Observations on the Relationships between Endophytic Metarhizium robertsii, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera:

Brianna Flonc1,2, Mary Barbercheck1, Imtiaz Ahmad1

  • 1Department of Entomology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.

Insights

Endophytic Metarhizium robertsii colonization in maize did not affect fall armyworm (FAW) growth or feeding behavior. FAW growth correlated with fungal colonization, but larvae showed no preference for or against feeding on colonized maize leaves.

Area of Science:

  • Agricultural Science
  • Entomology
  • Plant Pathology

Background:

  • * Entomopathogenic fungi, such as Metarhizium, can colonize plants endophytically.
  • * Endophytic fungi may offer benefits to plants, including enhanced growth and pest resistance.
  • * The fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) is a significant agricultural pest.

Purpose of the Study:

  • * To investigate the impact of endophytic Metarhizium robertsii colonization in maize (Zea mays) on the fall armyworm (FAW).
  • * To assess how endophytic colonization affects FAW larval growth rate and feeding behavior.

Main Methods:

  • * Maize seeds were inoculated with M. robertsii conidia.
  • * Endophytic colonization of maize tissues was confirmed.
  • * Larval FAW were fed leaves from inoculated and uninoculated maize in feeding bioassays.
  • * Relative growth rate (RGR) and leaf consumption were measured.

Main Results:

  • * Endophytic M. robertsii was successfully recovered from 60.5% of inoculated maize plants.
  • * No significant difference in FAW larval RGR was observed between larvae fed leaves from inoculated versus uninoculated maize.
  • * FAW larval RGR was positively correlated with the proportion of endophytic colonization in maize leaves and roots.
  • * FAW larvae did not show a feeding preference for leaves from inoculated or uninoculated maize.
  • * Leaf tissue consumption was not related to the level of M. robertsii colonization.

Conclusions:

  • * Endophytic M. robertsii colonization in maize did not confer direct protection against FAW in this study.
  • * The lack of effect may be due to assay methodology, FAW physiology, or induced plant defenses.
  • * Further research is needed to understand the plant-fungus-insect interactions.