See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/321075197

BIOPESTICIDES FOR PESTS CONTROL: A REVIEW

Article · September 2017

CITATIONS READS

9 21,269

6 authors, including:

Ahmadu Tijjani Abdulaziz Bashir Kutawa

Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University Federal University, Dutsin-Ma
16 PUBLICATIONS   20 CITATIONS    48 PUBLICATIONS   103 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

A. Muhammad Gambo Abdullahi

Federal University, Dutsin-Ma Modibbo Adama University of Technology, Yola-Nigeria
12 PUBLICATIONS   18 CITATIONS    20 PUBLICATIONS   77 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Potential Impact of some Cultural Practices on Incidence and Severity of Ralstoniasolanacearum, Causing Bacterial Wilt Disease in Greenhouse Tomatoes View project

Ecological control of Tomato leaf miner (Tuta absoluta) in Nigeria View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdulaziz Bashir Kutawa on 15 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 2465-7115 (Online); 2465-7123 (Print)

BIOPESTICIDES FOR PESTS CONTROL: A REVIEW

Tijjani, A.,1 Bashir, K. A.,2* Mohammed, I.,2 Muhammad, A.3, Gambo, A.4 and Musa, H.5
1Department of Crop Production, Faculty of Agriculture and Agricultural Technology, AbubakarTafawaBalewa
University P.M.B 0248, Bauchi, Bauchi State, Nigeria.
2Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, Federal University Dutsinma P.M.B 5001, Dutsin-ma, Katsina

State, Nigeria.
3Department of Crop Prouction and Protection, Faculty of Agriculture, Federal University Dutsinma P.M.B 5001,

Dutsin-ma, Katsina State, Nigeria.

4Department of Crop Protection, School of Agriculture and Agricultural Technology, ModibboAdama University of

Technology, P. M. B. 2076, Yola, Adamawa State, Nigeria.

5Department of Crop Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Federal University Dutse, P.M.B 7156, Jigawa State, Nigeria.
*Correspondence: [email protected], Tel: +2348034138818)

ABSTRACT
Despite the harmful implications involved in the use of synthetic chemicals to control pests, still they are extensively
used in all countries all over the world. The increased social pressure to replace them gradually with other alternatives
that are safe to humans and non-target organisms has led to increased development of compounds based on the
models of naturally occurring active ingredients of biological origin, having various biological activities known as
“biopesticides”. Biopesticides are broad array of microbial pesticides, biochemicals derived from micro-organisms,
phytochemicals and other natural sources, and processes involves the genetic modification of plants to express genes
encoding insecticidal toxins. The use of biopesticides for pest control today is an evolving field in pest management.
This paper reviewed the current state of knowledge on the potential use of biopesticides for pests control globally,
highlighting the concept of biopesticides, their categories, utilisation in pest management, formulations, application
technology/method at different stages of advancement in both delivery and efficiency with their classical/key
examples of successful use in commercial control of pests for agricultural crops and finally with empherical
information on mechanisms of actions of biopesticides on pests control.

Keywords: Biopesticides, control, formulations, pests, phytochemicals.

© Copy Right, JBA Publishing. All rights reserved.
difficult due to a number of factors notably
1. INTRODUCTION among them are:
Destructive activities of numerous pests like a) Management failure as a result of
plant pathogens (fungi, bacteria, nematodes etc), excessive prophylactic use of pesticides
insects and weeds have plagued agriculture and through pest resurgence and the
this leads to a drastic decrease in yields (Saima development of heritable resistance (Van
and Jogen, 2011). Crop losses caused by pests Emden et al., 2004).It was estimated that
coupled with other problems like inclement there are close to 200 species of weeds
weather, farmers’ limited access to technical that are resistant to herbicides (Heap,
know-how and poor soil conditions undermine 2010) and over 500 species of arthropods
food security. About 40 per cent reduction in the have developed resistance to some
worlds crop yield due to pests has been insecticides (Hajek, 2004).
estimated (Oerke et al., 1994).Management of
these pests to increase food security in order to b) Not feasible to peasant or local farmers
meet the needs of increasing human populace is because of their expensive costs and also
imperative and this should be done in such a their effect on target organisms.
way that no damage is done to human health, Having these incessant problems or drawbacks
public goods and environment that farming associated with the use of synthetic chemicals to
brings (David et al., 2011; Bastianns et al., control pests, it is imperative to look for eco-
2008). Over the past half of the decade, crop friendly method that will serve as an alternative
protection against pests depend solemnly on to chemicals (biopesticides). Biopesticides are
chemical pesticides and new legislations on effective, biodegradable with no residuals in the
chemical usage and the evolution of resistance in environment. Due to the adverse effects of
pest populations has resulted in their declining chemicals, biopesticides development is
usage. Besides this, the use of synthetic increasing and that their efficiency against pests
pesticides is significantly becoming more is significant (Salma and Jogen, 2011). The aim

Journal of Biopesticides and Agriculture, vol. 3 No. 1, September, 2016. Page 6 - 13

of this review is to critically highlight the biochemical pesticide (Salma and Jogen, 2011).
potentials of biopesticides for pest control. Plants that produced secondary metabolites are
also considered as biopesticides (Schumutterer,
2. CONCEPT OF BIOPESTICIDES 1990).
Bio-pesticides are naturally occurring substances
from living organisms (natural enemies) or their 3.3 Plant-Incorporated-Protectants (PIP):
products (microbial products, phytochemicals) PIPs, also known as Genetically Modified Crops,
or their by-products (semiochemicals) that can are biopesticidal substances produced by plants
control pest by nontoxic mechanisms (Salma from genetic material that have been added or
and Jogen, 2011). Organization for Economic incorporated into their genetic makeup. A
Co-operation and Devlopment (2009), viewed typical example of this is the use of Bt protein to
biopesticides as manufactured mass produced develop PIP in a process called genetic
agents derived from natural sources living engineering. The Bt toxin is host specific and is
micro-organisms and sold for use to control capable of causing death within a short time,
pests. According to Suman and Dikshit (2010), usually 48 hours (Siejel, 2001). Safe to beneficial
biopesticides encompass a abroad array of organisms, human, environment and it does not
microbial pesticides, biochemicals obtained from harm vertebrates (Lacey and Siegel, 2000).
micro-organisms and natural sources.
Historically, biopesticides has been associated 3.4 Semiochemicals: A semiochemical by
with the biological control and by implication, definition is a chemical signal produced by one
the manipulation of living organisms as organism, usually insects which caused a
indicated in Table 1. behavioural change in an individual of the same
or different species. For crop protection, the
3. CATEGORIES OF BIOPESTICIDES most widely used semiochemicals are the insect
Biopesticides fall into four (4) major categories: pheromones which serve as a signal to
(1) Microbial pesticides (3) communicate with others in their species for a
Plant-Incorporated-Protectants (PIPs) number of reasons and synthesized for pest
(2) Biochemical pesticides (4) control by mating disruption, Lure-and-Kill
Semiochemicals systems and mass trapping (Preddy et al., 2009).

3.1 Microbial Pesticides: These consist of

4. BIOPESTICIDES FORMULATIONS
microorganisms such as bacterium, virus,
In most cases, the active ingredients of
fungus, protozoan as active ingredients which
biopesticides are formulated in the same way as
are used for the biological control of plant
the synthetic pesticides and most convenient for
pathogens, pestiferous insects and weed. The
farmers to use the same equipment for
most widely used microorganism in the
application (Slavica and Brankica, 2013).The
development of biopesticide is the insect
basis for most of the biopesticides is living
pathogenic bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis(Bt).
organisms and their viability have to be
This bacterium serves as an insecticide for most
maintained during the formulation process and
Lepidoptera, coleopteran anddiptera (Gill et
stored at acceptable levels. The organisms must
al.,1992). B. thuringiensis produces protein
revive from their dormant state in order to be
crystals or toxin during spore formation of the
active at the application time (Boyetenko, 1998).
bacterium that is capable of lysis of gut cells
Final product is maintained by mixing the
when consumed by a specific or susceptible
microbial component with different carriers and
insects (Chandler et al., 2011).
adjuvants during formulation process for better
protection from environmental factors,
3.2 Biochemical Pesticides: They are also
controlled rates, improved bioactivity and
known as herbal pesticides (Pal and Kumar,
storage stability. To achieve the most important
2013) are naturally occurring substances used
function of the developed biopesticides
for controlling pests through a non-toxic
formulation such as easy handling and
mechanism and because it is difficult sometimes
application of the product, stabilization of the
to assessed whether a natural pesticide can
microbial agent during distribution and storage,
control the pest by a non-toxic mode of action,
protection of the bioagent from adverse
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
environmental conditions, enhancement of the
established a committee to determine whether a
bioagents activity by increasing contact and
pesticide meets the specified criteria for a
interaction with the target pest is necessary to

Journal of Biopesticides and Agriculture, vol. 3 No. 1, September, 2016. Page 6 - 13

ensure these, Biopesticides are formulated in 4.1.4 Wettable Powders (WP): These are
various ways (Mollet and Grubenmann, 2001). also dry formulation ground finely and applied
Depending on the physical states of the after suspension in water. Wettable Powders are
biopesticide formulation as dry or liquid forms, obtained by blending active ingredients with
the active ingredients are produced by addition melting and dispersing agents, synergist,
of stabilizers, synergist, spreads, stickers, surfactants, and inert fillers. Strict safety
surfactants, colouring agents, anti-freezing measures are usually taken because of their
compounds, additional nutrients, dispersants dustiness that can cause serious health problems
and melting agents (Brar et al., 2006; Knowles, to manufacturers and during application.
2008) as presented in Table 2. In general, Besides, WPs have long stability during storage,
biopesticides are usually formulated as dry good miscibility with water and can be applied
formulation (for direct applications) and liquid with conventional spraying equipments (Brar et
formulations. al., 2006; Knowles, 2008).

4.1 DRY FORMULATION FOR DIRECT 4.1.5 Water Dispersible Granules (WDG):
APPLICATIONS: It is designed to be suspended in water and to
4.1.1 Dustable Powders (DP): Active overcome problems associated with WPs, dust
ingredient concentration for dust formulations is free and with good storage stability (Knowles,
usually 10% and is formulated by sorption of 2008; Slavica and Brankica, 2013).
active ingredient on finely ground, solid mineral
powder (talc, clay etc.) with particle size ranging 4.2 LIQUID FORMULATIONS:
from 50-100 mm. The inert ingredients for dust 4.2.1 Emulsion: Emulsion formulations are
formulations are UV protectants, adhesive designed to be mixed with water and it could be
materials (i.e. stickers) to enhance adsorption normal emulsion which is oil in water (O/W) or
and anticaking agent (Slavica and Brankica, an inert emulsion which is water in oil (W/O).
2013). Most importantly, the proper choice of
emulsifiers for stabilization to avoid instability is
4.1.2 Granules (GR): Active ingredient necessary. But in the case of water in oil
concentration for granules ranges from 2-20% emulsion due to oil in the external phase of the
and the active ingredients either coat the outside formulation, losses as a result of evaporation
of the granule or are absorbed into the granules. and spray drift are minimal (Brar et al., 2006;
To control the rate of effectiveness of active Slvica and Brankica, 2013).
ingredients after application, granules can be
coated with resins or polymers. Granules are 4.2.2 Suspension Concentrate (SC):
mostly applied to control insects living in Formulated by mixing finely ground, solid active
soils,weeds and nematodes for uptake by roots. ingredient dispersed in liquid phase, usually
Granules with coarse size particles range from water. Agitation is always a requisite before
100-600 microns made from such materials application to keep particles evenly distributed
such as kaoline, silica, starch, polymers, because the solid particles are not dissolved in
groundnut plant residue, dry fertilizers etc. liquid phase. The particle size distribution is 1-10
(Slavica and Brankica, 2013; Tadros, 2005). µm and these small particles size offers easier
Some granules release their active ingredients access of the active ingredients to plant tissue
after exposure to soil moisture. and improved bioefficiency. It is a popular type
of formulation because of safety to operator and
4.1.3 Seed Dressing(SD): A kind of environment (Knowles, 2005; Woods, 2003).
biopesticide formulation obtained by mixing
active ingredient carrier in form of powder and 4.2.3 Suspo-Emulsion (SE): Is a mixture of
accompanying inert to facilitate end product emulsion and suspension concentrate and highly
adherence to seed coats. Powders for seed
demanding formulation, because it is necessary
dressing are applied to seed by tumbling seeds
with the product designed to adhere to them and to develop a homogenous emulsion component
they also contain colouring agents inform of red with a particle suspension component so that the
pigment as a safety maker for treated seed
final product will remain stable. In addition, it is
(Woods, 2003).
necessary to be carried out using storage
stability resting (Knowles, 2008).

Journal of Biopesticides and Agriculture, vol. 3 No. 1, September, 2016. Page 6 - 13

4.2.4 Oil Dispersion (OD): The product of 1) Antibiosis 2) Competition
the formulation is produced in the same ways as 3)Hyperparasitism 4) Synergism
suspension concentrate. Instability problems 6.1 Antibiosis: This occurs as a result of an
could be avoided by proper selection of inert interaction with other microbes
ingredients (Vernner and Bauer, 2007). (microorganisms) mediated by specific
4.2.5 Capsule Suspension (CS): Active metabolite of microbial origin, by volatile
ingredients are formulated in micro- compounds, lytic enzymes or other toxic
encapsulated stable suspension intended for substances (Rikita and Utpal, 2014). The
dilution with water before use. Capsules made microorganisms produce antibiotics, bacteriocin,
from gelation, starch, cellulose and other volatile compound and metabolite production.
polymers are used to encapsulate the bioagents 6.2 Competition: Another mechanism of
and in this way the bioagents are protected from control by biopesticides is their ability to
the harsh environmental conditions. Interfacial compete aggressively, that they grow rapidly and
polymerization principle is the most frequent colonize substrate to exclude pathogens. For
applied method of encapsulation which is used example T. spp. are aggressive competitors of
to give smaller size and highly efficient Fusarium spp.
formulations typically fungal biopesticides
(Winder et al, 2005). 6.3 Hyperparasitism: Hyperparasitism is the
lysis of the death by other microorganisms or
4.2.6 Ultra Low Volume Liquids (ULV): direct parasitism. For e.g T. lignorum is found to
Formulations not intended to be diluted in water be parasitizing the hyphae of R. solani and
before use and have concentration of active therefore soil inoculation with Trichoderma
ingredients. It is easy to transport and can be
spores help to control damping off disease in
formulated using a suspended biocontrol agent
as an active ingredient (Woods, 2003). citrus seedlings (Rikita and Utpal, 2014).

5. BIOPESTICIDES APPLICATION 6.4 Synergism: The ability of some bioagent to

TECHNOLOGY/METHODS combine actions of hydrolytic enzymes and
Effective control of pests can be achieved by
antibiotic secondary metabolites. For example
good selection of application
techniques/methods and an appropriate time the effectiveness T. spp. as a biocontrol agent
and/or frequency of biopesticides application. and its fitness in the environment is as a result of
The following are some of the methods of
synergistic effects of antimicrobial compounds.
biopesticides application:
Example includes pyrones, coumarins etc.
5.1 Seed Treatment: One way to apply 7.1 GENERAL ADVANTAGES OF
biopesticides is by seed treatment and is the BIOPESTICIDES
most effective method or technique. Powder The interest in biopesticides is based on the
formulations are applied on seeds by tumbling benefits or advantages associated with such
seed with the product that is designed to adhere products. They include:
to the seed (Matthew et al., 2014; Wood, 2003). 1) Biopesticides are usually inherently less
harmful/toxic and cause less
5.2 Foliar Application: Simply means environmental load or pollutions.
biopesticides application on leaves surface as 2) Designed to only one specific pest or, in
sprays. For example application of B. subtillis to some cases, a few target pests as
bean leaves reduced the incidence of bean rust opposed to chemical that have a broad
caused by Uromyces phaseoli. spectrum activity.
3) Cost of developing biopesticides is
5.3 Seedling Dipping: This involves dipping significantly lower than those of
roots of the seedlings in biopesticides synthetic chemical pesticides.
suspension for some minutes or hours prior to 4) Their nature of control is preventive not
transplanting. For example Trichoderma spp. curative and their effects on flower is
are applied in this way. less.

6. MECHANISMS OF ACTION OF
BIOPESTICIDES FOR PEST CONTROL:
They include the following:

Journal of Biopesticides and Agriculture, vol. 3 No. 1, September, 2016. Page 6 - 13

7.2 DISADVANTAGES OF treatments to control postharvest brown rot
BIOPESTICIDES on peaches and nectarines. European
1) Speficity is high which may require an Journal of Plant Pathology, 128, 51-63.
exact identification of the target pest/ Chandler, D., Bailey, A.,Tatchell, G. M.,
pathogen. Davidson, G., Greaves, J. and Grant, W. P.
2) Because of their slow speed of action, (2011).The development, regulation and use
biopesticides are often unsuitable if a of biopesticides for integrated pest
pest outbreak is an immediate and management.Philosophical Transaction of
becames a threat to crops. the Royal Society Bulletin 386, 2-13.
3) Biopesticides are not suited for a stand- Chen, Y., Yan, F., Chai, Y., Liu, H., Kolter, R.,
alone treatment rather they have to be Losick, R. and Guo, J. H. (2013). Biocontrol
with a compartible method for high of tomato with disease by Bacillus subtilis
efficacy. isolates from natural environment depends
4) Living organisms evolve and increase on conserved genes mediating biofilm
their resistance to biological, chemical, formation. Environmental Microbiology,
physical and any other form of control. 15, 848-864.
Deshwal, V. K. (2012). Pseudomonas aeruginosa
8. CONCLUSION as biological control agent against plant
The increasing concern of consumers at one pathogenic fungus Sclerotina sclerotiorum.
hand, and government on the other hand about International Journal of Plant, Animal
the problems associated with synthetic Environmental Sciences, 2, 14-17.
chemicals for pest control, and on food safety Dey, U., Harlapur, S. L. and Dhutraj, D. N.
has led growers to find new eco-friendly (2013).Bioassay of fungicides, botanicals,
methods to replace the current chemical-based bioagents and indeginous technology
practices. The use of biopesticides as supplement knowledge (itk) against Pyriculariaoryzae
has emerged as promising alternative to Cav. Causal agent of blast of rice. Journal of
chemical pesticides and their demand is rising Plant Disease Sciences, 8, 102-106.
steadily in all parts of the world.Therefore, this Gill, S.S., Cowles, E. A. and Pietrantonio, P. V.
report has provided some information about the (1992).Mode of action of Bacillus
potentials of “biopesticides for pest control” and thuringiensis endotoxins.Annual Review of
if fully exploited, could serve as a very effective Entomology, 37, 615-636.
alternative method for pest control as well as Gveroska, B. and Ziberoski, J.
good component of integrated pest (2012).Trichodema harzianumas a
management. biocontrol agent against Alternaria
altermata on tobacco.Applied Technology
REFERENCES Innovation, 7, 67-76.
Bastiaans, L., Paolini, R. and Baumann, D. T. Hajek, A. (2004). Natural enemies: an
(2008). Focus on ecological weed introduction to biological control.
management: what is hindering adoption? Cambridge United Kingdom: Cambridge
Weed Research, 48, 481-491. University Press.
Boyetchko, S., E. Pedersen., Z. Punja and M. Harleen, K. and Chander, M. (2011). In vitro and
Reddy. (1998). Formulation of in vivoevaluation of antagonistic
biopesticides. In Hall, F. R. and Menn,J. J. potentiality of Trichoderma spp. against
(eds.), Biopesticides: Used and Delivery Fusarium monliliforme Scheld causing
Methods in Biotechnology (p. 487-508). stalk rot of maize. Plant Disease Research,
Humana Press in Biotechnology. 26, 173-173.
Brar, S. K., Verma, M., Tyagi, R. D. and Valero, Hastuti, R. D., Lestari, Y., Suwanto, A. and
J. R. (2006). Recent advances in Saraswati, R. (2012).
downstream processing and formulations of EndophyticStreptomyces spp.As bio-
Bacillus thuringiensis based biopesticides. control agents of rice bacterial leaf blight
Processed Biochemistry, 41, 323-342. pathogen
Casals, C., Teixido, N.,Vinas, I., Silver, E., (Xantomonasoryzae).HayatiJournal of
Lamarca, N. and Usall, J. (2010). Biological sciences, 19, 155-162.
Combination of hot water, Bacillus Heap, I. (2010).The International survey of
subtilisCPA-8 and sodium bicarbonate herbicide resistant weeds. See
www.weedscience.org/in.asphttp://ec.euro

Journal of Biopesticides and Agriculture, vol. 3 No. 1, September, 2016. Page 6 - 13

 pa.eu/environment/integration/research/n Pal, G. K. and Kumar, B. (2013). Antifungal
ewsalert/pdf/134na5.pdf activity of some common weed extracts
(2008).http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/bio against wilt causing fungi,
pesticides/ (2012). Fusariumoxysporum". Current
Jagtap, G. P., Mali, A. K. and Utpal, D. (2013). Discovery,2, 62–67.
Bioefficacy of fungicides, bio-control agents Pandit, D and Kaushal, R. P. (2011). In vitro
and botanicals against leaf spot of turmeric evaluation of bio-control agents and
incited by Colletortricum capsici. African biopesticides against Colletotrichum
Journal of Microbiological Research, 7, truncatum. Plant Disease Research, 26,
1865-1873. 179.
Kalita, D. J., Bhagawati, B. and Gogoi, B. B. Rikita, B and Utpal, D. (2014). An overview of
(2012).In vitro efficacy of Trichoderma spp. fungal and bacterial biopesticides to control
Against Meloidogyne incongnita and plant pathogens/diseases. African Journal
Rhizoctonia solani. Indian Journal of of Microbiology Research, 8, 1749-1762.
Nematology, 42, 84-86. Salma, M. and Jogen, C. K. (2011). A review on
the use of biopesticides in insect pest
Knowles, A. (2005). New developments in crop management. International Journal of
protection product formulation. (p. 153- Science and Advanced Technology, 1, 169-
156). Agrow Reports UK: Tand F Informa 178.
UK Ltd. Formulations of agrochemicals. Sangeetha, A., Kumar, P. R. and Shankarganesh,
Environmentalist, 28, 35-44. K. (2011). In vitro evaluation of plant
Knowles, A. (2008). Recent development of products and bio-control agents against
safer formulations of Colletorichum capsici causing fruit rot of
agrochemicals.Environmentalist, 28, 35- chilli (Capsicum annum L). Journal of
44. Pesticide Research, 23, 164-167.
Lacey, L. A and Siegel, J. P. (2000). Safety and Schumutterer, H. (1990). Properties and
ecotoxicology of entomopathogenic potentials of natural pesticides from neem
bacteria.In Charles, J. P., Delecluse, A. and tree. Annual Review Journal of
Nielsen-Leroux, Entomology, 35, 271-298.
C.(eds.),Entomopathogenic bacteria: from Siegel, J. P. (2001). The Mammalian safety of
laboratory to field application (p. 253- Bacillus thuringiensis-based insecticides.
273). D.N: Kluwer Academic Press. Journal of Invetebrate Pathology, 77, 13-
Mathew, S. K., Mary, C. F., Gleena, G. K. and 21.
Surendra, G. D. (2011). Antagonistic activity Sriram, S., Savitha, M. J. and Ramanujam, B.
of endophytic Trichoderma against (2010). Trichoderma-enriched coco-peat
Phytophthora rot of black pepper (Piper for the management of Phytophthora and
nigrum L). Journal of Biological Control, Fusarium diseases of chilli and tomato in
25, 48-50. nurseries. Journal of Biological Control,
Matthews, G. A., Bateman, R. P. Lacey and 24, 311-316.
Miller, P. H. C. (2014). Pesticide application Suman, G. and Dikshit, A. K. (2010).
methods. fourth ed. Wiley, UK. Biopesticides: An eco-friendly approach for
Mollet, H. Matthews, H. and Grubenmann, A. pest control. Journal of Biopesticides,3,
(2001). Formulation technology.Weinheim, 186-188.
Germany: Wiley-VCH Verlag. Tadros, F. (2005). Applied surfactants,
Oerke, E. C., Dehne, H. W., Schoenbeck, principles and applications. Wiley-VCH
Matthews, F. and Weber, A. (1994). Crop Verlag GmbH and Co.KGaA.
production and crop protection: estimated Tucci, M., Ruocco, M., De Masi, L., De Palma, M.
losses in major and cash crops. Amsterdam and Lorito, M. (2011).The beneficial effect
the Netherlands: Elsevier Science of Trichoderma spp. on modulated by the
Publishers B.V. plant genotype. Journal of Molecular Plant
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Pathology,12, 341-354.
Development (OECD).(2009). Series on Van Emden, H. F and Services, M. W. (2004).
pesticides no. 448. Report on workshop on Pest and vector control. United Kingdom:
the regulation of biopesticides: Registration Cambridge University Press.
and Communication Issues: www.oecd.org. Vernner, R. and Bauer, P. (2007).Q-TEO, a
formulation concept that overcomes the

Journal of Biopesticides and Agriculture, vol. 3 No. 1, September, 2016. Page 6 - 13

 incompability between water and oil.
Pfalzenschutz-Nachrichten Bayer, 60, 7-26.
Winder, R. S., Wheeler, J. J., Conder, N.,Otvos,
S. S.,Nevill, R. and Duan, L. (2003).
Microencapsulation: a strategy for
formulation of inoculum. Biocontrol
Science and Technology, 13, 155-169.
Woods, T. S. (2003). Pesticide Formulations, in
AGR 185 in encyclopedia of Agrochemicals.
New York, pp. 1-11.
Yadav, P. M., Rakholiya, K. B. and Pawar, D.
M.(2013).Antagonistic effect of fungi
bioagents against Alternariaporri (Ellis)
under in vitro.Trends Biological sciences, 6,
303-304.

Journal of Biopesticides and Agriculture, vol. 3 No. 1, September, 2016. Page 6 - 13

 TABLE 1: Some successful experimental use of bio-pesticides against various diseases
Bioagent Pathogen Host(Crop) Reference
Trichoderma viride, T. Macrophomina phaseolina Sunflower
harzianum
T. viride Fusarium oxysforum f. spudum Pigeon pea Kapoor et al., 2010
T. harzianum Phytophthoracapsici, Chilli and Sriram et al., 2010
Fusariumoxysporumf. Splycopersici Tomato
Bacillus subtilis M. fructicola, M. laxa Peaches Casals et al., 2010
T. harzianum Fusariummoniliforme Maize Harleen and Chandler , 2011
T. vride Colletotrichumtruncatum In vitro Pandit and Kaushal, 2011
T. viride Colletotrichumcapsici Chilli Sangeetha et al., 2011
T. viride Phytophthoracapsici Black pepper Mathew et al., 2011
Tricihoderma spp. Botrytis cinera Tomato Tucci et al., 2011
B. subtilis Peronosclerosporasorghi Maize Sadoma et. al., 2011
Trichodermaspp Rhizoctoniasolani In vitro Kalita et al., 2012
Pseudomonas aeruginosa Sclerotiniasclerotiorum Tomato Deshwal, 2012
B. subtilis Ralstoniasolanacearum Tomato Chen et al., 2013
Streptomyces spp Xanthomonasoryzaepv.Oryzae Rice Hastuti et al., 2012
T. harzianum Alternariaalternata Tobacco Gveroska and Ziberoski, 2012
T. harzianum Pucciniasorghi Rice Dey et al., 2013
T. viride Colletotrichumcapsici Chilli Jagtap et al., 2013
T. viride Alternariaporri Invitro Yadav et al., 2013
T. harzianum Pyriculariaoryzae Rice Dey et al., 2013

TABLE 2: Some bio-pesticides formulations available in commercial quantity

Product name Active ingredient Targets References
(Bio agent)
Antagon* Trichodermaviridae Rhizoctonia solani and Macrophomina Rikita and Utpal, 2014
phaseolina
Biocon* T. viridae Root and stem diseases of tea Rikita and Utpal, 2014
Bioderma* T. viridae and T. Pathogens of vegetables, pulse and Rikita and Utpal, 2014
harzianum cereals.
Defence-SF* T. viridae Soil-borne diseases of crops. Rikita and Utpal, 2014
Biogaurd* T. viridae Soil-borne diseases of vegetables and Rikita and Utpal, 2014
pulses.
Biotok* Bacillus subtilis Corticium invisum and C. theae Rikita and Utpal, 2014
Biosheld Pseudomonas Fungal pathogens of cereals pulses and Rikita and Utpal, 2014
fluorescens vegetables.
Regalia* Reynoutriasachalinensi Botrytis sp., Downy mildew, Powdery Chandler et al., 2011
s mildew,Phytophthora infestans
Contans WG* Coniothyriumminitans Sclerotia spp. Chandler et al., 2011
Serenade ASO* Bacillus subtilis QST713 Botrytis spp. Chandler et al., 2011
Nema-Q** Quillajasaponaria Plant parasitic nematodes Chandler et al., 2011
MeleCon WG** Paecilonmyceslilacinus Plant parasitic nematodes in soils Chandler et al., 2011
Pasteuria Pasteuria usage Sting nematodes Chandler et al., 2011
usage**
Curbit *** Zucchini yellow mosaic Zucchini yellow mosaic virus Chandler et al., 2011
virus, weak strain.
Chontrol**** Chosondrtereumpupure Cut stumps of hardwoods trees shrubs Chandler et al., 2011
um
DeVine**** Phytophthorapalmivor Morenia orderata Chandler et al., 2011
a
Biomite***** Citronellol Tetranychid mites Chandler et al., 2011
Exosex CM****** (E,E)-8,10dodecadien- Codling moth Chandler et al., 2011
1o1
Cyd-X 7 Cydiapomonella GV Codling moth Chandler et al., 2011
Azatin XL7 Azadrachtin Aphids,scale,thrips,weevil, Chandler et al., 2011
Leafhoppers
Key:*=fungicides,**=nematicides,***=antiviral,****=herbicides,*****=attractants,******=semiochemical,7=insecticides.

Journal of Biopesticides and Agriculture, vol. 3 No. 1, September, 2016. Page 6 - 13

View publication stats