Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T17:17:27.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ex vivo development of Phasmarhabditis spp. associated with terrestrial molluscs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2022

A. Pieterse
Affiliation:
Department of Conservation Ecology and Entomology, Faculty of AgriSciences, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, Matieland7602, South Africa
S. Haukeland
Affiliation:
International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (icipe), PO Box 30772-00100, Nairobi, Kenya Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO), PO Box 115, NO-1431 Ås, Norway
V. Půža
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Entomopathogenic Nematodes, Biology Centre CAS, Institute of Entomology, Branišovská 1160/31, 370 05České Budějovice, Czech Republic
J.L. Ross*
Affiliation:
Department of Conservation Ecology and Entomology, Faculty of AgriSciences, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, Matieland7602, South Africa School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB24 3UU, UK
A.P. Malan
Affiliation:
Department of Conservation Ecology and Entomology, Faculty of AgriSciences, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, Matieland7602, South Africa
*
Author for correspondence: J.L. Ross, E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

The success of Phasmarhabditis hermaphrodita (Schneider) Andrássy (Rhabditida: Rhabditidae) as a biological control agent of molluscs has led to a worldwide interest in phasmarhabditids. However, scant information is available on the lifecycle development of species within the genus. In the current study, the development of P. hermaphrodita, Phasmarhabditis papillosa, Phasmarhabditis bohemica and Phasmarhabditis kenyaensis were studied using ex vivo cultures, in order to improve our understanding of their biology. Infective juveniles (IJs) of each species were added to 1 g of defrosted homogenized slug cadavers of Deroceras invadens and the development monitored after inoculated IJ recovery, over a period of eight–ten days. The results demonstrated that P. bohemica had the shortest development cycle and that it was able to produce first-generation IJs after eight days, while P. hermaphrodita, P. papillosa and P. kenyaensis took ten days to form a new cohort of IJs. However, from the perspective of mass rearing, P. hermaphrodita has an advantage over the other species in that it is capable of forming self-fertilizing hermaphrodites, whereas both males and females are required for the reproduction of P. papillosa, P. bohemica and P. kenyaensis. The results of the study contribute to the knowledge of the biology of the genus and will help to establish the in vitro liquid cultures of different species of the genus.

Type
Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Current address: Crop Health and Protection (CHAP), York Biotech Campus, Sand Hutton, York. YO41 1LZ. UK

References

Andrássy, I (1983) A taxonomic review of the sub-order Rhabditina (Nematoda: Secernentae). Paris, Office de la Recherche Scientifique et Technique, Outre-Mer.Google Scholar
Barua, A, Williams, CD and Ross, JL (2021) A literature review of biological and bio-rational control strategies for slugs: current research and future prospects. Insects 12, 541.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Courtney, WD, Polley, D and Miller, VI (1955) TAF, an improved fixative in nematode technique. Plant Disease Reporter 39, 570571.Google Scholar
MacMillan, K, Haukeland, S, Rae, R, Young, I, Crawford, J, Hapca, S and Wilson, M (2009) Dispersal patterns and behaviour of the nematode Phasmarhabditis hermaphrodita in mineral soils and organic media. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 41, 14831490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maupas, E (1900) Modes et forms de reproduction des nematodes. Archives de Zoologie 9, 462642.Google Scholar
Mengert, H (1953) Nematoden und Schneken. Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Öekologie Tiere 41, 311349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nermut’, J, Půža, V and Mráček, Z (2014) The effect of different growing substrates on the development and quality on the development and quality of Phasmarhabditis hermaphrodita (Nematoda: Rhabditidae). Biocontrol Science and Technology 24, 10261038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nermut’, J, Půža, V, Mekete, T and Mráček, Z (2017) Phasmarhabditis bohemica n. sp. (Nematoda: Rhabditidae), a slug-parasitic nematode from the Czech Republic. Nematology 19, 93107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pieterse, A, Malan, AP and Ross, JL (2017a) Nematodes that associate with terrestrial molluscs as definitive hosts, including Phasmarhabditis hermaphrodita (Rhabditida: Rhabditidae) and its development as a biological molluscicide. Journal of Helminthology 91(5), 517527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pieterse, A, Malan, AP, Kruitbos, LM, Sirgel, W and Ross, JL (2017b) Nematodes associated with terrestrial slugs from canola fields and ornamental nurseries in South Africa. Zootaxa 4312(1), 194200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pieterse, A, Tiedt, LR, Malan, AP and Ross, JL (2017c) First record of Phasmarhabditis papillosa (Nematoda: Rhabditidae) in South Africa, and its virulence against the invasive slug, Deroceras panormitanum. Nematology 19(9), 10351050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pieterse, A, Rowson, B, Tiedt, L, Malan, AP, Haukeland, S and Ross, JL (2020) Phasmarhabditis kenyaensis n. sp. (Nematoda: Rhabditidae) from the slug, Polytoxon robustum, in Kenya. Nematology 23(2), 229245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rae, RG, Robertson, JF and Wilson, MJ (2006) The chemotactic response of Phasmarhabditis hermaphrodita (Nematoda: Rhabditida) to cues of Deroceras reticulatum (Mollusca: Gastropoda). Nematology 8, 197200.Google Scholar
Rae, R, Verdun, C, Grewal, PS, Robertson, JF and Wilson, MJ (2007) Review: biological control of terrestrial molluscs using Phasmarhabditis hermaphrodita – progress and prospects. Pest Management Science 63, 11531164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rae, RG, Robertson, JF and Wilson, MJ (2009) Chemoattraction and host preference of the gastropod parasitic nematode Phasmarhabditis hermaphrodita. Journal of Parasitology 95, 517526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schneider, A (1866) Monographie der nematoden. Berlin, Reimer.Google Scholar
Schneider, A (1871) Nachtrag – eine beobachtung aus dem gebiete der zoologie. Botanische Zeitung 29, 83, column 109.Google Scholar
StatSoft Europe. (2021), ‘STATISTICA (data analysis software system)’, version 14. Available at www.statistica.com, Accesed date: 23 November 2021.Google Scholar
Tan, L and Grewal, PS (2001) Infection behaviour of the rhabditid nematode Phasmarhabditis hermaphrodita to the grey garden slug Deroceras reticulatum. Journal of Parasitology 87, 13491354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tandingan De Ley, IT, Holovachov, O, McDonnell, RJ, Bert, W, Paine, TD and De Ley, P (2016) Description of Phasmarhabditis californica n. sp. and first report of P. papillosa (Nematoda: Rhabditidae) from invasive slugs in the USA. Nematology 18, 175193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, MJ, Glen, DM and George, SK (1993) The rhabditid nematode Phasmarhabditis hermaphrodita as a potential biological control agent for slugs. Biocontrol Science and Technology 3, 503511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, MJ, Burch, G, Tourna, M, Aalders, LT and Barker, GM (2012) The potential of a New Zealand strain of Phasmarhabditis hermaphrodita for biological control of slugs. New Zealand Plant Protection 65, 161165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar