Preface

In recent years, the field of insect control and pest management has experienced significant advancements and transformations. The increasing challenges posed by insect pests in various sectors, such as agriculture, public health, and urban environments, have necessitated the development of innovative and sustainable solutions. This book, *Insecticides – Advances in Insect Control and Sustainable Pest Management*, provides a comprehensive overview of the latest scientific progress and practical applications within this rapidly evolving field.

Insects, with their remarkable diversity and adaptability, play crucial roles in Earth's ecosystems. However, their ability to disrupt human activities and cause economic losses should not be underestimated. Traditional methods of insect control, often reliant on chemical insecticides, have often led to unintended consequences such as environmental pollution, harm to non-target organisms, and the emergence of insecticide resistance. Consequently, there is an urgent need to explore alternative approaches that effectively manage insect pests while minimizing adverse effects on the environment and human health.

This book brings together a distinguished group of experts, each contributing their unique perspectives and expertise, to address the multifaceted challenges of insect control. The chapters in this volume encompass a broad range of topics, including insect biology and behavior, innovative insecticide formulations, biopesticides, integrated pest management strategies, and the social, economic, and regulatory dimensions of insecticide usage. By examining current research and successful case studies, readers will gain insights into promising advancements and sustainable practices that are shaping the future of insect control.

The chapters are organized to provide a comprehensive understanding of insecticides, their modes of action, and their integration into holistic pest management approaches. We delve into the intricacies of insect physiology, genetics, and ecology to illuminate the underlying mechanisms that influence their behavior and adaptations. Furthermore, we explore the development and application of novel chemical compounds, biological agents, and cutting-edge technologies that have the potential to revolutionize insect control and reduce reliance on traditional insecticides.

We recognize that insect control is a dynamic field, continuously yielding new discoveries. Therefore, this book serves as a foundation for further exploration and innovation in insect control and sustainable pest management. Our hope is that the knowledge shared within these pages will inspire researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to collaborate and develop effective strategies that protect our crops, safeguard public health, and conserve our precious ecosystems.

We extend our sincere appreciation to all the contributors who have generously shared their expertise and insights to make this book possible. Their collective efforts have resulted in a valuable resource that addresses current challenges and provides a roadmap for a sustainable future in insect control.

We invite you to embark on a journey through the captivating world of insecticides and sustainable pest management. Together, let us strive to strike a balance between effective pest control and the preservation of our environment for generations to come.

#### **Habib Ali, Adnan Noor Shah, Muhammad Bilal Tahir and Basharat Ali**

 Department of Agricultural Engineering, Khwaja Fareed University of Engineering and Information Technology, Rahim Yar Khan, Pakistan

> **Dr. Sajid Fiaz** Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, University of Haripur, Haripur, Pakistan

Section 1

Pest Control: In Ecological

Prospective

Section 1

## Pest Control: In Ecological Prospective

### **Chapter 1**

## Use of Biological and Chemical Pesticides in Agricultural Production: What Fate for Entomopathogenic Fungi?

*François Essouma Manga, Mvondo Nganti Dorothée, Victorine Obe Lombeko, Katya Francine Erica Emvoutou and Zachée Ambang*

#### **Abstract**

In the context of integrated pest management, the compatibility between the products used and even with the natural enemies of crop pests should still be elucidated. In this study, interviews were done with about 60 coffee growers to assess the use of pesticides in the protection of coffee berries. Then, *in vitro* tests were used to evaluate the effects of extracts of the seed powders of *Thevetia peruviana*, *Azadirachta indica*, the chlorpyriphos-ethyl insecticide and the chlorothalonil + dimethomorph fungicide, on the development parameters of the entomopathogenic fungus *Beauveria bassiana*, the natural enemy of the coffee berry borer, *Hypothenemus hampei*. The said tests consisted of the method of poisoning the culture medium with pesticides, observation and counting of spores under the optical microscope. The analysis of the collected data showed that depending on the type and severity of the pest pressure, growers apply several types of mainly chemical pesticides. Among the pesticides tested, extracts of *T. peruviana*, *A. indica* and chlorpyriphos-ethyl considerably reduced the development of *B. bassiana*. These results show that in crop protection, the use of biological or chemical substances should be done in a judicious way, to ensure the conservation and the valorization of natural enemies of phytosanitary pressures.

**Keywords:** compatibility, *Beauveria bassiana*, pesticide plants, chemical pesticides, integrated control

#### **1. Introduction**

Some studies point out that today's, food and agricultural systems have succeeded in supplying large quantities of food to global markets with high use of chemical inputs,

but are degrading land, water, ecosystems, biodiversity and human health [1]. To address the increasing use of chemical pesticides in agricultural production, a fundamentally different model of agriculture is now required, one that reduces or rejects chemical inputs, optimizes biodiversity, and stimulates interactions between different species [2]. Pesticidal plants and entomopathogenic fungi, both gifts of nature, are effective alternatives to chemical pesticides in the integrated management of crop pests and diseases [3–6]. In this sense, several authors have already proven the effectiveness of plants of the genera *Azadirachta* (Neem) and *Thevetia* (Yellow Laurel) [7, 8], as well as biological control agents of the genera *Beauveria* and *Metarhizium* [9–12]. However, the introduction of these exotic pests is the most widely used approach in agriculture, at the expense of conserving and valorizing existing biological control agents in the agroecosystem [13–16], and without verification of their compatibility.

Given the effectiveness of pesticidal plant extracts and biological pest control agents in pest management, could they be used synergistically? This probably requires compatibility [17] which has been assessed so far by a few disparate studies [18–37]. These cited studies focus on the compatibility or synergy between chemical pesticides and entomopathogenic fungi. In view of the rareness of studies on the compatibility between biological pesticides (pesticidal plants and entomopathogenic fungi), and our previous research on the use of *B. bassiana* and extracts of *Thevetia peruviana* and *Azadirachta indica* in the control of the coffee berry borer (*Hypothenemus hampei* Fer.), this study was initiated to provide some information. Specifically, the aim is to evaluate the compatibility between extracts of *T. peruviana* and *A. indica* seed powders, the chlorpyrifos-ethyl insecticide and the chlorothalonil + dimethomorph fungicide, on the development parameters of the entomopathogenic fungus *B. bassiana*, in the control of phytosanitary pressures on coffee.

#### **2. Methodology**

The biological material consisted of *Thevetia peruviana* seed powder, *Azadirachta indica* seed powder and oil, and two isolates of *Beauveria bassiana*. Both strains were isolated from composite soil samples of Arabica (Bb-IRAD.Fbt) and Robusta (Bb-IRAD.Nkoe) coffee plantations [12], and stored at the Central Laboratory of Phytopathology (CLP) of the Mbalmayo Agricultural Research Centre (MARC) of the Institute of Agricultural Research for Development (IRAD), Cameroon. Compatibility tests were carried out in the same laboratory. The effects of the plant extracts on *B. bassiana* were compared to those caused by synthetic pesticides. These synthetic pesticides consisted of the chemical insecticide, Pyriforce composed of chlorpyriphos-ethyl 600 g/l as active substance, and the chemical fungicide, Sphinx composed of chlorothalonil 400 g/kg + dimethomorph 80 kg as active substances.

The study was carried out in the localities of Melong, Bamendjou and Doumé where the producers surveyed were selected. These localities were chosen because they are among the major Arabica (Bamendjou) and Robusta (Melong and Doumé) coffee production basins in Cameroon, are accessible by national roads and are located in three different agroecological zones. At the farm level, farmers were surveyed to assess pest pressures and control strategies.

#### *Use of Biological and Chemical Pesticides in Agricultural Production: What Fate… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.111408*

In the CLP and the Central Laboratory of Entomology (CLE) of the IRAD, insect rearing, fungus isolation and efficacy tests on the bark beetle and compatibility tests between plant extracts and *B. bassiana* were performed.

#### **2.1 Evaluation of pest and disease control strategies in coffee farms**

The different strategies for regulating phytosanitary constraints and improving yields were evaluated through surveys. The experimental unit consisted of sixty-three farmers surveyed, divided into twenty-two farmers in Bamendjou, twenty-one farmers in Melong and twenty farmers in Doumé. The selection of farmers was done using the referral sampling technique (non-probability sampling method), where a farmer refers to an individual with a farm. Thus, farmers with at least one dependent coffee farm were chosen as the basic sampling unit. Semi-structured comprehensive interviews were conducted using a pre-established open-ended questionnaire. The questionnaire included semi-structured questions that allowed for the collection of information on diseases and pests affecting coffee farms, as well as strategies and techniques to control these pests.

#### **2.2 Obtaining the different concentrations of biological and chemical pesticides**

The plant extracts were applied to each strain on the basis of four concentrations: C1 (12.5), C2 (25), C3 (50) and C4 (100) in mg/ml for the aqueous extracts and in μl/ml for the oil. The plant extracts were prepared and the tested doses were obtained according to the method used in previous studies [8, 38, 39]. The choice of used doses was based on the proof of their efficacy tested in some studies on *Phytophtora megakarya, Sahbergella singularis*, *Lasiodiplodia theobromae* and *Fusarium* sp. [7, 40]. Each treatment in the trial was repeated five times. The chemical fungicide and insecticide were used as positive controls (C0+) at the manufacturers' recommended doses. The negative/absolute control (C0) was simply the PDA culture medium.

The recommended doses for the chemical insecticide and fungicide are 1 l/ha (50 ml for a 16-liter sprayer) and 3.33 g/l water, respectively. Petri dishes were prepared by taking 7 ml of the stock solution of each pesticide, and mixing it with 93 ml of PDA medium for a final volume of 100 ml of each product. This final volume was poured into five Petri dishes serving as replicates, 20 ml per dish. The different Petri dishes were placed in an incubation room under conditioned air at a temperature of T = 25°C and a humidity of ψ = 60%.

#### **2.3 Effect of treatments on germination of** *Beauveria bassiana*

To assess spore germination, 10 ml of spore solution was prepared by mixing spores from pure cultures of *B. bassiana* (twenty-one days old) with sterile distilled water and 1% tween 80. After homogenization with a magnetic stirrer, the solution was calibrated using the Malassez cell at the concentration of 1 106 spores/ml [41]. Then, three drops of each solution were individually placed in three different locations of five Petri dishes containing PDA medium, and covered with a coverslip. The plant extracts were calibrated at four concentrations (C1, C2, C3 and C4), the positive controls at one concentration each (C0+1, C0+2) and the absolute/negative control (C0). For each strain (Bb-IRAD.Nkoe and Bb-IRAD.Fbt), the five prepared Petri dishes were

incubated in the dark at room temperature for 16 hours. After incubation, the different plates were observed under a light microscope for the enumeration of germinated and ungerminated spores; this was repeated three times. Any spore with an elongated germ tube was considered as germinated and viable spore. The germination rate of the spores was calculated using the following formula from [42]:

$$GR\left(\%\right) = \frac{A}{A+B} \times 100\tag{1}$$

where: *GR* = spore germination rate; *A* = number of germinated spores; *B* = number of ungerminated spores. d1 þ d22.

#### **2.4 Effect of treatments on radial growth of** *Beauveria bassiana*

To assess the radial growth of *B. bassiana* isolates, a 6 mm diameter mycelial disc was taken (from 21-day-old pure cultures of Bb-IRAD.Nkoe and Bb-IRAD.Fbt) and placed in the center of each Petri dish containing media supplemented with the different plant extracts and chemical pesticides. A negative control not supplemented with extracts and chemical pesticides was also prepared. Each treatment was repeated 5 times, each repetition corresponding to one Petri dish. Petri dishes were incubated at a temperature of T = 25°C, a humidity of ψ = 60% under a photoperiod of 12/12 and for 21 days. Using the perpendicular line method, each diameter or line was measured daily. The average of the two perpendicular measurements, subtracted from the diameter of the starting explant, was the measure of radial growth of the fungus. It was obtained using the following formula [43]:

$$RG = \frac{d1 + d2}{2} - d0\tag{2}$$

where: *RG* = Radial Growth; *d*<sup>1</sup> = first growth diameter (cm); *d*<sup>2</sup> = second growth diameter (cm); *d*<sup>0</sup> = diameter of the deposited explant (cm).

#### **2.5 Effect of treatments on** *Beauveria bassiana* **spore production**

The Petri dishes used in the evaluation of radial growth of *B. bassiana*, were used to evaluate the effects of treatments on spore production. Thus, a quantity of 10 ml of spore suspension of each isolate and each concentration of the different treatments was prepared as in the evaluation of the germination of isolates. In order to quantify the number of conidia produced by the fungus, five 1 ml samples of the suspension were successively taken from each dish and placed on the Malassez cell. The conidia were counted under a light microscope and the average number of conidia per observation was recorded.

#### **2.6 Correlative and comparative assessment of compatibility between biological pesticides, chemical pesticides and** *Beauveria bassiana*

The correlative and comparative assessment of compatibility was done using the percentages of inhibition or reduction of mycelial growth, germination and spore production of *B. bassiana* [44]. These percentages were calculated according to the following formula [45]:

*Use of Biological and Chemical Pesticides in Agricultural Production: What Fate… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.111408*

$$IP\,\text{or}\,\text{RR}\,\left(\text{\%}\right) = \frac{\text{Vt} - \text{Vx}}{\text{Vt}} \times \text{100} \tag{3}$$

where: *IP* or *RR* = inhibition percentage or reduction rate; *Vt* = value of growth diameter, germination rate or number of conidia produced estimated on control medium; *Vx* = value of growth diameter, germination rate or number of conidia produced estimated in the presence of the extract or fungicide tested.

#### **2.7 Statistical analysis**

The experimental set-up adopted for the incubation of the Petri dishes was a completely randomized set-up with: two strains of *B. bassiana*; two aqueous extracts (aqueous extract of *A. indica* and *T. peruviana* seed powder) and an oil cold extract of *A. indica* seeds; and two chemical pesticides.

Microsoft Excel spreadsheet software was used to create the databases and XLSTAT 2014 software was used for statistical analysis. The experimental test data were first subjected to a Shapiro–Wilk normality test [46], followed by a square root transformation (radial growth and number of spores germinated or produced) or an ArcSin angular transformation (inhibition rate) [47, 48]. The sampled and transformed data underwent descriptive analysis, a general linear regression model with analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by the multiple comparison test of means at 5% risk (α).

After these calculations, the inhibitory effect of the tested products was classified firstly by means of hierarchical ascending classification (HAC). This allowed treatments with the same effect to be grouped together. Secondly, the different groups were categorized on the basis of a list of inhibition levels [49], where:


At the end of each analysis, all interpretations and conclusions were drawn at the transformed scale, but the results presented were converted back to the original units [48, 50].

#### **3. Results**

#### **3.1 Weed, disease and pest control strategies**

Clearing of coffee fields and structural/sanitary pruning of coffee trees were carried out by 100% of farmers in each locality. Insecticides were applied by 100%, 80% and 59.1% of farmers in Melong, Doumé and Bamendjou, respectively. Fungicides were applied in Bamendjou by a significantly higher proportion of farmers (86.36%) than in other localities such as Doumé (5% of farmers). Fertilizers were widely applied in Melong and Bamendjou by 85.71 and 54.55% of farmers, respectively. Herbicides were applied in all localities by more than half of the farmers, but this percentage was significantly lower (59.1% of farmers) in Bamendjou (Fisher's exact test at 0.05 significance level) (**Figure 1**).

#### **3.2 Effects of treatments on** *Beauveria bassiana* **spore germination**

The results showed that spore germination of both *B. bassiana* isolates was reduced by the different treatments and concentrations used. Compared to the absolute control, the percentage of germination was higher in Bb-IRAD.Nkoe than in Bb-IRAD.Fbt at concentrations C1, C2 and C3, respectively for reduction rates ranging from 54 to 86% for AEAI on Bb-IRAD.Nkoe against 46 to 84% for AETP on Bb-IRAD.Fbt. Thus, at C4 concentrations of these extracts, reduction rates of 100% were observed. This rate is identical to that obtained with chlorpyrifos-ethyl, hence no significant difference (**Figure 2B**).

With the *A. indica* oil extract (OEAI), the germination rate was lower for Bb-IRAD.Nkoe than for Bb-IRAD.Fbt at concentrations C1 and C2 (86 and 77% versus 89 and 85% respectively). Furthermore, this extract totally inhibited germination (0% germination rate) of spores at concentrations C3 and C4. Nevertheless, Fisher's test showed no significant difference between germination rates at these concentrations and that of chlorpyrifos-ethyl (**Figure 2A**).

Tests with the chlorothalonil + dimethomorph fungicide showed little or no reduction in spore germination of both isolates. The lowest germination inhibition rates (7 and 6%) were recorded for Bb-IRAD.Nkoe and Bb-IRAD.Fbt, respectively. Nevertheless, Fisher's test showed significant differences between the germination inhibition rates recorded with this fungicide and those with the negative control (60.33 and 56.33% for Bb-IRAD.Nkoe and Bb-IRAD.Fbt, respectively) (**Figure 2A**).

Finally, with chlorpyrifos-ethyl, AETP4, AEAI4 and OEAI3, a germination inhibition rate of 100% was recorded in both *B. bassiana* isolates. However, for the same concentrations, AETP had more effect on spore germination of both isolates than AEAI (**Figure 2B**).

#### **Figure 1.**

*Practices applied to manage pests and diseases in coffee farms. Values shown with the symbol < or > in bold are significant according to Fisher's exact test at the 0.05 significance level.*

*Use of Biological and Chemical Pesticides in Agricultural Production: What Fate… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.111408*

#### **Figure 2.**

*Germination and germination inhibition rates of conidia under the influence of plant extract, chemical fungicide and insecticide treatments. AEAI =* Azadirachta indica *aqueous extract; AETP =* Thevetia peruviana *aqueous extract; OEAI =* Azadirachta indica *oil extract; pyriforce = chemical insecticide composed of chlorpyrifos-ethyl; sphinx = chemical fungicide composed of chlorothalonil + dimethomorph; 1, 2, 3 and 4 correspond to C1 (12.5), C2 (25), C3 (50) and C4 (100) in mg/ml for the aqueous extracts and in μl/ml for the oil extract. \*Means with the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 level according to Fisher's test.*

#### **3.3 Effects of treatments on radial growth of** *Beauveria bassiana* **isolates**

The aqueous extract of *A. indica* seed powder inhibited the growth of both isolates at all concentrations. This inhibition of radial growth was proportional and significant at the concentrations tested in both isolates (**Figure 3**). Thus, a total inhibition (100%) of radial growth was observed with AEAI4 in both isolates and only in Bb-IRAD.Fbt with AEAI3 (**Table 1**).

The inhibition of mycelial growth of *B. bassiana* isolates in the presence of AEAI and AETP was significant and proportional to the concentrations tested compared to the negative control (0 0). This inhibition was relatively stronger in Bb-IRAD.Fbt with both types of aqueous extracts than in Bb-IRAD.Nkoe with the aqueous extract of *A. indica*. In contrast to the negative control, Fisher's test showed no significant difference between the two aqueous extracts and chlorpyrifos-ethyl at the AETP4 concentration (**Table 1**).

With OEAI the inhibition of mycelial growth of isolates was more pronounced at all concentrations. No significant difference was observed between the oil extract of *A. indica* and chlorpyrifos-ethyl in the two *B. bassiana* isolates (**Table 1**).

With the Chlorothalonil + Dimethomorph complex, a very small reduction in the growth of both *B. bassiana* isolates was observed (**Figure 4**). Thus, low percentages of inhibition were observed (16.27 3.50 and 21.03 1.32%) in Bb-IRAD.Fbt and Bb-IRAD.Nkoe, respectively. However, Fisher's test showed a significant difference between these percentages of inhibition and that caused by the negative control (**Table 1**).

#### **3.4 Effects of treatments on** *Beauveria bassiana* **spore production**

The test results revealed that there was very little influence of Sphinx on spore production of both *B. bassiana* isolates. Consequently, sporulation reduction rates


*AEAI = Aqueous extract of* Azadirachta indica*; AETP = Aqueous extract of* Thevetia peruviana*; OEAI = Oil extract of* Azadirachta indica*; Pyriforce = Insecticide composed of Chlorpyriphos-ethyl; Sphinx = Fungicide composed of Chlorothalonil + Dimethomorph; 1, 2, 3 and 4 correspond to C1 (12.5), C2 (25), C3 (50) and C4 (100) in mg/ml for the aqueous extracts and in μl/ml for the oil extract. \* Means with the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 level according to Fisher's test.*

Pr < 0.0001

Pr < 0.0001

#### **Table 1.**

*Radial growth and inhibition rate of Beauveria bassiana isolates according to treatments after 21 days of incubation.*

#### **Figure 3.**

*Inhibition of mycelial growth of bb-IRAD.Nkoe by aqueous extract of* Azadirachta indica *on day 21 of growth. N = neem or* Azadirachta indica*; <sup>N</sup> = Nkoemvone isolate; 1, 2, 3 and 4 correspond to C1 (12.5), C2 (25), C3 (50) and C4 (100) in mg/ml for the aqueous extracts and in μl/ml for the oil extract; C0 = sterile distilled water + tween 80.*

were higher with Bb-IRAD.Fbt than with Bb-IRAD.Nkoe regardless of the treatment. The aqueous extracts (AEAI and AETP) of both plants caused 100% reduction rates in both isolates only with C4, while 100% reduction was observed with OEAI3 and OEAI4. However, all treatments except the negative control caused more than 50% reduction in sporulation in both isolates (**Figure 5B**).

*Use of Biological and Chemical Pesticides in Agricultural Production: What Fate… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.111408*

#### **Figure 4.**

*Mycelial growth of the two isolates of Beauveria bassiana under the effect of sphinx and pyriforce. A and a' = control; b and b' = sphinx (chlorothalonil + dimethomorph); c and c' = pyriforce (chlorpyriphos-ethyl).*

Finally, spore production in both *B. bassiana* isolates was relatively low with all OEAI concentrations. The absence of spore production was noted with OEAI3 and OEAI4 in both isolates. Bb-IRAD.Fbt showed spore production with OEAI1 and OEAI2, but this was not significant compared to that with OEAI3, OEAI4 and pyriforce (**Figure 5A**).

#### **Figure 5.**

*Average number of conidia produced and sporulation inhibition rate in each treatment. AEAI = aqueous extract of* Azadirachta indica*; AETP = aqueous extract of* Thevetia peruviana*; OEAI = oil extract of* Azadirachta indica*; pyriforce = insecticide composed of chlorpyriphos-ethyl; sphinx = fungicide composed of chlorothalonil + dimethomorph; 1, 2, 3 and 4 correspond to C1 (12.5), C2 (25), C3 (50) and C4 (100) in mg/ml for the aqueous extracts and in μl/ml for the oil extract. \*means with the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 level according to Fisher's test.*

#### **3.5 Relationship between treatments and inhibition of** *Beauveria bassiana* **development**

The hierarchical ascending classification (HAC) of the inhibition rates of *B. bassiana* by the different treatments shows that all the treatments, AETP, OEAI, pyriforce and AEAI were very toxic (inhibition between 98.31 or 92.79%) for the radial growth of both isolates. Only AEAI1 and AEAI2 were just toxic (inhibition between 64.10 and 47.09%) to Bb-IRAD.Nkoe. Water and sphinx were compatible with both isolates (**Table 2**).



*Use of Biological and Chemical Pesticides in Agricultural Production: What Fate… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.111408*

*Fbt = Bb-IRAD.Fbt; Nk = Bb-IRAD.Nkoe; AEAI = Aqueous extract of* Azadirachta indica*; AETP = Aqueous extract of* Thevetia peruviana*; OEAI = Oil extract of* Azadirachta indica*; Pyriforce = Insecticide composed of Chlorpyriphos-ethyl; Sphinx = Fungicide composed of Chlorothalonil + Dimethomorph; 1, 2, 3 and 4 correspond to C1 (12.5), C2 (25), C3 (50) and C4 (100) in mg/ml for the aqueous extracts and in μl/ml for the oil extract.*

#### **Table 2.**

*Hierarchical ascending classification of treatments according to their inhibition of growth parameters of Beauveria bassiana isolates.*

Spores germination of the isolates was impacted by most of the treatments AETP, OEAI, pyriforce and AEAI which were highly toxic (90% inhibition on average) except AEAI1 for Bb-IRAD.Fbt, AEAI1 and AEAI2 for Bb-IRAD.Nkoe which were toxic (50% inhibition on average) for these isolates. Water and sphinx were compatible with spore germination (**Table 2**).

As for sporulation, the high concentrations 3 and 4 of OEAI (for both isolates), 3 and 4 of AEAI (for Bb-IRAD.Fbt), 4 of AETP (for both isolates) and pyriforce were very toxic by totally (100%) inhibiting spore production. The low concentration C1 of all treatments was found to be toxic for both isolates, however, concentrations 3 of AETP (for both isolates) and AEAI (for Bb-IRAD.Fbt) were also in this toxic class with inhibition ranging from 77.27 to 52.94%. Sterile distilled water and sphinx were found to be compatible with both isolates (**Table 2**).

#### **4. Discussion**

Coffee farmers use several strategies to cope with pest pressures. These practices are applied or not depending on the constraints encountered, their period of occurrence, incidence and severity [51]. Unfortunately, this study found that all the products used to control pests were synthetic products. In all study sites, there is a need to use organic products for quality coffee production and to ensure protection of human and environmental health. However, the unavailability of organic products in the market, low knowledge of their use and historical dependence on synthetic products complicate the adoption of organic products [52] and inexorably push producers towards synthetic products.

The products tested in vitro, with the exception of chlorothalonil + dimethomorph, significantly reduced germination, mycelial growth and spore production of the *B. bassiana* isolates used. Thus, the application of this fungicide to control fungal diseases such as anthracnose of coffee berries, allows the conservation of the natural inoculum of *B. bassiana* in the field and a synergistic control of phytosanitary pressures on berries. This finding corroborates with the results of some works [53–55] who respectively showed that sulfur, copper oxychloride and strobilurin fungicides are compatible with *B. bassiana* isolates although their primary faculty is antifungal.

All OEAI, AETP and AEAI treatments were found to be toxic to both isolates. This toxicity of the extracts of both plants to *B. bassiana*, is thought to be due to terpenes, phenols, alcohols, alkaloids, tannins and other secondary metabolites (capable of inducing toxicity of cell walls, membranes and organelles [56, 57]. A conservation of *B. bassiana* spores remains hypothetical in the presence of these pesticidal plant extracts (PPE) because they prevent conidial germination, a very important step in pest control with CEP. Indeed, the onset of the epizootic is conditioned by the ability of these conidia to germinate on the host [58]. Similarly, the success of CEP depends on the viability of its spores [44], which is therefore threatened by PPE in this study. These results are similar to other studies [22, 59–62] which showed that *A. indica* oil extracts and azadirachtin 5EC (commercial biopesticide) at the recommended dose were incompatible with *B. bassiana*. Similarly, Margoside® (commercial formulation based on 0.3% neem oil) and neem extracts have been shown to delay in vitro spore germination of 23 isolates (out of 30 in total) of *B. bassiana*, but without significantly reducing it [23, 33].

However, results of some works have shown that neem oil (2.5%) and neem seed extracts, neem gold, Topneem, biospark and exodon (commercialized biological

*Use of Biological and Chemical Pesticides in Agricultural Production: What Fate… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.111408*

pesticides), show compatibility with all *B. bassiana* isolates obtained in these works [26, 32, 53, 63, 64]. Furthermore, some studies [65, 66] have shown that the combination of Azadirachtin (neem extract) with *B. bassiana*, has an additive effect. Similarly, a synergistic efficacy of *A. indica* leaf extracts and Azadirachtin (AzaMax; 200 ml � 100 l�<sup>1</sup> ) with *B. bassiana* has been proven respectively in the control of wheat aphids [67] and in the control of *Plutella xylostella* (L.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) [68].

These contradictory results could be due to the qualitative and quantitative variability of the extracts used [69] by the different authors and to the genetic variability of the *B. bassiana* isolates used in this study [23]. It is therefore evident that the compatibility of plant protection products depends mainly on the nature of the compounds, the concentrations used and the nature of the isolates. Furthermore, studies have shown that commercial strains of *B. bassiana* are less resistant than wild strains possibly due to the effect of the products used for encapsulation/formulation [70, 71]. Further research on the effects of neem on the enzymatic activity of *B. bassiana* could be interesting to decide on these contradictions [72].

Apart from plant extracts, chlorpyrifos-ethyl at the recommended dose was also shown to be incompatible with *B. bassiana* by inhibiting all developmental stages of both isolates. This corroborates with some studies [53, 73–75] who reported that triazophos, chlorpyriphos and endosulfan formulations inhibited 100% of *B. bassiana* germination at all doses tested. This inhibition is due to the ability of the chemical insecticide to act as an acetylcholine esterase inhibiting neurotoxin [4].

Finally, a comparative look at the two isolates showed that Bb-IRAD.Fbt was more affected by EPP than Bb-IRAD.Nkoe. This further confirms that these two isolates are different hence their reactivity was variable to the applied pesticides. The different membrane and intracellular receptors of Bb-IRAD.Nkoe would be less specific to the toxic molecules AETP, AEAI and OEAI which act either at the membrane level (as a contact fungicide) or inside the cells (as a systemic fungicide) [76]. Therefore, these extracts can either inhibit metabolism by having a fungistatic effect or inhibit respiration by having a fungicidal effect on *B. bassiana* [7] resulting in incompatibility.

#### **5. Conclusion**

Cross-checking the results showed that all producers apply clearing and pruning, and disparately others apply insecticides, fungicides and herbicides. All the products used are chemical, with a large number for insecticides. AETP, OEAI, chlorpyrifosethyl and AEAI were found to be toxic to all developmental traits of *B. bassiana* isolates, with more than 50% inhibition at low and medium concentrations, and highly toxic at high concentrations, with 90% inhibition on average. However, the synthetic fungicide based on chlorothalonil + dimethomorph was found to be compatible with *B. bassiana* isolates as was the absolute control consisting of sterile distilled water.

This study shows that, although biological and with effects on *Hypothenemus hampei* or *Colletotrichum kahawae*, natural substances such as extracts of *T. peruviana* and *A. indica*, as well as chlorpyrifos-based products, do not allow either the preservation or the synergistic use of *B. bassiana* with extracts of these plants or chlorpyrifos-ethyl, especially at high concentrations of these substances. Therefore, these substances should be used with caution to ensure the sustainability and conservation of the diversity of natural enemies of coffee and other crop pests such as *B. bassiana*.

#### **Acknowledgements**

The authors are grateful to the International Foundation for Science (IFS) in Sweden [Research Grant Agreement No. I-1-C-6256-1] and the International Centre for Agricultural Research for Development (CIRAD) through the DP/Agroforestry in Cameroon, for their financial support. The authors are grateful to the Institute of Agricultural Research for Development (IRAD) for technical assistance.

#### **Conflicts of interest**

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

#### **Author details**

François Essouma Manga<sup>1</sup> \*, Mvondo Nganti Dorothée<sup>2</sup> , Victorine Obe Lombeko<sup>1</sup> , Katya Francine Erica Emvoutou<sup>1</sup> and Zachée Ambang<sup>2</sup>

1 Institut de Recherche Agricole pour le Développement (IRAD), Cameroon

2 University of Yaoundé, Department of Plant Biology, Cameroon

\*Address all correspondence to: essouma2003@yahoo.fr

© 2023 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

*Use of Biological and Chemical Pesticides in Agricultural Production: What Fate… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.111408*

### **References**

[1] Patil BV, Naik MK, Manujnath H, Hosamani AC. Chapter twenty-three: Formulation and compatibility of PGPR with pesticides for suppression of insect pests. In: Reddy MS, Ilao RO, Faylon PS, Dar WD, Batchelor WD, editors. Recent Advances in Biofertilizers and Biofungicides (PGPR) for Sustainable Agriculture. Cambridge Scholars Publishing; 2014. pp. 269-280

[2] Seema W. An overview on the biotechnological approaches in the control of crop pests. Journal of Eco-friendly Agriculture. 2006;**1**(2): 89-99

[3] Lacey LA, Frutos R, Kaya HK, Vail P. Insect pathogens as biological control agents: Do they have a future? Biological Control. 2001;**21**:230-248

[4] Lengai Geraldin MW, Muthomi James W, Mbega Ernest R. Phytochemical activity and role of botanical pesticides in pest management for sustainable agricultural crop production. Scientific African. 2020;**7** (2020):e00239. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.sciaf.2019.e00239

[5] Raguraman S, Kannan M. Non-target effects of botanicals on beneficial arthropods with special reference to *Azadirachta indica*. In: Singh D, editor. Advances in Plant Biopesticides. India: Springer; 2014. pp. 173-205. DOI: 10.1007/978-81-322-2006-0\_10

[6] Lacey LA, Grzywacz D, Shapiro-Ilan DI, Frutos R, Brownbridge M, Goettel MS. Insect pathogens as biological control agents: Back to the future. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 2015;**132**:1-41

[7] Mboussi SB, Ambang Z, Ndogho PA, Ngoh Dooh JP, Manga Essouma F. In

vitro antifungal potential of aqueous seeds extracts of *Azadirachta indica* and *Thevetia peruviana* against *phytophthora megakarya* in Cameroon. Journal of Applied Life Sciences International. 2016;**4**(4):1-12. DOI: 10.9734/JALSI/ 2016/23710

[8] Manga EF, Voula VA, Kone NAN, Mvondo Nganti D, Ambang Z. Coffee berry borer, *Hypothenemus hampei* Ferr.: Cultural control and *In vitro* effects of kernel extracts of *Azadirachta indica* A. Juss. And *Thevetia peruviana* (pers.) Schum. European Scientific Journal. 2021a;**17**(34):12-29

[9] Hajek AE, Delalibera I. Fungal pathogens as classical biological control agents against arthropods. Biological Control. 2010;**55**:147-158

[10] Mahot HC, Membang G, Hanna R, Begoude BAD, Bagny BL, Bilong BCF. Laboratory assessment of virulence of Cameroonian isolates of *Beauveria bassiana* and *Metarhizium anisopliae* against mirid bugs *Sahlbergella singularis* Haglund (Hemiptera: Miridae). African Entomology. 2019; **27**(1):86-96

[11] Membang G, Ambang Z, Mahot HC, Kuate AF, Fiaboe KKM, Hanna R. *Cosmopolites sordidus* (Germar) susceptibility to indigenous Cameroonian *Beauveria bassiana* (Bals.) Vuill. And Metarhizium anisopliae (Metsch.) isolates. Journal of Applied Entomology. 2020;**00**:1-13. https://doi. org/10.1111/jen.12757

[12] Manga EF, Ndo EGD, Voula VA, Mvondo ND, Assena LH, Ambang Z. Isolation of *Beauveria bassiana* (Deuteromycotina: Hyphomycetes) from the soils of coffee fields and insecticide activity against *Hypothenemus* *hampei* (coleoptera: Scolytidae). Journal of Biopesticides. 2021b;**14**(2):141-153

[13] Vega FE, Infante F, Johnson AJ. Chapter 11: The genus *Hypothenemus*, with emphasis on *H. hampei*, the coffee berry borer. In: Vega FE, Hofstetter RW, editors. Bark Beetles: Biology and Ecology of Native and Invasive Species. London, UK: Elsevier/Academic Press; 2015. pp. 427-494. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0- 12-417156-5.00011-3

[14] Aristizábal LF, Bustillo AE, Arthurs SP. Integrated pest management of coffee berry borer: Strategies from Latin America that could be useful for coffee farmers in Hawaii. Insects. 2016; **7**(1):11-14

[15] Morris JR et al. Ant-mediated (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) biological control of the coffee berry borer: Diversity, ecological complexity, and conservation biocontrol. Myrmecological News. 2018;**7**(26):1-17

[16] Escobar-Ramírez a S, Ingo G, Inge A, Teja T. Biological control of the coffee berry borer\_ Main natural enemies, control success, and landscape influence. Biological Control. 2019:17. DOI: 10.1016/ j.biocontrol.2019.05.011

[17] Aldeghairi MA, El-Meleigi MA, Abdel Baky Nagdy F, Ibrahim Gamal H. The Entomopathogenic Fungus *Cladosporium* Sp. as a Candidate Biocontrol Agent against the Sweet Potato Whitefly, *Bemisia tabaci*, in Saudi Arabia. In: Reddy MS, Ilao RO, Faylon PS, Dar WD, Batchelor WD, Sayyed R, et al. editors. Recent Advances in Biofertilizers and Biofungicides (PGPR) for Sustainable Agriculture. Cambridge Scholars Publishing; 2014. pp. 481-509

[18] Shashi S, Gupta RBJ. Compatibility of *Beauveria brongniartii* with pesticides and organic manures.

Pesticide Research Journal. 1998;**10**(2): 251-253

[19] Tamai MA, Alves SB, Lopes RB, Faion M, Padulla LFL. Toxicity of pesticides against *Beauveria bassiana* (Bals.) Vuill. Arquivos do Instituto Biológico. 2002;**69**(3):89-96

[20] Kouassi M, Coderre D, Todorova IS. Compatibility of zineb, dimethoate and *Beauveria bassiana* (Balsamo) Vuillemin against tarnished plant bug (Hemiptera: Miridae). Journal of Entomological Science. 2003;**38**(3):359-367

[21] Marques RP, Monteiro AC, Pereira GT. Growth, sporulation and viability of entomopathogenic fungi under mediums with different Nim oil (*Azadirachta indica*) concentrations. Ciencia Rural. 2004;**34**(6):1675-1680

[22] Depieri RA, Martinez SS, Ayres O, Menezes JR. Compatibility of the fungus *Beauveria bassiana* (Bals.) Vuill. (deuteromycetes) with extracts of neem seeds and leaves and the emulsible oil. Neotropical Entomology. 2005;**34**:601-606

[23] Mohan MC, Reddy NP, Devi UK, Ramesh K, Sharma HC. Growth and insect assays of *Beauveria bassiana* with neem to test their compatibility and synergism. Biocontrol Science and Technology. 2007;**17**(10):1059-1069

[24] Sahayaraj K, Namasivayam RKS, Rathi MJ. Compatibility of entomopathogenic fungi with extracts of plants and commercial botanicals. African Journal of Biotechnology. 2010;**10**(6): 933-938

[25] Halder J, Rai AB, Kodandaram MH. Compatibility of neem oil and different entomopathogens for the Management of Major Vegetable Sucking Pests. National Academy of Sciences. 2012; **36**(1):19-25

*Use of Biological and Chemical Pesticides in Agricultural Production: What Fate… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.111408*

[26] Ribeiro LP, Blume E, Bogorni PC, Dequech STB, Brand SC, Junges E. Compatibility of *Beauveria bassiana* commercial isolate with botanical insecticides utilized in organic crops in southern Brazil. Biological Agriculture & Horticulture: An International Journal for Sustainable Production Systems. 2012;**28**(4):223-240

[27] Celar AF, Kos K. Compatibility of selected herbicides with entomopathogenic fungus *Beauveria bassiana* (Bals.) Vuill. Acta Agriculturae Slovenica. 2012;**99**(1):57-63. DOI: 10.2478/ v10014-012-0007-2

[28] Gowrish RK, Ramesha B, Ushakumari R, Santhoshkumar T, Vijayaraghavakumar. Effect of spinosad 45 SC on growth and development of entomopathogenic fungi *Metarhizium anisopliae* and *Beauveria bassiana*. Entomon. 2013;**38**(3):155-160

[29] Challa MM, Sanivada KS. Compatibility of *Beauveria bassiana* (bals.) Vuill isolates with selected insecticides and fungicides at agriculture spray tank dose. Innovare Journal of Agricultural Science. 2014;**2**(3):7-10

[30] Faraji S, Shadmehri DA, Mehrvar A. Compatibility of entomopathogenic fungi *Beauveria bassiana* and *Metarhizium anisopliae* with some pesticides. Jounal of Entomological Society of Iran. 2016;**36**(2):137-146

[31] Joshi M, Gaur N, Pandey R. Compatibility of entomopathogenic fungi *Beauveria bassiana* and *Metarhizium anisopliae* with selective pesticides. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies. 2018; **6**(4):867-872

[32] Wisuda LN, Harjaka T, Prasetyaningrum DI. Compatibility between *Beauveria bassiana* (Bals.) and neem extract against Brown Planthopper (*Nilaparvata lugens* Stal.). Ilmu Pertanian (Agricultural Science). 2019; **4**(1):9-14

[33] Afandhi A, Pratiwi VR, Hadi MS, Setiawan Y, Puspitarini RD. Suitable combination between *Beauveria bassiana* (Balsamo) vuillemin and four plant leaf extracts to control *Spodoptera litura* (Fabricius). AGRIVITA Journal of Agricultural Science. 2020;**42**(2): 341-349 https://doi.org/10.17503/ agrivita.v42i2.2678

[34] Celestino NF, Pratissoli D, Gonçalves dos Santos Junior JH, Machado CL. In vivo compatibility between *Beauveria bassiana* (Bals.) Vuillemin and castor oil on *Hypothenemus hampei* (Ferrari). *Coffee Science*. 2020;**15**(I):e151771. DOI: 10.25186/.v15i.1771. ISSN 1984-3909

[35] Pessoa AGL, Souza NMT, Loureiro de Souza E. Compatibility some insecticides used in pest management in eucalyptus with *Beauveria bassiana* (Cordycipitaceae). Research, Society and Development. 2020; **9**(8) e322985148 http://dx.doi.org/ 10.33448/rsd-v9i8.5148

[36] Hussain A. Compatibility of *Beauveria bassiana* and a plant secondary metabolite: A novel modeling approach to invade host defense for effective control of *Oligonychus afrasiaticus* (McGregor) on date palms. Journal of Fungi. 2021;**7**:334. DOI: 10.3390/jof7050334

[37] Manzanares BL, Villar EM, Mancebon VSM, Moreno IP. Compatibility of the entomopathogenic fungus *Beauveria bassiana* with etoxazole, spirodiclofen and spiromesifen against *Tetranychus urticae*. Biological Control. 2022;**169**(2022) 104892. DOI: 10.1016/j. biocontrol.2022.104892

[38] Stoll G. Protection naturelle des végétaux en zones tropicales.

AGRECOL-CTA. Josef Margraf ed. 97985 Weikersheim (Allemagne). 1988. p. 180

[39] Gata-Gonçalvès L. Propriedades Biocidas de Plantas de Origem Tropical: Caso da *Thevetia peruviana* Schum. PhD. Thesis. Engenharia Agronomica Quinina. Campos das Cebolas Lisboa; 2001 133 p.

[40] Dorothée MN, François ME, Nourou KNA, Angèle NP, Zachée A. Pathogenicity and in vitro control of *Lasiodiplodia theobromae* and *fusarium* sp., pathogens associated with cocoa dieback in Cameroon. International Journal of Current Research in Biosciences and Plant Biology. 2019;**6**(7):1-13

[41] Messi LM, Manga EF, Voula AV, Essouma MJE, Begoude BAD. In vitro study of the compatibility of six fungicides with two strains of *Trichoderma asperellum*, biocontrol agents used against cacao black pod disease in Cameroon. International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies. 2018;**24**(4):1834-1848

[42] Razafindratiana E. Champignon entomopathogène et huiles de formulation: Test de formulation des spores de champignon entomopathogène dans les différents types d'huiles végétales existantes à Madagascar. GTZ, Documentation DEPSE; 2006. pp. 332-337

[43] Mamza WS, Zarafi AB, Alabi O. *Invitro* evaluation of six fungicides on radial mycelia growth and re-growth of *fusarium pallidoroseum* isolated from Castor (*Ricinus communis*) in Samaru, Nigeria. African Journal of General Agriculture. 2008;**4**(2):65-71

[44] Oliveira RC, Neves PMOJ. Biological control compatibility of *Beauveria bassiana* with acaricides. Neotropical Entomology. 2004;**33**:353-358

[45] Opara EU, Wokocha RC. Efficacy of some plant extracts on the in-vitro and in-vivo control of *Xanthomonas campestris* Pv. Vesicatoria. Agricultural Journal. 2008;**3**(3):163-170

[46] Shapiro SS, Wilk MB. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika. 1965; **52**:591-611

[47] Fisher S, Yates. Statistical Tables for Biological Agricultural and Medical Research. 5ème ed. *Longman Group Limited*, London. 1963. p.146

[48] Jayarama K. Manuel de statistique pour la recherche forestière. Organisation des nations unies pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture (FAO); Rome (Italy). Dept. des Forets fre 185392; Commission Europeenne, Brussels (Belgium) fre 185393; 1999. p. 242

[49] Hassan SA. Testing methodology and the concept of the IOBC/WPRS working group. In: Jepson PC, editor. Pesticides and Non- Target Invertebrates. Dorset: Intercept, Wimborne; 1989. pp. 1-8

[50] Daumas F. Méthodes de normalisation des données. Revue de statistique appliquée, France. 1982;**3**(4): 23-38

[51] Woodill AJ, Nakamoto ST, Kawabata AM, Leung P. Optimal spraying strategy to combat the coffee berry borer: A dynamic approach. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research (JAFR). 2021;**4**:9. DOI: 10.1016/j. jafr.2021. 100125

[52] Johnson AM, Ruiz-Diaz PC, Manoukis CN, Jose CVR. Coffee berry borer (*Hypothenemus hampei*), a global Pest of coffee: Perspectives from historical and recent

*Use of Biological and Chemical Pesticides in Agricultural Production: What Fate… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.111408*

invasions, and future priorities. Insects. 2020;**11**:882. DOI: 10.3390/insects111 20882

[53] Usha J, Naren BM, Padmaja V. Detection of compatibility of entomopathogenic fungus *Beauveria bassiana* (bals.) Vuill. With pesticides, fungicides and botanicals. IJPAES. 2014; **4**(2):613-624

[54] Deb L, Rajesh T, Majumdar D, Tombisana RK. Evaluation of biological compatibility of *Beauveria bassiana* with fungicides and botanicals. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2017;**SP1**:1120-1124

[55] Dara SK. Compatibilité du champignon entomopathogène *Beauveria bassiana* avec certains fongicides utilisés dans la fraise en Californie. Open Plant Journal. 2019;**11**:7p

[56] MINAAPRA. Le biocontrôle pour la protection des cultures : 15 recommandations pour soutenir les technologies vertes. Rapport au Premier ministre François Fillon. France: Ministère de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation, de la Pêche, de la Ruralité et de l'Aménagement du territoire; 2011. p. 156

[57] Yoon M, Cha B, Kim J. Recent trends in studies on botanical fungicides in agriculture. The Plant Pathology Journal. 2013;**1**:1-9

[58] Alizadeh A, Samih MA, Khezri M, Riseh RS. Compatibility of *Beauveria bassiana* (Bals.) Vuill. With several pesticides. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology. 2007; **9**:31-34

[59] Bajan C, Kmitowa K, Popowska NE. Reaction of various ecotypes of entomopathogenic fungus *Beauveria bassiana* to the botanical preparation

NEEMTM and pyrethroid Fastak. Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection. 1998;**3**:369-375

[60] Hiroze E, Neves JOMP, Zequi CAJ, Martins HL, Peralta HC, Alcides Moino Jr A. Effect of biofertilizers and neem oil on the entomopathogenic fungi *Beauveria bassiana* (Bals.). Vuill. and Metarhizium anisopliae (Metsch.) Sorok. Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology. 2001;**44**(4): 419-423

[61] Dutta P, Bhattacharyya PN, Sarmah SR, Madhab M, Sandilya SP, Gogoi D, et al. *In vitro* studies on the compatibility assessment of certain agrochemicals with microbial biopesticides used in tea [*Camellia sinensis* (L.) O. Kuntze] of Assam, Northeast India. Two and a Bud. 2016; **63**(1):13-16

[62] Kakati N, Dutta P, Das P, Nath DP. Compatibility of Entomopathogenous fungi with commonly used insecticides for Management of Banana Aphid transmitting *Banana bunchy top virus* (BBTV) in Assam Banana production system. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2018;**7**(11):2507-2513

[63] Rodriguez-Lagunes DA, Tajada AL, Diaz DR, Maciel CR, Mendoza JV, Roamn EB, et al. Compatibility of *Beauveria bassiana* and aqueous extracts of neem (*Azadirachta indica*) to control coffee borer (*Hypothenemus hampei*). Manejo Integrado de Plagas. 1997;**44**: 14-19

[64] Potrich M, Dallacort S, Luckman D, Lozano RE, Pegorini SC, Simionatto D. Compatibility of *Beauveria bassiana* and alternative phytosanitary products. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 2018:10

[65] Hernandez MM, Martinez-Villar E, Peace C, Perez-Moreno I, Marco V. Compatibility of the entomopathogenic fungus *Beauveria bassiana* with flufenoxuron and azadirachtin against Tetranychus urticae. Experimental and Applied Acarology. 2012;**58**:395-405

[66] Rehman H, Rasul A, Farooqi AM, Aslam UMH, Majeed B, Sagheer M, Ali Q. Compatibility of some botanicals and the entomopathogenic fungus, *Beauveria bassiana* (Bals.), against the red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) Egyptian Journal of Biological Pest Control 2020;**30**(2020):131. https://doi. org/10.1186/s41938-020-00329-7

[67] Sajjad A, Muhammad AF, Sajjad A, Muhammad IU, Ahmad KQ, Siddique B, et al. Compatibility of entomopathogenic fungi and botanical extracts against the wheat aphid, *Sitobion avenae* (fab.) (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Egyptian Journal of Biological Pest Control. 2018; **28**(97):6p

[68] Duarte RT, Gonçalves KC, Espinosa DJL, Moreira LF, De Bortoli SA, Humber RA, et al. Potential of entomopathogenic fungi as biological control agents of diamondback moth (lepidoptera: Plutellidae) and compatibility with chemical insecticides. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2016;**109**(2): 594-601. DOI: 10.1093/jee/tow008

[69] Forim MR, Fernandes MFG, Cass QB, Fernandes JB, Vieira PC. Simultaneous quantification of azadirachtin and 3-tigloylazadirachtol in Brazilian seeds and oil of *Azadirachta indica*: Application to quality control and marketing. Analytical Methods. 2010;**2**: 860-869

[70] Shapiro-Ilan ID, Reilly CC, Hotchkiss WM, Wood WB. The potential for enhanced fungicide resistance in *Beauveria bassiana* through strain discovery and artificial selection. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 2002; **81**(2002):86-93

[71] Rodrigues Wenzel MI, Batista A, Giodano BI, Denadae EB, Fernandes BJ, Forim RM. Compatibility of polymers to fungi *Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae* and their formulated products stability. Acta Scientiarum Agronomy. 2016;**39**(4): 457-464. https://doi.org/10.4025/45 actasciagron.v39i4.32903.

[72] Islam TM, Omar BD. Combined effect of *Beauveria bassiana* with neem on virulence of insect in case of two application approaches. The Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences. 2012;**22**(1):77-82

[73] Gnanaprakasam AR, Sundaram J, Stephen DS, Kathirvelu B, Savariar V. Compatibility of entomopathogenic fungus *Beauveria bassiana* (Balsamo) Vuillemin isolated from Pulney hills, Western Ghats of Tamil Nadu with insecticides and fungicides. Elixir Agriculture. 2011;**40**(2011):5563-5567

[74] Cai Y, Zhang SL, Li ZZ. Compatibility of *Beauveria bassiana* to some Chemecal insecticides and herbicides. Chinese Journal of Biological Control. 2011;**27**(3):316-323

[75] Oliveira CN, Neves PMOJ, Kawazoe LS. Compatibility between the entomopathogenic fungus *Beauveria bassiana* and insecticides used in coffee plantations. Science in Agriculture. 2003;**60**(4):663-667

[76] Zacchino S, Lopez S, Galtusos MJ, De D, Gruañes A, Vivote GN, et al. In vitro antifungal evaluation and studies on mode of action of eight selected species from Argentine flora. Phytomédécin. 1998;**5**(5):339-395

### Section 2
