular
constitutive production of chitin deacetylase in Metarhizium anisopliae: possible edge to entomopathogenic fungi in the biological control of insect pests.
J. Invertebr. Pathol. 85:8088.
Nahar, P., M. Kulye, P. Yadav, M. Hassani, U. Tuor, S. Keller, and M. V.
Deshpande. 2003. Comparative evaluation of indigenous fungal isolates,
Metarhizium anisopliae M34412, Beauveria bassiana B3301 and Nomuraea
rileyi N812 for the control of Helicoverpa armigera (Hu
b.) on chickpea. J.
Mycol. Plant Pathol. 33:372377.
Nahar, P., P. Yadav, M. Kulye, A. Hadapad, M. Hassani, U. Tuor, S. Keller,
A. G. Chandele, B. Thomas, and M. V. Deshpande. 2004. Evaluation of
indigenous fungal isolates, Metarhizium anisopliae M34412, Beauveria bassiana B3301 and Nomuraea rileyi N812 for the control of Helicoverpa armigera
(Hu
bner) in pigeonpea fields. J. Biol. Contr. 18:18.
Naranjo, S. E., J. R. Ruberson, H. C. Sharma, L. Wilson, and K.-M. Wu.
2008. The present and future role of insect-resistant GM crops in cotton
IPM, p. 159194. In J. Romeis, A. M. Shelton, and G. G. Kennedy (ed.),
Integration of insect-resistant genetically modified crops within IPM programs. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Olsen, K. M., J. C. Daly, H. E. Holt, and E. J. Finnegan. 2005. Season-long
variation in expression of Cry1Ac gene and efficiency of Bacillus thuringiensis
toxin in transgenic cotton against Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 98:10071017.

VOL. 74, 2008

Bt CHICKPEA AND M. ANISOPLIAE FOR H. ARMIGERA CONTROL

34. Pray, C. E., J. Huang, R. Hu, and S. Rozelle. 2002. Five years of Bt cotton in
Chinathe benefits continue. Plant J. 31:423430.
35. Qaim, M., C. E. Pray, and D. Zilberman. 2008. Economic and social considerations in the adoption of Bt crops, 329356. In J. Romeis, A. M.
Shelton, and G. G. Kennedy (ed.), Integration of insect-resistant genetically
modified crops within IPM programs. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
36. Rahman, M. M., H. L. S. Roberts, and O. Schmidt. 2004. The development
of the endoparasitoid Venturia canescens in Bt-tolerant, immune induced
larvae of the flour moth Ephestia kuehniella. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 87:129131.
37. Raymond, B., A. H. Sayyed, and D. J. Wright. 2006. The compatibility of a
nucleopolyhedrosis virus control with resistance management for Bacillus
thuringiensis: co-infection and cross-resistance studies with the diamondback
moth, Plutella xylostella. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 93:114120.
38. Raymond, B., A. H. Sayyed, R. S. Hails, and D. J. Wright. 2007. Exploiting
pathogens and their impact on fitness costs to manage the evolution of
resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis. J. Appl. Ecol. 44:768780.
39. Romeis, J., D. Bartsch, F. Bigler, M. P. Candolfi, M. M. C. Gielkens, S. E.
Hartley, R. L. Hellmich, J. E. Huesing, P. C. Jepson, R. Layton, H. Quemada, A. Raybould, R. I. Rose, J. Schiemann, M. K. Sears, A. M. Shelton, J.
Sweet, Z. Vaituzis, and J. D. Wolt. 2008. Assessment of risk of insectresistant transgenic crops to nontarget arthropods. Nat. Biotechnol. 26:203
208.
40. Romeis, J., M. Meissle, and F. Bigler. 2006. Transgenic crops expressing
Bacillus thuringiensis toxins and biological control. Nat. Biotechnol. 24:6371.
41. Romeis, J., H. C. Sharma, K. K. Sharma, S. Das, and B. K. Sarmah. 2004.
The potential of transgenic chickpeas for pest control and possible effects on
non-target arthropods. Crop Prot. 23:923938.
42. Romeis, J., R. G. van Driesche, B. I. P. Barratt, and F. Bigler. 2008. Insectresistant transgenic crops and biological control, p. 87117. In J. Romeis,
A. M. Shelton, and G. G. Kennedy (ed.), Integration of insect-resistant
genetically modified crops within IPM programs. Springer, Dordrecht, The
Netherlands.
43. Sanyal, I., A. K. Singh, M. A. Kaushik, and D. V. Amla. 2005. Agrobacte-

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

4389

rium-mediated transformation of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) with Bacillus

thuringiensis Cry1Ac gene for resistance against pod borer insect Helicoverpa
armigera. Plant Sci. 168:11351146.
Shanower, T. G., T. G. Kelley, and S. E. Cowgill. 1998. Development of
effective and environmentally sound strategies to control Helicoverpa armigera in pigeonpea and chickpea production systems, p. 239260. In R. K.
Saini (ed.), Tropical entomology. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Tropical Entomology. ICIPE Science Press, Nairobi, Kenya.
Sharma, H. C. (ed.). 2005. Heliothis/Helicoverpa management: emerging
trends and strategies for future research. IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi,
India.
Sharma, H. C., C. L. L. Gowda, P. C. Stevenson, T. J. Ridsdill-Smith, S. L.
Clement, G. V. Ranga Rao, J. Romeis, M. Miles, and M. Bouhssini. 2007.
Host plant resistance and insect pest management in chickpea, p. 520537. In
S. S. Yadav, R. R. Redden, W. Chen, and B. Sharma (ed.). Chickpea
breeding and management. CAB International, Wallingford, United Kingdom.
Shaw, K. E., G. Davidson, S. J. Clark, B. V. Ball, J. K. Pell, D. Chandler, and
K. D. Sunderland. 2002. Laboratory bioassays to assess the pathogenicity of
mitosporic fungi to Varroa destructor (Acari: Mesostigmata), an ectoparasitic
mite of the honeybee, Apis mellifera. Biol. Contr. 24:266276.
Shelton, A. M., J. Z. Zhao, and R. T. Roush. 2002. Economic, ecological,
food safety, and social consequences of the deployment of Bt transgenic
plants. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 47:845881.
Tabashnik, B. E., Y. Carrie`re, T. J. Dennehy, S. Morin, M. S. Sisterson, R. T.
Roush, A. M. Shelton, and J. Z. Zhao. 2003. Insect resistance to transgenic
Bt crops: lessons from the laboratory and field. J. Econ. Entomol. 96:1031
1038.
Teakle, J., and J. M. Jensen. 1985. Heliothis punctigera, p. 312322. In R.
Singh and R. F. Moore (ed.), Handbook of insect rearing, vol. 2. Elsevier,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Zimmermann, G. 2007. Review on safety of the entomopathogenic fungus
Metarhizium anisopliae. Biocontr. Sci. Technol. 17:879920.