ISBN 939531988-7

9 789395 319881
 Microbial biopesticides
in india

NX
GE
PA
NI
©

NIPA GENX ELECTRONIC RESOURCES & SOLUTIONS P. LTD.

New Delhi-110 034
About the Authors
Dr. R. K. Murali Baskaran is working as Principal
Scientist (Agricultural Entomology) at ICAR-National
Institute of Biotic Stress Management, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh and the Principal author of the book. He
is specialized in Biological Control of crops. He has
completed 32 years of service in Teaching, Research and
Extension of Agricultural Entomology. Currently he is
working on the development of plant volatile repository
for crop pest management. He has two decade experience
in teaching and guided 14 students’ dissertations. He is
in recipient of Young Scientist Fellowship from Tamil Nadu State Council for
Science and Technology, Chennai and Best Researcher Award twice from Tamil
Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore. To his account, he has published
around 50 research papers in Biological control. He is acting as reviewer in many
international entomology journals.
Dr. J. Sridhar is working as Senior Scientist (Agricultural

NX
Entomology) at ICAR-National Institute of Biotic Stress
Management, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. His specialization is
on insect vector interactions. Development of indigenous
protocols for detection of potato viruses, aphids map of
GE
potato, transmission efficiencies of five vector aphids
with respect to PVY and PLRV and whole genome
sequencing of Aulacorthum solani are his noteworthy
achievements when he worked at ICAR-Central Potato
Research Institute, Shimla. He has done countrywide mapping of genetic groups
of Bemisia tabaci and thrips populations in Chhattisgarh. Currently, he is working
PA

on emerging and re-emerging pests in Conservation Agriculture production

systems. He is involved in teaching of mastoral students in affiliation with ICAR-
IARI, New Delhi and received a medal from Indian Potato Association for best
research paper. To his credit, he has published more than 27 research papers in
NI

peer reviewed journals and acting as reviewer of four international journals.

Dr. Mallikarjuna Jeer is working as Senior Scientist
(Agricultural Entomology) at ICAR-National Institute of
Biotic Stress Management, Raipur. He is specialized in
host plant resistance and currently is working in Silicon
©

mediated resistance against insect pests, identifying novel

genetic resources and genes for imparting resistance in
okra, brinjal and Vigna sp., and AICRP Nematodes as
Principal Investigator. He has published many of his
research outputs in the form of research papers in peer
reviewed journals, book chapters, technical bulletins, extension folders etc. He is
a recipient of many recognitions and awards including young scientist award and
Fellow of Entomological Society of India.

Dr. Kaushik Banerjee is a Principal Scientist from ICAR-

National Research Centre for Grapes, Pune. He is heading
the National Reference Laboratory on pesticide residues
and mycotoxins in India. His area of research focuses
on the development of efficient analysis methods for the
sensitive and confirmatory estimation of pesticide residues
and mycotoxins in agricultural and food matrices and risk
assessment studies for the fixation of crop-specific maximum
residue limits. Dr. Banerjee’s extensive contributions to
science and the community have earned him numerous
national and international laurels. He received the prestigious Harvey W. Wiley
Award of AOAC INTERNATIONAL in 2017 and the Recognition Award of the
National Academy of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS) in 2019. Earlier, he was

NX
named as a Fellow by the Royal Society of Chemistry (FRSC), National Fellow-
Indian Council of Agricultural Research, and Fellow-NAAS.

Dr. P. K. Ghosh PhD topped in M.Sc. and Ph.D., with

GE
First Class First (90%) & Gold Medal in GBPUA&T,
Pantnagar, He started his career as scientist in Indian
Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) in April 1993,
completed 28 years’ service (11 years as Research
Management position and 14 years Professor/Principal
Scientist) and is presently working as Founder Director
PA

and Vice Chancellor ICAR-National Institute of Biotic

Stress Management (NIBSM)-Deemed to be University,
Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India. Earlier he demonstrated
leadership as National Coordinator, National Agricultural Higher Education
NI

Project-World Bank aided project, ICAR, New Delhi (2017-20), Director,

Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi (2012-17) and Head,
Crop Production Division Indian Institute of Pulses Research (2009-2012).
His pioneering works on climate change, carbon sequestration, Resource use
efficiency, conservation agriculture crop diversification, soil water conservation,
Integrated Farming System (IFS) and coordination of higher education in 14
©

agricultural universities in India to bring excellence in quality of PG education

program have been considered as outstanding contributions benefitting large
numbers of farming community, scientists and students across the globe, as
result he has been identified in November 2020 as one of the top two percent of
agricultural scientists at global level based on the database analysed by Stanford
iv Microbial Biopesticides in India

University, USA. With his initiative PG program on biotic stress management at

NIBSM has begun in 2020 affiliated with IARI, New Delhi. He has implemented
National Initiative on Fodder Technology Demonstration throughout the country
through 100 KVKs, established Adarh Charagram and grassland in 6 states in
657-acre area and promoted 17 Gousala in UP and Rajasthan for ensuring fodder
security and livestock productivity. He is recipient of 19 national awards including
M.S. Randhawa Memorial Award for best Administration, Excellence in Science
Award and Sardar Patel Outstanding–Best ICAR Institute Award for leadership
and also Fellow of National Academy of Sciences, India and National Academy
of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS).One of his international book entitled “Carbon
Management in Tropical and Sub-Tropical Terrestrial System” (published by
Springer) is being referred globally and nationally to address Carbon Neutrality,
which is one of the important points of SDG 2030. His another book “Grassland:
A Global Resource Perspective” has become very popular to the International
livestock and grassland working groups. He showed scientific leadership as
Chairman by organizing 23rd International Grassland Congress (IGC) held first
time in India with 450 international delegates and still acting as executive member

NX
of IGC continuing committee representing South-East Asia. He served as sectional
president, Agricultural section under the general presidentship of Hon’ble Prime
Minister of India in the centenary year (2013) of Indian Science Congress.
Dr Ghosh holds many important positions nationally and internationally, few
GE
of them are Member, DST task force on Climate change on forestry, Chairman,
National fodder planning committee, Editor-in-Chief, National Academy of
Science, India, Facilitator, National Conference on Doubling Farmer Income
(DFI) and Chairmen/Coordinator/Convenor of many national seminar/workshop/
conference/brainstorming, Member, Gujarat Institute of Desert Ecology, Member,
Task Force on DUS guideline, Member, Board of Management /Academic
PA

Council/PG faculty of 9 Universities including Country expert/coordinator of

many international projects funded by CGIAR/FAO/World Bank. Considering
his academic, administrative and research excellence he was selected as co-
opted member of DFI Committee, constituted by PMO and contributed to bring
NI

14 volumes on DFI which are available in website of Ministry of Agriculture

and Farmers Welfare and many actionable points and recommendation are
being executed in different states. He also formulated four policy papers for the
country and delivered 33 lead /Keynote Lectures in National and International
conferences. He published 20 books and 161 research papers in the high impact
factor journals with the total citation of 7103, h-index of 39 and i-10 index of 83
©

and total publication of 283.

 Microbial iopesticides
in ndia

r. K. Murali baskaran
Principal Scientist
School of Crop Health Management Research
ICAR-National Institute of Biotic Stress Management
Raipur, Chhattisgarh

ridhar, J.
Senior Scientist
School of Crop Health Biology Research
ICAR-National Institute of Biotic Stress Management

NX
Raipur, Chhattisgarh

Mallikarjuna, J.
Senior Scientist
School of Crop Resistance System Research
GE
ICAR-National Institute of Biotic Stress Management
Raipur, Chhattisgarh

Kaushik anerjee
Principal Scientist
ICAR-National Research Centre for Grapes
PA

Pune, Maharashtra

. K. Ghosh
Director and Vice Chancellor
ICAR-National Institute of Biotic Stress Management Baronda
NI

Raipur, Chhattisgarh
©

NIPA GENX ELECTRONIC RESOURCES & SOLUTIONS P. LTD.

New Delhi-110 034
NIPA GENX ELECTRONIC
RESOURCES & SOLUTIONS P. LTD.
101,103, Vikas Surya Plaza, CU Block
L.S.C. Market, Pitam Pura, New Delhi-110 034
Ph. +91 11 27341616, 27341717, 27341718
E-mail: newindiapublishingagency@gmail.com
www: www.nipabooks.com
For customer assistance, please contact

NX
Phone: + 91-11-27 34 17 17
Fax: + 91-11-27 34 16 16
E-Mail: feedbacks@nipabooks.com

© 2023, Publisher
GE
ISBN: 978-93-95319-88-1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system
or transmitted in any form or by any means, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying
recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the publisher or the copyright holder.
This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly reliable sources. Reasonable
PA

efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author/s, editor/s and
publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity, accuracy or completeness of all materials
or information published herein or the consequences of their use. The work is published with
the understanding that the publisher and author/s are not attempting to render any professional
services. The author/s, editor/s and publisher have attempted to trace and acknowledge the
NI

copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to copyright
holders if permission and/or acknowledgements to publish in this form have not been taken. If
any copyrighted material has not been acknowledged, please write to us and let us know so that
we may rectify the error, in subsequent reprints.
Trademark Notice: NIPA, the NIPA logos and their presentations (the way they are written/
presented) in this book are the trademarks of the publisher and hence may not be used without
©

written permission, if copied or used without authorization, the infringer will be prosecuted as
per law.
NIPA also publishes books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print
may not be available in electronic books, and vice versa.
Composed and Designed by NIPA.
 Hkkjr ljkdkj
Ñf"k vuqla/kku ifj"kn foHkkx ,oa
Ñf"k ,oa fdlku dY;k.k ea=ky;] Ñf"k Hkou] ubZ fnYyh 11001
Government of India
Department of Agricultural Research & Education (Dare)
And
Indian Council Of Agricultural Research (Icar)
Ministry Of Agriculture And Farmers Welfare
MkW- fgeka'kq ikBd Krishi Bhavan, New Delh-1110 001
Tel.: 23382629; 23386711 Fax: 91-11-23384773
lfpo] ,oa egkfuns'kd E-Mail: dg.icar@nic.in
Dr Himanshu Pathak
Secretary (DARE)
& Director General (ICAR)

Foreword
In India, the crop losses due to pests and diseases are estimated to the tune of

NX
30-40% under field condition and 9-10% post-harvest. The estimates suggest
that pathways for introduction of invasive biotic stress have increased post
globalization and free trade policy leading to losses associated with invasive
insects, plants, and pathogens worth up to $ 1.4 trillion annually. These
GE
biotic stresses are compounded by climate change influences. During Green
Revolution and thereafter, the frequent and high application of chemicals
and pesticides in agriculture, approximately 500 insect and related arthropod
species are reportedly developed resistance against major groups of chemical
pesticides, besides pesticide and chemicals loads in agriculture produces and
outbreaks and resurgence of secondary pest etc.
PA

The policy reorientation with strict regulations and ban on some of the
hazardous chemical pesticides in the recent past and consumers awareness
and preference for healthy agricultural products have put responsible focus
NI

on ‘Greener Technologies’ under environment friendly strategic framework.

The ‘National Policy for Farmers’ (NPF), 2007 emphasised for increasing the
organic agriculture which pushed the promotion of microbial biopesticides
in India. Although the present policy ecosystem for greener technologies
are supportive to the biopesticides, the factors such as high initial cost in
identification and development of organisms, lack of subsidies to the small
©

scale manufacturers, complex registration protocols, interest of multinational

companies in new pesticide and associated business etc., are some hurdles in
rapid growth of biopesticide industries and large scale utilization.
viii Microbial Biopesticides in India

It is heartening to learn that currently 970 microbial biopesticide formulations

from 15 microbial species are registered in India and 31 new microbial
biopesticides developed by various ICAR institute against crop pests and
pathogens are at various stages of registration and commercialization.
I congratulate the authors for bringing out a compilation on ‘Microbial
Biopesticides in India’ which shall be a useful reference book for policy
makers, researchers, students and all other holders.

Dated: 6th September, 2022 (Himanshu Pathak)

Place: New Delhi

NX
GE
PA
NI
©
Preface

In Indian agriculture, the widespread application of chemical pesticides to

protect crops from biotic stresses has become a regular practice, with several
unintended negative impacts on crops, people, animals, soil, water bodies,
non-target creatures, and their surrounding environments. By 2050, the world's
population is expected to increase to 9 billion people, necessitating a review
and revision of current programmes for a 70% increase in food production.
The government's strict regulations on chemical pesticides have created a
favourable environment and provided a path for alternate, environmentally

NX
acceptable methods of managing biotic stress. Microbial biopesticide has been
identified as an emerging tactic that is rapidly expanding in the context of
plant protection in India. The appropriate modifications and simplifications
to registration standards of biopesticides made by the Government, increase
GE
of the amount of land used for organic farming, subsidies to investors in
the biopesticide industry, and other changes that attracted the attention of
manufacturers. Additionally, stakeholders are concentrating on the advantages
of biopesticides by raising knowledge of the value of high-quality goods that
promote a healthy way of life and likelihood. Research and development
efforts to improve the kill rate, shelf life, etc., of biopesticides are an added
PA

benefit for the steady growth of industry both internationally and in India.
A steady rise in demand and consumption of biopesticides in India is a good
sign for their ability to compete with or even surpass the market for chemical
pesticides between 2040 and 2050.
NI

A book titled "Microbial Biopesticides in India" consisting of 11 chapters with

a focus on the need for biopesticide in plant protection, formulations, nano-
biopesticide, genetic engineering, demand, consumption, and market, as well
as government initiatives, awareness by growers, driving strategies and set-
back to enhance the biopesticide market in India was written by referring
©

latest literature, dailies, review papers etc., in order to bring the Indian
perspectives on microbial biopesticide to the most common platform for the
benefit of readers, learned faculties and colleagues, corporate, stakeholders,
students, youngsters etc.
x Microbial Biopesticides in India

We, the writers, have been involved in the compilation of peer-reviewed data on
the growth and development of biopesticide in India over the past two decades.
Comparisons between India's policies and those of other industrialized nations'
regulatory frameworks for biopesticide science include a number of concrete
steps that the Indian Government has previously taken or plans to take. The
coordinated work output by all authors in carefully gathering and compiling a
variety of information from numerous sources is appreciated.
Editors

NX
GE
PA
NI
©
 Contents

Foreword.......................................................................................................... vii
  Preface��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ix
Introduction......................................................................................................xv

1. Why We Need Biopesticides: Some Case Studies of

Chemical Pesticides..............................................................................1
Introduction................................................................................................. 1
Case Studies on Acute Toxicity of Chemicals Pesticides..................................3

NX
Toxicities of Chemical Pesticides as Potential Endocrine Disruptors......... 9
Toxicities of Chemical Pesticides on Animals............................................. 9
Effect of Neonicotinoid Insecticides to Bees..............................................11
Instances of Environmental Toxicities of Chemical Pesticides ................ 12
GE
Why Biopetsicides?................................................................................... 13
Conclusions............................................................................................... 14
References................................................................................................. 14
2. Insecticide Resistance and Case Histories........................................19
Introduction............................................................................................... 20
Insecticide and Insecticide Resistance....................................................... 22
PA

Importance of Insecticide Resistance and its Monitoring......................... 21

Mechanisms of Insecticide Resistance...................................................... 22
History of Insecticide Resistance.............................................................. 23
Case Histories of Insecticide Resistance................................................... 26
NI

San Jose Scale Resistant to Lime Sulphur ................................................ 26

Paradigm Shift to Biopesticides ............................................................... 27
Way Forward............................................................................................. 28
Conclusions............................................................................................... 29
References................................................................................................. 29
©

3. History and Development of Biological Control..............................31

Introduction............................................................................................... 31
20th and 21st Century Developments.......................................................... 34
Conclusions............................................................................................... 36
References................................................................................................. 36
xii Microbial Biopesticides in India

4. Biopesticides Classification and Their Formulations in India........39

Introduction............................................................................................... 39
Common Method of Mass-production of Biopesticides ........................... 41
Biopesticide Formulations......................................................................... 41
Biopesticide Mass-production Units in India............................................ 42
Biopesticide Registrant in India................................................................ 43
Conclusions............................................................................................... 58
References................................................................................................. 58
5. Nano-Biopesticides for Management of Insect Pests of Crops.......61
Introduction............................................................................................... 61
Nano-Biopesticides.................................................................................... 62
Botanical Based Nano-Biopesticides......................................................... 64
Nano-formulations of Semiochemicals..................................................... 67
Nano-Biopesticides Derived from Plants.................................................. 67
Nanoparticles as Nano-Biopesticides........................................................ 74
Ag Nanoparticles (AgNPs)........................................................................ 78

NX
Silica Nanoparticles (SiNPs)..................................................................... 78
Conclusions............................................................................................... 79
References................................................................................................. 79
6. Impact of Biopesticides Application on Crop Quality
GE
and Environmental Quality...............................................................91
Introduction............................................................................................... 91
Merits of Biopesticides.............................................................................. 92
Constraints in Exporting Agricultural Commodities ................................ 93
Impact of Biopesticides on Crop Quality.................................................. 94
Impact of Biopesticides on Environmental Quality.................................. 96
PA

Case Studies............................................................................................... 96
Entomopathogenic Nematodes (EPN) for Crop and Soil Health.............. 96
Conclusions............................................................................................... 97
References................................................................................................. 98
NI

7. Indian Biopesticide: Market, Consumption, Growth

and Opportunities...............................................................................99
Introduction .............................................................................................. 99
Biopesticide Market: Global and Indian Perspectives............................. 100
India Biopesticide Market....................................................................... 102
©

Global Biopesticide Market Growth........................................................ 105

India Biopesticide Market Growth.......................................................... 106
Conclusions............................................................................................. 106
References............................................................................................... 107
 Contents xiii

8. Biopesticides: Research and Development Activities....................109

Introduction............................................................................................. 109
Entomopathogenic Bacteria......................................................................110
Insect Viruses............................................................................................110
Entomopathogenic Fungi .........................................................................111
Entomopathogenic Nematodes.................................................................112
Protozoans................................................................................................112
Resistance to Microbes ............................................................................113
Genetic Improvement of Insect Pathogens...............................................114
Entomopathogenic Bacteria......................................................................114
Insect Baculoviruses ................................................................................115
Entomopathogenic Fungi..........................................................................117
Entomopathogenic Nematode...................................................................118
Conclusions..............................................................................................118
References................................................................................................118
9. Biopesticide Commercialization: World-wide Regulation

NX
Policies for Registration and Use of Biopesticides.........................125
Introduction............................................................................................. 125
Regulation Policies of Biopesticide Registration ................................... 126
China........................................................................................................ 126
GE
India......................................................................................................... 127
Africa....................................................................................................... 127
South Africa............................................................................................. 128
European Union....................................................................................... 128
USSR (formerly)...................................................................................... 128
United Kingdom...................................................................................... 129
PA

USA......................................................................................................... 129
Biopesticide Registration Protocol in India............................................. 130
Policies on Biopesticide Use................................................................... 131
Limitations in Regulations of Biopesticide Registration ........................ 132
NI

Interventions in Regulations of Biopesticide........................................... 134

Conclusions............................................................................................. 135
References............................................................................................... 136
10. Promotion of Biopesticides in India: Role of Government
and Growers......................................................................................141
Introduction............................................................................................. 141
©

Government Initiatives............................................................................ 142

Consumer Awareness on Biopesticides................................................... 143
Conclusions............................................................................................. 144
References............................................................................................... 144
xiv Microbial Biopesticides in India

11. Growth of Biopesticides::Driving Force and Set-Back.................145

Introduction............................................................................................. 145
Supporting Points for Biopesticide Growth............................................. 147
Factors Restrain Biopesticide Market...................................................... 149
Conclusions............................................................................................. 151
References............................................................................................... 152

NX
GE
PA
NI
©
Introduction

The "Green Revolution" (GR) was brought about by the use of numerous inorganic
outputs, such as pesticides, fertilisers, high input responsive cultivars, etc., in
Indian agriculture, which greatly increased crop production and productivity.
The stakeholders were motivated by the proportionate rise in yield indices to use
numerous inorganic inputs carelessly, which had negative effects on soil quality,
crop output quality, environmental pollution, human and animal health, etc.
Inappropriately using synthetic chemical pesticides on a large scale to protect
crops has led to a number of threats, such as insecticide residues in crop products,
outbreaks, resurgence, the creation of secondary pests, insecticide resistance, and
more. More than 500 insect and related arthropod species have been found to

NX
become resistant to significant classes of chemical insecticides.
The use of modern agricultural inputs needs to be reconsidered because the world's
population is projected to increase to 9 billion people by 2050, which will result in
an additional demand for food of about 70%. Despite this, global agriculture is still
GE
in the process of recovering from a number of negative effects. Wherever human
action is used to correct the situation and return it to normal, climate change has
been reported to amplify the negative effects. The current government's strict
controls and rules on the registration, production, marketing, and subsequent
field usage of chemical pesticides serve to lower demand and consumption. By
raising knowledge among farmers, customers, the general public, etc. about the
PA

usage of high-quality goods free of pesticide residues, adulterations, etc., these

groups' views were altered, and they were more interested in alternative tactics
like "Green Technologies" for plant protection.
Many Government initiatives and programmes which include Sikkim Organic
NI

Mission (SOM), National Programme for Organic Production (NPOP), Organic

Farming Policy (OFP), Strengthening and Modernizing Pest Management
Approach in India (SMPMA), Capital Investment Subsidy Programme (CISP),
National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC), National Mission for
Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA), "Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana" (PKVY),
Soil Health Management (SHM), Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) etc.,
©

are supportive for the scope of using ‘Microbial Biopesticide’ in India. Many
small-scale industries were drawn to the biopesticide industry by the continued
easing of regulation policies, but the initial investment costs for microbe
identification, characterization, bioefficacy tests, toxicology tests, registration,
commercialization, and other related costs are prohibitive. Based on their prior
xvi Microbial Biopesticides in India

experiences in international trade, multinational corporations (MNCs) are

interested in innovative pesticide chemistries. In order to increase the demand
and market for biopesticides, it is recommended that the government should
provide adequate subsidies for early investment expenditures, set a fair pricing
for biopesticides, and work with multinational corporations to support small-scale
companies.
The number of bio-production units has currently increased to 361, of which 141
are in the private sector without GOI grant aids and 38 with GOI grant aids.
Moreover, the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare has assisted about 35
IPM centers to produce biopesticides since 2010. A total of 98 State Biocontrol
Laboratories were established by the State Departments of Agriculture and
Horticulture of Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh
and Kerala as well as the production of microbial pesticides by the Institutions of
the Indian Council of Agricultural Research.
A total of 970 biopesticides registered in India by Central Insecticide Board and
Registration Committee (CIB&RC) under the 1968 Insecticide Act which include
microbial biopesticides of Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki (42), var. israelensis

NX
(22), var. sphaericus (05), var. galleriae (01), Pseudomonas fluorescence (196),
Bacillus subtilis (04), Trichoderma viride (289), T. harzianum (51), Ampyliomyces
quisqualis (02), Beauveria bassiana (106), Metarhizium anisopliae (30),
Verticillium lecani (93), Verticillium chlamydosporium (03), Helicoverpa armigera
GE
NPV (30) and Spodoptera litura NPV (03) and only 38 biopesticidal formulations.
Fungal based- (Trichderma sp.) and Pseudomonas based- biopesticides are popular
in India consumption-wise while Bacillus thuringiensis based formulations are
widely used for plant protection of abroad agriculture.
In India, public sectors contribute 70% of the biopesticides production. Major
PA

companies are Biotech International Ltd., New Delhi, International Panaacea Ltd,
New Delhi, Ajay Biotech (India) Ltd, Pune, Bharat Biocon Pvt. Ltd., Chhattisgarh,
Microplex Biotech and Agrochem Pvt., Mumbai, Excel Crop Care Ltd., Mumbai,
Govinda Agro Tech Ltd., Nagpur, Jai Biotech Industries, Satpur, Nasik, Ganesh
Biocontrol System, Rajkot, Gujarat Chemicals and Fertilizers Trading Company,
NI

Baroda, Gujarat Eco Microbial Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara, Chaitra Agri-
Organics, Mysore, Deep Farm Inputs (P) Ltd., Thiruvanandapuram, Kerala, Kan
Biosys Pvt. Ltd., Pune, Indore Biotech Inputs and Research Pvt. Ltd., Indore,
Romvijay Biotech Pvt. Ltd., Pondichery, Devi Biotech (P) Ltd., Madurai, Tamil
Nadu, T. Stanes and Company Ltd., Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, Harit Bio Control
Lab., Yavatmal and Hindustan Bioenergy Ltd., Lucknow. Few Indian companies
©

which work in biopesticde production in collaboration with foreign companies

are Lupin Agro-chemicals, Mumbai, Sugar and distillery companies such as KCP
Sugar and Industries Corporation Ltd., Andhra Pradesh, Rajshree Sugars and
Chemicals Ltd., Tamil Nadu, New Swadeshi Sugar Mills, Bihar, and Bannari
Amman Sugars Ltd., Tamil Nadu.
 Introduction xvii

In India, the usage of biopesticides is growing at a faster pace than that of the
chemical pesticides. According to the Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine
and Storage, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, in the last 10 years,
consumption of bio-pesticides increased by 23%, while that of chemical pesticides
grew only by 2%. At 2020, the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of global
biopesticide market was approximately 3-5% of the total crop protection market
while the market was anticipated to grow by 8.64 % at 2023; 9.7% at 2015-2023;
10.3% at 2014-2022; 15% at 2019-2024; 16% at 2020-2025.
Even though the biopesticide sector in India is growing rapidly, issues including
slow kill times and short shelf lives are slowing it down. Around the world,
researchers are creating recombinant organisms that contain spider, scorpion,
and other venoms, adding and deleting genes of interest, and developing nano-
biopesticides that have an efficacy that is comparable to chemical insecticides.
For the control of important crop pests, a total of 31 fungal and bacterial based
biopesticide formulations are under development and at various phases of
commercialization. Between 2040 and 2050, the market for biopesticides is
anticipated to surpass that for chemical pesticides, becoming one of the key

NX
elements of IPM all over the world. GE
PA
NI
©
©
NI
PA
GE
NX
1
Why We Need Biopesticides:
Some Case Studies of Chemical
Pesticides

Abstract
Pesticides are used in most countries around the world to protect
agricultural and horticultural crops against damage by pests and diseases.
Injudicious use and unintentional poisoning of synthetic pesticides resulted
deadly consequences. Exposure to chemical pesticides can have effects

NX
that are acute, chronic and long-term. Unregulated misuse of chemical
pesticides lead to mobilization of toxic residues across the food chain,
increasing bioaccumulation and environmental persistence. Non-target
organisms, beneficial insects, land and aquatic animals are badly affected
GE
with the excessive use of chemical pesticides. Additionally, chemical
pesticide poisoning poses a global concern due to unnatural death caused
by mishandling of chemical pesticides. Biopesticide is one of the promising
alternatives which can manage menace caused by pests in agriculture,
persistency of pesticides, environmental pollutions, toxic and ill effects on non-
target species. The development of biopesticides stimulates modernization of
PA

agriculture and will, without a doubt, gradually replace chemical pesticides

to a great extent.
Keywords: Biopesticides, Residue, Persistency, Environmental pollutions,
Glyphosate
NI

Introduction
The world population is expected to reach 9 billion by 2050. This population
growth of 2 to 3 billion people over the next 30 years, combined with the
©

changing diets, would result in a predicted increase in food demand of around

70% by 2050 (UNDESA 2009). To feed the burgeoning population, more
food and livelihood opportunities from less per capita arable land and water

Aditi Kundu, Supradip Saha, Anirban Dutta, and Abhishek Mandal

Division of Agricultural Chemicals, ICAR-IARI, New Delhi
2 Microbial Biopesticides in India

required. Damage caused by insect and pest is one of the major limiting factors
for agricultural food grain production. A major portion of expenditure on
pesticides is for protecting the crop in the field (Kumar 2013).
Since the discovery of DDT, numerous pesticides (organochlorines,
organophosphates, carbamates, pyrethroids, neonicotinoids, etc.) have been
developed and used extensively worldwide with few guidelines or restrictions.
Indeed, they help control agricultural pests (including diseases and weeds),
plant disease vectors, human and livestock disease vectors and nuisance
organisms, and organisms that harm other human activities and structures
(gardens, recreational areas, etc.). However, many pesticides have been found
to be harmful to the environment and human health. Some of them can persist
in soils and aquatic sediments, bio-concentrate in the tissues of invertebrates
and vertebrates, move up trophic chains, and affect top predators. They have
caused adverse effects on soil health, water quality, produce quality and
developed problems like insect resistance, genetic variation in plants, toxic
residues food and feed. Moreover dependence on chemical pesticides and their

NX
indiscriminate use caused several detrimental effects on ecosystems.
Additionally, poisoning by agricultural pesticides is currently an important
cause of human morbidity and mortality worldwide, increasing number of farm
workers annually exposed to pesticides in developing countries (Jeyaratnam
GE
1990). Developing countries use only 20% of the world’s agrochemicals,
yet they suffer 99% of deaths from pesticide poisoning (Jeyaratnam and
Chia 1994). It has estimated that some form of poison directly or indirectly
is responsible for more than one million illnesses worldwide annually. Acute
pesticide toxicity is extremely common in developing countries of the Asia-
Pacific region, particularly in settings of low education and poor regulatory
PA

frameworks. For, deliberate self-poisoning, a plausible range 233,997 to

325,907 with the estimated number of 258,234 probable deaths occurfrom
pesticide self-poisoning worldwide each year (Gunnell et al. 2007). Fatality
rates of 20% are common and the World Health Organization has estimated
NI

that more than 200,000 people die each from pesticide poisoning only (Singh
and Unnikrishnan 2006).
Owing to huge adverse environmental impacts of synthetic chemicals, leading
to resistance and resurgence of pests, forced to search alternate option for pest
management. Further, the increasing public concerns and growing awareness
©

about the potential adverse environmental effects as well as health hazards

associated with the use of synthetic plant protection chemicals has prompted
search for the technologies and products which are safer for the end users and
the environment. Concerns of resistance development in pests and withdrawal
of some of the products for either regulatory or commercial reasons, triggered
to exploit naturally occurring pesticides.
 Why We Need Biopesticides: Some Case Studies of Chemical Pesticides 3

Biopesticides are environment friendly and safer than classical chemical

pesticides. Hence, in the recent years, considerable attention has been paid
towards exploitation of biopesticides in protection of food crops/commodities
from pest infestations and the associated losses. They are more inclined to
use eco-benign natural or herbal products in anticipation of any undesired
side effects.Natural occurring phytochemicals have been an excellent option
to replace toxic chemical pesticides. It has been speculated that botanical
pesticides could reduce the pest resistance problem, thereby often subdue
deleterious effects of hazardous chemicals. India has great diversity of flora and
fauna. Treasure of bioactive phytochemicals from the diverse plant kingdom
need to be exploited to develop newer bioactive molecules. Recent report
published by WHO showed more than 21,000 plant species worldwide have
tremendous potential for being used in medicinal and phytochemistry. It is
estimated that more than 30% of the entire phyto-population possessed active
constituents with complex biofunctional characteristics. Bioactive compounds
derived from plants have proven to be valuable sources of bioactive secondary
metabolites which can seldom be obtained from other sources (Kharshiing

NX
2012).

Case Studies on Acute Toxicity of Chemicals Pesticides

GE
India is an agricultural country with a large rural population (60-80%),
where pesticides are easily available and used extensively. Among different
pesticides, organophosphates are most commonly used for self-poisoning,
but being highly toxic, new compounds with high potency and lower
toxicity are being developed continuously. The Poison Information Centre
of the National Institute of Occupational Health, in Ahmedabad, reported
PA

that organophosphorus (OP) pesticides were responsible for the maximum

number of poisonings (73%) among all agricultural chemicals (Dewan and
Sayed 1998). Later another study was reported on season-long assessment of
acute pesticide poisoning among· cotton growing farmers across three villages
NI

in India. The study documented· the serious consequences of pesticide use for
the health of farmers, particularly women field helpers who were involved in
mixing concentrated chemicals and refilling spraying tanks were as hazardous
as direct pesticide application. Of 323 reported events, 83.6% were associated
with signs and symptoms of mild to severe poisoning typical of poisoning by
organophosphates (Mancini et al. 2005).
©

Acute intoxications after ingesting glyphosate was reported in the last

four decades. Despite low potential toxicity of this herbicide, a number of
fatalities and severe outcomes have been reported. Deaths following ingestion
of ‘Roundup’ alone were due to a syndrome that involved hypotension,
unresponsive to intravenous fluids or vasopressor drugs, and sometimes
4 Microbial Biopesticides in India

pulmonary oedema, in the presence of normal central venous pressure (Talbot

et al. 1991). Incidence on acute poisoning in case of suicidal or accidental
cases after ingesting glyphosate and its lethal concentration in clinical samples
have been published in literature (Hori et al. 2003). Glyphosate-poisoning
is characterized by various symptoms such as gastrointestinal symptoms,
altered consciousness, hypotension, respiratory distress, metabolic acidosis
and renal failure (Tominack et al. 1991; Lee et al. 2000; Roberts et al. 2010).
Glyphosate formulation contains surfactants that probably enhance its toxicity.
The mortality rate due to glyphosate poisoning is reported at 3.2% in a study
included 601 patients with glyphosate acute poisonings. Death was strongly
associated with greater age, larger ingestions and high plasma glyphosate
concentration >734 μgmL-1. The most common symptoms were oropharyngeal
ulceration, nausea and vomiting, mainly due to altered biological parameters
of high lactate and acidosis. Respiratory distress, cardiac arrhythmia, hyper-
kaleamia, impaired renal function, hepatic toxicity and altered consciousness
were the marked observations (Gress et al. 2015; Peillex and Pelletier 2020).
Fatalities caused due to cardiovascular shock, cardio-respiratory arrest,

NX
haemodynamic disturbance, intravascular disseminated coagulation and
multiple organ failure (Zouaoui et al. 2013).
Another case report in Thailand, where poisoning from glyphosate-surfactant
GE
herbicide has been displayed with rapid lethal intoxication. For a woman
who ingested approximately 500 mL of concentrated Roundup formulation
(41% glyphosate as the isopropylamine salt and 15% polyoxyethylene amine)
showed glyphosate levels of 3.05 and 59.72 mg/mL in serum and gastric,
respectively (Sribanditmongkol et al. 2012). During the re-approval process of
glyphosate in Europe, it was mentioned that glyphosate-based products (GBF)
PA

were more toxic than glyphosate alone. This phenomenon was attributed to the
surfactants and among them, polyethoxylatedtallowamine (POEA) has been
suspected to significantly contribute to the toxicity of glyphosate products. In
animal data acute oral toxicity of POEA has been suggested to be greater than
NI

glyphosate toxicity (Langrand et al. 2020).

Several episodes of mass poisoning by different pesticides have been reported
to the Poison Information Centre (PIC) of the National Institute of Occupational
Health (NIOH) in Ahmedabad, India, most notably endosulfan, phorate and
ethion poisonings. It has been observed that OP poisoning from contaminated
©

food ingestion is all too often treated empirically for food poisoning instead
of specific treatment (Patel et al. 2012). A fatal accidental monocrotophos
poisoning in adult female by dermal exposure while sleeping has been reported
and elevated level of pesticide detected in post-mortem blood and skin by
chromatography and spectroscopic techniques (Bodwal et al. 2019).
 Why We Need Biopesticides: Some Case Studies of Chemical Pesticides 5

Endosulfan was one of the highly used organochlorine pesticides, and many
poisoning cases have been reported from various regions of the world. In a
case study, eighteen incidences of accidental endosulfan poisoning have been
reported only from northern India between 1995 and 1997, which occurred after
spraying of the pesticide. Analysis of various incriminating factors revealed
that accidental overexposure was due to failure to adhere to the instructions for
spray either due to ignorance or due to illiteracy (Chugh et al. 1998). Another
case study from India revealed poisoning of endosulfan through consumption
of endosulfan contaminated water by the entire age group (Srivastava et al.
2009). A survey for 11-year was carried out in various major cities including
Ankara in Turkey, insecticides were found to be the most common cause
(94%) of fatal pesticide poisoning, with organophosphates such as dichlorvos
(25.7%) and organochlorines such as endosulfan (15.7%) being the most
common types of pesticides involved (Kır et al. 2013). In Tehran, Iran, another
case study showed high level of endosulfan poisoning and the most common
culprit was organochlorines (57.1%) insecticide (Akhgari et al. 2018).

NX
Another brief case study reported the inspection from January 2000 to December
2002, revealed 30 positive cases in 2000; 240 positive cases in 2001 and 38
positive cases in 2002. Organophosphorus insecticides were detected as the
major component of most samples, representing 63% of the total positive cases
GE
and quinalphos is the most abundant pesticide, present in 32 of the 111 positive
cases, followed by the herbicide paraquat (Teixeira et al. 2004). Unfortunately,
poisoning and fatalities due to endosulfan, a halogenated carbohydrate derivative,
have been widely reported in the Indian sub-continent. A fresh 23 cases of
endosulfan poisoning have been reported describing symptoms were nausea and
vomiting in 17 patients (73.9%), seizures in five patients (21.7%), and dizziness
PA

in one patient (4.3%) (Karatas et al. 2006). Two cases of unintentional exposure
to endosulfan, one of which presented with neurological manifestations, liver
toxicity, and required mechanical ventilation and emergent hemodialysis; the
other had only neurological manifestations and liver toxicity, has been reported
NI

from a nine-year analysis study in Turkey (Yavuz et al. 2007).

Imidacloprid is a neonicotinoid insecticide developed for commercial use,
belonging to the chloronicotinyl nitroguanidine chemical family. Imidacloprid
has high potency against insects but with low mammalian toxicity and
favorable persistence. On the basis of animal studies, it is classified as
©

‘‘moderately toxic’’ (class II by WHO and toxicity category II EPAV). Animal

studies indicate relatively low toxicity to mammals because they have resistant
nicotinic receptor subtypes compared to insects, as well as protection of the
central nervous system by the blood brain barrier. Despite wide usage, human
exposure experience resulting in toxicity is quite limited. Though imidacloprid
6 Microbial Biopesticides in India

regarded as safe for human beings, toxicity can occur through inhalation
exposure (Kumar et al. 2013).
Neuropsychiatric symptoms in imidacloprid poisoning have been reported
in one case with inhalational exposure mainly due to central nicotinic
stimulation (Huang et al. 2006). Cardiovascular manifestations like
tachycardia, bradycardia, arrhythmia, and cardiac arrest were also described
in different case reports (Wu et al. 2001). There is a paucity of information
about human toxicity. Some reports also suggested that the other ingredients in
the formulated product could be responsible for causing toxicity. In the same
line of study imidacloprid formulation containing 9.7% active ingredient, <2
% surfactant, and the co-solvent, N-methyl pyrrolidone caused drowsiness,
disorientation, dizziness, oral and gastroesophageal erosions, hemorrhagic
gastritis, productive cough, fever, leukocytosis, and hyperglycemia. In fact,
moderate to high dose imidacloprid in animals causes central nervous system
activation similar to nicotine, including tremors, impaired pupillary function,
and hypothermia, however, the causal role for the toxicity is still unclear (Wu et

NX
al. 2001). Similar observation was mentioned that moderate to relatively high-
dose imidacloprid in animals causes central nervous system activation similar
to nicotine, including tremors, impaired papillary function, and hypothermia,
it is more likely that the formulation ingredients caused most of the clinical
GE
symptoms including central nervous system depression and gastrointestinal
irritation (Shadnia and Moghaddam 2008).
Two cases of acute poisoning with an insecticide formulation containing
acetamiprid has been reported, exposed patients experienced severe nausea and
vomiting, muscle weakness, hypothermia, convulsions, and clinical manifestations
PA

including tachycardia, hypotension, electrocardiogram changes, hypoxia, with

the higher serum concentration of acetamiprid (Imamura et al. 2010). Similarly,
another case study, Northeast China suggested toxic pesticides were responsible
for comprehensive fatality (38.7%). Methomyl and fluoroacetamide were most
NI

commonly detected in the samples (Zhang et al. 2013).

In an autopsy case study of unnatural deaths in Northwest India, aluminium
phosphide was found to be the most common suicidal poison, causing 68.4
% of total deaths due to poisoning between 1992 and 2000 (Chopra et al.
1986). Another case study revealed poisoning of 208 cases of death due to fatal
poisoning of aluminium phosphide during the span of one year, January 2007
©

to December 2007. Studies decoded the mechanism of action of the fumigant in

different animals described non-competitive binding of cytochrome oxidase by
phosphine leading to valence change in the heme component of haemoglobin.
However, other school of thoughts suggested inhibition of catalase, resulting
to accumulation of hydrogen peroxide (Bogle et al. 2006).
Table 1: Case studies reported on clinical toxicology of pesticides
Year Pesticide Reported Patients Fatality from acute Symptoms Pesticide content Reference
country poisoning
2002-2007 Glyphosate- Sri Lanka 601 27% were Gastrointestinal high plasma Roberts et al.
© containing patients asymptomatic, 63.7% symptoms, glyphosate 2020
herbicides had minor poisoning, respiratory distress, concentrations on
and 5.5% had moderate hypotension, admission (>734
to severe poisoning. 19altered level of μg/mL)
deaths with a median consciousness, and
time to death of 20 h) oliguria
2002 -2009 Glyphosate- France 13 cases - Oropharyngeal Blood glyphosate Zouaoui et al.
containing ulceration, nausea concentrations 2013
NI
herbicides and vomiting, had a mean
respiratory distress, value of 61 mg/L
cardiac arrhythmia, (range 0.6–150
hyper-kaleamia, mg/L) and 4146
impaired renal mg/L (range
PA
function, hepatic 690–7480 mg/L)
toxicity and altered
consciousness
2001 - 2007 Endosulfan China 52 cases 30.7% of the 52 patients Hypotension, Amount ingested Moon and
poisoning died, and 48 patients rhabdomyolysis, could be greater Chun 2009
experienced seizures. hepatic toxicity, and than 35 g, caused
hypotension. mortality
GE
January to Endosulfan Singapore 23 cases Nausea and vomiting Nausea, vomiting, - Karatas et al.
December 2005 poisoning in 17 patients (73.9 %), diarrhoea, stomach (2006)
seizures 21.7 %, and ache, respiratory
dizziness 4.3 % distress, seizures,
NX
pulmonary oedema,
Why We Need Biopesticides: Some Case Studies of Chemical Pesticides

agitation, headaches,
7

dizziness etc.
 8

Year Pesticide Reported Patients Fatality from acute Symptoms Pesticide content Reference
country poisoning
January 2001 to Organophosphate India 325 15% patients died - - Singh and
May 2003 pesticides (65%) patients Unnikrishnan
© and aluminium 2006
phosphide (15%)
July 2013 to June Organophosphate India 133 36.1% were stable after 13.5% Patients - Banday et al.
2014 pesticides patients gastric lavage showed episodic 2015
convulsions,
derangement in renal
function
Microbial Biopesticides in India

1997- 2002 Monocrotophos India 8040 Fatality 22.6%, 1819 - - Srinivas Rao
NI
and endosulfan patients patient died et al. 2005
2019 Monocrotophos India 1 patient Dead Vomiting with Sharma and
breathlessness Kumar, 2019
July, 2008 Organophosphate China 335 - Cerebral edema, - Zhang et al.
-December 2015 pesticides cases liver injury, (2017)
PA
kidney injury,
myocardial injury,
gastrointestinal
hemorrhage and
acute pancreatitis
January 1985- Aluminium India Sixteen Profuse vomiting, Chopra et al.
GE
December 1985 phosphide patients pain in the upper 1986
abdomen and shock
NX
 Why We Need Biopesticides: Some Case Studies of Chemical Pesticides 9

Toxicities of Chemical Pesticides as Potential Endocrine

Disruptors
Many chemicals that have been identified as potential endocrine disruptors,
include pesticides. About 105 substances have been identified in this respect,
of these, 46% are insecticides, 21% herbicides and 31% fungicides. Case
studies indicated that thyroid hormone production can be inhibited by some
ten pesticides (amitrole, cyhalothrin, fipronil, ioxynil, maneb, mancozeb,
pentachloronitro-benzene, prodiamine, pyrimethanil, thiazopyr, ziram,
zineb (Sugiyama et al. 2005; Leghait et al. 2009). Besides, effects linked to
endocrine disruption have been largely noticed in invertebrates (Gooding et al.
2003), reptiles (Crain et al. 1997), fish (Purdom et al. 1994), birds (Vos et al.
2000) and mammals (Oskam et al. 2003). A case study on Daphnia magna has
shown that endosulfan sulphate disrupts the ecdysteroidal system and juvenile
hormone activity of crustaceans (Palma et al. 2009). Influence of linuron on
reproductive hormone production has been reported in rats (Wilson et al.
2009).

NX
Epidemiological studies concluded that pesticide exposure affect
spermatogenesis leading to poor semen quality and reduced male fertility,
an increasing number of epidemiological studies linked environmental
GE
exposure to pesticides and hormone-dependent cancer risks. A case report on
fat samples from women with breast cancer revealed elevated concentrations
of PCBs, DDE, and DDT (Falck et al. 1992). Another epidemiological case
studies performed in Spain between 1999 and 2009 shows that among 2,661
cases of breast cancer patients, 2,173 (81%) were associated with pesticide
contamination (Parron et al. 2010).
PA

Toxicities of Chemical Pesticides on Animals

Case report described the spraying of coca (Erythroxylum coca) with glyphosate
(coca mixture, a combination of formulated glyphosate, Glyphos, and an
NI

adjuvant, Cosmo-Flux) in Colombia has raised concerns about possible impacts

on amphibians. Mortality at 96 h in the control microcosms was between 0
and 16% and LC50 values were between 8.9 and 10.9 kg glyphosate a.i./ha.
Mortality >LC50 was only observed in the tested species when the application
rate was >2-fold the normal application rate (Bernal et al. 2009). Contrastingly,
another report suggested no significant acute toxicity of the glyphosate end-
©

use formulation Roundup Original® to four North American amphibian species

(Rana clamitans, R. pipiens, R. sylvatica, and Bufo americanus) and the
toxicity of glyphosate technical, the polyethoxylatedtallowamine surfactant
(POEA) commonly used in glyphosate-based herbicides, and five newer
glyphosate formulations to R. clamitans. For R. clamitans, acute toxicity
10 Microbial Biopesticides in India

values in order of decreasing toxicity were POEA > Roundup Original >
Roundup Transorb®>Glyfos AU®. However, relevant concentrations of POEA
or glyphosate formulations containing POEA showed decreased snout-vent
length at metamorphosis and increased time to metamorphosis, tail damage,
and gonadal abnormalities. These effects may be caused, in some part, by
disruption of hormone signaling, because thyroid hormone receptor β-m-RNA
transcript levels were elevated (Howe et al. 2004).
The major mechanism of toxicity of OPs is the inhibition of Acetyl
cholinesterase (AChE), resulting in a net accumulation of Acetylcholine (ACh)
and increased stimulation of cholinergic receptors. In mammals, excessive
stimulation of these cholinergic receptors in the central and peripheral nervous
systems results muscarinic-receptor induced effects (excessive secretions,
miosis, bradycardia) and nicotinic-receptor-induced effects (muscle tremors,
convulsions, complete muscle paralysis). A case study in California, USA
showed toxicity of phorate in a group of 300 Holstein cattle, a large number
of cattle developed tremors, diarrhea, weakness, and paralysis. A total of 159,

NX
died within 24 h (Puschner et al. 2013).
An interesting study was carried out to assess the levels of atrazine, dimethoate,
and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane on freshwater fish in Chiredzi, Zimbabwe
revealed higher concentration of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane in water and
GE
fish muscle tissue at respective concentrations of 131.3 μg/l and 171.7 μg/kg,
while concentrations of atrazine was 6.15 μg/l and 142.0 μg/kg in water and
fish muscle tissue, respectively. The atrazine and DDT concentrations in water
samples were above the limits permissible by the World Health Organization
in drinking water. The pesticide in water were about three times higher than
PA

those in fish samples while significantly higher (p < 0.05) concentrations of

atrazine (23-fold) were observed in fish samples compared to water. Levels of
DDT and its metabolites in fish tissues were also higher than those in water
samples (Basopo et al. 2020).
NI

Another case study revealed the effect of glyphosate-based herbicide on

aquatic organisms. Glyphosate has been widely used against terrestrial weeds,
causes toxicity in plants include decreases in concentration of the aromatic
amino acids, tryptophan, phenylalanine, and tyrosine, as well as decreased
synthesis of protein, indole acetic acid and chlorophyll. Apart from their use in
terrestrial environments, glyphosate-based formulas are also, however rarely,
©

applied in order to control aquatic weeds, particularly invasive species e.g.

common reed (Phragmites australis). Glyphosate was detected using gas
chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS) in the water samples collected
from the bathing area at a mean concentration of 0.09 mg dm–3. Significantly
 Why We Need Biopesticides: Some Case Studies of Chemical Pesticides 11

lower numbers of Chironomidae (by 41%), Oligochaeta (by 43%), Vivipariae

(by 75%), Hirudinae (by 75%), Asellus aquaticus (by 77%), Gamma ruspulex
(by 38%) and Dreissena polymorpha (by 42%) were found at the glyphosate-
treated site. The ranges of glyphosate concentration in the tissues of sampled
macro-invertebrates and P. australis organs were 7.3-10.2 μg kg–1 and 16.2-
24.7 μg kg–1, respectively (Rzymski et al. 2013).
Another instance reported five dead or debilitated bald eagles (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) and a red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) from British
Columbia (BC), Canada tested positive for residues of the organophosphorus
insecticide, phorate (Elliott et al. 1997). Other cases of pesticide poisoning
of wild birds diagnosed at the National Veterinary Research and Quarantine
Service, Korea, where forty-one mortality events (759 birds) of 87 incidents
(2,464 birds) were found affected by poisoning of six organophosphates or
carbamates pesticides. Phosphamidon was most frequently identified as the
cause of poisoning, accounting for 23 mortality events, besides, other pesticides
identified as poisons for birds were monocrotophus, fenthion, parathion,

NX
EPN, and diazinon, carbofuran (Kwon et al. 2004). Later, serious threat of
carbofuran has been reported in western Kenya, where, uncounted dead birds,
Quelea species found in cereal fields. On investigation, it was observed that a
large proportion of individuals of their populations were exposed to Furadan
GE
(Odino 2011). Similar cases were reported from January 2014 to October 2020,
which confirmed pesticide poisoning substances in 503 samples of wildlife
and domestic animals in Portugal. Toxicology results from domestic species
(dog, cat, sheep, cows, and horses), wildlife species (red foxes, birds of prey,
lynx, and wild boar), molluscicides, carbamates, rodenticides, strychnine and
organophosphates (Grilo et al. 2020).
PA

Effect of Neonicotinoid Insecticides to Bees

Pollinating insects, such as the honey bee, are mainly exposed to chemicals
when visiting melliferous plants. Neonicotinoid insecticides were recently
NI

implicated by beekeepers who reported that hives placed near cropped plants,
originated from seeds dressed with insecticide, showed high levels of damage
due to a progressive decrease in the hive populations, until the complete
loss of the colonies (Maus et al. 2003). The risk that systemic neonicotinoid
insecticides induce for honey bees started in France with the use of Gaucho
©

(active ingredient: imidacloprid) on sunflower (Maxima and van der Sluijs

2007). Generally, neonicotinoids are more toxic via oral route than contact
mode. The difference between the oral and contact toxicity may be due to the
weak hydrophobicity of the neonicotinoidsyielding a low penetration through
the insect cuticle. Three species of bees, Apis mellifera, Megachile rotundata
12 Microbial Biopesticides in India

and Nomiam elanderi, were found susceptible to imidacloprid (24-h LD50

0.04 µg/bee) (Stark et al. 1995). Similar results were obtained for Admire and
Provado that are two commercial formulations of imidacloprid (Devillers et
al. 2003). The behavioral effects of neonicotinoid insecticides were largely
investigated showed that foragers when collecting nectar and pollen were
exposed to low doses of neonicotinoid insecticides during their foraging trips,
which induced behavioral effects and subsequently no homing return to hive
(Blacquiere et al. 2012).
A case study on the toxicity of dinotefuran, a neonicotinoid insecticide has been
reported in Wilsonville, Oregon, USA which killed a large number of bumble
bees. It was estimated that approximately 45,830 to 107,470 bumble bees from
289 to 596 colonies were killed with the chemical pesticide. Chromatographic
analysis revealed concentration of dinotefuran in the samples flower was 7.4
ppm, which exceed 737% of the LC50 of beneficial pollinator, honey bee. The
dead bumble bees were tested for dinotefuran concentration which showed 0.92
ppm, far more than the maximum LC50 (0.884 ppm) of A. melifera (Hatfield et

NX
al. 2021). Another study reported in Romania, where exposure of honey bees
with neonicotinoids was estimated. In total, a set of fifty samples was collected
from fields, located in different areas of intensive agriculture were analysed for
five neonicotinoids which revealed 48% of the total samples contained one or
GE
more detected or quantified neonicotinoid residues (Căuia et al. 2020).

Instances of Environmental Toxicities of Chemical Pesticides

Despite the presence of rules and regulations, it has been observed that
pesticides are not used in an appropriate manner. Much of the portion of
chemical pesticides goes to wastage during their use. Pesticides are used
PA

in various types of pests control; remain a big source of air, water and soil
pollution, which may negatively affect human health and the living organisms
in the environment. Environmental impacts of pesticide use were commonly
estimated through variables such as pounds of active ingredient applied or
NI

expenditure on pesticides. The disadvantage is that both these measures

assume environmental damage is directly correlated with the quantity of
pesticide used, regardless of the specific chemical formulation. The increased
availability of low-dosage alternatives lend credence to the argument that
weight and volume measures are not adequate proxies for assessing pesticide
©

risk. Cornell University’s Environmental Risk Analysis Program has identified

eight of the indicators widely used worldwide: Environmental Potential Risk
Indicator for Pesticides (EPRIP), Environmental Yardstick for Pesticides
(EYP), Survey of National Pesticide Risk Indicators (SYNOPS), System
for Predicting the Environmental Impact of Pesticides (SyPEP), Pesticide
 Why We Need Biopesticides: Some Case Studies of Chemical Pesticides 13

Environmental Risk Indicator (PERI), Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ),

Chemical Hazard Evaluation for Management Strategies (CHEMS1), and
Multi-Attribute Toxicity Factor (MATF). The first four indicators are referred
to as predicted environmental concentration (PEC) indicators, and the later
four constitute ranking indicators (Sande et al. 2011).
Negative effects of pesticides on the environment and the farmers awareness in
Saudi Arabia has been described by Al-Zaidi et al. (2011). Another case study
on assessment of hazards from methyl bromide and the proposed alternative
fumigants to workers, consumers, beneficial arthropods, birds, fish, and bees in
Florida, USA suggested the highest relative risks category under field workers
and beneficial arthropods and fish and consumers the least risks (Sande et al.
2011). Similar kind of study was also conducted in Nepal to evaluate vegetable
growers’ knowledge on pesticide safety and pest management practices.
Unfortunately, most of the farmer (>90%) did not know much about the
harmful effects of pesticide residues nor practiced proper pesticide disposal
methods (Rijal et al. 2018). A case study conducted the health risk associated

NX
with chemical pesticide contaminants in the drinking water sources of Dalian
in China, revealed relatively higher concentration of atrazine and acetochlorat
ng L-1 levels. Additionally, atrazine, acetochlor, hexachlorobenzene, p,p’-
DDE, and p,p’-DDD were detected in the sediment/soil samples at ng g-1
GE
levels. However, hexachlorobenzene and arsenic were identified as the main
contributors to human carcinogenic risks, which were calculated at the high
level of 10-4 (Dong et al. 2020).

Why Biopetsicides?
Biopesticide is gaining interest because of its advantages associated with
PA

the environmental safety, target-specificity, efficacy, biodegradability

and suitability in the integrated pest management (IPM) programs. Thus,
biopesticide is one of the promising alternatives to manage environmental
pollutions. Though potential application of biopesticides in environmental
NI

safety is well known, it has gained interest in view of the growing demands for
organic food. Although use of agrochemicals is indispensable to meet the ever
growing demands of food, feed and fodder, opportunities do exist in selected
crops and niche areas where biopesticides can be used as a component of IPM.
The interest in biopesticides is based on the advantages associated with the
©

products which are (i) inherently less harmful and environmentally safe, (ii)
target-specific, (iii) often effective in very small quantity, (iv) naturally and
quickly decomposable and, (v) usable as a component of IPM.
14 Microbial Biopesticides in India

Biopesticides are very effective in the agricultural pest control without causing
serious harm to ecological chain or worsening environmental pollution. The
research and development of practical applications in the field of biopesticides
greatly mitigate environmental pollution caused by chemical pesticide residues
and promotes sustainable development of agriculture. Since the advent
of biopesticides, a large number of products have been released, several of
which have already played dominant roles in the market. The development of
biopesticides stimulates modernization of agriculture and will, without doubt,
gradually replace chemical pesticides. Many biopesticides are ideal substitutes
for their traditional chemical counterparts in pollution-free agricultural
production. Research in production, formulation and delivery may greatly
assist in commercialization of biopesticides. More research is needed towards
integrating biological agents into production system, improving capability
of developing countries to manufacture and use biopesticides. At the same
time, it is also required to encourage public funded programmes, commercial
investors and pesticide companies to take up biopesticide enterprises.

NX
Conclusions
Impact of synthetic pesticides, due in particular to an excessive use (including
environmental pollution and implications to human health) have led to
GE
modifications in agricultural practices and various national and international
regulations limiting their use. Further limitations and/or bans often encourage
to find alternative solutions that are safer and non-toxic to the environment
and humans. Most of the countries have amended their policies to minimize
the use of chemical pesticides and promote the use of biopesticides. Policy
measures need to be strengthened in order to reduce excessive use of chemical
PA

pesticides and to promote the use of biopesticides. Better understanding of the

mode of action of biopesticides, their effects and regulatory issues that arise in
their adoption may help further to raise their profile among the public, policy-
makers and hence enable them to realize their contributions to sustainability.
NI

The interest in organic farming and pesticide residue free agricultural

produce would certainly warrant increased adoption of biopesticides by the
farmers. Increasing concerns over environmental and health safety across the
world would certainly create awareness among the farmers, manufacturers,
policy makers and consumers to accept safer biopesticides for suitable pest
management options.
©

References
Akhgari M, Amini SN, Iravani FS (2018) Forensic toxicology perspectives of
methadoneassociated deaths in Tehran, Iran, a 7 year overview. Basic Clin Pharmacol
Toxicol 122(4):436-441.
 Why We Need Biopesticides: Some Case Studies of Chemical Pesticides 15

Al-Zaidi AA, Elhag EA, Al-Otaibi SH, Baig MB (2011) Negative effects of pesticides on the
environment and the farmers awareness in Saudi Arabia: A case study. J Animal Plant
Sci 21(3):605-611.
Banday TH, Tathineni B, Desai MS, Naik V (2015) Predictors of morbidity and mortality in
organophosphorus poisoning: a case study in rural hospital in Karnataka, India. North
Am J Med Sci 7(6):259.
Basopo N, Muzvidziwa A (2020) Assessment of the effects of atrazine,
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, and dimethoate on freshwater fish (Oreochromismoss
ambicus): A case study of the a2 farmlands in chiredzi, in the southeastern part of
Zimbabwe. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27(1):579-586.
Bernal MH, Solomon KR, Carrasquilla G (2009) Toxicity of formulated glyphosate (Glyphos)
and Cosmo-Flux to larval and juvenile Colombian frogs 2. Field and laboratory
microcosm acute toxicity. J Toxicol Environ Health, Part A 72(15-16):966-973.
Blacquiere T, Smagghe G, Van Gestel CA, Mommaerts V (2012) Neonicotinoids in bees: a
review on concentrations, side-effects and risk assessment. Ecotoxicol 21(4):973-992.
Bodwal J, Chauhan M, Behera C, Jitendra K (2019) Fatal monocrotophos poisoning by cutaneous
absorption while sleeping: A remarkable case study. Med Leg J 87(3):144-150.
Bogle RG, Theron P, Brooks P, Dargan PI, Redhead J (2006) Aluminium phosphide poisoning.
Emerg Med J 23(1):e3.
Căuia E, Siceanu A, Visan GO, Căuia D, Colta T, Spulber RA (2020) Monitoring the field-

NX
realistic exposure of honeybee colonies to neonicotinoids by an integrative approach: A
case study in Romania. Diversity 12(1):24.
Chopra JS, Kalra OP, Malik VS, Sharma R, Chandna A (1986) Aluminium phosphide poisoning:
a prospective study of 16 cases in one year. Postgrad Med J 62(734):1113-1115.
GE
Chugh SN, Dhawan R, Agrawal N, Mahajan SK (1998) Endosulfan poisoning in Northern
India: a report of 18 cases. International J Clin Pharmacol Ther 36(9):474-477.
Crain DA, Guillette LJ, Pickford DB, Rooney A (1997) Alterations in steroidogenesis
in alligators (Alligator mississippiensis) exposed naturally and experimentally to
environmental contaminants. Environ Health Perspect 105:528-533.
Devillers J, Decourtye A, Budzinski H (2003) Comparative toxicity and hazards of pesticides to
Apis and non-Apis bees. A chemometrical study, SAR QSAR. Environ Res 14:389-403.
PA

Dong W, Zhang Y, Quan X (2020) Health risk assessment of heavy metals and pesticides: a case
study in the main drinking water source in Dalian, China. Chemosphere 242:125113.
Elliott JE, Wilson LK, Langelier KM, Mineau P, Sinclair PH (1997) Secondary poisoning of
birds of prey by the organophosphorus insecticide, phorate. Ecotoxicol 6(4):219-231.
Falck F, Ricci A, Wolff MS, Godbold J, Deckers P (1992) Pesticides and polichlorinated
NI

biphenyl residues in human breast lipids and their relation to breast cancer. Ach Environ
Occup Health 47:143-146.
Gooding MP, Wilson VS, Folmar LC, Marcovich DT, LeBlanc GA (2003) The biocide
tributyltin reduces the accumulation of testosterone as fatty acid esters in the mud snail
(Ilyanassa obsoleta). Environ Health Perspect 111:426-230.
Gress S, Lemoine S, Séralini GE, Puddu PE (2015) Glyphosate-based herbicides potently
affect cardiovascular system in mammals: review of the literature. Cardiovas Toxicol
©

15(2):117-126.
Grilo A, Moreira A, Moreira B, Belas A, São Braz B (2020) Epidemiological study of pesticide
poisoning in domestic animals and wildlife in Portugal: 2014-2020. Front Vet Sci
7:1181.
Gunnell D, Eddleston M, Phillips MR, Konradsen F (2007) The global distribution of fatal
pesticide self-poisoning: systematic review. BMC Public Health 7(1):1-15.
16 Microbial Biopesticides in India

Hatfield RG, Strange JP, Koch JB, Jepsen S, Stapleton I (2021) Neonicotinoid pesticides cause
mass fatalities of native bumble bees: A case study from Wilsonville, Oregon, United
States. Environ Entomol. doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvab059
Hori Y, Fujisawa M, Shimada K, Hirose Y (2003) Determination of the herbicide glyphosate
and its metabolite in biological specimens by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. A
case of poisoning by Roundup® herbicide. J Anal Toxicol 27(3):162-166.
Howe CM, Berrill M, Pauli BD, Helbing CC, Werry K, Veldhoen N (2004) Toxicity of
glyphosatebased pesticides to four North American frog species. Environ Toxicol Chem
23(8):1928-1938.
Huang NC, Lin SL, Chou CH, Hung YM, Chung HM, Huang ST (2006) Fatal ventricular
fibrillation in a patient with acute imidacloprid poisoning. Am J Emerg Med 24(7):883-
885.
Imamura T, Yanagawa Y, Nishikawa K, Matsumoto N, Sakamoto T (2010) Two cases of acute
poisoning with acetamiprid in humans. Clin Toxicol 48(8):851-853.
Karatas AD, Aygun D, Baydin A (2006) Characteristics of endosulfan poisoning: a study of 23
cases. Singapore Medical Journal 47(12):1030-1032.
Kır MZ, Öztürk G, Gürler M, Karaarslan B, Erden G, Karapirli M, Akyol Ö (2013) Pesticide
poisoning cases in Ankara and nearby cities in Turkey: an 11-year retrospective analysis.
J Forensic Leg Med 20(4):274-277.
Kumar A, Verma A, Kumar A (2013) Accidental human poisoning with a neonicotinoid

NX
insecticide, imidacloprid: A rare case report from rural India with a brief review of
literature. Egyptian J Forensic Sci 3(4):123-126.
Kumar S (2013) The role of biopesticides in sustainably feeding the nine billion global
populations. J Biofertil Biopestic 4:e114.
GE
Kwon YK, Wee SH, Kim JH (2004) Pesticide poisoning events in wild birds in Korea from
1998 to 2002. J Wildl Dis 40(4):737-740.
Langrand J, Blanc-Brisset I, Boucaud-Maitre D, Puskarczyk E, Nisse P, Garnier R, Pulce C
(2020) Increased severity associated with tallowamine in acute glyphosate poisoning.
Clin Toxicol 58(3):201-203.
Lee HL, Chen KW, Chi CH, Huang JJ, Tsai LM (2000) Clinical presentations and prognostic
factors of a glyphosate surfactant herbicide intoxication a review of 131 cases. Acad
PA

Emerg Med 7(8):906-910.

Leghait J, Gayrard V, Picard-Hagen N, Camp M, Perdu E, Toutain PL, Viguié C (2009)
Fipronil-induced disruption of thyroid function in rats is mediated by increased total
and free thyroxine clearances concomitantly to increased activity of hepatic enzymes.
Toxicol 255:38-44.
NI

Mancini F, Van Bruggen AH, Jiggins JL, Ambatipudi AC, Murphy H (2005) Acute pesticide
poisoning among female and male cotton growers in India. Int J Occup Environ Health
11(3):221-232.
Maus C, Curé G, Schmuck R (2003) Safety of imidacloprid seed dressings to honey bees: a
comprehensive overview and compilation of the current state of knowledge. Bull
Insectology 56(1):51-57.
Maxima L, van der Sluijs JP (2007) Uncertainty: Cause or effect of stakeholders’ debates?:
©

Analysis of a case study: The risk for honeybees of the insecticide Gaucho. Sci Total
Environ 376(1-3):1-17.
Moon JM, Chun BJ (2009) Acute endosulfan poisoning: a retrospective study. Hum Exp
Toxicol 28(5):309-316.
 Why We Need Biopesticides: Some Case Studies of Chemical Pesticides 17

Odino M (2011) Measuring the conservation threat to birds in Kenya from deliberate pesticide
poisoning: a case study of suspected carbofuran poisoning using Furadan in Bunyala
Rice Irrigation Scheme. Carbofuran and Wildlife Poisoning: Global Perspectives and
Forensic Approaches 53-70.
Oskam IC, Ropstad E, Dahl E, Lie E, Derocher AE, Wiig O, Larsen S, Wiger R, Skaare JU
(2003) Organochlorines affect the major androgenic hormone; testosterone; in male
polar bears (Ursus maritimus) at Svalbard. J Toxicol Environ Health A 66:2119-2139.
Palma P, Palma VL, Matos C, Fernandes RM, Bohn A, Soares AMVM, Barbosa IR (2009)
Effects of atrazine and endosulfan sulphate on the ecdysteroid system of Daphnia
magna. Chemosphere 74:676-681.
Parron T, Alarcon R, Requena MDM, Hernandez A (2010) Increased breast cancer risk in
women with environmental exposure to pesticides. Toxicol Lett 196:S180.
Patel AB, Dewan A, Kaji BC (2012) Monocrotophos poisoning through contaminated millet
flour. Arh za Hig Rada Toksikol 63(3):377.
Peillex C, Pelletier M (2020) The impact and toxicity of glyphosate and glyphosate-based
herbicides on health and immunity. J Immunotoxicol 17(1):163-174.
Purdom CE, Hardiman, PA, Bye VJ, Eno NC, Tyler CR, Sumpter JP (1994) Estrogenic effects
of effluents from sewage treatment works. Chem Ecol 8:275-285.
Puschner B, Gallego S, Tor E, Wilson D, Holstege D, Galey F (2013) The diagnostic approach
and public health implications of phorate poisoning in a California Dairy Herd. J Clin

NX
Toxicol S13. doi:10.4172/2161-0495.S13-001
Rijal JP, Regmi R, Ghimire R, Puri KD, Gyawaly S, Poudel S (2018) Farmers’ knowledge on
pesticide safety and pest management practices: A case study of vegetable growers in
Chitwan, Nepal. Agriculture 8(1):16.
GE
Roberts DM, Nick AB, Fahim M, Michael E, Daniel A, Goldstein AM, Marian SB, Andrew
HD (2010) A prospective observational study of the clinical toxicology of glyphosate-
containing herbicides in adults with acute self-poisoning. Clin Toxicol 48(2):129-136.
Rzymski P, Klimaszyk P, Kubacki T, Poniedzialek B (2013) The effect of glyphosate-based
herbicide on aquatic organisms-a case study. Limnol Rev 13(4):215.
Sande D, Mullen J, Wetzstein M, Houston J (2011) Environmental impacts from pesticide use:
a case study of soil fumigation in Florida tomato production. Int J Environmental Res
PA

Public Health 8(12):4649-4661.

Shadnia S, Moghaddam HH (2008) Fatal intoxication with imidacloprid insecticide. Am Emerg
Med 26(5):634.e1-4. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2007.09.024.
Sharma R, Kumar J (2019) Fatal poisoning of monocrotophos pesticide by subcutaneous
absorption: a case study. Malaysian J Forensic Sci 9(1):15-20.
NI

Singh B, Unnikrishnan B (2006) A profile of acute poisoning at Mangalore (South India). J Clin
Forensic Med 13(3):112-116.
Sribanditmongkol P, Jutavijittum P, Pongraveevongsa P, Wunnapuk K, Durongkadech P (2012)
Pathological and toxicological findings in glyphosate-surfactant herbicide fatality: a
case report. The American J Forensic Med Pathol 33(3):234-237.
Srinivas Rao CH, Venkateswarlu V, Surender T, Eddleston M, Buckley NA (2005) Pesticide
poisoning in south India: opportunities for prevention and improved medical
©

management. Trop Med Int Health 10(6):581-588.

Srivastava N, Harit G, Srivastava R (2009) A study of physico-chemical characteristics of lakes
around Jaipur, India. J Environ Biol 30(5):889.
Stark JD, Jepson PC, Mayer DF (1995) Limitation to use of topical toxicity data for prediction
of pesticide side effect in the field. J Econ Entomol 88:1081-1088.
18 Microbial Biopesticides in India

Sugiyama S, Shimada N, Miyoshi H, Yamauchi K (2005) Detection of thyroid systemdisrupting

chemicals using in vitro and in vivo screening assays in Xeno puslaevis. Toxicol Sci
88:367-374.
Talbot AR, Mon-Han S, Jinn-Sheng H, Shu-Fen Y, Tein-Shong G, Shur-Hueih W, Chao-
Liang C, Thomas RS (1991) Acute poisoning with a glyphosate-surfactant herbicide
(‘Roundup’): a review of 93 cases. Hum Exp Toxicol 10(1):1-8.
Teixeira H, Proença P, Alvarenga M, Oliveira M, Marques EP, Vieira DN (2004) Pesticide
intoxications in the Centre of Portugal: three years analysis. Forensic Sci Int 143(2-
3):199-204.
Tominack RL, Yang GY, Tsai WJ, Chung HM, Deng JF (1991) Taiwan National Poison Center
survey of glyphosate-surfactant herbicide ingestions. J Clin Toxicol 29(1):91-109.
UNDESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs) (2009) World
population prospects: The 2008 revision, highlights, working Paper No. ESA/P/WP.210.
New York, UN.
Vos JG, Dybing E, Greim HA, Ladefoged O, Lambré C, Tarazona JV, Brandt I, Vethaak
AD (2000) Health effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals on wildlife; with special
reference to the European sitation. Crit Rev Toxicol 30:71-133.
Wilson VS, Lambright CR, Furr JR, Howdeshell KL, Gray LEJ (2009) The herbicide linuron
reduces testosterone production from the fatal rat testis during both in utero and in vitro
exposures. Toxicol Lett 186:73-77.

NX
Wu IW, Lin JL, Cheng ET (2001) Acute poisoning with the neonicotinoid insecticide
imidacloprid in N-methyl pyrrolidone. J Clin Toxicol 39(6):617-621.
Yavuz Y, Yurumez Y, Kücüker H, Ela Y, Yüksel S (2007) Two cases of acute endosulfan
toxicity. Clin Toxicol 45(5):530-532.
GE
Zhang D, Zhang J, Zuo Z, Liao L (2013) A retrospective analysis of data from toxic substance-
related cases in Northeast China (Heilongjiang) between 2000 and 2010. Forensic Sci
Int 231(1-3):172-177.
Zhang W, Huang C, Jiang Y, Bai L, Zhang X (2017) Comparative study of the incidence of early
complications among the patients with six different kinds of acute organophosphorus
pesticide poisoning. Chinese J Emerg Med 26(11):1247-1251.
Zouaoui K, Dulaurent S, Gaulier JM, Moesch C, Lachâtre G (2013) Determination of glyphosate
PA

and AMPA in blood and urine from humans: About 13 cases of acute intoxication.
Forensic Sci Int 226(1-3):20-25.
NI
©
2
Insecticide Resistance
and Case Histories

Abstract
Insecticides play a crucial role in the management of insect pests in order
to reduce yield losses caused to high value and cash crops not only in India
but also in the world. In the recent past few newer insecticide molecules
have come in place to overcome hazardous issues with chemical pesticides.

NX
However, their usage is very limited and such molecules are not available for
high value cash crops in case of pest outbreaks, resurgence etc. Insecticide
resistance has got a long history wherein many insect pests have developed
significant level of resistance making insecticides ineffective. Insecticide
GE
resistance in India started with development of resistance in Singhara beetle
against DDT. Various resistance mechanisms adopted by insects to combat
toxic effects are metabolic, altered target site sensitivity (mutations), reduced
penetration, behavioural resistance etc. Pink bollworm developed resistance
to Bollgard II in the country caused huge economic losses to cotton crop.
Even recent outbreak of whiteflies in cotton in Punjab has also devastated the
PA

entire crop due to development of resistance. Although insecticide resistance

management strategies have come in place for few pests, the insecticide
resistance in insects in major crops made the various stake holders to think
seriously for alternative pest control strategies to safe guard the crops
from ravaging insect pests. Green pesticides, biopesticides and pesticides/
NI

insecticides of biological origin have got greater attention as consumers

are health conscious and demanding for organic products. Hence, there
is paradigm shift in pest management strategies from chemical control to
microbial control in India as well as in the world.
Keywords: Pest, Resistance, Insecticide, Mechanism, Biopesticides
©
20 Microbial Biopesticides in India

Introduction
Insecticides are one of the key control measures to combat the insect pests
for sustainable agricultural production in the world. Synthetic insecticides
have been only strategy to control the resurgent and resistant insect population
in of high value crops not only in India but also in the world. The advent
of synthetic insecticides in the mid-20th century made the control of insect
and other arthropod pests easy and much more effective, and such chemicals
remain essential in modern agriculture despite their environmental issues. By
preventing crop losses, raising the quality of produce, and lowering the cost of
farming, modern insecticides increased crop yields by as much as 50% in some
regions of the world. More than half of our crops would be lost to pests and
diseases if pesticides are not employed. Between 26 and 40% of the world’s
potential crop production is lost annually because of weeds, pests and diseases
(OECD-FAO 2012). Without crop protection, these losses could easily double.
Insecticides enable farmers to produce safe, quality foods at affordable prices
with abundance of nutritious, all-year-round foods, which are necessary for

NX
human health. Fruits and vegetables, which provide essential nutrients, are
more abundant and affordable. Grains, milk and proteins, which are vital to
childhood development, are more widely available because of lower costs
to produce food and animal feed. Production of major crops has more than
GE
tripled since 1960, which was mostly due to pesticides (FAOSTAT) as in case
of rice which feeds almost half the people on our planet doubled in production
while the amount of wheat has increased nearly 160%. Insecticides have also
been important in improving the health of both humans and domestic animals;
malaria, yellow fever, and typhus, among other infectious diseases, have been
greatly reduced in many areas of the world through their use. Pesticides include
PA

insecticides that are mainly used in agriculture or in public health protection

programs in order to protect plants from pests, weeds or diseases, and humans
from vector-borne diseases, such as malaria, dengue fever, and schistosomiasis
(Alewu and Nosiri 2011). Besides, insecticides are being extensively used
NI

in sports fields, building bottoms, lawn development, public urban green

areas etc to prevent unwanted insect pests such as termites (Hoffman et al.
2000; Nicolopoulou-Stamati et al. 2016). Despite tremendous benefits and
advantages offered by insecticides to mankind, continuous use of insecticides
over a longer period of time resulted in development of resistance, resurgence,
residue and environmental issues, health hazards etc. Insecticide resistance
©

become one of the major concerns in agriculture, public health sector and other
fields in India as well as in the world.
 Insecticide Resistance and Case Histories 21

Insecticide and Insecticide Resistance

Insecticide is an agent that destroys insects as well as other small pests (such
as mites or nematodes). While WHO panel of experts defined insecticide
resistance as ‘the development of an ability of a strain of insects to tolerate
doses of toxicants which would prove lethal to the majority of individuals in a
normal population of the same species’ (Guedes 2017). Resistance in insects
is usually a complex phenomenon with more than one mechanism operating
simultaneously within the same insect strain (Oppenoorth and Welling 1976).
The resistant phenotype of an insect that survives a dose of insecticide that
would normally have killed it, is relatively monitored with direct insecticide
bioassays. Pest control subjects the population to Darwinian selection and
survival of the fittest and it attempts to kill the tolerant individuals lead to
ever increasing doses and eventually resistant pest populations. As a result, the
most difficult problems raised due to insensitive biochemical target conferring
cross resistance to one or more classes of compounds formerly effective at that
site. Insecticides are being widely used to control insect pests across the world

NX
which leads to high selection pressure on target insect over a period of time.
Insecticides provide very good control of insects initially but over a period of
time insects develop resistance by various mechanisms such as morphological,
behavioural, ecological, environmental biochemical, genetical, molecular
GE
adaptations.

Importance of Insecticide Resistance and its Monitoring

Since the 1950s insecticide resistance has come into prominence around
the globe as a key factor impacting the use and efficacy of a wide range of
existing and new compounds for the control of insect and mite crop pests as
PA

well as vectors of human diseases. Insecticide resistance is also an important

driver in the search for new insecticides, especially those with new modes
of action. Within the crop protection industry, insecticide resistance was
NI

recognized as a concern as early as the late 1950s to early 1960s. The early
industry response most often involved simply finding and using a different
insecticide. Frequently the replacement products were in the same class of
chemistry since there were few distinct classes of insecticides available during
time. However, in some instances recommendations from industry, scientists
included specific resistance mitigating measures such as moderation of use,
©

alternation (rotation) of insecticides from different classes, and incorporation

of biological control measures.
22 Microbial Biopesticides in India

Mechanisms of Insecticide Resistance

Insect resistance to insecticides has been found to be mediated by various
mechanisms in four different ways (Krathi et al 2002; Ju et al 2021, Liu 2015,
Auteri et al 2018) :
a) Metabolic resistance, due to an increased detoxification caused by the
overexpression or conformational changes of the enzymes involved
in the chemical insecticide metabolism, sequestration, and excretion.
Cytochrome P450-monooxygenases, glutathione S-transferases, and
carboxy/cholinesterases, microsomal mono-oxygenases, phosphotriester
hydrolases, DDT-dehydrochlorinases are the main enzymes involved in
this process.
b) Altered target site sensitivity/mutation, caused by a modification of the
chemical insecticide site of action reducing or preventing insecticide
binding at that site. Mutations in the voltage sensitive sodium channel
(Vssc) gene are one of the most common causes of target-site resistance.

NX
Insensitive acetylcholinesterases, insensitive sodium channels,
insensitive GABA (γ-amino butyric acid) receptor are few such
examples.
c) Reduced penetration, due to modifications in the insect cuticle or
GE
digestive tract linings that limit the chemical insecticides absorption.
However, the mechanism remains poorly understood, and its importance
in Aedes species is yet to be confirmed.
d) Behavioural resistance, which includes modifications in insect behaviour
that help to avoid the lethal effects of chemical insecticides. This is
considered as a contributing factor that allows the insects to avoid the
PA

lethal dose of an insecticide.

Insects metabolize insecticides to non toxic or less toxic forms through a
process called ‘detoxification’ and sometimes to more toxic intermediates,
NI

a process called ‘activation’. Substances that are completely water soluble

(polar), and those that are completely insoluble in either water or fats, are
excreted unchanged. Most insecticides, which are water insoluble (apolar)
or fat soluble (lipophilic), are metabolised to polar compounds through a
primary enzymatic conversion, mediated through 1) Oxidases, 2) Hydrolases
or 3) Glutathione-S-transferases, resulting in watersoluble products that are
©

subsequently converted to water soluble conjugates through a secondary non

synthetic reaction. These conjugates are finally excreted. Apolar substances
are converted to less lipophilic or polar metabolites by two reactions (Phase I
and Phase II) in insects and many other organisms.
 Insecticide Resistance and Case Histories 23

Phase I reactions are mainly carried out by two major groups of enzymes,
the oxidoreductases and hydrolases. The oxidoreductases comprise of the
cytochrome P450 dependent superfamily of monooxygenases, which introduce
oxygen into or remove electrons from their substrates. Carbonyl reductases,
alcohol dehydrogenases and aldehyde dehydrogenases remove hydrogen
from, or add to the target molecule. The hydrolases hydrolyse esters, amides,
epoxides or glucuronides. Typically the Phase I reaction introduces a functional
group in a series of steps in lipophilic molecules. Phase II reactions are mainly
carried out by the transferases. Glutathione S-transferases conjugate the
electrophilic substrates, while the acetyl transferases, sulfotransferases, acyl-
CoA aminoacid N-methyl transferases and UDP-glucuronosyl transferases
metabolise the nucleophilic substrates. Insecticide metabolism in insects
has been found to be catalysed mainly by monooxygenases, hydrolases and
gluthathione-S-transferases. Generally, in resistant insects, the enzymatic
detoxification is believed to be so rapid that the toxic molecule does not reach
its site of toxic action.

NX
History of Insecticide Resistance
In India, insecticide resistance has been well documented by Mehrotra (1989)
where Singhara beetle, Galerucella birmanica (1963), Tobacco caterpillar,
GE
Spodoptera litura (1965), Diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (1968),
Gram pod borer, Heliothis armigera (1986), aphids and jassids, Empoasca
kerri (1986), Lipaphis erysimi (1986), Aphis craccivora (1986) have developed
resistance to DDT, HCH, organophosphates (malathion and dimethoate),
endosulfan etc. Subsequently, Helicoverpa armigera (1987) developed
resistant to synthetic pyrethroids in cotton ecosystem where very high
PA

proportion of insecticides have been used before the introduction of Bt cotton.

Insecticide resistance has been reported mostly in cotton ecosystem during the
decade 1990-2000 which was the most difficult for cotton pest management
due to excessive use of insecticides, especially synthetic pyrethroids that led to
NI

problems of high levels of resistance to pyrethroids and DDT in Helicoverpa

armigera and Spodoptera litura in cotton and pulse growing regions of the
country (Sekhar et al. 1996). Subsequent studies (Armes et al. 1996; Kranthi et
al. 2002) showed that resistance to pyrethroids was ubiquitous and resistance
in H. armigera to conventional insecticides such as methomyl, endosulfan
and quinalphos was increasing in India. Due to unsatisfactory insect control
©

on account of insecticide resistance, farmers were forced to spray repeatedly,

most often with mixtures.
The outbreaks of whitefly during 1988 and recently on cotton in Punjab
(2015) which destroyed 2/3 of cotton in India was due to indiscriminate
24 Microbial Biopesticides in India

use of pyrethroids, elimination of natural enemies, favourable temperatures

(Sundaramurthy et al. 1992), presence of a wide range of hosts such as
vegetables, pulses, throughout year helps the whiteflies to survive and
proliferate (Kranthi 2015). Moreover, development of resistance in whiteflies
to synthetic pyrethroids and insect growth regulators like pyriproxyfen was
reported. Very recently, Naveen et al. (2017) Studied the level of insecticide
resistance to selected organophosphates, pyrethroids, and neonicotinoids in
seven Indian field populations of Bemisia tabaci genetic groups Asia-I, Asia-
II-1, and Asia-II-7. Asia-I and Asia-II-1 populations were showing significant
resistance wherein LC50 values were 7x for imidacloprid and thiamethoxam,
5x for monocrotophos and 3x for cypermethrin among the Asia-I, while,
they were 7x for cypermethrin, 6x for deltamethrin and 5x for imidacloprid
within the Asia-II-1 populations. A substantial increase in resistance ratios
was observed in both the populations of Asia-I and Asia-II-1. It is evident
that potential control failure was detected using probit analysis estimates for
cypermethrin, deltamethrin, monocrotophos and imidacloprid in controlling
whiteflies due to significant development of insecticide resistance. Insecticide

NX
resistance has been reported in public health in India in many insect vectors
species.
Chinnababu Naik et al. (2018) reported the mean Resistance Ratio (RR) for
GE
cry1Ac against PBW was 47 during 2013 and the has increased to 1387 during
2017. A similar increasing trend was observed for cry 2Ab with a mean RR
increase from 5.4 in 2013 to 4196 in 2017. Widespread infestation of pink
bollworm in Bt cotton ranging between 40 – 95% accounting for estimated
yield losses to the tune of 20-30 % have been reported from 16 major cotton
growing districts of Maharashtra, a leading cotton producing state of Central
PA

India (Kranthi 2015). This was because of the evolution of resistance in

PBW against bollgard II (cry1Ac & cry2Ab) of Bt cotton hybrid in India .
The causes of resistance were insufficient refuge, extended growing season,
lower expression levels of cry toxin in later crop growth stage etc lead to
NI

outbreakof PBW in Indian cotton (Fand et al. 2019). Experts primarily pointed
that abundance of refuge varied among countries that might have played a key
role in the striking differences in the incidence of the same pest species on
the same crop and on the same toxins, without discounting the role of other
differing factors like nature of hybrids and varieties, climate and production
practice adopted in the three major cotton growing countries in the world.
©

In addition, number of stored grain pests have also developed resistance to

insecticides in India. Pesticide resistance in stored grain pests appeared
comparatively later and first reported in flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum,
in 1971 against DDT and malathion from Delhi followed by lindane and
 Insecticide Resistance and Case Histories 25

phosphine. Sitophilus oryzae, another serious pest of stored grain, becoming

resistant to malathion originated from Kanpur in 1973 and also to lindane
and phosphine. Rhizopertha dominica, Ryzaephilus surinamensis, Dermestes
maculatus have also witnessed resistant to malathion, lindane and phosphine
in various parts of the country (Mehrotra, 1989).
The pesticide resistance in India was first noticed in insect pests of public
health importance and the concern about it led to an International Conference
organised pointedly by the World Health Organisation and the Government of
India in 1958 at New Delhi. Mosquitoes transmitting malaria and other vector
diseases were the first to become resistant to pesticides. This was because
of the large scale use of DDT in the National Malaria Control Programme /
National Malaria Eradication Programme. The first report of DDT resistance in
mosquitoes came in1952 from UP and Bombay in Culex fatigans a transmitter
of filaria and has been reported to be resistant to both DDT and HCH in various
parts of the country. The resistance in urban malaria transmitter, Anopheles
stephensi, to DDT was reported first from Erode, Tamil Nadu in 1956. In

NX
fact A. culicifacies which accounts for more than 70% of the rural malaria is
resistant throughout the country to one or the other pesticide used in Malaria
Control Programme.
GE
In the world, insecticide resistance has been reported in many occasions.
Melander (1914) reported the first case of insecticide resistance to lime
sulphur, an inorganic insecticide, in an orchard pest, the San Jose scale
(Quadraspidiotus perniciosus) in the state of Washington. A treatment with
lime sulphur killed all scales in one week in typical orchards, but 90 percent
survived after two weeks in an orchard with resistant scales. Subsequently,
PA

the number of insecticide resistance cases grew exponentially following

widespread use of DDT and other synthetic organic insecticides. Insects
have evolved resistance to all types of insecticides including in-organics,
DDT, cyclodienes, organophosphates, carbamates, pyrethroids, juvenile
NI

hormone analogs, chitin synthesis inhibitors, avermectins, neonicotinoids, and

microbials. Since the first case of DDT resistance in 1947, the incidence of
resistance has increased annually at an alarming rate. It has been estimated
that there are at least 447 pesticide resistant arthropods species in the world
(Callaghan, 1991). Insecticide resistance has also been developed by many
insects to new insecticides with different mode of action like neoniconitoids.
©

Resistance reported in thirteen orders of insects, yet more than 90 percent of

the arthropod species with resistant populations are either Diptera (35 percent),
Lepidoptera (15 percent), Coleoptera (14 percent), Hemiptera (14 percent), or
mites (14 percent). The disproportionately high number of resistant Diptera
reflects intense use of insecticides against mosquitoes that transmit disease,
26 Microbial Biopesticides in India

and agricultural pests account for 59 percent of harmful resistant species

while medical and veterinary pests account for 41 percent. Statistical analyses
suggest that for crop pests, resistance evolves most readily in those with an
intermediate number of generations (four to ten) per year that feed either by
chewing or by sucking on plant cell contents.
In 1990’s, neonicotinoids includes imidacloprid, clothianidin, and
thiamethoxam have been introduced into the global market as alternatives
to organophosphates and carbamates to control sucking and other pests
and they proved good for a while. But subsequently, neonicotinoids have
proved the development of resistance in Myzus persicae and Phorodon
humuli. The effects of imidacloprid on Nilaparvata lugens, tebufenozide on
Plutella xylostella and Spodoptera exigua, thiamethoxam on Bemisia tabaci,
trichlorphon on Bactrocera dorsalis, imidacloprid on Spodoptera litura, and
emamectin benzoate on Chrysoperla carnea have been (Sahani and Pal 2021).
The first report of neonicotinoid resistance was published in 1996, describing
the low efficacy of imidacloprid against Spanish greenhouse populations of

NX
cotton whitefly. Later-generation, show stronger resistance (up to 17-fold in
the first 15 generations) but >80-fold resistance after 24 generations, which
has been confirmed in some populations of the whitefly (Bemisia tabaci) and
the Colorado potato beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata).
GE
Case Histories of Insecticide Resistance
India was one of the first country among third world countries to start a large
scale use of synthetic pesticides for the control of insect pests of public health
and agricultural importance. The modern era of vector control and plant
protection in India started with the introduction of DDT in 1947 followed by
PA

HCH in 1949, organophosphates in 1953 and carbamates a little later. Despite

the fact that these pesticides have brought immense benefits to the country,
they also exhibited serious environmental consequences. It is interesting that
DDT and HCH, which have been withdrawn from use in most of the advanced
NI

countries of the world, were still being used freely in India for public health.

San Jose Scale Resistant to Lime Sulphur

Melander’s (1914) reported the first case of field-evolved insecticide resistance
in San Jose scale to lime sulphur that certain populations of insects but not all
©

of them were becoming less susceptible to sulphur-lime than they had been in
the past though the chemical was documented to be very effective at killing
scale insects previously. Surprisingly, it was found that 90% of the insects
that he had sprayed in Clarkston had survived and even when he increased the
amount of active ingredient by ten times, still 74% of them still survived. He
 Insecticide Resistance and Case Histories 27

was of the opinion that San Jose scale should have become acclimatized to a
sulphur-lime environment. By consuming repeated small amounts of arsenic
the body becomes immune to many times the normal lethal dose. Melander
also predicted that entire populations would not become resistant as long as
some non-resistant insects survived, because their non-resistant genes would
be passed on to future generations. If only the resistant individuals survived
to reproduce then resistant line might result after repeated sprayings. But
always there are some scales missed by the spraying, and these, during the
ten generations between sprayings, will produce a population in part, at least,
non-resistant (Levin 2014).

Paradigm Shift to Biopesticides

The insecticide resistance in insects in major crops made the various stake
holders to think alternative pest control strategies to safe guard the crops
from ravaging insect pests. One such potential alternative is exploration of
biopesticides of microbial origin for the management of insects. In India,

NX
the development of microbial entomopathogens as insecticides has involved
notable successes and failures in the past two decades. India is a tropical and
subtropical country with diverse pest and beneficial insect fauna, and with
crop losses due to insect pests estimated at 17.5% (valued at US$17.3 billion).
GE
Several classes of customarily used insecticides are now restricted or prohibited
due to their harmful effect on the environment, human health, and non-target
organisms. Concurrently, the past two decades have witnessed a rise in the use
of microbial biopesticides based on entomopathogenic organisms in India.
The global biopesticide market was estimated at approximately $3 billion, or
5% of total crop protection market, in 2013 and is expected to grow to more
PA

than $4.5 billion by 2023 (Olson, 2015). The value of biopesticides as a part
of integrated pest management (IPM) programs has led to the recent increase
in their use in India; biopesticides were recently estimated to comprise about
4.2% of the Indian pesticide market (Das 2014). However, market growth has
NI

been restricted by slow adoption, limited resources for large-scale production,

and challenges associated with regulation and commercialization (Singh et
al. 2016). Undoubtedly, microbial biopesticides play vital role in controlling
the desirable pests and gaining interest among the population with advantages
like non toxic mechanism, eco-friendly nature, efficacy and suitability in the
©

Integrated Pest Management programmes unlike synthetic insecticides.

Biopesticides, an alternative to chemical pesticides, are typically derived from
living organisms, microorganisms, and other natural sources pose less risk to
people and the environment and hence gain worldwide attention as a new tool
to kill insects. Biopesticides are being widely used to manage biotic stresses as
28 Microbial Biopesticides in India

a component of IPM under protected cultivation (Ramasamy and Ravishankar,

2018). On considering the international market of export commodities and
health conscious of Western countries, the role of microbial biopesticides in pest
management would address their importance among the growers and consumers
which ultimately enhance the marketability of microbial biopesticides in
India. Development and promotion of biopesticides usage in India need to
be well addressed through promoting their manufacture at village level as an
ancillary profession to agriculture. Registration process of biopesticides in
India may be simplified without compromising quality and authenticity of the
product. Policy decisions regarding production, development, promotion of
biopesticides in India would definitely attract more scope in near future. A
strict follow up of the policies pertaining to promotion and use of biopesticides
will encourage inviting definite foreign exchange, besides producing healthy
food commodities in India. Enormous scope for biopesticide market in India
if the industry and extension functionaries convince farmers and pesticide
manufacturing companies for better utilization of biopesticides in India as they
are cheap, economical, viable, durable and effective.

NX
Way Forward
The best way to overcome insecticide resistance is to reduce selection
GE
pressure and preserve the finite resources of new and useful compounds by
adopting resistance management strategies in an integrated approach. Careful
and systematic planning of insecticide application includes monitoring of
resistance genes (or the associated enzymes or channels) in pest populations,
as is now feasible for many of the mutated targets will help in partly in
delaying the resistance. Resistance management is often necessary to shift to
PA

new compounds acting on novel targets that once again minimize selection
pressure. This process of continually shifting approaches may ultimately be
limited by a finite number of practical targets for pest control. Adopting the
integrated pest management (IPM) approach usually helps with resistance
NI

management by retaining some susceptible populations along with resistant

individuals.
The best way to delay onset of evolution of resistance in pests to minimize
insecticide use and integration of chemical and non-chemical controls to seek
safe, economical, and sustainable suppression of pest populations.The non-
©

chemical approaches such include biological control by predators, parasitoids,

and pathogens. Also valuable are cultural control through crop rotation,
manipulation of planting dates to limit exposure to pests, and use of cultivars
that tolerate pest damage and mechanical controls by exclusion using barriers
and trapping. Tank mixing pesticides is the combination of two or more
 Insecticide Resistance and Case Histories 29

pesticides with different modes of action in order to improve individual pesticide

application results and delay the onset of or mitigate existing pest resistance.
Exploration and utilization of botanicals, biopesticides of biological origin to
achieve target production as alternatives to synthetic chemical insecticides
would serve the purpose. Educating, equipping and encouraging farmers to
utilise biological pesticides to reduce the cost of protection, environmental
pollution, without compromising yield and market price.

Conclusions
Although insecticides have been proved as one of the best management options,
looking into growing demand for organic production and health consciousness
of consumers across the world, adverse effect of environmental pollution and
health hazards, biological based pest management strategies such as biological
control, microbial control and have to be intensified and encouraged.
Biopesticides, an alternative to chemical pesticides, are typically derived from
living organisms, microorganisms, and other natural sources pose less risk to

NX
people and the environment and hence gain worldwide attention as a new tool
to kill insects. Biopesticides are being widely used to manage biotic stresses as
a component of IPM under protected cultivation. Development and promotion
of biopesticides usage in India need to be well addressed through promoting
GE
their manufacture at village level as an ancillary profession to agriculture.
References
Guedes RNC (2017) Insecticide resistance, control failure likelihood and the First Law of
Geography. Pest Management Science 73(3):479-484.
Ju D, Mota-Sanchez D, Fuentes-Contreras E, Zhang YL, Wang XQ and Yang XQ (2021)
Insecticide resistance in the Cydia pomonella (L): Global status, mechanisms, and
PA

research directions. Pestic Biochem Physiol 178:104925.

OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook (2012) Organisation of economic co-operation and
development and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://
www.oecd-ilibrary.org/agriculture-and-food/oecd-fao-agricultural-outlook-2012_agr_
NI

outlook-2012-en.
FAOSTAT, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/
faostat/en/#data/QC.
Alewu B, Nosiri C (2011)Pesticides and human health. In: Stoytcheva M, editor. Pesticides
in the Modern World – Effects of Pesticides Exposure. InTech. p. 231–50. Available
from:http://www.intechopen.com/books/pesticides-in-the-modern-world-effects-of-
pesticides- exposure/pesticide-and-human-health.
©

Hoffman RS, Capel PD, Larson SJ (2000) Comparison of pesticides in eight U.S. urban streams.
Environ Toxicol Chem 19:2249-58. doi:10.1002/etc.5620190915.
Nicolopoulou-Stamati P, Maipas S, Kotampasi C, Stamatis P Hens L (2016) Chemical pesticides
and human health: the urgent need for a new concept in agriculture. Public Health Front
4:148.
Oppenoorth FJ, Welling W (1976) Biochemistry and physiology of resistance. In
PesticBiochemPhysiol. Springer, Boston, MA. Boston, MA, 507-551pp.
30 Microbial Biopesticides in India

Moyes CL, Vontas J, Martins AJ,(2017) Contemporary status of insecticide resistance in

the major Aedes vectors of arboviruses infecting humans. PLOS Neglected Tropical
Diseases11(7):e0005625.
Liu N (2015) Insecticide resistance in mosquitoes: impact, mechanisms, and research directions,
Ann Rev Entomol 60(1):537-559.
Hemingway J, Hawkes NJ, McCarroll L, Ranson H(2004)“The molecular basis of insecticide
resistance in mosquitoes". Insect Biochem Mol Biol 34(7):653-665.
Auteri M, La Russa F, Blanda V Torina A (2018) Insecticide resistance associated with kdr
mutations in Aedes albopictus: an update on worldwide evidences. Biomed Res Int
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3098575.
Fand BB, Nagrare VS, Gawande SP, Nagrale DT,Naikwadi, BV, Deshmukh V, Gokte-
Narkhedkar N. and WaghmareVN (2019) Widespread infestation of pink bollworm,
Pectinophoragossypiella (Saunders)(Lepidoptera: Gelechidae) on Bt cotton in Central
India: a new threat and concerns for cotton production. Phytoparasitica 47(3):313-325.
Olson S (2015) An analysis of the biopesticide market now and where it is going. Outlooks on
Pest Management 203-206. doi: 10.1564/v26_oct_04.
Das SK (2014) Recent development and future of botanical pesticides in India. Popular Kheti
2:93-99.
Singh HB, Keswani C, Bisen K, Sarma BK, Kumar P (2016) Development and application of
agriculturally important microorganisms in India, in India 167-182pp. In: HB Singh, BK

NX
Sarma, C Keswani (eds), Agriculturally Important Microorganisms: Commercialization
and Regulatory Requirements in Asia. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-2576-1-10
Ramasamy S, Ravishankar M (2018) Integrated pest management Brust, G.E., Perring, T.M.,
(Eds.), Sustainable Management of Arthropod Pests of Tomato, Elsevier 313-322. doi::
GE
10.1016/B978-0-12-802441-6.00015-2
Sahani SK, Pal S (2021). Insect Resistance to Neonicotinoids-Current Status, Mechanism and
Management Strategies.
Kranthi, K. R. 2015. Pink Bollworm strikes Bt cotton. (Cotton Statistics and News published
by the Cotton Association of India). 2015-16, No.35 1st (superscript) December 2015),
1-5pp.
Naveen NC, Chaubey R, Kumar D, Rebijith KB, Rajagopal R, Subrahmanyam B, Subramanian
PA

S (2017). Insecticide resistance status in the whitefly, Bemisia tabaci genetic groups
Asia-I, Asia-II-1 and Asia-II-7 on the Indian subcontinent. Sci Rep 7(1):1-5
Kranthi KR, Jadhav DR, Kranthi S, Wanjari RR, Ali SS, Russell DA (2002)Insecticide resistance
in five major insect pests of cotton in India. Crop Protect 21:449-460.
Kranthi KR, Russell D, Wanjari R, Kherde M, Munje S, Lavhe N, Armes N (2002) In-season
NI

changes in resistance to insecticides in Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

in India. J Econ Entomol 95(1):134-42
Armes NJ, Jadhav DR, De Souza KRA (1996) survey of insecticide resistance in Helicoverpa
armigera in the Indian subcontinent. Bull Entomol Res 86:499-514.
Melander L (1914) Can insects become resistant to sprays? J Econ Entomol 7:167-173.
Callaghan A (1991) Mechanisms and detection of insecticide resistance: a review. Science
Progress 75:423-438.
©

Sekhar PR, Venkataiah M, Rao NV, Rao BR, Rao VSP (1996) Monitoring of insecticide
resistance in Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) from areas Receiving, heavy insecticidal
applications in Andhra Pradesh (India). J Entomol Res 20:93-102.
Links
https://entomologytoday.org/2014/04/08/the-first-journal-article-on-insecticide-resistance-
was-published-100-years-ago-this-month/downlaoaded dated 22 Dec 2021.
3
History and
Development of Biological Control

Abstract
Chinese farmers were the first to apply biological control of agricultural
pests when they used red ants to manage pests of fruit crops. Neem-based
products were then used as fertiliser and as a barrier against pests of stored
goods. Later, biopesticides surpassed macro-biocontrol agents in prominence

NX
and were added as one of the elements of integrated pest management. The
interventions and directives of the United States Environmental Protection
Agency and European Food Safety Authority were for way forward to the
evolution of pesticides derived from naturally occurring organisms and plant
GE
materials. The development of biopesticides in agriculture across the world
and India is reviewed in this chapter, along with the contributions of the
Canada Department of Agriculture, Common Wealth Institute of Biological
Control, Department of Biotechnology, New Delhi, Biotech Consortium India
Ltd., New Delhi, etc. Since the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New
Delhi, launched its AICRP-Biocontrol programmes, a dramatic rise in the
PA

use of biopesticides has been observed in India.

Keywords: Microbial Biopesticide, History, USEPA, EFSA, ICAR initiatives
NI

Introduction
The biocontrol use had almost completely disappeared due to the growth and
success of the synthetic pesticide industry in the mid-1940s. The publication
of Rachael Carson's 'Silent Spring' (Carson 1962) which condemned the use
of agricultural pesticides and emphasized their harmful environmental effects
©

on wildlife. Due to public outrage over this controversial book, there was a
need for pesticide alternatives, which presents an opportunity for wider use
of biological control (Barratt et al. 2010; Gay 2012). Many naturalists and
environmentalists began looking for new insecticides with innovative chemical
32 Microbial Biopesticides in India

structures that would have less harmful effects on people, animals, and the
environment (Barratt et al. 2018).
In 1901, Japanese biologist Shigetane Ishiwata discovered spores of the
bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) from a sick silkworm. This bacteria
is still the most often used biopesticide today (Chen 2014; Glare et al.
2000). Sporeine, the first Bt product to be sold commercially, debuted in
1938. The extensive usage of biopesticides started in the 1950s in the US.
A low level of research and development was maintained in the second half
of the 20th century as a result of the widespread use of synthetic chemical
insecticides and World War II. The Pacific Yeast Product Company created
the submerged fermentation industrial process in 1956, allowing for the large-
scale manufacturing of Bt (Glare et al. 2000). In 1973, Heliothis NPV was
granted exemption from tolerance and the first viral insecticide, Elcar received
a label in 1975. In 1977, B. thuringiensis var. israelensis, which is poisonous to
flies, was reported in 1977, while the strain tenebrionis, which is poisonous to
beetles, was found in 1983. Following the demonstration by environmentalists

NX
and ecologists that widespread and repeated application of these synthetic
chemicals could be ecologically detrimental, biological pest management was
nevertheless expedited (Cook and Baker 1983).
Earlier, biocontrol agents like some predatory insects (red ant) and birds
GE
were engaged for insect pest management (Brahmachari 2004). Later few
botanicals including various parts of neem tree (Azadirachta indica A. juss)
and its extracts were tried as fertilizers and also to protect stored cereals from
post-harvest losses (Isman 1997; Schmutterer 1985).
The concept of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) had come to the field of
PA

Agriculture during 1960s, in which judicious use of various methods of control

was emphasized to overcome the ill-effects of chemical pesticides (Smith
and Bosch 1967). Later on, based on the recommendation of US National
Academy of Sciences, biological control with natural enemies and microbial
NI

biopesticides was included one of the components in IPM (Peshin et al. 2009).
Control failure of few polyphagous cotton feeders including American boll
worm, Helicoverpa armigera and generalized defoliator, Spodoptera litura
with chemical pesticides alerted to switch over biological control, a safe, cost-
effective, and eco-friendly method (Kranthi et al. 2002).
©

By the mid 1920s, entire British Empire was active in biological control work
including Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Canada, Bermuda and South Africa.
In 1927, the Imperial Bureau of Entomology (IBE) created facilities for
conducting biological control work in Farnham House Lab, England. It was
under the control of W. R. Thompson in 1928 who initially concentrated on
 History and Development of Biological Control 33

natural enemies of insect pests and broadened to work on biological control of

weed in 1929. In 1929, Canada Department of Agriculture (CDA) constructed
a biological control lab at Belleville, Ontario. In 1940, this lab was moved
to Ottawa, Canada where it became as Imperial Parasite Service. In 1947, it
became independent and designated as Commonwealth Bureau of Biological
control (CBBC). In 1951, it was renamed as Commonwealth Institute of
Biological Control (CIBC). In 1961, the CIBC headquarters were transferred
to Trinidad, West Indies. The CIBC identified two sub-stations in south East
Asia, one at Bengaluru in India and another at Rawalpindi in Pakistan to
undertake biological control research. In 1957, the India station of CIBC was
established to initiate organized and systematic research in biological control.
Aristotle was the first to mention in his book “Historia Animalia” that honey bees
suffered a disease which was later identified as foul brood disease. One chapter
on diseases of Insects was included in the book entitled ‘An Introduction of
Entomology’. Disease can be defined as a departure of the insect from a state of
health and was first noticed among domesticated insects. In Europe, Aristotle

NX
was the first to mention that bees suffered disease and in 1835, Agostino Bassi
showed that animal disease could be caused by a microorganism, when he
found that the fungus Beauveria bassiana causes the muscardine disease of
silkworms. Early observations were largely concentrated on two domesticated
GE
insects, the honey bee and silkworm. Gradually these studies were extended
to pest species too, and the concept of utilizing disease to control these insects
was born.
In 1879, the Russian, Metchnikoff, conducted the first significant experiments
in the destruction of injurious insects with micro organisms by infecting larvae
PA

of the beetle Anisoplia austriaca with the fungus Metarhizium anisopliae.

The first commercial product, Sporeine, containing Bacillus thuringiensis
was produced before 1938. After the second world war, several commercial
firms in the USA, began to produce this bacterium. Today we can point to
NI

such achievements as the protection of over 50% of the cole crops from the
cabbage looper, Trichoplusia ni in Southern California by B. thuringiensis in
1965 and 1966. The importance of efficient, eco-friendly methods for pest
and disease control gained momentum. Steady growth of biological control
has been reported in various eras including Ancient origins, North American
Beginnings, California origins and 20th Century developments with several
©

explorations and examples for successful management of many key pests of

crops.
34 Microbial Biopesticides in India

20th and 21st Century Developments

Many chemical pesticides were withdrawn from the market in the second half of
the 20th century as a result of inappropriate application techniques used during
World War II, such as aerial application (Howard 1935), which had numerous
negative consequences, including acute or chronic toxicity (Hunt and Bischoff
1960), as well as other unfavorable effects like increased resistance in the target
species (Mouches et al. 1986), the replacement of target species with more
dangerous resistant species (Regnault-Roger et al. 1986), and contamination
of different environmental compartments (Ellgehausen et al. 1980; Leduc et al.
1987). Authorities from the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) revised the pesticide laws
when these issues arose in order to protect human and animal health as well as
the environment from the risks associated with pesticides. They proposed the
ideas of the ideal pesticide, which include i) a high selectivity to target species
but a minimal toxicity to non-target organisms, ii) a high effectiveness at a low
application rate, and iii) a low environmental persistence. Thus a new concept

NX
on ‘Biopesticide’ had evolved to fight with pests effectively but have minimal
impacts on humans, animals, and the environment. Active biopesticide
research has expanded in the latter decade of the 20th century along with a
notable increase in publications (Shukla et al. 2019) (Fig. 1).
GE
PA

Fig. 1. Publications on biopesticide research from 1989 to 2015 (Web of Science 2015).
NI

Around 1400 biopesticide products were sold globally at the start of the twenty-
first century, making up around 2.5% of the entire pesticide business (Marrone
2007; Chandler et al. 2012). From 2012 to 2017, the demand for biopesticides
was predicted to increase at a faster compound annual growth rate (GAGR)
of 16.1% (compared to 3%) than that of synthetic pesticides, resulting in an
estimated $ 5.2 billion global market in 2017 (Lehr 2010). Europe, Oceania,
©

and Latin America accounted for 20, 20, and 10% of worldwide biopesticide
consumption, respectively, whereas North America consumed roughly 40% of
them (Leng et al. 2011). Numerous legislative initiatives for the sustainable use
of pesticides were implemented, and they all emphasized how crucial it is to
use less chemical pesticides overall to avoid potential environmental damage.
 History and Development of Biological Control 35

When the All India Coordinated Research Project on Biological Control of

Crop Pests and Weeds (AICRPBC) was established in 1977, the biological
control effort received a further boost. In 1993, the AICRPBC was elevated
even further to the position of Project Directorate of Biological Control
(PDBC). The goal of the PDBC was to do basic and applied research on the
biological control of crop pests and weeds across the nation. With 16 sites
dispersed throughout the nation, PDBC serves as the central agency in India.
The name of PDBC has been modified twice. PDBC was upgraded to become
the National Bureau of Agriculturally Important Insects (NBAII) during the
XIth 5-year plan (2009), and in the XIIth 5-year plan, it was renamed as National
Bureau of Agricultural Insect Resources (NBAIR).
In 1989, the National Bio-control Network Program was also introduced by the
Department of Biotechnology (DBT) in New Delhi. Ten R&D projects were
launched at the beginning of the programme with a duration of five years (1989-
1994). Over 200 projects were carried out in numerous national institutes and
state agricultural universities (SAUs) once the programme was later expanded

NX
(Wahab 2004). IPM was included in the government of India’s National Policy
Statement in 1985, but the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation (DAC),
Ministry of Agriculture, took a significant step by announcing a programme
on “Strengthening and Modernization of Pest Management Approach in India
GE
in 1991-1992,” along with the establishment and strengthening of biocontrol
research at the regional level. Department of Biotechnology is one of the top
financing organisations in India with programmes for biocontrol research
(Singh et al. 2002; Sharma et al. 2003; Mishra et al. 2020). Currently, in
addition to DBT, other funding organisations like the Department of Science
and Technology (DST), New Delhi, and the Indian Council of Agricultural
PA

Research (ICAR) have also introduced a number of programmes with a

major focus on prudent pesticide use in agriculture and supporting research
on biopesticides. These government organisations are, however, also highly
concerned with accumulating toxicological information regarding the use of
NI

biopesticides in diverse agro-climatic zones.

The first commercial biocontrol agent manufacturer in India was Bio-
Control Research Laboratories (BCRL), a branch of Pest Control India (PCI)
Limited working under a contract with the Plant Protection Research Institute
(PPRI) (Manjunath 1992). Currently, Trichoderma viride, Trichoderma
©

harzianum, and Beauveria bassiana are antagonistic bacteria and fungi that
are manufactured and sold by the BCRL. Later, IPM was backed by the
National Policy on Agriculture (2000) and the National Policy for Farmers
(2007). In India, a total of 970 biopesticide formulations have been registered
in Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee (CIB&RC) as
36 Microbial Biopesticides in India

on 1.1.2020 in which Trichoderma and Pseudomonas based formulations

dominate (http://164.100.161.213/divisions/cib-rc/bio-pesticide-registrant). A
compendium consisting of 31 microbial formulations which are in different
stages of registration and commercialization were reported to possess 3 to 25
months shelf-life at 25oC to 35oC (Saxena et al. 2021).

Conclusions
The history and expansion of biopesticide in agriculture around the world
clearly showed that a phenomenal growth was reported during the second half
of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century. The United States
Environmental Protection Agency and the European Food Safety Authority’s
interventions, which involved revising the laws, greatly aided in the registration
of plant protection products that contained less harmful ingredients to replace
conventional pesticides or serve as a starting point for the synthesis of novel
chemistries. The development of biopesticides was thought to be based on
extraction from natural sources, chemical synthesis, and computational

NX
chemistry. Additionally, biopesticides are not harmless and are subject to the
same laws and regulations as chemical pesticides (Villaverde et al. 2016).
More than 900 biopesticide formulations have been certified through the
Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee, New Delhi. Over 31
GE
bacterial and fungal-based biopesticide formulations are in pipeline to pass
various stages of commercialization in India.

References
Barratt BIP, Howarth FG, Withers TM, Kean J, Ridley GS (2010) Progress in risk assessment
for classical biological control Biol Control 52:245-254.
PA

Barratt BIP, Moran VC, Bigler F, van Lenteren JC (2018) The status of biological control and
recommendations for improving uptake for the future. BioControl 63:155-167.
Brahmachari G (2004) Neem-an omnipotent plant: a retrospection. Chem Bio Chem 5(4):408-
421.
Carson R (1962) Silent spring, Hamish Hamilton, London.
NI

Chen R (2014) Biopesticides: A Formulator’s Perspective. http://news.agropages.com/News/

NewsDetail-14156.
Cook R, Baker K (1983) The Nature and Practice of Biological Control of Plant Pathogens. St
Paul, MN: Am. Phytopathol. Soc.
Ellgehausen H, Guth JA, Esser HO (1980) Factors determining the bioaccumulation potential of
pesticides in the individual compartments of aquatic food-chains. Ecotox Environ Safe
4(2):134-157.
©

Gay H (2012) Before and after silent spring: from chemical pesticides to biological control and
integrated pest management-Britain, 1945-1980. Ambix 59(2):88-108.
Glare TR, O’Callaghan M (2000) Bacillus thuringiensis; Biology, Ecology and Safety, Wiley
Howard LO (1935) La menace des insects, Flammarion, Paris, France.
 History and Development of Biological Control 37

Hunt EG, Bischoff AI (1960) Inimical effects on wildlife of periodic DDD applications to Clear
Lake’. Calif Fish Game 46:91-106.
Isman MB (1997) Neem and other botanical insecticides: barriers to commercialization.
Phytoparasitica 25(4):339.
Kranthi KR, Russell D, Wanjari R, Kherde M, Munje S, Lavhe N, Armes N (2002) In-season
changes in resistance to insecticides in Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)
in India. J Econ Entomol 95(1):134-142.
Leduc R, Unny TE, McBean EA (1987). Stochastic modeling of the insecticide fenitrothion in
water and semiment compartments of stagnant pond. Water Resour Res 23(7):1105-
1112.
Manjunath TM (1992) Biological control of insect pests and weeds in India: notable successes.
In: Hirose Y (ed) Biological control in South East Asia Kyushu Univ Press/IOBC/
SEARS, Tokyo, 11-21pp.
Mishra J, Dutta V, Arora NK (2020) Biopesticides in India: technology and sustainability
linkages. 3 Biotech 10:210. doi.org/10.1007/s13205-020-02192-7.
Mouches C, Paasteur N, Berge JB, Hyrien O, Raymond M, Desaintvincent BR, Desilvestri M,
Georghiou GP (1986) Amplification of an esterase gene is responsible for insecticide
resistance in a California Culex mosquito. Science 233(4765):778-780.
Peshin R, Bandral RS, Zhang W, Wilson L, Dhawan AK (2009) Integrated pest management:
a global overview of history, programs and adoption. In: Peshin R, Dhawan AK (eds)

NX
Integrated pest management: innovation-development process. Springer, Dordrecht,
1-49pp.
Regnault-Roger C, Philogene BJR, Vincent C (2005) Biopesticides of plant origin, intercept
Ltd, Wimborne, UK.
GE
Saxena AK, Chakdar H, Kumar M, Rajawat MVS, Dubey SC, Sharma TR (2021) ICAR
Technologies: Biopesticides for Eco-friendly pest management. Indian Council of
Agricultural Research, New Delhi, India 1-31pp.
Schmutterer H (1985) The neem tree Azadirachtia indica A. Juss and other meliaceous plants:
sources of unique natural products for integrated pest management, medicine, industry
and other purposes. VCH Weinheim, Germany 696p.
Sharma M, Charak K, Ramanaiah T (2003) Agricultural biotechnology research in India: status
PA

and policies. Curr Sci 84(3):297-302.

Shukla N, Singh EANA, Kabadwa BC, Sharma R, Kumar J (2019) Present status and future
prospects of bio-agents in agriculture. Int J Curr Mirobiol App Sci 8(4):2138-2153.
Singh RS, Singh PP, Bedi JS (2002) Final report of DBT scheme on biocontrol of seed and soil-
borne diseases of vegetables. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, 90p.
NI

Smith RF, van den Bosch R (1967) Integrated control. In: Kilgore WW, Doutt RL (eds) Pest
control: biological, physical and selected chemical methods. Academic Press, Inc., New
York, 295-340pp.
Villaverde JJ, Sandin-Espana P, Sevilla-Moran B, Lopez-Goti C, Alonso-Prados JL (2016)
Biopesticides from natural products: Current development, legislative framework, and
future trends. Bioresources 11(2):5618-5640.
Wahab S (2004) The Department of Biotechnology initiates towards the development and use
©

of biopesticides in India. In: Kaushik E (ed) Biopesticides for sustainable agriculture:

prospects and constraints. The Energy and Resources Institute, New Delhi, 73-90pp.
Links
http://164.100.161.213/divisions/cib-rc/bio-pesticide-registrant
©
NI
PA
GE
NX
4
Biopesticides Classification
and Their Formulations in India

Abstract
The fungal based biopesticides especially Trichoderma spp., are abundant
in Indian market than other microbe based formulations. It is vice-versa in
Western countries wherein Bacillus thuringiensis based products are being
used in wide spread control of Lepidoptera pests of temperate crops. Talc

NX
and oil based biopesticide formulations are most common in India as they
as fillers could be able to prolong the pathogenicity by enhancing shelf-life.
List of biocontrol laboratories and important companies along with their
products are tabulated and furnished to understand the scope of biopesticide
GE
in India.
Keywords: Biopesticide, Classification, Formulations, Biocontrol
labs

Introduction
PA

Three kinds of biocontrol products are being used in India which include
1) Microbial biopesticides, 2) Plant-derived botanical pesticides, and 3)
Pheromones or other natural insect growth regulators. Microbial biopesticides
consist majorly of fungi, bacteria, viruses or entomopathogenic nematodes as
NI

bioactive principles. In India, fungal based biopesticides share in the market is

maximum (Mishra et al. 2020; Fig. 1,2,3) while Bacillus thuringiensis based
products rank first in usage in USA, Europe etc. Among fungal biopesticides,
Trichoderma (only two species) based products approximately around 355
are readily available in the Indian market for the field applications (Kumar et
al. 2019). Pseudomonas fluorescens based products are in wide spread usage
©

over Bacillus based products globally with reference to bacterial biopesticide

(Mishra et al. 2020). In India, strains of B. thuringensis, Bacillus sphaericus
and Bacillus subtilis are registered as biopesticides. Other non-spore forming
bacteria like, Serratia entomophila and Chromobacterium subtsugae though
have efficacy on limited range of insects are not evaluated systematically
40 Microbial Biopesticides in India

(Martin et al. 2007). In India, two nucleopolyhedron viruses (NPVs) of

Helicoverpa armigera, and Spodoptera litura are in use under field conditions
in a smaller extent. Though the natural occurrence of granulovirus (GVs) of
sugarcane pests in southern and northern states of India was reported, their
commercial production are not yet started (Easwaramoorthy and Jayaraj 1987).

Fig. 1. Type of biopesticide distribution

NX
GE
PA

Fig. 2. Per cent distribution of fungal biopesticide

NI
©

Fig 3. Per cent distribution of bacterial biopesticide (Mishra et al. 2020)

 Biopesticides Classification and Their Formulations in India 41

The fate of using two most effective entomopathogenic nematodes belonging

to the family Heterorhabditis and Steinernema is questionable, however their
applications against different soil-borne pests under field conditions are scarce
(Sankaranarayanan et al. 2006) as no registered product is available in the
market to date in India. Among the botanicals, neem-based products are in
wide spread use in plant protection when compared to other plant-based
products such as pyrethrum, eucalyptus leaf extract, and Cymbopogon nardus
is less common at field level (Dougoud et al. 2019). Cotton, sugarcane, and
rice are the three major crops wherein pheromone technology is being explored
to monitor and mass trap pest population (Khergamker 2019). Recently, few
pilot projects have been initiated in few parts of India to up-scale pheromone
technology in the management of crop pests (Wadke 2018).

Common Method of Mass-production of Biopesticides

SAUs mostly follow solid-state fermentation (SSF) and sub-merged
fermentation (SF) process for multiplication of microbe. At the level of

NX
villages, few indigenous techniques are followed for production. However,
limited production and use of microbial biopesticide is experienced so far
due to want of sophisticated machineries. Many private companies as of now
posses the capacity to produce 10 to 2000 tons per annum in India (https ://ncof.
GE
dacne t.nic.in/Opera tiona l_Guide lines /Guide lines_for_Capit al_Investment
_Subsidy.pdf).

Biopesticide Formulations
CIBRC registration guidelines emphasized few quality parameters of
biopesticide formulations for registration and before entering into market
PA

which include safe and effective, easy delivery with prolonged shelf-life.
At present there are only few biocontrol products that strictly adhere to
CIBRC guidelines. In India, wettable powder (WP), wettable granules (WG),
suspension concentrates (SC) and aqueous suspension (AS) formulations are
NI

being used. Currently, biocontrol products are formulated in solid carriers

which include talc, peat, lignite, clay, wheat husk, rice bran, grinded corn cob,
fly ash and sawdust. Bacillus based products are being sold in the form of
aqueous suspension, dust, WP and granules, charcoal, plaster of paris and fly
ash (Tikar and Prakash 2017). Currently, the liquid formulations of Bt products
and viral biopesticides are very popular in the market. New Nanotechnology-
©

based biopesticide formulations such as nanoencapsulation and nanoemulsions

can improve the large scale applicability of bioagents under field conditions
(Koul 2019). However, these techniques are still in infancy and yet to be
commercialized at the industrial level. However, the survival of infecting units
of microbe in various carriers is remarkably debatable.
42 Microbial Biopesticides in India

Biopesticide Mass-production Units in India

The number of bio-production units has currently increased to 361, of which
141 are in the private sector without GOI grant aids and 38 with GOI grant
aids. Moreover, the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare has assisted
about 35 IPM centers to produce biopesticides since 2010 (Keswani et al.
2016). A total of 98 State Biocontrol Laboratories were established by the
State Departments of Agriculture and Horticulture of Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh,
Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala as well as the production
of microbial pesticides by the Institutions of the Indian Council of Agricultural
Research (Pathak et al. 2017; Mishra et al. 2020' Fig. 4).

NX
GE
Fig. 4: Current status of biocontrol labs in India
PA

Central and state agricultural universities and various ICAR institutes including
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU), Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu,
ICAR-Central Plantation Crops Research Institute (CPCRI), Kayamkuklam,
Kerala, Kerala Agricultural University (KAU), Kerala, ICAR-Indian Institute
NI

of Horticultural Research, Bengaluru, ICAR-Central Research Institute for

Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad and ICAR-Directorate of Oilseed Research
(ICAR), Hyderabad are popular biopesticide production units in Southern
parts of India. In the northeast, Assam Agriculture University and Central
Agricultural University, Manipur are producing biopesticides against invasive
©

pests. In north India, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), New

Delhi, Punjab Agricultural University (PAU), Punjab and G.B. Pant University
of Agriculture and Technology (GBPUA & T), Uttarakhand are involved in
the production of biopesticides. ICAR-Indian Institute of Sugarcane Research
(IISR), ICAR-Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture, and Directorate
 Biopesticides Classification and Their Formulations in India 43

of Plant Protection Quarantine & Storage in Lucknow, are major government

agencies which are mass producing biopesticides in Uttar Pradesh. Many ICAR
sponsored Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVK), State Government sponsored state
biocontrol labs and National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation
of India (NAFED) are in the full time job in production of biopesticides.
In India, public sectors contribute 70% of the biopesticides production. Major
companies are Biotech International Ltd., New Delhi, International Panaacea
Ltd, New Delhi, Ajay Biotech (India) Ltd., Pune, Bharat Biocon Pvt. Ltd.,
Chhattisgarh, Microplex Biotech and Agrochem Pvt., Mumbai, Excel Crop
Care Ltd., Mumbai, Govinda Agro Tech Ltd., Nagpur, Jai Biotech Industries,
Satpur, Nasik, Ganesh Biocontrol System, Rajkot, Gujarat Chemicals and
Fertilizers Trading Company, Baroda, Gujarat Eco Microbial Technologies
Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara, Chaitra Agri-Organics, Mysore, Deep Farm Inputs (P)
Ltd., Thiruvanandapuram, Kerala, Kan Biosys Pvt. Ltd., Pune, Indore Biotech
Inputs and Research Pvt. Ltd., Indore, Romvijay Biotech Pvt. Ltd., Pondichery,
Devi Biotech (P) Ltd., Madurai, Tamil Nadu, T. Stanes and Company Ltd.,

NX
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, Harit Bio Control Lab., Yavatmal and Hindustan
Bioenergy Ltd., Lucknow. Few Indian companies which work in biopesticde
production in collaboration with foreign companies are Lupin Agro-chemicals,
Mumbai; Sugar and distillery companies such as KCP Sugar and Industries
GE
Corporation Ltd., Andhra Pradesh, Rajshree Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., Tamil
Nadu; New Swadeshi Sugar Mills, Bihar, and Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd.,
Tamil Nadu.

Biopesticide Registrant in India

As on 1.1.2021, a total of 970 biopesticides registered in India by CIB&RC
PA

under the 1968 Insecticide Act which include microbial biopesticides of

Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki (42), var. israelensis (22), var. sphaericus
(05), var. galleriae (01), Pseudomonas fluorescence (196), Bacillus subtilis
NI

(04), Trichoderma viride (289), T. harzianum (51), Ampyliomyces quisqualis

(02), Beauveria bassiana (106), Metarhizium anisopliae (30), Verticillium
lecani (93), Verticillium chlamydosporium (03), Helicoverpa armigera NPV
(30) and Spodoptera litura NPV (03) (Kumar et al. 2018; Keswani et al. 2019;
http://ppqs.gov.in/divisions/cib-rc/biopesticide-registrant) (Table. 1).
©
 44

Table 1: List of microbial biopesticide formulations registered in Indian

S.No. Name of Company Organism Trade name Target biotic stress
1. M/s Rallis India Ltd., Bacillus thuringiensis Bobit IIWP Lepidoptera insects
Bengaluru
2. M/s Sandoz (I) Ltd., India
© Bacillus thuringiensis var. Deflin WG Lepidoptera insects
kurstaki
3. M/s Aventis Crop science Bacillus thuringiensis var. Vectobac 12 AS Diptera insects
Ltd., Bengaluru israelensis (H-14)
4. M/s T. Stanes and Companey Beauveria bassiana Biopowder WP Sucking insects, bollworms
Ltd., Cotore, India
5. M/s Biotech Industries Ltd., NPV Biovirus-H Helicoverpa armigera
Microbial Biopesticides in India

New Delhi
NI
6. M/s Pest control India Ltd., NPV Spodocide 0.50% AS Spodoptera litura
Bengaluru NPV Helicide 0.50% AS Helicoverpa armigera
7. M/s Anshul Agrochemicals, Beauveria bassiana Green Heal Sucking insects, borers, bollworms
Bengaluru Beauveria bassiana Beveroz-L Sucking insects, borers, bollworms
PA
Beauveria bassiana Almax Sucking insects, borers, bollworms
Pseudomonas florescens Pseudomax Soil and seed borne diseases
Trichoderma viridi Trichomax Soil borne diseases, plant parasitic nematodes
8. M/s Deepa Farm inputs Pseudomonas florescens Bio-Plus Pseudo Soil and seed borne diseases
Private Limited Trichoderma viridi Bio-Plus Tricho Soil borne diseases, plant parasitic nematodes
Verticilium lecanii Bio-Plus Verticillium Sucking pests, plant parasitic nematodes
GE
Metarhizium anisopliae Bio-Plus Metarhizium Beetles, soil arthropods
9. M/s Kan biosys Pvt. Ltd., Trichoderma harzianum Nemastin 1% WP Root knot nematode
Pune Trichoderma viridi Combat 1% WP Root rot, damping off, wilt
Beauveria bassiana Brigade-B 1.15% WP Rice leaffolder
NX
Pseudomonas florescens Sudo 0.5% WP Late leaf spot of groundnut
S.No. Name of Company Organism Trade name Target biotic stress
10. M/s Peak Chemical Paecilomyces Bardan Spider mite, parasitic mites
Industries Ltd., West Bengal fumosoroseus
Metarhizium anisopliae Moti Termite
© Beauveria bassiana Badsha Sucking pests
Verticilium lecanii Victor Parasitic nematodes, whitefly, thrips, aphids
11. M/s Uttam Chemicals Trichoderma harzianum Trichoderma harzianum Parasitic nematodes
Industries, Rajasthan 1% WP
Trichoderma viridi Trichoderma viridi 1.5% Nematicide, crop diseases
WP
12. M/s Ambic Organic, Surat Paecilomyces Almite Mites, DBM, sucking pests
fumosoroseus
NI
13. M/s Criyagen Agri & Trichoderma viridi Trichoderma Soil borne fungus
Biotech Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru
14. M/s Biotech International Bacillus thuringiensis var. BIOLEP WP Helicoverpa, Spodoptera, DBM, borers, hairy
Ltd., New Delhi kurstaki caterpillars, cut worms, army worms, leaf rollers
PA
& miners, skeletonizers & Defoliators
Beauveria bassiana BIORIN WP/AS Helicoverpa, Spodoptera, DBM, leaf borer,
hairy caterpillars, mites, spidermites, whiteflies,
aphids, scale insects, locusts & colorado beetles
Verticillium lecanii BIOLINE WP/AS Whitefly, green leaf hopper, thrips, mealy bug,
brown plant hopper, leaf miner, aphids, mites,
jassids
GE
Metarhizium anisopliae BIOMET WP/AS White grubs, termite, cut worm, caterpillars,
semiloopers, sucking pests, mealybugs & aphids
Biopesticides Classification and Their Formulations in India

NX
45
 46

S.No. Name of Company Organism Trade name Target biotic stress

NPV BIOVIRUS-H AS Helicoverpa armigera
NPV BIOVIRUS-S AS Spodoptera litura
Pseudomonas fluorescens BIOMONAS WP/AS Bacterial wilt, black rot, bacterial spot, sheath
© blight; blast, anthracnose, powdery & downy
Mildew, panama wilt, panama wilt, sigatoka,
bacterial leaf spot
Trichoderma viride BIODERMA WP/AS Root rot, stem rot, damping off, fusarium wilt
and verticillium wilt, all types of leaf spot, leaf
& blight
Trichoderma harzianum BIODERMA-H WP/AS Root rot, stem rot, damping off, fusarium wilt
Microbial Biopesticides in India

and verticillium wilt, all types of leaf spot, leaf

NI
& blight
Bacillus subtilis BIOSUBTILIN WP/AS Fusarium wilt, Macrophomina, damping off,
Pythium, Rhizoctonia Black scarf of Potato,
root rot, leaf spot, powdery and downey mildew,
PA
bacterial spot & bacterial leaf blight
Ampelomyces quisqualis ARMOUR WP/AS Powdery Mildew in pulses, vegetables, fruits &
ornamental crops
Paecilomyces lilacinus BIONEMAT WP/AS Root-knot nematodes, reniform nematodes,
cyst nematode, golden cyst nematodes, citrus
nematodes, lesion nematode
Bacillus firmus NEMATO CURE WP/AS Root-knot nematodes, reniform nematodes,
GE
cyst nematode, golden cyst nematodes, citrus
nematodes, lesion nematode
Hirsutella thompsonii NO MITE WP/AS Various types of crop mite – Scoulet, purple, red
spider mite
NX
S.No. Name of Company Organism Trade name Target biotic stress
15. M/s International Panaacea Trichoderma viride Sanjeevni 1.0% WP Fusarium, Charcoal rot, Black scurf, Karnal
Ltd, New Delhi bunt, Silver leaf of plum & peach, Rhizoctonia,
Pythium, Schlerolims, Verticillium, Alternaria
© Trichoderma harzianum Bioharz 2% AS Fusarium, Charcoal rot, Black scurf, Karnal
bunt, Silver leaf of plum & peach, Rhizoctonia,
Pythium, Sclerolims, Verticillium, Alternaria
Pseudomonas flourescens Rakshak 1% WP Soil and seed borne diseases
Trichoderma viride Bokashi Bran Soil and seed borne diseases
Trichoderma viride Seed2plant Soil and seed borne diseases
Trichoderma viride Tricho-PEP H 1% WP Diseases
Trichoz-P 1.5% WP root rot, wilt, stem rot
NI
Paecilomyces lilaecinus Nematofree 1% WP Helicoverpa, Spodoptera, borers, hairy
caterpillars. pest of vegetables and fruits,
whitefly, aphids, DBM, scale insects, locust,
Colorado potato beetles
PA
Pseudomonas fluorescens Bactvipe 2% AS Root rot, stem rot, collar rot, wilt, blights, leaf
spots, anthracnose, Alternaria and downy &
powdery mildews
Ampelomyces quisqualis MilGO 2% AS Powdery mildew, Alternaria solani,
Colletotrichum, Coccodes, Cladosporium,
cucumerinum
Beauveria bassiana DAMAN 1% WP Helicoverpa, Spodoptera, borers, hairy
GE
caterpillars, pest of vegetables and fruits,
whitefly, aphids, DBM, scale insects, locust,
Colorado potato beetles
Bacillus subtilis MILDOWN 2% AS Pythium, Alternaria, Xanthomonas,
Biopesticides Classification and Their Formulations in India

NX
Rhizoctonia, Botrytis, Scelerotiana,
Phytophora
47
 48

S.No. Name of Company Organism Trade name Target biotic stress

16. M/s Ajay Biotech (India) Bacillus thuringiensis var. Bio Dart Insecticide
Ltd, Pune Kurstaki
Metarhizium anisopliae Meta Guard WP/AS Termites, white grubs, soil insects
© Beauveria bassiana, AJAY VBM Insect pests
Metarhizium anisopliae,
Verticillium lecanii
Paecilomyces spp. Nemadart Parasitic nematodes
Consortia of microbes TERMiNIL Termites
Trichoderma viride Trident 1.5% WP Soil and seed borne diseases
Trichoderma harzianum Trichoshield Soil borne fungus
Microbial Biopesticides in India

Trichoderma viride ROM Trichoderma Rhizome rot of turmeric and cardamom,

NI
fusarium wilt of banana, wilt disease of pepper,
beetelvine, chillies, tomato and vegetables,
Phytophthora, Pythium, Sclerotium
17. M/s Bharat Biocon Pvt. Ltd., Pseudomonas fluorescens Pseudocon 0.5% WP Crop diseases
PA
Chhattisgarh Trichoderma harzianum TRICHOCON 1% WP Crop diseases
Beauveria bassiana BASICON 1.15% Lepidoptera insects
Verticillium lecanii VERTICON 1.15% Plant parasitic nematodes
Metarhizium anisopliae METACON 1.15% Beetle pests, locust
18. M/s Jai Biotech Industries, Verticillium lecanii Vertimust 1.1% WP Sucking pests
Satpur, Nasik Beauveria bassiana Beauvera 1.15% WP Lepidoptera pests
GE
Trichoderma viride Jaimold 1% WP Sclerocium, Rhizoctonium, Pythium, Fusarium
NX
S.No. Name of Company Organism Trade name Target biotic stress
19. M/s Ganesh Biocontrol NPV Biokills Spodoptera litura
System, Rajkot Pseudomonas fluourescens Monas Rhizoctinia , Sclerotini, blights & Alternaria,
Ascochyta, Cercospora, Macrophomina,
© Xanthomonas, Erwinia
Beauveria bassiana BASS 1.5% WP Helicoverpa, Spodoptera, DBM, borers, hairy
caterpillar of vegetables & fruit plants, mites
& spidermites of vegetables & ornamentals ,
whiteflies on cotton & vegetables, aphids &
scale insects, locust, potato and Coffee pod -
borer
20. M/s Gujarat Eco Microbial Trichoderma viride NR-III Soil & air borne pathogens, sucking pest
NI
Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Trichoderma viride TRIOJEET Damping off, wilt, root rot
Vadodara
21. M/s Indore Biotech Inputs NPV Helicop AS Helicoverpa armigera
and Research Pvt. Ltd., Metarhizium anisopliae BIO-MAGIC Grub, termite, fruit flies, hopper, wire worms,
Indore
PA
vegetable worms, aphids, jassids
Beauveria bassiana BIO-WONDER 1.15% Hairy insects, aphids, white flies, mealy bugs,
WP grasshoppers, thrips, stem borer, termites,
beetles, caterpillars
Verticillium lecanii Vercitile 1.15% WP Aphids, whiteflies, thrips, mealy bugs, scale
insects, leaf hopper, mango hopper
Bacillus thuringiensis var. Cezar 0.5% WP Castor semilooper, soybean and gram pod borer,
GE
kurstaki Spodoptera litura, Bihar hairy caterpillar, sphinx
moth
Paecilomyces lilacinus BioAce 1% WP Plant parasitic nematodes
Trichoderma viride Biohit WP Pythium, Fusarium oxyforum, Rhizoctonia
Biopesticides Classification and Their Formulations in India

NX
solani, Alternaria, Sclerotinia rolfsia
Pseudomonas fluorescens Biomonarch Macrophomina, Fusarium, Rhizoctonia,
49

Sclerotium, Pythium
 50

S.No. Name of Company Organism Trade name Target biotic stress

22. M/s Romvijay Biotech Pvt. Hirsutella thompsoni, Biomite All species of mites
Ltd., Pondichery Verticillium lecanii
Beauveria, Bacillus subtilis ROM Grub kill Beetles, borers
© Metarhizium anisopliae ROM Meta kill Beetles, borers
Beauveria bassiana ROM Beevicide Beetles, borers
Paecilomyces lilacinus ROM Pelicide Plan parasitic nematodes
Verticillium lecanii VERELAC Sucking pests
Trichoderma viride ROM Trichoderma Wilt, rot, plant parasitic nematode
Paecilomyces lilacinus ROM TRY PAE MIX Wilt, plant parasitic nematode
Ampelomyces quisqualis ROM No-Mildew Mildew diseases
Microbial Biopesticides in India

NI
Pseudomonas fluorescens ROM Pseudomonas Foliar and soil borne diseases
23. M/s Devi Biotech (P) Ltd., Trichoderma viride Boom Derma 1.5% WP Damping off, wilt, collar rot, root rot, leaf
Madurai, Tamil Nadu blights spots
Paecilomyces lilacinus Boom Nemo 1% WP Root knot nematodes, cyst nematodes, reniform
nematode, burrowing nematode, citrus
PA
nematode, golden cyst nematode and lesion
nematodes
Pseudomonas fluorescens Boom Monas 1% WP Root rot, wilt, blast, sheath blight, damping off,
leaf spot and rhizome rot
Verticillium lecanii Boom Vert 1.5% WP Aphids, thrips, mealy bugs, white flies, jassids,
Hoppers, scales and all types of mites.
GE
Beauveria bassiana Boom Bass 1.15% WP Root grubs, boll worms, Spodoptera, coffee
berry borers, pod borers, hoppers and weevils.
NX
S.No. Name of Company Organism Trade name Target biotic stress
24. M/s T. Stanes and Company Verticillium lecanii BIO CATCH 1.15% WP whiteflies, jassids, aphids, thrips, mealybugs
Ltd., Coimbatore, Tamil Beauveria bassiana Bio-Power 1.15% WP Borers, cutworms, root grubs, leafhoppers.
Nadu whitefly, aphids, thrips, mealybug
© Metarhizium anisopliae Bio Magic 1.15% WP Leaf hoppers, grasshoppers, root grubs, corn
root worms, bugs, beetles, palm weevils, borers,
cutworms, termites
Paecilomyces lilacinus Bio Nematon 1.15% WP Root knot nematodes, burrowing nematodes,
cyst nematodes, lesion nematodes
Trichoderma harzianum Bio Wrap 1% WP Root-knot nematode, wilt disease of tomato,
okra crops
Entomopathogenic Crown Root grub
NI
nematode
Streptomyces spp. Stanomyte 1.5% LF Mites
25. M/s Harit Bio Control Lab., NPV Helistop Helicoverpa armigera
Yavatmal Trichoderma viride Haritderma 1% WP Damping, wilting, root spots, leaf spots and
PA
blights
Verticillium lecanii Versatile 1% WP Sucking pests
Beauveria bassiana Wow 1.5% WP Leaffolders
26. M/s Bannari Amman Sugars Bacillus licheniformis LEAF GUARD Actinopelte Leafspot, Alternaria, Leafspot, leaf
Ltd., Tamil Nadu blight, Anthracnose, leaf blotch, Drechslera ink
spot, Bipolaris Leaf spot, Rhizoctonia blight
Trichoderma viride ROOT CARE Soil borne diseases
GE
T. harzianum
Pseudomonas fluorescens Pseudo Care Crop diseases
Bacillus subtilis LEAF CARE Fungal diseases
Biopesticides Classification and Their Formulations in India

NX
51
Table 2: List of biopesticides in pipe-line for registration and licensing in India
52

S.No. Entomopathogenic Formulation Shelf life Trade name Target pests Dose
fungi
1. Beauveria bassiana Oil formulation (1× 12 months at Shatpada Chilli and brinjal aphids, Aphis 5 ml/lit. of water at 15 days
(Bals.-Criv.) Vuill.
© 108 cfu/ml) 25-35oC Aphid Kill
gossypii Glover, 1877, cabbage interval
(1912) (Bb-5a) aphid, Brevicoryne brassicae
(Linnaeus, 1758); cowpea
aphid, A. craccivora C. L
.Koch, 1854
2. Isaria fumosorosea Talc (1 × 108 cfu/g); 12 months at Shatpada Coconut and oil palm Rugose 2-3 foliar spray at 5 ml or
Wize (1904) (Pfu5) oil formulation 25-35oC Rugose spiraling whitefly, Aleurodicus 5 g/lit. of water at 15 days
Microbial Biopesticides in India

(1 × 108 cfu/ml) Whitefly Kill rugioperculatus Martin interval

NI
3. Lecanicillium lecanii Oil formulation 12 months at Shatpada Chilli aphids, A. gossypii, Three foliar sprays at 5
R. Zare & W. Gams, (1 × 108 cfu/ml) 25-35oC Sucking pest cowpea aphid, A. craccivora ml/lit. of water at 15 days
2001 (VI-8) Hit interval
4. Metarhizium Talc (1 × 108 cfu/ 12 months at Shatpada Sugarcane white grub, Soil application twice in a
anisopliae ml) 25-35oC Grubicide Holotrichia spp. year during June/July, July/
PA
(Metchnikoff) August at 30 days interval
Sorokin (1883) Ma 4 at 2.5 kg mixed with 250 kg
FYM/ha
5. M. anisopliae Ma 35 Talc (1 × 108 cfu/g); 12 months at Shatpada Maize fall armyworm, Three foliar sprays at 5
oil formulation 25-35oC Larvicide Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. ml or 5 g/lit. of water at
(1 × 108 cfu/ml) Smith) 20,30,40 days after sowing
GE
6. Trichoderma reesei Wettable powder 12 months at ICAR- Fusarium wilt of banana, Soil drenching at 1 lit/, four
Simmons, 1977 (1 × 108 cfu/g) 25-35oC Fusicont Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. times on 3rd, 5th, 9th, 12th
CST-T-3 cubense E. F. Sm., W. C. month after planting
Snyder & H. N. Hansen (1940)
Tropical race 4 and race 1
NX
S.No. Entomopathogenic Formulation Shelf life Trade name Target pests Dose
fungi
7. T. harzianum Rifai, Talc (1 × 107 cfu/g) 12 months at Bio-Pulse Wilt of chickpea, lentil, pea, Seed treatment (10 g/kg
(1969) + Bacillus 25-35oC pigeonpea; damping off/ seed)
amyloliquefaciens
© seedling mortality in papaya;
Priest et al., 1987 Target fungi (Rhizoctonia,
Sclerotium, Sclerotinia,
Fusarium, Pythium, Ralstonia,
Macrophomina, Bipolaris ,
Phoma)
8. T. harzianum AZNF- Carrier based 4 months at Maru Sena 1 Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. Seed treatment (4 g/kg
5 (1 × 108 cfu/g) 55oC cumini in cumin seed); soil application (1 kg/
NI
ha with 50 kg FYM) before
sowing
9. T. harzianum (ICAR- Carrier based 4 months at Mishrit Maru Macrophomina phaseolina Seed treatment (10 g/kg
CAZRI AZNF-5 (1 × 108 cfu/g each) 55oC sena (Tassi) Goid. (1947) in seed with jiggery) and soil
and Bacillus firmus legumes and oils seed crops application
PA
Bredemann and (1 kg/ha with 40 kg FYM
Werner 1933, ICAR-
CAZRI AZ-1
10. B. bassiana RF6 Talc 8 months at NRRI-BBLF Rice leaf folder, Foliar spray at 2 g/lit. of
(1 × 109 cfu/g) 25-35oC Cnaphalocrocis medinalis water
(Guenée, 1854)
GE
11. M. anisopliae TF 19 Talc 8 months at NRRI-Malf Rice leaf folder, C. medinalis Foliar spray at 2 g/lit. of
(1 × 109 cfu/g) 25-35oC water
12. T. harzianum* Th4d Liquid suspension 18 months at Triguard Phytophthora seedling blight, Seed treatment at 1 ml/kg
concentrate 25-35oC Th-L Macrophomina root rot and seeds, foliar spray at 1-2 ml/
(1 × 109 cfu/ml) Fusarium wilt of safflower and lit. of water
Biopesticides Classification and Their Formulations in India

NX
gray mold of castor, Alternaria
aster leaf blight and powdery
53

mildew of sunflower
 54

S.No. Entomopathogenic Formulation Shelf life Trade name Target pests Dose
fungi
13. T. harzianum* Th4 Wettable powder 18 months at Triguard Phytophthora seedling blight, Seed treatment at 10 g/kg
(1 × 109 cfu/ml) 25-35oC Th-P Macrophomina root rot; of seeds
© Fusarium wilt of safflower and
castor, Aspergillus root rot in
groundnut
14. T. asperellum* Wettable powder 18 months at Triguard Phytophthora seedling blight, Seed treatment at 10 g/kg
Samuels, Lieckf. & (1 × 109 cfu/ml) 25-35oC Ta-P Macrophomina root rot; seeds
Nirenberg 1999 Ta Fusarium wilt of safflower and
DOR 7316 castor
Microbial Biopesticides in India

15. B. bassiana (ITCC Liquid suspension 24 months at Mycoguard Helicoverpa armigera Two to three foliar sprays at
NI
4513) concentrate 25-30oC Bb-L (Hubner) in pigeonpea 0.3 ml/lit of water at 10 days
(1 × 1012 cfu/ml) interval
16. T. harzianum* Wettable powder 10 months at Arka Krishi Meloidogyne incognita Seed treatment at 20 g/kg
ICAR-IIHR Th-2 (2 × 106 cfu/g) 25-35oC Vriddhi (Kofoid & White, 1919), seed, nursery bed treatment
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. at 50 g/m2 for transplantable
PA
vasinfectum, S. rolfsii, F. solani crops, soil application at 5
(Mart.) Sacc. (1881) in brinjal, kg/ha after enrichment in 5
tomato, carrot, okra tons FYM before sowing or
transplanting
17. T. viride* ICAR- Wettable powder (2 10 months at Arka Krishi M. incognita, Ralstonia Seed treatment at 20 g/kg
IIHR ×106 cfu/g) 25-35oC Veera solanacearum (Smith 1896), seed, nursery bed treatment
GE
Tv-5 Erwinia carotovora Winslow at 50 g/m2 for transplantable
et al., 1920, Fusarium crops, soil application at 5
oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum, kg/ha after enrichment in 5
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. tons FYM before sowing or
lycopersici, F.solani transplanting
NX
S.No. Entomopathogenic Formulation Shelf life Trade name Target pests Dose
fungi
18. Pochonia Carrier based 10 months at Arka KrishiM. incognita in brinjal, tomato, Seed treatment at 20 g/kg
chlamydosporia* (2 × 106 cfu/g) 25-35oC Rakshak carrot, okra seed, nursery bed treatment
Zare and Gams
© at 50 g/m2 for transplantable
IIHR-Vc-3 crops, soil application at 5
kg/ha after enrichment in 5
tons FYM before sowing or
transplanting
19. T. asperelloides Liquid formulation 3 months at Manjari Grapes powdery mildew Soil drenching at 2 ml/lit.
asperelloides 5R (5 ×1011 cfu/ml) 25-35oC Vineguard of water
20. T. afroharzianum Liquid (5 × 108 cfu/ 3 months at Manjari Grapes powdery mildew Foliar spray at 2 ml/lit. of
NI
ml) 25-35oC Rakshak water
21. T. harzianum IARI Wettable powder 25 months at Pusa 5 SD F. oxysporum f. sp. ciceris, S. Seed treatment at 4 g/kg of
P4 (108 cfu/g) 25oC rolfsii, S. sclerotiorum (Lib.) seeds
de Bary (1884) in chickpea;
R. solani J.G. Kühn 1858,
PA
R. bataticola (Taub.)Butl. in
chickpea and mugbean, F.
oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici in
tomato, P. ultimum, R. solani
in fresh bean, major seed borne
fungal pathogens
GE
22. Purpureocillium Wettable powder (2 10 months at ARKA Krishi Meloidogyne incognita in Seed treatment at 20 g/kg
lilacinum × 106 cfu/ml) 25-35oC Kawach brinjal, tomato, carrot, okra seed, nursery bed treatment
at 50 g/m2 for transplantable
crops, soil application at
5 kg/ha after enrichment
Biopesticides Classification and Their Formulations in India

NX
in 5 tonns FYM before
transplanting or sowing
55
 56

S.No. Entomopathogenic Formulation Shelf life Trade name Target pests Dose
fungi
23. Bacillus thurigiensis Liquid (1 × 108 cfu/ 12 months at Shatpada Maize fall armyworm Two to three foliar sprays at
var. kurstaki ml) 25-35oC Armour 10 ml/lit of water at 25, 35,
© 45 days after sowing
24. B. thuringiensis var. Liquid (1 × 108 cfu/ 12 months at Shatpada H. armigera, Plutella Two to three foliar sprays
kurstaki ml) 25-35oC Terminator xylostella, Chilo partellus, at 20 ml/lit of water at pre-
Cnaphalocrocis medinalis, flowering and post flowering
Leucinodes orbonalis, stages
Amsacta albistriga
25. Pseudomonas Talc based (1 × 108 12 months at Shatpada All Thrips spp., in capsicum and Foliar application at 20 g/
Microbial Biopesticides in India

fluroescens cfu/ml) 25-35oC Rounder Fusarium will of red gram lit of water at 20,30,40,50
NI
days after transplanting for
the management of thrips in
capsicum; soil application
in the root zone during
25,40,55 days after sowing
PA
at 2.5 kg/ha for management
of red gram wilt; mix 2.5
kg of formulation in 250 kg
farmyard manure and apply
26. B. albus Talc based (1 × 108 12 months at Shatpada S. frugiperda, Tuta absoluta, Foliar application at 20 g/
cfu/ml) 25-35oC Master Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lit of water at 20,30,40,50
Blaster cucumerinum days after sowing for fall
GE
armyworm and tomato pin
worm; soil application in the
root zone during 25,40,55
days after sowing at 2.5
NX
kg/ha for management of
cucumber wilt; mix 2.5 kg
of formulation in 250 kg
farmyard manure and apply
S.No. Entomopathogenic Formulation Shelf life Trade name Target pests Dose
fungi
27. P. fluorescens Talc based (1 × 108 12 months at Eco-Pesticide Spot blotch of wheat, sheath Seed treatment (10 g/kg
cfu/ml) 25-35oC blight of rice and wilt of seed)
© tomato and chickpea
28. B. firmus Carrier based (1 × 6 months at Maru sena 3 Macrophomina phaseolina in Seed treatment (30 g/kg
108 cfu/ml) 25-35oC legumes and oil seed seed with jiggery solution)
before sowing
29. B. thuringiensis var. Liquid suspension 24 months at Bioguard Spodoptera litura in soybean Two foliar sprays at 3 ml/lit
kurstaki concentrate (1 × 25-35oC Bt-L of water at 10 days interval.
1011 cfu/ml)
30. P. fluorescens Wettable powder (2 10 months at ARKA Krishi Meloidogyne incognita, Seed treatment at 20 g/kg
NI
× 108 cfu/ml) 25-35oC Samarakshak Ralstonia solanacearum, seed, nursery bed treatment
Erwinia carotovora, Fusarium at 50 g/m2 for transplantable
oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum, crops, soil application at
Fusarium solani in brinjal, 5 kg/ha after enrichment
tomato, carrot, okra in 5 tonns FYM before
PA
transplanting or sowing
31. P. fluorescens Liquid (2 × 108 cfu/ 10-12 ARKA krishi Meloidogyne incognita, Seed treatment at 20 g or
ml), carrier based months at All Rounder Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. 20 ml/kg seed, substrate
(2 × 108 cfu/ml) 25-35oC and ARKA vasinfectum, Fusarium solani treatmen with 10 ml or
Plant Growth in several vegetable and fruit 10 g/kg of cocopeat, soil
Booster crops application at 5 kg or 5 li/
GE
ha after enrichment in 5 tons
FYM before transplanting or
sowing
*Licensed to private companies Source: Saxena et al. (2021)
Biopesticides Classification and Their Formulations in India

NX
57
58 Microbial Biopesticides in India

Conclusions
Government regulations and the detrimental effects of chemical pesticides
force a shift to alternate plant protection measures. As a result, microbial
biopesticide, one of the environmentally friendly techniques, has become
more significant in agriculture both globally and in India. Although a few
factors, such as quality control and the identification of effective organisms,
predispose the market and widespread use of biopesticide, central and state
government initiatives, such as the establishment of assisted and non-aided
biocontrol laboratories and intense R&D activities, support the growth of
biopesticide steadily.

References
Dougoud J, Toepfer S, Bateman M, Jenner WH (2019) Efficacy of homemade botanical
insecticides based on traditional knowledge. A review. Agron Sustainable Dev 39(4):37
Easwaramoorthy S, Jayaraj S (1987) Survey of granulosis virus infect in sugarcane borers,
Chilo infuscatellus Snellen and C. sacchariphagus indicus (Kapur) in India. Int J Pest

NX
Manag 33(3):200-201.
Keswani C, Dilnashin H, Birla H, Birla H, Singh SP (2019) Regulatory barriers to agricultural
research commercialization: a case study of biopesticides in India. Rhizosphere
11:100155. Doi.org/10.1016/j.rhishph.2019.100155
Keswani C, Sarma B, Singh H (2016) Synthesis of Policy Support, Quality Control, and
GE
Regulatory Management of Biopesticides in Sustainable Agriculture. 10.1007/978-981-
10-2576-1_1.
Khergamer G (2019) Fall Armyworm attack: Maharashtra grappling with the chaos. Down
to Earth.https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/agriculture/fall-armyworm/attack-
maharashtra- grappling-with-the-chaos-63400.
Koul O (2019) Nano-biopesticides today and future perspectives, Academic Press, Cambridge,
495p.
PA

Kumar KK, Sridhar J, Murali-Baskaran RK, Senthil-Nathan S, Kaushal P, Dara SK, Arthurs S
(2019) Microbial biopesticides for insect pest management in India: current status and
future prospects. J Invert Pathol 165:74-81.
Martin PA, Hirose E, Aldrich JR (2007) Toxicity of Chromobacterium subtsugae to southern
green stink bug (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) and corn rootworm (Coleoptera:
NI

Chrysomelidae). J Econ Entomol 100(3):680-684.

Mishra J, Dutta V, Arora NK (2020) Biopesticides in India: technology and sustainability
linkages. 3 Biotech 10:210. doi.org/10.1007/s13205-020-02192-7.
Pathak DV, Yadav R, Kumar M (2017) Microbial pesticides: Development, prospects and
popularization in India, 455-471pp. In: DP Singh et al. (eds), Plant-microbe interactions
in agro-ecological perspectives, Springer Nature, Singapore Pte Ltd
Sankaranarayanan C, Somasekhar N, Singaravelu B (2006) Biocontrol potential of
©

entomopathogenic nematode Heterorhabditis and Steinernema against pupae and adults

of white grub Holotrichia serrata F. Sugar Tech 8(4):268-271
Saxena AK, Chakdar H, Kumar M, Rajawat MVS, Dubey SC, Sharma TR (2021) ICAR
Technologies: Biopesticides for Eco-friendly pest management. Indian Council of
Agricultural Research, New Delhi, India 1-31pp.
 Biopesticides Classification and Their Formulations in India 59

Tikar S, Prakash S (2017) Fly ash-based Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis formulation: An

ecofriendly approach. Indian J Med Res 146(6):680.
Wadke R (2018) Pink bollworm tears into the very fibre of Maharashtra’s cotton growers.
The Hindu Business Line. Https://www.thehindubuinessline.com/economy/agri-
business/pink-bollworm-tears-into-the-very-fibre-of-maharashtras-cotton-growers/
article9969934.ece#. Access 22 Oct 2019
Links
http://ppqs.gov.in/divisions/cib-rc/biopesticide-registrant
https://ncof.dacnet.nic.in/Operational_Guidelines/Guidelines_for_Capital_Investment Subsidy.
pdf

NX
GE
PA
NI
©
©
NI
PA
GE
NX
5
Nano-Biopesticides for
Management of Insect Pests of Crops

Abstract
A type of pesticide known as a “biopesticide” is derived from natural sources
such as plants, animals, minerals, and microbes. The employment of cutting-
edge scientific tools will be extremely beneficial for enhancing the efficacy,
greater applicability and adaptability, and storability of biopesticides. One

NX
such rapidly rising scientific discipline, nanotechnology, has considerable
potential applications in agriculture, including the creation of carriers
for pesticides, plant growth regulators, biofertilizers, nano-sensors,
insecticides, food packaging materials, and gene transfer, among other
GE
things. Nanoparticles fall under the category of ultrafine particles and range
in size from 1 to 100 nm. These nano-particles have special uses in various
industries, including the production of nano-biopesticides. They differ from
their bulk material due to their small size, shape, reactivity, and increased
surface area to volume ratio. Without sacrificing on safety and health risks,
nano-biopesticides offer higher accuracy in reaching their potential efficacy
PA

against target pests. This chapter covers several nano-biopesticides, their

history, their use as biopesticides, modes of action, and their effectiveness
against the pests they are intended to control.
Keywords: Nano-particle, Nano-biopesticide, AgNP, SiNP, Botanicals,
NI

Semiochemical

Introduction
Biopesticides are pesticides that are produced naturally by plants, animals,
©

microbes, and other minerals. These represent less of a harm to humans and
the environment than chemical insecticides. Nanotechnology is a rapidly
developing scientific topic that has numerous uses in numerous industries,
including agriculture. The transport of plant hormones, seed germination,
water management, transfer of target genes, nano barcoding, nano sensors,
62 Microbial Biopesticides in India

and controlled release of agrichemicals are now being investigated as

applications for nanotechnology in agriculture (Worrall et al. 2018). For their
diverse applications in numerous industries, many scientists have modified
nanoparticles for their size, shape, porosity, and/or surface tension, among
other properties.
Nano-particles are a subcategory of ultrafine particles that range in size from 1
to 100 nm. These nano-particles have special uses in numerous industries due
to their distinctive characteristics, which include small size, shape, reactivity,
and a greater surface area to volume ratio. These nano-particles have numerous
and varied uses in agriculture, including as pesticide transporters, plant growth
regulators, biofertilizers, nano-sensors, insecticides, food packaging materials,
and gene transfer agents, among others. Nano-particles give agricultural
insect pest management techniques fresh dimensions. For targeted, controlled
distribution of the active component in a biopesticide, nano-particles may be
utilised. Compared to conventional biopesticides, nano-biopesticides provide
a number of benefits.

NX
Nano-Biopesticides
To increase their effectiveness, expand their potential applications, and
solve numerous drawbacks, the various biopesticides, including microbial
GE
biopesticides, biochemical biopesticides, and plant-incorporated protectants,
can be produced as nano-based biopesticides. In Table 1, a few of the nano-
biopesticides were listed.
PA
NI
©
Table 1: Nanomaterials applied to bio-pesticide and their functions (An et al. 2022)
Bio-pesticide category Active ingredients Material(s) Function Reference
(AIs)
Microbial pesticides Bacillus thuringiensis Nano-tubular sodium Effective in controlling cotton leafworm Zaki et al. (2017)
(Bacterial pesticide)
© (Bt) titanate
Microbial pesticides Beauveria bassiana Silica nano-particles Improving mortality to larvae of potato Hersanti et al. (2020)
(fungal pesti- cides) (Bals.) and carbon fibers Spodoptera litura
Plant-derived pesticides Essential oils C h i t o s a n - c o a t e d Synergistic effect against a wide range of Gahukar et al. (2020)
nano-silver microorganisms
Agricultural antibiotics Avermectin Poly (ethylene Improved the anti-UV ability & increased Zhu et al. (2020)
glycol)-carboxyme- the biocompatibility of the Avermectin
thyl cellulose (PEG-
NI
CMC)
Validamycin and Polylactic acid The nano-particles prepared by Cui et al. (2020)
thifluzamide compounding Validamycin with chemical
pesticides showed better control of rice
PA
sheath blight, which was 4.2 times more
effective than the control
Biochemical pesticides Gibberellic acid (GA) Layered double Promoted plant growth Hafez et al. (2018)
hydroxides (LDH)
Plant immunity elicitor- Chitosan & Zinc C h i t o s a n As an efficient biocompatible elicitor to Asgari-Targhi et al.
inducing antibacterial agents oxide encapsulated zinc improve agronomic traits of crops (2021)
oxide nanocomposite
GE
Nano-Biopesticides for Management of Insect Pests of Crops

NX
63
64 Microbial Biopesticides in India

Botanical Based Nano-Biopesticides

Some of the nano-biopesticides are based on the botanical biopesticides
such as essential oils, neem oil, neem powder etc., were found effective in
manging many insect pests. The antifeedant and larvicidal activity of nano-
biopesticide PONNEEM®-encapsulated tripolyphosphate cross-linked
chitosan nanocarriers was reported against Helicoverpa armigera (Paulraj et al.
2017). Adel et al. (2018) tested the nano-emulsion of Mentha piperita essential
oil against stored grain pest, Tribolium castaneum and reported that it was
very much effective in controlling the pest with highest percent mortality in
comparison to essential oil without nano-emulsion in wheat. Further, they also
noticed that nano-emulsion significantly enhanced the germination percentage
of wheat seeds. Similarly, Yang et al. (2009) reported the highest mortality (up
to 80%) of Tribolium castaneum when treated with nano-biopesticides loaded
with garlic essential oils. The list of nano-carriers used for biopesticides/active
ingredients that target crop pests is provided in Table 2.
In an exclusive study, Palermo et al. (2021) tested the nano formulations

NX
prepared from eight commercial essential oils (Pimpinella anisum, Artemisia
vulgaris, Foenicum vulgare, Allium sativum, Lavandula angustifolia, Mentha
piperita, Rosmarinus officinalis, and Salvia officinalis) for their acute toxicity
GE
and repellence against confused flour beetle, Tribolium confusum and reported
that all the nano-emulsions were found best repellent over time. The highest
acute toxicity was noticed in garlic nano-emulsions with maximum mortality.
Bidyarani and Kumar (2019) encapsulated the rotenone, a naturally occurring
pesticide in the roots of Fabaceae plants, in zein nanoparticles by antisolvent
precipitation method. They evaluated nano-encapsulated rotenone against
PA

plant pathogens Pseudomonas syringae and Fusarium oxysporum and reported

excellent antimicrobial activity.
NI
©
Table 2: List of nanocarriers for biopesticides/active ingredients that target crop pests (modified from Worrall et al. 2018)
Biopesticide Nanoparticle Crop Target insect pest Reference
Garlic essential oil Polyethylene Rice (harvested) Red flour beetle (Triboleum castaneum) Yang et al. (2009)
glycol
Azadirachtin
© Chitosan - Tobacco cutworm (Spodoptera litura) Lu et al. (2013)
culture ovarian cell lines Sl-1
Azadirachtin Chitosan - - Feng et al. (2012)
α-pinene and Linalool Silica Castor Tobacco cutworm Rani et al. (2014)
(S. litura), Castor semi-looper (Achaea
janata)
Abamectin Porous silica - - Wang et al. (2014)
Anacardic acid Layered double Mustard Tobacco cutworm Nguyen et al. (2015)
NI
hydroxide (S. litura)
Avermectin Polydopamine Cotton and corn - Jia et al. (2014)
Avermectin Polydopamine - - Sheng et al. (2015)
Suaeda maritima-based Silver Cotton Tobacco cutworm (S. litura) Suresh et al. (2018)
PA
herbal coils
PONNEEM Chitosan Cotton Cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera) Paulraj et al. (2017)
Avermectin Polydopamine Cucumber and Aphids Liang et al. (2018)
broccoli
Avermectin Castor oil-based Corn leaves - Zhang et al. (2018)
polyurethane
Azadirachtin Zinc oxide and Groundnut Bruchid Jenne at al. (2018)
GE
chitosan (Callosobruchus serratus)
Carvacrol Chitosan - Mite (Tetranychus urticae) Campos et al. (2018)
Linalool
Geraniol Chitosan/Gum Arabic - Whitefly (Bemicia tabaci) De Oliveira et al.
Nano-Biopesticides for Management of Insect Pests of Crops

NX
(2018)
65
 66

Biopesticide Nanoparticle Crop Target insect pest Reference

Satureja hortensis essential Chitosan/TPP - Mite (T. urticae) Ahmadi et al. (2018)
oil
Geraniol and R-citronellal Zein - Mite (T. urticae) Oliveira et al. (2018)
essential oils
©
Nicotine Chitosan/TPP - House fly Yang et al. (2018)
(Musca domestica)
Carvacrol Chitosan Bean Corn earworm Campos et al. (2018)
Linalool (H. armigera),
mites (T. urticae)
Avermectin porous hollow silica Brassica Plutella xylostella larvae Kaziem et al. (2018)
Microbial Biopesticides in India

nanoparticles oleracea
NI
PA
GE
NX
 Nano-Biopesticides for Management of Insect Pests of Crops 67

Nano-formulations of Semiochemicals
One such naturally occurring semiochemical that is commonly employed to
control insect pests is pheromones. They are somewhat unstable in nature as
a result of isomerization, photooxidation, autooxidation, and volatility, among
other processes (Deepa et al. 2013). In order to increase the effectiveness of
pheromones in real-world settings, slow and controlled release formulations are
crucial. Nano-formulations are the greatest options for delayed and controlled
release of pheromones. By immobilising the pheromone into the nano gel,
Deepa Bhagat et al. (2013) created a nano gel of methyl eugenol, a pheromone
used to manage the fruit fly pest, Bactrocera dorsalis, and tested the gel’s
effectiveness in the field. Additionally, they discovered that pheromones based
on nanogels were stable at room temperature and exhibited a reduced rate of
evaporation, making handling and shipping simpler. When immobilised into
nano-gels, methyl eugenol’s shelf life was increased, and fruit fly pest trap
catches were substantially higher than with methyl eugenol alone.
Abd El-Wahab et al. (2020) investigated the catchability of the red palm weevil,

NX
Rhynchophorus ferrugineus, and found that aggregation nano-gel pheromone
traps attracted considerably more adult beetles than conventional pheromone
traps in two seasons (55.33 and 46.33 adults/trap). White grubs (Holotrichia
GE
consanguinea) will be caught in ground nuts using a nano-gel formulation of
the aggregation pheromone, methoxy benzene, created by Deep Bhagat et al.
(2020). By immobilising the aggregation pheromone in a matrix and creating a
viscoelastic semi-solid mass, a nanogel formulation was created. Additionally,
they examined its effectiveness and discovered that the nanogel trap may
capture up to 17.5 adult beetles daily.
PA

Nano-Biopesticides Derived from Plants

Number of nano-biopesticides containing different nanoparticles were
reported by many researchers. Plants serve as excellent sources for various
NI

nanoparticles which can be used as nano-biopesticides against various insect

pests. The list of plant-derived nano-biopesticides, their application and
nanoparticles present were presented in Table 3.
©
Table 3. Plant derived Nano-biopesticides and their efficacy against various insect pests (Krishnamurthy et al. 2020)
68

Plantname Common name NPs Present Part of plant Application Reference

Acorus calamus Sweet flag Au, Ag Root Insecticide Ganesan et al. (2015)
Agave americana Sentry plant Ag Leaf Whiteants Ahmad et al. (2016)
Ageratum conyzoides
© Chick weed Ag Leaf Liceinhair Wardani et al. (2019)
Albizialebbeck Lebbeck Ag, Ni, Fe Seed, leaf, bark, root Insecticide Umar et al. (2010)
Albiziaprocera White siris Zn, Ag, Cu Leaf Insecticide Jayakumarai et al. (2010)
Aloesecundiflora New castle in Cd, Ag Sap Insecticide Tippayawat et al. (2016)
chicken
Alysicarpus Alyce clover Ag, P Whole plant Bed bugs, whiteants Kasithevar et al. (2017)
bupleurifolius
Microbial Biopesticides in India

Anacardium occidentale Kaaju Au, Ag, Cu, Pt Shell oil White ants, insecticide Begum et al. (2018)
NI
Anamirtacocculus Indian berry Zn, Ag, Au Fruit Insecticide
Annona reticulate Wild-sweetsop Ag Leaf, seed, bark Body lice,insecticide Parthiban et al. (2019)
PA
Annona squamosa Sugar apple Ag, Fe Seed, stem, bark, leaf, Body lice,insecticide Vivek et al. (2010)
fruit
Arisaemator tuosum Whipcord cobra lily Ag, Au, Zn Tubers Insecticide Kumar et al. (2018)
Aristolochia bracteolate Worm killer Ag Juice Insecticide Doss (2015)
Artemisia japonica Mug wort Ag, Au, Fe Whole plant Insecticide, housefly Yu et al. (2019)
repellent
GE
Artemisia nilagirica Worm wood Ag Leaf Insect repellent, prevent Vijayakumar et al. (2013)
moths
Azadirachta indica Neem tree Ag, Cu Whole plant Insecticide, rice and Ahmad et al. (2016)
wheat weevil
Bambusa arundinacea Bambusa bambos Ag Shoot Kill mosquito larvae Kataria et al. (2017)
NX
Biden spilosa Black jack Ag, Au Leaves Aphids Kyomuhimbo et al. (2019)
Plantname Common name NPs Present Part of plant Application Reference
Blumeae riantha Buradi Zn Whole plant Mosquito repellent Benelli et al. (2017)

Boswellia serrata Indian frankincense Ag Gum Fumigation repel Kora et al. (2012)
© houseflies, mosquitoes

Brassica campestris Field mustard Ag, Zn Seed oil Beetles Khan et al. (2018)
Butea monosperma Sacred tree Ag, Au, Zn Seed flower extract White ants Das et al. (2018)
Calotropis procera Rubber bush Ag, Zn, Ni, Fe Leaf Larvicidal Gawade at al. (2017)

Canna bissativa Kumbhi Au, Ag Whole plant leaf Bugs & pests Singh et al. (2018)
Capsicum annuum Hot pepper Cu, Ag, Au Fruit, leaf Thrips, aphids, white Yuan et al. (2017)
NI
flies
Careya arborea Karanda Ag Root, bark and leaf Several Nair et al. (2015)
Carica papaya Papaya Ag, Zn Leaves, seeds Several Rathnasamy et al. (2017)
Carissa congesta Hemp Ag Root and bark Vet worms in wounds Joshi et al. (2018)
PA
Cassia hirsute Cassia Ag, Zn Bark Insecticide Adesuji et al. (2016)
Cassytha filiformis Love vine Ag, Cu, Mg Whole plant Insecticide Nasrollahzadeh et al.
(2018)
Catunaregam spinosa Mountain Sn, Zn, Ni Fruit Insecticide Haritha et al. (2016)
pomegranate
Cinnamomum camphora Camphor tree Ag, Au, Pt, Pd Bark powder Protect clothes against Huang et al. (2006)
GE
insects
Citrus limon Lemon Ag, Au Dried leaf Wheat weevil, flour Sujitha et al. (2013)
beetle
Commiphora wightii Indian bdellium tree Ag Resin Mosquito repellent Sarkar (2017)
Nano-Biopesticides for Management of Insect Pests of Crops

NX
Cordia latifolia Sebestan plum Ag Leaves Maize weevil, butterfly Ioset et al. (2000)
69
 70

Plantname Common name NPs Present Part of plant Application Reference

Coryphaum braculifera Talipot palm Cu, Ag Young fruit Insect repellent Abdel-Wahab et al. (2019)

Croton roxburghii Croton Ag Seed Insecticide Panda et al. (2010)

Cucumis melo Muskmelon Ag Leaf lice Haryani et al. (2018)

©
Cucumis sativus Cucumber Ag, Cu, Zn Rhizome lice and insects Zhao et al. (2014)

Curcuma longa Turmeric Ag, Zn Rhizome Drive away ants Shameli et al. (2012)

Cuscuta reflexa Amarbel Cu, Ag Whole plant lice Naghdi et al. (2018)
Microbial Biopesticides in India

NI
Cymbopogan nardus Citronella grass Ag Whole plant Mosquito repellent Kamarudin et al. (2019)

Derriss candens Gewel vine Ag leaf, bark Insecticide Firdhouse et al. (2013)

Derris trifoliate Karanjvel Ag Bark Insecticide Kumar et al. (2017)

PA
Desmodium triflorum Tick clover Ag, Cu, Au Whole plant Insecticide Ahmad et al. (2011)

Dioscorea hispida Asia ticbitteryam Ag Bark Insecticide Ashri et al. (2014)

Duranta erecta Brazili ansky flower Ag, Zn Whole plant Insecticide Ravindran et al. (2016)
GE
Euphorbia antiquorum Spurge Ag Milky juice Maggot sin wound Rajkuberan et al. (2017)

Euphorbia Dragon spurge Ag Latex Kill slice Annamalai et al. (2013)

dracunculoides
Euphorbia thymifolia Thyme leaf Pd Whole plant Flies, mosquitoes Nasrollahzadeh et al.
NX
(2016)
Fioria vitifolia Grape leaved Ag Root, bark Kill slice Ghosh et al. (2015)
mallow
Plantname Common name NPs Present Part of plant Application Reference
Glorio sasuperb Flame lily Ag, Au, Ce, Cu Leaf Liceinthe hair Ashokkumar et al. (2013)
,Pt, Pd
Haldina cordifolia Kadam Ag Bark Insecticide Khan et al. (2019)
©
Hard wickiabinate

Harpullia arborea
Anjan

Tulip wood
Zn

Zn, Sn
Wood

Bark
Insecticide

Leech repellent
Gunaselvi et al. (2010)

Mohan et al. (2018)

Holarrhena pubescens Indrajao Ag Flower, seed Insecticides Venkata Subbaiah et al.

(2013)
Hyptissua veolens American mint Ag, Cu Twig Repel bed bugs Elumalai et al. (2017)
NI
Kalanchoe integra Never die Au, Cu Leaf Insecticide Patel et al. (2019)

Lagenandra ovate Malayans word Ag Whole plant Insecticide Bokaeian et al. (2015)
PA
Lavandula bipinnata Lavender Zn Whole plant Insect repellent Shaikh et al. (2014)

Lavendulalawii Lavender Ag Wholeplant Insect repellent Kulkarni et al. (2013)

Leonotis nepetifolia Klip dagga Ag Leaf House fly repellent Al-Sheddi et al. (2018)

Leucas aspera Thumbai Ag, Ce, Cu Whole plant Insecticide Malleshappa et al. (2015)
GE
Lippia javanica Fever tea Ag Leaf Insecticide Kumar et al. (2016)

Madhu calongifolia Ilippai Ag, Cu, Au Seed, seed, oil, cake Worm killer, insect Sharma et al. (2019)
repellent
Melaleuca leucadendron Caju puttree Au, Ag Oil Mosquito repellent Souza et al. (2017)
Nano-Biopesticides for Management of Insect Pests of Crops

NX
Melia azadarach Chinaberry Ag Fruit, seed Insecticide Anbu et al. (2016)
71
 72

Plantname Common name NPs Present Part of plant Application Reference

Melia volkensii Melia Ag Fruit pulp Termites Kamau et al. (2016)

Millettia extensa Benth Ag Root Insecticide Panda et al. (20160

Mimosa pudica Shame plant Ag, Zn, Fe, Au, Leaf Veterinary wound Fatimah et al. (2016)
©
Mundulea sericea Cork bush
Cu
Zn Seed, root, bark
maggots
Insecticide Chaithong et al. (2006)

Nigella sativa Black seed Ag, Zn Seed Pesticide Amooaghaie et al. (2015)

Ocimum americanum Hoary basil Ag Whole plant Insecticide Anuradha et al. (2014)
Microbial Biopesticides in India

NI
Ocimum gratissimum Ramtulsi Ag, Au Whole plant Insect repellent Das et al. (2017)

Ocimum Camphor Basil Ag Leaves, flower Mosquito, fleas Selvarani et al. (2016)
kilimandscharicum
PA
Ocimum tenuiflorum Tulsi Ag Whole plant Insect repellent Singhal et al. (2011)

Peganum harmala Wild rue Ag, Zn Root Mosquito repellent Fazlzadeh et al. (2017)

Psidia punctulata Mpepe Ti, Cu Leaves Lice, fleas, mites Zinjarde et al. (2011)

Pongamia pinnata Indian beech Ag Seed, root, seed oil Repellent, insecticide Paul et al. (2018)
Riccinus communis Castor bean Ag, Au Seed oil Flies repellent, rice Ojha et al. (2017)
GE
moth, rice weevil
Ruta graveolens Herbof grace Zn, Ag Whole plant Insects Lingaraju et al. (2016)

Sarcostm maviminale Caustic vine Ag Leaf White ants Kannan et al. (2018)
NX
Securidacalon Violet tree Ag Whole plant Stored grain pest Ojewole et al. (2008)
gepedunculata
Plantname Common name NPs Present Part of plant Application Reference
Senna didymobotrya Popcorn senna Ag Leaves Nematodes Vijayakumari et al. (2018)

Solanum nigrum Sodom apple Ag Fruit, leaf Insecticides Venkat Kumar et al.
(2017)
©
Strychno snuxvomica

Strychnos spinosa
Poison nut

Monkey orange
Zn, Au, Ag

Ag
Fruit, seed

Whole plant
White ants

Insecticides
Steffy et al. (2018)

Isa et al. (2014)

Symplytum officinale. Common comfrey Ag Leaf, root Insecticides Singh et al. (2018)

Tagetes minuta Wild marigold Ag Leaf, flower Insecticides Shahzadi et al. (2015)
NI
Tanacetum Pyrethrum Ag, Au Flower Bees and insects Kitherian et al. (2016)
cinerariifolium
Tephrosia purpurea Fish poison Ag, Au Wood, roots Cotton and woollen Srikar et al. (2016)
cloth moths
PA
Tithonia diversifolia Marigold Ag Leaf, flower Insecticides Tran et al. (2013)

Trachylo biumammi Ajwain Ag, Zn Seed Mosquito repellent Chouhan et al. (2017)

Trigonella Fenugreek Au, Ag Seed Insect repellent Aswathy et al. (2012)

foenumgraecum
Vernonia amygdalina Bitter leaf Ag Leaf Insecticides Widyaningtyas et al.
GE
(2019)
Vernonia anthelminticum Kalijiri Zn, Au Seed Fleas Karthikeyan et al. (2008)

Vitex negundo Chaste tree Ag, Zn Leaf Insect repellent Prabhu et al. (2013)
Nano-Biopesticides for Management of Insect Pests of Crops

NX
Vitex trifolia Arabianlilac Ag, Zn, Au Leaf Insect repellent Elumalai et al. (2015)
73
74 Microbial Biopesticides in India

Nanoparticles as Nano-Biopesticides
With the growing advancement of science and awareness about environment
and pesticide free food materials, eco-friendly measures are employed for
insect pest management practices. Nanotechnology offers one such solution
to eco-friendly control of insect pests in the form of nano-particles. Lot of
evidence proved that many nano-particles offers as insecticide/acaricide
against a range of insect pests across the genera. Some of the nano-particles
used as biopesticides are listed in Table 4.
Table 4: Mode of action of nano-particles as biopesticides (Benelli, 2018)

Tested nanomaterial Insect target Morphological damages and/ References

(dose or or mode of action
concentration)
Various green Aedes aegypti, Midgut, epithelial cell, Banumathi et
and microbial Anopheles stephensi and cortex damages, al. (2017);
synthesized Ag, with accumulation of Kalimuthu et
Au, and ZnO nanoparticles in the midgut. al. (2017),

NX
nanoparticles Shrinkage in the abdominal Sundararajan
region, thorax shape and Kumari
changes, midgut damages, (2017),
loss of lateral hairs, anal gills Abinaya et
GE
and brushes al. (2018),
Ishwarya
et al. (2018)
Ag nanoparticles Aedes albopictus, 4th instar larvae showed a Fouad et al.
preparedusing Culex pipiens pallens decrease of total protein (2018)
Cassia fistula levels; nano Ag also reduced
extract(LC50 = acetylcholinesterase and
PA

3.6 and 1.7 mg/l, α- and ß-carboxylesterase

respectively) activities
Ag nanoparticles Aedes albopictus 4th instar larvae showed a Ga’al et al.
fabricated using decrease of total proteins, (2018)
salicylic acid and esterase, acetylcholine
NI

3,5-initrosalicylic esterase, and phosphatase

acid(1–12 ppm) enzymes.
Ag nanoparticles Chironomus riparius GST genes up- or down Nair and Choi
(0.2, 0.5, and 1 mg/l) regulated, according to (2011)
tested concentration and
duration of exposure, highest
mRNA expression was in
©

delta3,Sigma4 and Epsilon1

GST class
 Nano-Biopesticides for Management of Insect Pests of Crops 75

Tested nanomaterial Insect target Morphological damages and/ References

(dose or or mode of action
concentration)
Ag nanoparticles (up Chironomus riparius Down regulation of the Nair et al.
to 4 mg/l) ribosomal protein gene (2011)
(CrL15) regulating ribosomal
assembly, thus protein
synthesis. Up regulation
of gonadotrophin releasing
hormone gene (CrGnRH1)
and Balbiani ring protein
gene (CrBR2.2), which can
indicate the activation of
gonadotrophin releasing
hormone mediated signal
transduction pathways and
reproductive failure.
Ag nanoparticles Chironomus riparius Expression of the ecdysone Nair and Choi
(0.2, 0.5, and 1 mg/l) receptor gene was up or (2012)

NX
Down regulated according to
the exposure time
Ag nanoparticles Chironomus riparius Up regulation of Mn Nair et al.
(0.2, 0.5, and 1 mg/l) superoxide dismutase; (2013)
GE
transcript levels of catalase,
phospholipidhydroperoxide
glutathione peroxidase 1
and thioredoxin reductase
1 upregulated. Boosted
expression of Delta-3,
sigma-4, and epsilon-1
PA

classes of glutathione
S-transferases
Ag nanoparticles (< Drosophila Loss of melanin cuticular Armstrong et
50 mg/l) melanogaster pigments, reduced vertical al. (2013)
flight ability, reduced activity
NI

of Cu-dependent enzymes
(tyrosinase and Cu-Zn
superoxide dismutase);
nanoAg coupled with
membrane-bound Cu
transporter proteins lead
sequestration of Cu,
©

mimicking Cu starvation
76 Microbial Biopesticides in India

Tested nanomaterial Insect target Morphological damages and/ References

(dose or or mode of action
concentration)
Ag nanoparticles Drosophila Lack of mutagenic and Ávalos et al.
(25–50 μg/ml melanogaster recombinogenic activity. (2015)
nanoAg 4.7 nm However, both nano-Ag
and250–1000 μg/ml 4.7 and 42 nm evoked
nanoAg 42 nm) pigmentation defects and
locomotor ability decrease in
adult flies
Ag nanoparticles Drosophila Accumulation of reactive Mao et al.
(10–50 μg/ml) melanogaster oxygen species (ROS) in the (2018)
fly tissues leading to ROS-
mediated apoptosis, DNA
damage, and autophagy;
activation of the Nrf2-
dependent antioxidant
pathway
Ag and TiO2 Drosophila Progeny loss and a decrease Philbrook et

NX
nanoparticles (0.005 melanogaster in developmental success al. (2011)
to 0.05%)
Ag nanoparticles Spodoptera litura and Nano-induced oxidative Yasur and
(500 to4000 mg/l) Achaea janata stress in moth larval guts, Usha-Rani
GE
with enhanced antioxidant (2015)
enzyme levels
Ag nanoparticles Spodoptera litura Reduction of amylase, Bharani and
synthesized protease, lipase, and Namasivayam
using the Punica invertase activities; (2017)
granatumpeel gut microflora and the
extract (LC50 = 19.21 extracellular enzyme
PA

μg/larva) production decreased, along

with weight, pH, and total
heterotrophic bacterial
population
Nanostructured Sitophilus oryzae Bind to the beetle cuticle Stadler et al.
NI

Al2O3 (60–500 ppm) due to triboelectric forces, (2017)

sorbing its wax layer by
surface area phenomena,
resulting in insect
dehydration
Au nanoparticles Blattella germanica Disrupted reproduction and Small et al.
©

(87.44 μg/gin the development (2016)

diet)
Au nanoparticles Aedes aegypti, Triggered trypsin inhibition Patil et al.
fabricated using beetles, and (2016)
latex of Jatropha Mealy bugs
curcas (500–1000
μl)
 Nano-Biopesticides for Management of Insect Pests of Crops 77

Tested nanomaterial Insect target Morphological damages and/ References

(dose or or mode of action
concentration)
Carbon black Drosophila Strong adherence of the Liu et al.
and multiwalled melanogaster nanomaterials to the fly body (2009)
nanotubes (3.3 and parts, leading to impaired
3.1 mg, respectively) motor functions and insect
mortality
Graphene oxide Acheta domesticus Increased enzymatic activity Dziewięcka et
nanoparticles (0.1 of catalase and glutathione al. (2016)
μl per 100 mg peroxidases, as well as heat
ofinsect’s body shock protein (HSP 70) and
weight) total antioxidant capacity
levels
Carbon-dot-Ag Anopheles stephensi, Deformation of larval body, Sultana et al.
nanohybrid(LC50 Culex presence of Ag(2.93%) in the (2018)
values from 0.30 quinquefasciatus tissues of treated mosquitoes,
to0.76 ppm) cuticle, and cellular
organization damages

NX
Polystyrene Insect cells Inhibited the enzymatic Fröhlich et al.
nanoparticles (BACULOSOMES®) activity of CYP450 (2010)
(20–500 μg/ml) isoenzymes in
BACULOSOMES®
GE
SiO2 nanoparticles Different species, Physio-sorbed by the insect Barik et
with special reference cuticular lipids, causing al. (2008),
to stored product major damages, followed by Debnath et
pests the insect’s death al.(2011),
Athanassiou et
al. (2018)
SiO2nanoparticles Bombus terrestris Midgut epithelial injury in Mommaerts et
PA

(LudoxTMA) (≥ 34 intoxicated workers al. (2012)

mg/l)
TiO2nanoparticles Bombyx mori Upregulation of pi3k and Li et al. (2014)
(5 μg/ml) P70S6K [rapamycin
NI

(TOR) signalling pathway];

4 cytochrome P450genes
(20-hydroxyecdysone
biosynthesis),were
up-regulated;
20-hydroxyecdysone
biosynthesiswas stimulated;
©

reduced development and

moulting duration were
noted
78 Microbial Biopesticides in India

Ag Nanoparticles (AgNPs)
Many researchers studied the green synthesis of AgNPs and their efficacy
in controlling many agricultural and household insect pests. Devi et al.
(2014) synthesized AgNPs from leaf aqueous extract of Euphorbia hirta L.
(Malpighiales: Euphorbiaceae) and tested against larvae and pupae of cotton
bollworm, H. armigera and observed the susceptibility of all stages. Similarly,
Marimuthu et al. (2011) synthesized AgNPs from leaf aqueous extract of
Mimosa pudica L. (Fabales: Fabaceae) and tested on larvae of mosquitos
C. quinquefasciatus and A. subpictus and larvae of the tick Rhipicephalus
microplus Canestrini (Acari: Ixodidae) and found their susceptibility to AgNPs.
Kantrao et al. (2017) synthesized AgNPs from leaf extracts of the Peepal tree,
Ficus religiosa and the banyan tree, Ficus benghalensis and tested on H.
armigera and found that AgNPs modulated gut protease activity in larvae of
H. armigera. Vinayagamoorthi et al. (2015) synthesized AgNPs from aqueous
extract of Sargassummuticum (Yendo) Fensholt (Fucales: Sargassaceae) and
tested on 4th instar larvae of the common castor, Ariadne merione (Cramer)

NX
(Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) and observed the physiological and anatomical
abnormalities in the larval body.

Silica Nanoparticles (SiNPs)

GE
SiNPs are most studied nanoparticles either as nanocarriers or as biopesticide
in one or the other form (fungicide, bactericide, pheromone, plant growth
regulator) against number of insect pests both under field and storage
conditions (Barik et al. 2008). The mode of action of SiNPs is similar to
that of bulk silica where in SiNPs are physio-sorbed by the cuticular lipids
destroying the protective barrier and thereby causing insect to death. World
PA

Health Organization (WHO) declared use of amorphous silica as nano-

biopesticide is safe to humans (Athanassiou et al. 2017). The surface charged
SiNPs (3-5 nm) were successfully used for management of insect pests
NI

agricultural and veterinary importance across the taxa (Ulrichs et al. 2005).
Debnath et al. (2011) reported the application of SiNPs caused 100% mortality
of adults of storage pest rice, rice weevil Sitophilus oryzae (L.) (Coleoptera:
Curculionidae). Fouad et al. (2016) reported that application of SiNPs (600
ppm) along with Jasmonic acid at rate 1.141 μM/plant significantly reduced
the tomato fruit damage by Tuta absoluta larvae.
©

El-Samahy et al. (2015) reported that 70.11 and 60.56% reduction in larvae
of Spodoptera littoralis (75 and 60 g/fed) in sugarbeet due to application of
SiNPs. Similarly, El-Helaly et al. (2016) tested the SiNPs at 200, 300, 400 and
500 ppm along with bulk silica and diazinon against S. littoralis in squash and
 Nano-Biopesticides for Management of Insect Pests of Crops 79

reported that 73.07, 79, 72, 87.88 and 89.82% mortality of larvae at respective
doses. Shoaib et al. (2018) tested the SiNPs against P. xylostella larvae @ 1
mg cm-2 and reported that mortality percentage increased from 58% and 85%
at 24 and 72 h after treatment and further noticed that the larval death was due
to desiccation, body wall abrasion, and spiracle blockage.

Conclusions
Nanotechnology offers grater applicability in various fields of agriculture and
allied scineces. It has tremendous role in insect pest management strategies
such as nano carrier, nano emulsions, nano pesticides and so on. Biopesticides
are one such class of compounds which offer environmentally friendly,
residual and pollution free control of insect pests in various crops. Nano
form of biopesticides offer greater advantage over traditional biopesticides in
achieving maximum potential in controlling target insect pests. More studies
are required on effect of nanobiopesticides on natural enemies and their role in
tri-trophic interactions. With this, it can be concluded that nanobiopestcodes

NX
are the best alternatives for chemical pesticides and traditional biopesticides
for successful and sustainable management of insect pests of various crops.

References
GE
Abd El-Wahab AS, Abd El-Fattah AY, El-Shafei WKM, El Helaly AA (2020) Efficacy of
aggregation nano gel pheromone traps on the catchability of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus
(Olivier) in Egypt. Brazilian J Biol 81:452-460
Abdel-Wahab DA, Othman NARM, Hamada AM (2019) Effects of copper oxide nanoparticles
to Solanum nigrum and its potential for phytoremediation. Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult
137:525-539
Abinaya M, Vaseeharan B, Divya M, Sharmili A, Govindarajan M, Alharbi NS, Kadaikunnan
PA

S, Khaled JM, Benelli G (2018) Bacterial exopolysaccharide (EPS)-coated ZnO

nanoparticles showed high antibiofilm activity and larvicidal toxicity against malaria
and Zika virus vectors. J Trace Elem Med Biol 45:93-103
Adel MM, Massoud MA, Mohamed MIE, Abdel-Rheim KH, El-Naby SSA (2018) New Nano-
biopesticide Formulation of Mentha piperita L. (Lamiaceae) Essential Oil Against
NI

Stored Product Red Flour Beetle Tribolium castaneum Herbs and its Effect on Storage.
Adv Crop Sci Tech 6:409
Adesuji ET, Oluwaniyi OO, Adegoke HI, Moodley R, Labulo AH, Bodede OS, Oseghale CO
(2016) Investigation of the larvicidal potential of silver nanoparticles against Culex
quinquefasciatus: A case of a ubiquitous weed as a useful bioresource. J Nanomater
2016:1-11
Ahmad B, Khan I, Shireen F, Bashir S, Azam S (2016) Green synthesis, characterisation and
©

biological evaluation of AgNPs using Agave americana, Mentha spicata and Mangifera
indica aqueous leaves extract. IET Nanobiotechnol 10:281-287
Ahmad N, Sharma S, Singh VN, Shamsi SF, Fatma A, Mehta BR (2011) Biosynthesis of silver
nanoparticles from Desmodium triflorum: A novel approach towards weed utilization.
Biotechnol Res Int 2011.
80 Microbial Biopesticides in India

Ahmadi Z, Saber M, Akbari A, Mahdavinia GR (2018) Encapsulation of Satureja hortensis

L. (Lamiaceae)in chitosan/TPP nanoparticles with enhanced acaricide activity against
Tetranychus urticae Koch (Acari:Tetranychidae). Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 161:111-119
Ahmed S, Saifullah Ahmad M, Swami B, Ikram S (2016) Green synthesis of silver nanoparticles
using Azadirachta indica aqueous leaf extract. J Radiat Res Appl Sci 9: 1-7
Al-Sheddi ES, Farshori NN, Al-Oqail MM, Al-Massarani SM, Saquib Q, Wahab R, Musarrat J,
Al-Khedhairy AA, Siddiqui MA (2018) Anticancer potential of green synthesized silver
nanoparticles using extract of Nepeta deflersiana against human cervical cancer cells
(HeLA). Bioinorg Chem Appl 2018
Amooaghaie R, Saeri MR, Azizi M (2015) Synthesis, characterization and biocompatibility
of silver nanoparticles synthesized from Nigella sativa leaf extract in comparison with
chemical silver nanoparticles. Ecotoxicol Environ Safety 120:400-408.
An C, Sun C, Li N, HuangB, Jiang J, Shen Y, Wang C, Zhao X, Cui B, Wang C, LiX (2022)
Nanomaterials and nanotechnology for the delivery of agrochemicals: strategies towards
sustainable agriculture. J Nanobiotechnol 20(1):1-19
Anbu P, MuruganK, Madhiyazhagan P, Dinesh D, Subramaniam J, Panneerselvam C, Suresh
U, Alarfaj AA, Munusamy MA, Higuchi A, Hwang JS, Kumar S, Nicoletti M, Benelli G
(2016) Green-synthesised nanoparticles from Melia azedarach seeds and the cyclopoid
crustacean Cyclops vernalis: an eco-friendly route to control the malaria vector
Anopheles stephensi? Nat Prod Res 30:2077-2084

NX
Annamalai A, Christina VL, Sudha D, Kalpana M, Lakshmi PT (2013) Green synthesis,
characterization and antimicrobial activity of Au NPs using Euphorbia hirta L. leaf
extract. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 108:60-65
Anuradha G, SyamaB, Ramana MV (2014) Ocimum americanum L. leaf extract mediated
GE
synthesis of silver nano particles: A noval approach towards weed utilisation. Arch Appl
Sci Res 6:59-64
Armstrong N, Ramamoorthy M, Lyon D, Jones K, Duttaroy A (2013) Mechanism of silver
nanoparticles action on insect pigmentation reveals intervention of copper homeostasis.
PLoS One 8(1):e53186.
Asgari-Targhi G, Iranbakhsh A, Ardebili ZO, Tooski AH (2021)Synthesis and characterization
of chitosan encapsulated zinc oxide (ZnO) nanocomposite and its biological assessment
in pepper (Capsicum annuum) as an elicitor for in vitro tissue culture applications. Int J
PA

Biol Macromol 189:170-82

Ashokkumar S, Ravi S, Velmurugan S (2013) Green synthesis of silver nanoparticles from
Gloriosa superba L. leaf extract and their catalytic activity. Spectrochim Acta Part A
Mol Biomol Spectrosc 115:388-392
NI

Ashri A, Yusof M, Jamil M, Abdullah A, Yusoff S, Arip M, Lazim A (2014) Physicochemical

characterization of starch extracted from malaysian wild yam (Dioscorea hispida
dennst.). Emirates J Food Agric 26:652-658
Aswathy Aromal S, Philip D (2012) Green synthesis of gold nanoparticles using Trigonella
foenum-graecum and its size-dependent catalytic activity. Spectrochim Acta Part A Mol
Biomol Spectrosc 97:1-5
Athanassiou CG, KavallieratosNG, Benelli G, Losic D, Usha Rani P, Desneux N (2018)
©

Nanoparticles for pest control: current status and futureperspectives. JPest Sci 91(1):1-
15
Ávalos A, Haza AI, Drosopoulou E, Mavragani-Tsipidou P, Morales P (2015) In vivo
genotoxicity assessment of silver nanoparticles of different sizes by the Somatic Mutation
and Recombination Test (SMART) on Drosophila. Food Chem Toxicol 85:114-119
 Nano-Biopesticides for Management of Insect Pests of Crops 81

Balavigneswaran CK, Sujin Jeba Kumar T, Moses Packiaraj R, Prakash S (2014) Rapid
detection of Cr(VI) by AgNPs probe produced by Anacardium occidentale fresh leaf
extracts. Appl Nanosci 4:367-378
Banumathi B, Vaseeharan B, Ramachandran I, Marimuthu Govindarajan M, Alharbi NS,
Kadaikunnan S, Khaled JM, Benelli G (2017) Toxicity of herbal extracts used in ethno-
veterinary medicine and green encapsulated ZnO nanoparticles against Aedes aegypti
and microbial pathogens. Parasitol Res 116:1637-1651
Barik TK, Sahu B, Swain V (2008) Nanosilica-from medicine to pest control. Parasitol Res
103:253-258
BegumSR, RaoDM, Reddy PDS (2018) Role of green route synthesized silver nanoparticles
in medicinal applications with special reference to cancer therapy. Biosci Biotech Res
Asia15
BenelliG, Govindarajan M, Rajeswary M, Senthilmurugan S, Vijayan P, Alharbi NS,
Kadaikunnan S, Khaled JM (2017) Larvicidal activity of Blumea eriantha essential
oil and its components against six mosquito species, including Zika virus vectors: the
promising potential of (4E,6Z)-allo-ocimene, carvotanacetone and dodecyl acetate.
Parasitol Res116:1175-1188
Bhagat D, Samanta SK, Bhattacharya S (2013) Efficient management of fruit pests by pheromone
nanogels. Sci Rep 3(1):1-8
Bharani RA, Namasivayam SKR (2017). Biogenic silver nanoparticles mediated stress on

NX
developmental period and gut physiology of major lepidopteran pest Spodoptera litura
(Fab.)(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)-An eco-friendly approach of insect pest control. J
Environ Chem Eng 5(1):453-467
Bidyarani N, Kumar U (2019) Synthesis of rotenone loaded zein nano-formulation for plant
GE
protection against pathogenic microbes. RSC Adv 9(70):40819-40826
Bokaeian M, FakheriBA, Mohasseli T, Saeidi S (2015) Antibacterial activity of silver
nanoparticles produced by Plantago Ovata seed extract against antibiotic resistant
Staphylococcus aureus.Int J Infect 2:e22854
Campos EV, Proença PL, Oliveira JL, Melville CC, Vechia JF, Andrade DJ, Fraceto LF
(2018) Chitosannanoparticles functionalized with-cyclodextrin: A promising carrier for
botanical pesticides. Sci Rep 8:2067
PA

Chaithong U, Choochote W, Kamsuk K, Jitpakdi A, Tippawangkosol P, Chaiyasit D,

Champakaew D, Tuetun B, Pitasawat B (2006) Larvicidal effect of pepper plants on
Aedes aegypti (L.) (Diptera: Culicidae). J Vector Ecol 31:138-144
ChouhanN, Ameta R, Meena RK (2017) Biogenic silver nanoparticles from Trachyspermum
ammi ( Ajwain ) seeds extract for catalytic reduction of p -nitrophenol to p -aminophenol
NI

in excess of NaBH 4. J Mol Liq 230:74-84

Cui J, Sun C, Wang A, Wang Y, Zhu H, Shen Y, Li N, Zhao X, Cui B, Wang C, Gao F, Zeng Z,
Cui H (2020) Dual-functionalized pesticide nanocapsule delivery system with improved
spreading behavior and enhanced bioactivity. Nanomater 10(2):220
Das B, Dash SK, Mandal D, Ghosh T, Chattopadhyay S, TripathyS, Das S, Dey SK, Das D,
Roy S (2017) Green synthesized silver nanoparticles destroy multidrug resistant bacteria
via reactive oxygen species mediated membrane damage. Arabian J Chem 10:862-876
©

Das M, Smita SS (2018) Biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles using bark extracts of Butea
monosperma (Lam.) Taub. and study of their antimicrobial activity. Appl Nanosci
8:1059-1067
De Oliveira JL, Campos EVR, Pereira AES, Nunes LE, da Silva CC, Pasquoto T, Lima
R,Smaniotto G, Polanczyk RA, FracetoLF (2018) Geraniol encapsulated in chitosan/
gum arabic nanoparticles: Apromising system for pest management in sustainable
agriculture. J Agric Food Chem 66:5325-5334
82 Microbial Biopesticides in India

Debnath N, Das S, Seth D, Chandra R, Bhattacharya SC, Goswami A (2011) Entomotoxic effect
of silica nanoparticles against Sitophilus oryzae (L.) J Pest Sci 84:99-105
Deepa Bhagat, Jakhar BL, Subaharan K, Bakhtavatsalam N, Saini KK, Baloda AS, Sreedevi
K (2020) Slow release pheromone formulations for the management of Holotrichia
consanguinea (Blanchard)-laboratory to market. ICAR-NBAIR publication 24/2020
Devi GD, Murugan K, Selvam CP (2014) Green synthesis of silver nanoparticles using
Euphorbia hirta (Euphorbiaceae) leaf extract against crop pest of cotton bollworm,
Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J Biopest 7:54-66
DossA (2015) Biosynthesis and characterization of nanoparticles from three Aristolochia
species. World J Pharm Pharma Sci 4:1094-1104
Dziewięcka M, Karpeta-Kaczmarek J, Augustyniak M, Majchrzycki Ł, Augustyniak-Jabłokow
MA (2016) Evaluation of in vivo graphene oxide toxicity for Acheta domesticus in
relation to nanomaterial purity and time passed from the exposure. J Hazard Mat 305:30-
40
El-Helaly AA, El-Bendary HM, Abdel-Wahab AS, El-Sheikh MAK, Elnagar S (2016) The
silica-nano particles treatment of squash foliage and survival and development of
Spodoptera littoralis (Bosid.) larvae. Pest Control 5:6
El-Samahy MFM, Khafagy IF, El-Ghobary AMA (2015) Efficiency of silica nanoparticles,
two bioinsecticides, peppermint extract and insecticide in controlling cotton leafworm,
Spodoptera littoralis Boisd and their effects on some associated natural enemies in sugar

NX
beet fields. Mansoura J Plant Prot Pathol 6:1221-1230
Elumalai D, Hemavathi M, Deepaa CV, Kaleena PK (2017) Evaluation of phytosynthesised
silver nanoparticles from leaf extracts of Leucas aspera and Hyptis suaveolens and their
larvicidal activity against malaria, dengue and filariasis vectors. Parasite Epidemiol
GE
Control 2:15-26
Elumalai K, Velmurugan S, Ravi S, Kathiravan V, Raj GA (2015) Bio-approach: Plant mediated
synthesis of ZnO nanoparticles and their catalytic reduction of methylene blue and
antimicrobial activity. Adv Powder Technol 26:1639-1651
Fatimah I, Pradita RY, Nurfalinda A (2016) Plant extract mediated of ZnO nanoparticles by
using ethanol extract of Mimosa Pudica leaves and coffee powder. Procedia Eng148:43-
48
PA

Fazlzadeh M, Khosravi R, Zarei A (2017) Green synthesis of zinc oxide nanoparticles using
Peganum harmala seed extract, and loaded on Peganum harmala seed powdered
activated carbon as new adsorbent for removal of Cr(VI) from aqueous solution. Ecol
Eng 103:180-190
Feng BH, Peng LF (2012) Synthesis and characterization of carboxymethyl chitosan carrying
NI

ricinoleic functions as an emulsifier for azadirachtin. Carbohydr Polym 88:576-582

Firdhouse MJ, Lalitha P (2013) Biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles using the extract of
Alternanthera sessilis-antiproliferative effect against prostate cancer cells. Cancer
nanotechnol 4:137-143
Fouad H, Hongjie L, Hosni D, Wei J, Abbas G, Ga’al H, Jianchu M (2018) Controlling Aedes
albopictus and Culex pipiens pallens using silver nanoparticles synthesized from
aqueous extract of Cassia fistula fruit pulp and its mode of action. Artif Cells Nanomed
©

Biotechnol 46:558-567
Fouad HA,Khalil HM, El-GepalyH, Fouad OA (2016) Nanosilica and jasmonic acid as
alternative methods for control Tutaabsoluta(Meyrick) in tomato crop under field
conditions. Arch Phytopathol Plant Prot 49(13-14):362-370
Fröhlich E, Kueznik T, Samberger C, Roblegg E,Wrighton C, Pieber TR (2010) Size-dependent
effects of nanoparticles on the activity of cytochrome P450 isoenzymes. Toxicol Applied
Pharmacol 242: 326-332
 Nano-Biopesticides for Management of Insect Pests of Crops 83

Ga’al H, Fouad H, Tian J, Hu Y, Abbas G, Mo J (2018) Synthesis, characterization and efficacy

of silver nanoparticles against Aedes albopictus larvae and pupae. Pestic Biochem
Physiol 144:49-56
Gahukar RT, Das RK (2020) Plant-derived nanopesticides for agricultural pest control:
challenges and prospects. Nanotechnol Environ Eng 5(1):1-9
Ganesan RM, Gurumallesh Prabu H (2015) Synthesis of gold nanoparticles using herbal Acorus
calamus rhizome extract and coating on cotton fabric for antibacterial and UV blocking
applications. Arabian J Chem 12:2166-2174
Gawade VV, Gavade NL, Shinde HM, Babar SB, Kadam AN, Garadkar KM (2017)
Green synthesis of ZnO nanoparticles by using Calotropis procera leaves for the
photodegradation of methyl orange. J Mater Sci: Mater Electron 28:14033-14039
Ghosh D, Mondal AK (2015) Biosynthesis of silver nano-particle from four medicinally
important taxa in South West Bengal, India. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 5:305-312
Gunaselvi G, Kulasekaren V, Gopal V (2010) Anti-bacterial and antifungal activity of various
leaves extracts of Hardwickia binata Roxb. (Caesalpinaceae). International J Pharm
Tech Res 2:2183-2187
Hafez IH, Osman AR, Sewedan EA, Berber MR(2018) Tailoring of a potential nanoformulated
form of gibberellic acid: synthesis, characterization, and field applications on vegetation
and flowering. J Agric Food Chem 66(31):8237-8245.
Haritha E, Roopan SM, Madhavi G, Elango G, Al-Dhabi NA, Arasu MV (2016) Green chemical

NX
approach towards the synthesis of SnO2 NPs in argument with photocatalytic degradation
of diazo dye and its kinetic studies. J Photochem Photobiol B Biol 162:441-447
Haryani Y, Nabella I, Yuharmen Y, Kartika GF (2018) Synthesis of silver nanoparticles from
Cucumis melo L. and assessment of its antimicrobial properties. Pharma Clinical Pharm
GE
Res 3:46-50
Hersanti, Djaya L, Hidayat Y, Pratama LS, Joni IM (2020) The effectiveness of suspension
of Beauveria bassiana mixed with silica nanoparticles (NPs.) and carbon fiber in
controlling Spodoptera litura. In: AIP Conference Proceedings. AIP Publishing LLC,
2219(1):080011.
Huang J, Li Q, Sun D, Lu Y, Su Y, Yang X, Wang H, Wang Y, Shao W, He N, Hong J, Chen
C (2007) Biosynthesis of silver and gold nanoparticles by novel sundried Cinnamomum
camphora leaf. Nanotechnol 18
PA

Ioset JR, Marston A, Gupta MP, Hostettmann K (2000) Antifungal and larvicidal compounds
from the root bark of Cordia alliodora. J Nat Prod 63:424–426
Isa AI, Awouafack MD, Dzoyem JP, Aliyu M, Magaji RA, Ayo JO, Eloff JN (2014) Some
Strychnos spinosa (Loganiaceae) leaf extracts and fractions have good antimicrobial
NI

activities and low cytotoxicities. BMC Complement Altern Med 14:456

Ishwarya R, Vaseeharan B, Kalyani S, Banumathi B, Govindarajan M, Alharbi NS, Kadaikunnan
S, Al-anbr MN, Khaled JM, Benelli G (2018) Facile green synthesis of zinc oxide
nanoparticles using Ulva lactuca seaweed extract and evaluation of their photocatalytic,
antibiofilm and insecticidal activity. J Photochem Photobiol B Biol 178:249-258
Jayakumarai G, Gokulpriya C, Sudhapriya R, Sharmila G, Muthukumaran C (2015)
Phytofabrication and characterization of monodisperse copper oxide nanoparticles using
©

Albizia lebbeck leaf extract. Appl Nanosci 5:1017-1021

Jenne M, Kambham M, Tollamadugu NP, Karanam HP, Tirupati MK, Balam RR, Shameer
S,Yagireddy M (2018) The use of slow releasing nanoparticle encapsulated Azadirachtin
formulations for themanagement ofCaryedon serratusO.(groundnut bruchid). IET
Nanobiotechnol 12:963-967
84 Microbial Biopesticides in India

Jia X, Sheng WB, Li W, Tong YB, Liu ZY, Zhou F (2014) Adhesive polydopamine coated
avermectinmicrocapsules for prolonging foliar pesticide retention. ACS Appl Mater
Interfaces 6:19552-19558
Joshi N, Jain N, Pathak A, Singh J, Prasad R, Upadhyaya CP (2018) Biosynthesis of silver
nanoparticles using Carissa carandas berries and its potential antibacterial activities. J
Sol-Gel Sci Tech 86:682-689
Kalimuthu K, Panneerselvam C, Chou C, Tseng LC, Murugan K, Tsai KH, Alarfaj AA,
Higuchi A, Canale A, Hwang JS, Benelli G (2017) Control of dengue and Zika virus
vector Aedes aegypti using the predatory copepod Megacyclops formosanus: synergy
with Hedychium coronarium-synthesized silver nanoparticles and related histological
changes in targeted mosquitoes. Proc Saf Environ Prot 109:82-96
Kamarudin N, Jusoh R, Setiabudi H, Jusoh N, Jaafar N, Sukor N (2019)Cymbopogon
nardus mediated synthesis of Ag nanoparticles for the photocatalytic degradation of
2,4-dicholorophenoxyacetic acid. Bull Chem Reaction Eng Catal 14:173-181
Kamau RW, Juma BF, Baraza LD (2016) Antimicrobial compounds from root, stem bark and
seeds of Melia volkensii. Nat Prod Res 30:1984-1987
Kannan BN, Thoppil J (2018) Plant-mediated synthesis of silver nanoparticles by two species of
Cynanchum L. (Apocynaceae): A comparative approach on its physical characteristics.
Int J Nano Dimens 9:104-111
Kantrao S, Ravindra MA, Akbar SMD, Jayanthi PK, Venkataraman A (2017) Effect of

NX
biosynthesized Silver nanoparticles on growth and development of Helicoverpa
armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae): Interaction with midgut protease. J Asia-Pacific
Entomol 20(2):583-589
Kar PK, Murmu S, Saha S, Tandon V, Acharya K (2014) Anthelmintic Efficacy of Gold
GE
Nanoparticles Derived from a Phytopathogenic Fungus, Nigrospora oryzae. PLoS One9
Karthikeyan A, Siva G, Sujitha S, Rex D, Chidambaranathan N (2008) Antihyperglycemic
activity of the ethanolic seed extract of Vernonia anthelminticum willd. Int J Green
Pharm 2:209
Kasithevar M, Saravanan M, Prakash P, Kumar H, Ovais M, Barabadi H, Shinwari ZK (2017)
Green synthesis of silver nanoparticles using Alysicarpus monilifer leaf extract and its
antibacterial activity against MRSA and CoNS isolates in HIV patients. J Interdisciplinary
PA

Nanomed: 31-141
Kataria B, Shyam V, Kaushik B, Vasoya J, Joseph J, Savaliya C, Kumar S, Parikh S, Thakar C,
Pandya D, Ravalia A, Markna J, Shah N (2017) Green synthesis of silver nanoparticle
using Bambusa arundinacea leaves. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on
Functional Oxides and Nanomaterials, 1837(1): 040043, AIP Publishing LLC.
NI

Kaziem AE, GaoY, Zhang Y, Qin X, Xiao Y, Zhang Y, You H, Li J, He S (2018) Amylase
triggeredcarriers based on cyclodextrin anchored hollow mesoporous silica for
enhancing insecticidal activity ofavermectin against Plutella xylostella. J Hazard Mater
359:213-221
Khan S, Ismail M, Khan T, Hussain F, Majid A, Iqbal T, Tasleem F, Wahab Z, Fayaz M, Rahim
T, Khan Y (2018) Green synthesis of Brassica campestris mediated silver nanoparticles,
their antibacterial and antioxidant activities. Int J Chem Studies 6(4):1943-1949
©

Khan SU, Anjum SI, Ansari MJ, Khan MH, Kamal S, Rahman K, Shoaib M, Man S, Khan AJ,
Khan SU, Khan D (2019) Antimicrobial potentials of medicinal plant’s extract and their
derived silver nanoparticles: A focus on honey bee pathogen. Saudi J Biol Sci 26:1815-
1834
Kitherian S (2016) Nano and bio-nanoparticles for insect control.Res J Nanosci Nanotech 7:1-9
 Nano-Biopesticides for Management of Insect Pests of Crops 85

Kora AJ, Sashidhar R, Arunachalam J (2012) Aqueous extract of gum olibanum (Boswellia
serrata): A reductant and stabilizer for the biosynthesis of antibacterial silver
nanoparticles. Process Biochem 47:1516-1520
Krishnamurthy S, Veerasamy M, Karruppaya G (2020) A Review on Plant Sources for Nano
Biopesticide Production. Lett Appl Nano Bio Sci 9:1348-1358
Kulkarni RR, Pawar PV, Joseph MP, Akulwad AK, Sen A, Joshi SP (2013) Lavandula gibsoni
and Plectranthus mollis essential oils: chemical analysis and insect control activities
against Aedes aegypti, Anopheles sfttephensi and Culex quinquefasciatus. J Pest Sci
86:713-718
Kumar G, Badoni PP (2018) Arisaema tortuosum leaf extract mediated synthesis of silver
nanoparticles, characterization and their antibacterial activity. Asian J Res Chem11:419-
422
Kumar S, Singh M, Halder D, Mitra A (2016)Lippia javanica: a cheap natural source for the
synthesis of antibacterial silver nanocolloid. Appl Nanosci 6:1001-1007
Kumar VA, Ammani K, Jobina R, Subhaswaraj P, Siddhardha B (2017) Photo-induced and
phytomediated synthesis of silver nanoparticles using Derris trifoliata leaf extract and
its larvicidal activity against Aedes aegypti. J Photochem Photobiol Bio 171:1-8
Kyomuhimbo HD, Michira IN, Mwaura FB, Derese S, Feleni U, Iwuoha EI (2019) Silver-zinc
oxide nanocomposite antiseptic from the extract of Bidens pilosa. SN Appl Sci1
Li F, Gu Z, Wang B, Xie Y, Ma L, Xu K, Ni M, Zhang H, Shen W, Li B (2014) Effects

NX
of the biosynthesis and signaling pathway of ecdysterone on silkworm (Bombyx mori)
following exposure to titanium dioxide nanoparticles. J Chem Ecol 40:913-922
Liang J, Yu M, Guo L, Cui B, Zhao X, Sun C, Wang Y, Liu G, Cui H, Zeng Z (2018)
Bioinspireddevelopment of P (St–MAA)–avermectin nanoparticles with high affinity
GE
for foliage to enhance foliaretention. J Agric Food Chem 66:6578-6584
Lingaraju K, Raja Naika H, Manjunath K, Basavaraj RB, Nagabhushana H, Nagaraju G, Suresh
D (2016) Biogenic synthesis of zinc oxide nanoparticles using Ruta graveolens (L.) and
their antibacterial and antioxidant activities. Appl Nanosci 6:03-710
Liu X, Vinson D, Abt D, Hurt RH, Rand DM (2009) Differential toxicity of carbon nanomaterials
in Drosophila: larval dietary uptake is benign, but adult exposure causes locomotor
impairment and mortality. Environ Sci Technol 43:6357-6363
PA

Lu W, LuML, Zhang QP, Tian YQ, Zhang ZX, Xu HH (2013) Octahydrogenated retinoic acid-
conjugatedglycol chitosan nanoparticles as a novel carrier of azadirachtin: Synthesis,
characterization, and in vitroevaluation. J Polym Sci Part A Polym Chem 51:3932-3940
Mahamadi C, Wunganayi T (2018) Green synthesis of silver nanoparticles using Zanthoxylum
chalybeum and their antiprolytic and antibiotic properties. Cogent Chem 4
NI

Malleshappa J, Nagabhushana H, Sharma S, Vidya Y, Anantharaju K, Prashantha S, Prasad BD,

Naika HR, Lingaraju K, Surendra B (2015) Leucas aspera mediated multifunctional
CeO2 nanoparticles: Structural, photoluminescent, photocatalytic and antibacterial
properties. Spectrochim Acta Part A Mol Biomol Spectrosc149:452-462
Mao BH, Chen ZY, Wang YJ, Yan SJ (2018) Silver nanoparticles have lethal and sublethal
adverse effects on development and longevity by inducing ROS-mediated stress
responses. Sci Rep 8(1):2445
©

Marimuthu S, Rahuman AA, Rajakumar G, Santhoshkumar T, Kirthi AV, Jayaseelan C,

Bagavan A, Zahir AA, Elango G, Kamaraj C (2011) Evaluation of green synthesized
silver nanoparticles against parasites. Parasitol Res 108(6):1541-1549
Mohan SC, Hemalatha K, Manivel A, Kumar MS (2018) Synthesis and characterization of Sn/
ZnO nanoparticles for removal of organic dye and heavy metal. Int J Biol Chem 12:1-7
86 Microbial Biopesticides in India

Mommaerts V, Jodko K, Thomassen LC,Martens JA, Kirsch-Volders M, SmaggheG (2012)

Assessment of side-effects by LudoxTMA silica nanoparticles following a dietary
exposure on the bumblebee Bombus terrestris. Nanotoxicol 6:554-561
Naghdi S, Sajjadi M, Nasrollahzadeh M, Rhee KY, Sajadi SM, Jaleh B (2018) Cuscuta
reflexa leaf extract mediated green synthesis of the Cu nanoparticles on graphene
oxide/manganese dioxide nanocomposite and its catalytic activity toward reduction of
nitroarenes and organic dyes. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng 86:158-173
Nair PMG, Choi J (2011) Identification, characterization and expression profiles of Chironomus
riparius glutathione S-transferase (GST) genes in response to cadmium and silver
nanoparticles exposure. Aquat Toxicol 101(3):550-560
Nair PMG, Choi J (2012) Modulation in the mRNA expression of ecdysone receptor gene
in aquatic midge, Chironomus riparius upon exposure to nonylphenol and silver
nanoparticles. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 33:98-106
Nair PMG, Park SY, Choi J (2013) Evaluation of the effect of silver nanoparticles and silver
ions using stress responsive gene expression in Chironomus riparius. Chemosphere
92:592-599
Nair PMG, Park SY, Lee SW, Choi J (2011) Differential expression of ribosomal protein
gene, gonadotrophin releasing hormone gene and Balbiani ring protein gene in silver
nanoparticles exposed Chironomus riparius. Aquat Toxicol 101:31-37
Nair RS, Snima KS, Kamath RC, Nair SV, Lakshmanan VK (2015) Synthesis and characterization

NX
of Careya Arborea nanoparticles for assessing its in vitro efficacy in Pancreatic Cancer
Cells. J Nat Prod 8
Nasrollahzadeh M, Issaabadi Z, Sajadi SM (2018) Green synthesis of a Cu/MgO nanocomposite
by Cassytha filiformis L. extract and investigation of its catalytic activity in the reduction
GE
of methylene blue, congo red and nitro compounds in aqueous media. RSC Adv 8:3723-
3735
Nasrollahzadeh M, Sajadi SM (2016) Green synthesis of Pd nanoparticles mediated by
Euphorbia thymifolia L. leaf extract: Catalytic activity for cyanation of aryl iodides
under ligand-free conditions. J Colloid Inter Sci 469:191-195
Nguyen TNQ, Le VA, Hua QC, Nguyen TT (2015) Enhancing Insecticide Activity of Anacardic
Acid byIntercalating it into MgAl Layered Double Hydroxides Nanoparticles; Institut für
PA

Abfallwirtschaft und Altlasten, Fakultät Umweltwissenschaften, Technische Universität

Dresden: Dresden, Germany, 2015.
Ojewole JAO (2008) Analgesic, anti-inflammatory and hypoglycaemic effects of
Securidaca longepedunculata (Fresen.) [Polygalaceae] root-bark aqueous extract.
InflammoPharmacol16:174-181
NI

Ojha S, Sett A, Bora U (2017) Green synthesis of silver nanoparticles by Ricinus communis var.
carmencita leaf extract and its antibacterial study. Adv Nat Sci: Nanosci Nanotech 8
Oliveira JLD, Campos ENV, Pereira AE, Pasquoto T, Lima R, Grillo R, Andrade DJD, Santos
FAD, Fraceto LF (2018) Zein nanoparticles as eco-friendly carrier systems for botanical
repellentsaiming sustainable agriculture. J Agric Food Chem 66:1330-1340
Palermo D, Giunti G, Laudani F, Palmeri V, Campolo O (2021) Essential oil-based nano-
biopesticides: Formulation and bioactivity against the confused flour beetle Tribolium
©

confusum. Sustainability13(17):9746
Panda SK, Dutta SK, Bastia AK (2010) Antibacterial activity of Croton roxburghii Balak.
against the enteric pathogens. J Adv Pharma Tech Res1:419-422
Panda SK, Mohanta YK, Padhi L, Park YH, Mohanta TK, Bae H (2016) Large scale screening of
ethnomedicinal plants for identification of potential antibacterial compounds. Molecules
21
 Nano-Biopesticides for Management of Insect Pests of Crops 87

Parthiban E, Manivannan N, Ramanibai R, Mathivanan N (2019) Green synthesis of silver-

nanoparticles from Annona reticulata leaves aqueous extract and its mosquito larvicidal
and anti-microbial activity on human pathogens. Biotechnol Rep 21
Patel MH, Vashi KD, Minocheherhomji FP, Nagnae R (2019) Evaluation of antimicrobial
activity and mutagenicity of copper nanoparticle synthesized using green chemistry. Int
J Recent Sci Res 10:31196-31200
Patil CD, Borase HP, Suryawanshi RK, Patil SV (2016) Trypsin inactivation by latex fabricated
gold nanoparticles: a new strategy towards insect control. Enzym Microb Technol
92:18-25
Paul M, Londhe VY (2018) Pongamia pinnata seed extract-mediated green synthesis of silver
nanoparticles: Preparation, formulation and evaluation of bactericidal and wound
healing potential. ApplOrganometallic Chem33
Paulraj MG, Ignacimuthu S, Gandhi MR, Shajahan A, Ganesan P, Packiam SM, Al-Dhabi
NA (2017)Comparative studies of Tripolyphosphate and Glutaraldehyde cross-linked
chitosan-botanical pesticide nanoparticles and their agricultural applications. Int J Boil
Macromol 104(B):1813-1819
Philbrook NA,Winn LM, Afrooz AN, Saleh NB,Walker VK (2011) The effect of TiO2 and Ag
nanoparticles on reproduction and development of Drosophila melanogaster and CD-1
mice. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 257:429-436
Prabhu D, Arulvasu C, Babu G, Manikandan R, Srinivasan P (2013) Biologically synthesized

NX
green silver nanoparticles from leaf extract of Vitex negundo L. induce growth-inhibitory
effect on human colon cancer cell line HCT15. Process Bioche 48:317-324
Rajkuberan C, Prabukumar S, Sathishkumar G, Wilson A, Ravindran K, Sivaramakrishnan S
(2017) Facile synthesis of silver nanoparticles using Euphorbia antiquorum L. latex
GE
extract and evaluation of their biomedical perspectives as anticancer agents. J Saudi
Chem Soc 21:911-919
Rani PU, Madhusudhanamurthy J, Sreedhar B (2014) Dynamic adsorption of alpha-pinene
and linalool on silicananoparticles for enhanced antifeedant activity against agricultural
pests. J Pest Sci 87:191-200
Rathnasamy R, Thangasamy P, Thangamuthu R, Sampath S, Alagan V (2017) Green synthesis of
ZnO nanoparticles using Carica papaya leaf extracts for photocatalytic and photovoltaic
PA

applications. J Master Sci: Master Electron 28:10374-10381

Ravindran CP, Manokari M, Mahipal S, Shekhawat (2016) Biogenic production of zinc oxide
nanoparticles from aqueous extracts of Duranta erecta L. World Sci News 28:30-40
Sarkar D (2017) Synthesis of plant-mediated silver nanoparticles using Commiphora Wightii
(Guggul) extract and study their antibacterial activities against few selected organisms.
NI

World J Pharma Pharmac Sci 1418-1425

SelvaraniS, Vinayaga PM, RamalakshmiM, Padmapriya S, Abirami M (2016)Ocimum
Kilimandscharicum leaf extract engineered silver nanoparticles and its bioactivity. J
Nanomater Mol Nanotechnol 5
ShahzadiI, Shah MM (2015) Acylated flavonol glycosides from Tagetes minuta with antibacterial
activity. Front Pharma6
Shaikh R, Pund M, Dawane A, Iliyas S (2014) Evaluation of anticancer, antioxidant, and
©

possible anti-inflammatory properties of selected medicinal plants used in Indian

traditional medication. J Traditional Complementary Med 4:253-257
Shameli K, Ahmad MB, Zamanian A, Sangpour P, Shabanzadeh P, Abdollahi Y, Zargar M
(2012) Green biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles using Curcuma longa tuber powder.
Int J Nanomed 7:5603-5610
88 Microbial Biopesticides in India

Sharma M, Yadav S, Ganesh N, Srivastava MM, Srivastava S (2019) Biofabrication and

characterization of flavonoid-loaded Ag, Au, Au–Ag bimetallic nanoparticles using
seed extract of the plant Madhuca longifolia for the enhancement in wound healing bio-
efficacy. Prog Biomater 8:51-63
Sheng WB, Li W, Zhang GX, Tong YB, Liu ZY, Jia X (2015) Study on the UV-shielding
andcontrolled-release properties of a polydopamine coating for avermectin. New J
Chem 39:2752-2757
Shoaib A, Elabasy A, Waqas M, LinL, Cheng X, Zhang Q, Shi ZH (2018) Entomotoxic effect of
silicon dioxide nanoparticles on Plutella xylostella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) under
laboratory conditions. Toxicol Environ Chem 100:80-91
Singh H, Du J, Singh P, Yi TH (2018) Role of green silver nanoparticles synthesized from
Symphytum officinale leaf extract in protection against UVB-induced photoaging. J
Nanostruct Chem 8:359-368
Singh P, Pandit S, Garnæs J, Tunjic S, Mokkapati VR, Sultan A, Thygesen A, Mackevica
A, Mateiu RV, Daugaard AE, Baun A, Mijakovic I (2018) Green synthesis of gold
and silver nanoparticles from Cannabis sativa (industrial hemp) and their capacity for
biofilm inhibition. Int J Nanomed 13:3571-3591
Singhal G, Bhavesh R, Kasariya K, Sharma AR, Singh RP (2011) Biosynthesis of silver
nanoparticles using Ocimum sanctum (Tulsi) leaf extract and screening its antimicrobial
activity. J Nanopart Res 13:2981-2988

NX
Small T, Ochoa-Zapater MA, Gallello G, Ribera A, Romero FM, Torreblanca A, Garcerá MD
(2016) Gold-nanoparticles ingestion disrupts reproduction and development in the
German cockroach. Sci Total Environ 565:882-888
Souza M, Lopes L, Bonez P, Gündel A, Martinez D, Sagrillo M, Giongo J, Vaucher R, Raffin
GE
R, Boligon A, Santos R (2017) Melaleuca alternifolia nanoparticles against Candida
species biofilms. Microb Pathogen 104:125-132
Srikar SK, Giri DD, Pal DB, Mishra PK, Upadhyay SN (2016) Green Synthesis of Silver
Nanoparticles: A Review. Green Sustainable Chem 6:34-56
Stadler T, Lopez-Garcia GP, Gitto JG, Buteler M (2017) Nanostructured alumina: biocidal
properties and mechanism of action of a novel insecticide powder. Bull Insectol 70:17-
25
PA

Steffy K, Shanthi G, MarokyAS, Selvakumar S (2018) Synthesis and characterization of ZnO

phytonanocomposite using Strychnos nux-vomica L. (Loganiaceae) and antimicrobial
activity against multidrug-resistant bacterial strains from diabetic foot ulcer. JAdv Res
9:69-77
Sujitha MV, Kannan S (2013) Green synthesis of gold nanoparticles using Citrus fruits (Citrus
NI

limon, Citrus reticulata and Citrus sinensis) aqueous extract and its characterization.
Spectrochim Acta Part A Mol Biomol Spectrosc 102:15-23
Sultana N, Raul PK, Goswami D, Das B, Gogoi HK, Raju PS (2018) Nanoweapon: control of
mosquito breeding using carbon-dot-silver nanohybrid as a biolarvicide. Environ Chem
Lett. 16(3):1017-1023.
Sundararajan B, Kumari BR (2017) Novel synthesis of gold nanoparticles using Artemisia
vulgaris L. leaf extract and their efficacy of larvicidal activity against dengue fever
©

vector Aedes aegypti L. J Trace Elem Med Biol 43:187-196

Suresh U, Murugan K, Panneerselvam C, Rajaganesh R, Roni M, Al-Aoh HAN, Trivedi S,
Rehman H, Kumar S, Higuchi A (2018) Suaeda maritima-based herbal coils and green
nanoparticles as potential biopesticides against the dengue vector Aedes aegypti and the
tobacco cutworm Spodoptera litura. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 101:225-235
 Nano-Biopesticides for Management of Insect Pests of Crops 89

Tippayawat P, Phromviyo N, Boueroy P, Chompoosor A (2016) Green synthesis of silver

nanoparticles in aloe vera plant extract prepared by a hydrothermal method and their
synergistic antibacterial activity. PeerJ 4:e2589
Tran TTT, Vu TTH, Nguyen TH (2013) Biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles using Tithonia
diversifolia leaf extract and their antimicrobial activity. Mater Lett 105:220-223
Ulrichs C, Mewis I, Goswami A (2005) Crop diversification aiming nutritional security in West
Bengal-biotechnology of stinging capsules in nature’s water-blooms. Ann Tech Issue of
State Agri Technologists Service Assoc1-18
Umar H, Kavaz D, Rizaner N (2018) Biosynthesis of zinc oxide nanoparticles using Albizia
lebbeck stem bark, and evaluation of its antimicrobial, antioxidant, and cytotoxic
activities on human breast cancer cell lines. Int J Nanomed 14:87-100
Venkat Kumar S, Karpagambigai S, Jacquline Rosy P, RajeshkumarS (2017) Phyto-assisted
synthesis of silver nanoparticles using Solanum Nigrum and antibacterial activity against
Salmonella Typhi and Staphylococcus Aureus. MechMater Sci Eng J 9
Venkata Subbaiah KP, Savithramma N (2013) Characterization and validation of silver
nanoparticles from holarrhena pubescens – an important ethnomedicinal plant of
Kurnool district, AndhraPradesh, India. World J Pharma Pharmac Sci 2:6288-6300
Vijayakumar M, Priya K, Nancy F, Noorlidah A, Ahmed A (2013) Biosynthesis, characterisation
and anti-bacterial effect of plant-mediated silver nanoparticles using Artemisia
nilagirica. Ind Crops Prod 41:235-240

NX
Vijayakumari A, Sinthiya A (2018) Biosynthesis of Phytochemicals Coated Silver Nanoparticles
Using Aqueous Extract of Leaves of Cassia alata – Characterization, Antibacterial and
Antioxidant Activities. Int JPharmac Clinical Res10:138-149
Vinayaga Moorthi P, Balasubramaniam C, Mohan S (2015) An improved insecticidal activity of
GE
silver nanoparticle synthesized by using Sargassum muticum. Appl Biochem Biotechnol
175:135-140
Vivek R, Thangam R, Muthuchelian K, Gunasekaran P, Kaveri K, Kannan S (2012) Green
biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles from Annona squamosa leaf extract and its in vitro
cytotoxic effect on MCF-7 cells. Process Biochem 47:2405-2410
Wang Y, Cui H, Sun C, Zhao X, Cui B (2014) Construction and evaluation of controlled-release
delivery systemof Abamectin using porous silica nanoparticles as carriers. Nanoscale
PA

Res Lett 9:2490

Wardani M, Yulizar Y, Abdullah I, Bagus Apriandanu D (2019) Synthesis of NiO nanoparticles
via green route using Ageratum conyzoides L. leaf extract and their catalytic activity.
IOP Conference Series: Mater Sci Eng 509
Widyaningtyas AL, Yulizar Y, Apriandanu DOB (2019) Ag2O nanoparticles fabrication by
NI

Vernonia amygdalina Del. leaf extract: synthesis, characterization, and its photocatalytic
activities. IOP Conference Series: Mater Sci Eng 509
Worrall EA, Hamid A, Mody KT, Mitter N, Pappu HR (2018) Nanotechnology for plant disease
management. Agron 8:285
Yang FL, Li XG, Zhu F, Lei CL (2009) Structural characterization of nanoparticles loaded with
garlicessential oil and their insecticidal activity against Tribolium castaneum (Herbst)
(Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). J Agric Food Chem 57:10156-10162
©

Yang Y, Cheng J, Garamus VM, Li N, Zou A (2018) Preparation of an environmentally friendly

formulation ofthe insecticide nicotine hydrochloride through encapsulation in chitosan/
tripolyphosphate nanoparticles. J Agric Food Chem 66:1067-1074
Yasur J, Usha-Rani P (2015) Lepidopteran insect susceptibility to silver nanoparticles and
measurement of changes in their growth, development and physiology. Chemosphere
124:92-102.
90 Microbial Biopesticides in India

Yu C, Tang J, Liu X, Ren X, Zhen M, Wang L (2019) Green biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles
using Eriobotrya japonica (Thunb.) leaf extract for reductive catalysis. Mater 12
Yuan CG, Huo C, Yu S, Gui B (2017) Biosynthesis of gold nanoparticles using Capsicum
annuum var. grossum pulp extract and its catalytic activity. Physica E: Low-dimensional
Systems Nanostruct 85:19–26.
Zaki AM, Zaki AH, Farghali AA, Abdel-Rahim EF (2017) Sodium titanate-bacillus as a new
nanopesticide for cotton leaf-worm. J Pure Appl Microbiol11(2):725-32.
ZhangH, Qin H, Li L, Zhou X, Wang W, Kan C (2018) Preparation and characterization of
controlled-releaseavermectin/castor oil-based polyurethane nanoemulsions. J AgricFood
Chem 66:6552-6560.
Zhao L, Peralta-Videa JR, Rico CM, Hern andez-Viezcas JA, Sun Y, Niu G, Servin A, Nunez
JE, Duarte-Gardea M, Gardea-Torresdey JL (2014) CeO2 and ZnO nanoparticles change
the nutritional qualities of cucumber (Cucumis sativus). J AgricFood Chem 62:2752-
2759.
Zhu H, Shen Y, Cui J, Wang A, Li N, Wang C, Cui B, Sun C, Zhao X, Wang C, Gao F, Zhan
S, Guo L, Zhang L, Zeng Z, Wang Y, Cui H (2020) Avermectin loaded carboxymethyl
cellulose nanoparticles with stimuli-responsive and controlled release properties. Ind
Crop Prod 152:112497.
Zinjarde SS, Bhargava SY, Kumar AR (2011) Potent α-amylase inhibitory activity of Indian
Ayurvedic medicinal plants. BMC Complement Altern Med 11.

NX
GE
PA
NI
©
6
Impact of Biopesticides Application on
Crop Quality and Environmental Quality

Abstract
Synthetic organic insecticides are posing serious health hazards to
human beings and other non-target organisms across the world. The
consumers are well aware of the ill effects of insecticides and there is a
great demand for pesticide free agricultural produces. In few occasions,

NX
Indian consignments such as chillies, mango, vegetables, wheat have
been either rejected by the importing countries or in the international
markets due to pesticides residues, quarantine pests etc. Insecticides
of biological origin such biopesticides are gaining importance as they
GE
are environmentally safe, leaving no residues in products etc. To date
more than 12 biopesticides have been registered in India for their use in
pest management. Many more are in pipeline to combat the yield losses
caused by pests. Some of the biopesticides such EPN’s have controlled
white grubs without compromising soil and environmental quality.
Biopesticides such as Bacillus subtilis GA1 and Bacillus sp. have well
PA

preserved the mango juice over a period of 15 days which was as good
as chemical preservative there by improved the shelf life of perishable
fruits. The government of India has given greater emphasis on natural
farming/zero budget farming, organic farming where biopesticides play
crucial role in management of pest populations. In this chapter, we have
NI

narrated the economic importance of biopesticides, international trade

issues, impact of biopesticides on crop quality, soil and environmental
quality.
Keywords: Biopesticides, Soil, Environment, Quality, Contamination
©

Introduction
Insecticide based plant protection in India as well as in the world resulted in
wide variety of environmental and health issues. Insecticides although gave
92 Microbial Biopesticides in India

satisfactory control of target pests initially, have posed serious issues such as
resistance, resurgence and residue and also contamination of water bodies,
food chain leading serious ill effects in humans, mammals, soil beneficial
microbiota etc. After thorough examination of scientific evidences and facts
on ill effects of synthetic organic insecticides, much emphasis was given
for biological control including parasitoids, predators, entomopathogens,
biopesticides, microbial control etc. in order to overcome above ill effects. The
concept of biopesticides have come up as an alternative to the indiscriminate
use of harmful synthetic insecticides which are being extensively used in
organic and natural/zero budget farming. Biopesticides are formulations made
from naturally occurring substances like animals, plants, microorganisms
and include living organisms, their products or byproducts that control
pests by non-toxic mechanisms in an ecofriendly manner. The biopesticides
such as botanicals, Entomopathogenic fungi, Bt, NPV, EPN, PI, etc. which
are widely used in the global market including India. Biopesticides may be
categorized into three major groups: plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs),
biochemical, and microbial biopesticides. While microbial biopesticides use

NX
microorganisms (bacteria, fungi, viruses or protozoans) as active-ingredient,
biochemical pesticides are naturally occurring substances from plants and
animals. PIPs are produced naturally on genetic modification of a crop plant,
GE
such as Bt cotton. Such transgenic plant produces biodegradable protein with
no harmful effect on animals and human beings, and thus curtails the use of
hazardous pesticides. PIPs may be more effective and economical strategies
in the developing countries to help produce more food, feed and forages in an
environmentally safer manner. However, the pesticides of biological origin
have also been reported to cause relatively less side effects which are being
PA

discussed in this chapter.

Merits of Biopesticides
The biopesticides are more preferred in today’s health conscious world due to
NI

following advantages.
• Biopesticides are generally less toxic than chemical pesticides often
target specific pests
• Little or no residual effects hence pose less risks to human health and
environment
©

• Have wide acceptability for use in the organic farming

• Many biopesticides have a zero or low re-entry and handling interval
• Some microbial biopesticides can reproduce on or near to the target pest
/ disease, giving some self-perpetuating control
 Impact of Biopesticides Application on Crop Quality and Environmental Quality 93

• The risk of pests and disease developing resistance to biopesticides is

often considered to be low
• They often have good compatibility both with biological pest control
agents (natural enemies) and conventional chemical pesticides, so can
be readily incorporated into IPM
• They can also be useful as a second line of defence or supplementary
treatment
• Relatively less costly
• Enhanced crop quality
• Adequately degradable
• No harmful residues remain in food, fodder and fibers
• Growing market preferences
Constraints in Exporting Agricultural Commodities
India is one of the largest producers of a number of agriculture commodities

NX
and the EuropeanUnion (EU) is one of the largest export markets for India.
India is seeing growth in the export of agricultural commodities like cereals,
non-basmati rice, wheat, millets, maize, and other coarse grains and the largest
markets for India’s agricultural products are the US, China, Bangladesh, the
GE
UAE, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Nepal, Iran, and Malaysia.Demand
for Indian cereals was robust in 2020-21, with shipments sent to several
countries for the first time, such as rice to countries like Timor-Leste, Puerto
Rico, and Brazil. Similarly, wheat was despatched to countries such as Yemen,
Indonesia, and Bhutan, and other cereals have been exported to Sudan, Poland,
Bolivia. In financial year 2021, fresh fruits were the leading horticulture product
PA

exported from India (56 billion Indian rupees). Over 956 thousand metric tons
of fruits were exported that year from the south Asian country. Organic exports
that include products such as cereals and millets, spices and condiments, tea,
medicinal plant products, dry fruits, and sugar grew 51 per cent year on year
NI

to $1,040 million. However, the pesticide residues in the commodities are the
major bottlenecks in exporting the quality products to international market.
Pesticide residue problems have affected exports of basmati rice which is
the key traditional export product to the EU, due to stringent norms imposed
for chemicals such as Tricyclazole and Buprofezin, extensively used in rice
©

cultivation in India. Testing by the Export Inspection Council (EIC) has been
made mandatory for basmati exports to the EU, which led to a decrease in the
number of alerts.
94 Microbial Biopesticides in India

In recent years a number of Indian agricultural products have been facing

rejection and export bans in the EU due to standards related to food quality,
safety and health, sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures. The products
such as mangoes, grapes and eggplants in which Indian exporters have faced
rejections or bans in the EU and other markets in the past for SPS issues such
as fruit flies or thrips infestation. Among the pesticides/chemicals, aflatoxins
had the maximum notifications in Basmati rice, followed by Carbendazim,
Acephate, Triazophos, Hexaconazole and other miscellaneous pesticides
(such as bromide, chlorpyrifos, ochratoxin and profenofos).. EU rejected
table grapes consignments from India in 2010, leading to a slowdown in the
industry. Reduction in the chlormequat chloride limits in grapes from 0.05mg/
kg to0.01mg/kg in the year 2016 which hampered the export of grapes.Saudi
Arabia actually cited pesticide levels beyond its own MRLs to block shipments
of green chillies and cardamom from India. In the EU, on the other hand,
Indian export products that have faced issues on MRL levels in 2020 include:
• Sesame Seeds: Ethylene Oxide (insecticide)

NX
• Chillies: Chlorothalonil (fungicide)
• Frozen curry leaves: Chlorpyrifos (pesticide)
• Frozen diced red chilli puree: Methamidophos, monocrotophos, acephate,
GE
propargite and triazophos
• Basmati Rice: Thiamethoxam, tricyclazole and buprofezin
Impact of Biopesticides on Crop Quality
Crop quality is of utmost importance to both growers and consumers. Plant
physiology is highly responsive to the prevailing environmental conditions that
PA

plays a critical role in both quantity and quality. Active management of plant
physiology plays an important role in crop productivity, and biopesticides,
particularly those in the plant growth regulator category (PGRs), are key
tools in this regard. Characteristics such as fruit size, taste, texture, shape,
NI

colour, firmness and shelf life can all be enhanced by careful use of plant
growth regulators. In addition, some PGRs can give a boost to plant health by
increasing the root mass or enhancing resistance to pests and disease. PGRs
have the added benefit of being non-toxic. No harmful residues remain to delay
handling or consumption. Crop quality and yield largely determine a grower’s
income. Biopesticides provide dealers with products that can markedly
©

improve crop quality and yield by preventing pest damage and promoting
physiological benefits in plants, including increased fruit size and enhanced
colour. Dealers who supply biopesticides and encourage their innovative use
are on the forefront of yield-and-profit enhancement practices. Most bio-based
 Impact of Biopesticides Application on Crop Quality and Environmental Quality 95

pest management products are listed for use in organic farming, providing those
growers with compelling pest control options to protect yields and quality. A
heterogeneous representation of target products, such as winter guava, mango,
apple, mandarin, kiwifruit, strawberry, pepper fruit, red-fleshed table grape,
pineapple, cherry fruit, papaya, plum needs much attention in consumer point
of view due to ill effects of synthetic pesticides.
Bacillus subtilis GA1 and Bacillus sp. have well preserved the mango
juice over a period of 15 days which was as good as chemical preservative.
Biopesticides serves as good preservatives and attract consumer preferences
than chemical (Kohi et al. 2020). Biopesticides such as T. harzianum T22 and
6PP are able to improve crop yield and increase the total amount of polyphenols
and antioxidant activity in the grapes by reducing the powdery mildew fungi
indicting the improvement of crop quality (Pascale et al. 2017). Besides,
enhancement of corn yield was reported in several commercial which has been
considered as a direct effect of an increased root and foliar systems (Harman
2000). The PGPR activity is induced by Trichoderma can be explained by an

NX
upregulation of photosynthesis related proteins and a higher photosynthetic
efficiency, enhanced the plant nutrient uptake mechanism and increased plant
nitrogen use efficiency etc (Harman et al. 2004). Even biopesticides such as
foliar spray of neem oil @1.5% along with tree pruning significantly improved
GE
fruit physical quality and cosmetic appearance of mandarin (Aftab et al. 2021).
Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi play major role in biological control of plant
diseases owing to their capabilities of amelioration crop yields by multiple role
as bio-pesticides and plant growth promotion (Nelson 2004). Mycorrhiza can
be seen as an assurance against quality deterioration caused by stress factors
and also positive effects not only on plant growth, but also on plant quality that
PA

include improved product quality of lettuce, tomato, pepper and strawberries

(Baum et al. 2015). Preharvest foliar spray of fungal culture filtrates from
Aspergillus niger and Rhizopus oryzae improved the plant defence mechanism,
with also enhanced quality and shelf life of date fruit in India (Bhatt and
NI

Jampala 2020). Pre-harvest treatment with Metschnikowia fructicola for the

control of postharvest rots not only reduced the fruit rots significantly but also
improved the fruit quality strawberry quality (Karabulut et al. 2004; Sellitto
et al. 2021). Botanical and microbial fungicides are effective for suppressing
botrytis fruit rot in strawberry alone or in rotation with synthetic fungicides
thereby increased the quality for fetching higher market value (Dara 2020).
©
96 Microbial Biopesticides in India

Impact of Biopesticides on Environmental Quality

Sustainable use of agro-pharmaceuticals, together with the demand for
more environment-friendly production systems are the need of the hour in
health-conscious consumer world. A growing public interest in the search
for alternative approaches to chemical control in biotic stress management is
very much required. The time-tested indigenous technical knowledge (ITK)
of using natural materials for the control of pests has been very effective
which need to be practiced. Biopesticides pose less threat to the environment
and human health. They are generally less toxic than chemical pesticides,
often target specific, have little or no residual effects and have acceptability
for use in organic farming. Use of botanicals is now emerging as one of the
important means to be used in protection of crop produce and the environment
from pesticidal pollution, which is a global problem. There is less danger of
biopesticide impact on the environment and water quality and they offer a more
environmentally friendly alternative to chemical insecticide. Biopesticides
have long been attracting global attention as a safer strategy than chemical pest

NX
control, with potentially less risk to humans and the environment. To this end,
co-operation between the public and private sectors is required to facilitate
the development, manufacturing, and sale of this environmentally friendly
alternative.
GE
Case Studies

Entomopathogenic Nematodes (EPN) for Crop and Soil Health

Entomopathogenic nematodes (EPN) of families Heterorhabditidae and
Steinernematidae are microscopic, non-segmented roundworms that are
PA

obligate parasites of insects and have become important in biological control

and integrated insect pest management as biopesticides. Soil insect pests
including white grubs, cutworms, termites, root grubs, etc., cause 24-40% yield
losses in sugarcane, maize, arecanut, cardamom, groundnut, potato, banana,
NI

guava, turmeric, pulses, vegetables, grasses, lawns etc., and direct plant loss
to the tune of 20-60% in arecanut, sugarcane, cardamom, banana, groundnut,
turmeric, guava, soybean etc. Due to continuous depletion of forest cover and
organic carbon, summarily attributed to anthropogenic and geological events,
the soilborne insect pests are increasingly causing a serious threat. Many
synthetic chemicals like OP, carbamates, neonicotinoids, fumigants etc., are
©

in indiscriminate use with little effect on the target pest, but causing soil and
water body contamination, residual effects on soil biota, human and animal
wellbeing, soil health and productivity. Farmers are desperately looking for
ecologically safe, sustainable and on-farm recyclable green technologies,
 Impact of Biopesticides Application on Crop Quality and Environmental Quality 97

alternative to soil-contaminating synthetic chemicals, to secure their crop

losses, soil health and productivity. EPN infect many different types of soil
insects, and their life stages, larval, pupal and adult forms of Lepidopteran,
Coleopteran and Dipteran pests.
ICAR-National Bureau of Agriculturally Insect Resources, Bengaluru has
developed and scaled up novel WP formulations of EPN consists of infective
juveniles capable of controlling soil born insect pests like whitegrubs and
other insects having a shelf life of 10-12 months. These formulations are
easy easyto transport, application and safety during transport and storage.
The WP formulation of nematodes developed is effective for controlling a
variety of obnoxious and cryptic soil insect pests that are hardy to pesticides
on a number of crops, including arecanut, banana, cashew, sugarcane, potato,
maize, groundnut, redgram. The impact of this technology has been assessed
in large scale by producing 1200 tonnes WP formulation of EPN to cover
an area of 20,000ha for the management of whitegrubs & other soilborne
insect pests. Very encouraging results were obtained indicating the impact

NX
of this green technology for the management of whitegrubs in above crops.
Thse WP formulations were licenced to 12 firms so that farmers use it for the
management of whitegrub in above crops very effectively by securing soil and
environmental health (EPA, 2016).
GE
PA
NI

Conclusions
Biopesticides are gaining importance across the globe for their environmental
safely, crop quality, soil quality and consumer preference. Biopesticides
have significantly improved fruit quality (nutritional) in various fruit crops,
©

vegetable crops etc besides suppressing insect pest populations in crop

ecosystems for sustainable production. They also enhance the export quality
of the agricultural products and fetch very high prices in the international
market. Therefore, farmers should be encouraged to produce residue free and
98 Microbial Biopesticides in India

good quality agricultural products/commodities in phased manner. Many more

biopesticides with good shelf life that control wide variety of major insect
pests may be introduced to market to overcome hazardous effects of synthetic
pesticides. Farmers may also be convinced by demonstrating merits of
biopesticides over conventional synthetic insecticides for increasing adoption
rate.

References
Aftab M, Khan M, Habib U. and Ahmad M. (2021) Biopesticide application on kinnow
mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco) with improved pruning can enhance cosmetic and
physical characters in fruit. App Ecol Environ Res 19(6):5033-5044.
Baum C El-Tohamy W and Gruda N (2015) Increasing the productivity and product quality of
vegetable crops using arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: a review. Sci Hortic 187:131-141.
Bhatt K Jampala SSM. (2020). Influence of Pre-Harvest Foliar Spray of Fungal Culture Filtrates
on Post-Harvest Biology of Date Fruit Harvested at Khalal Stage. Postharvest Biol
Technol 166:111220.
Dara SK (2020) Evaluating biological fungicides against botrytis and other fruit rots in
strawberry. UCANR eJournal of Entomology and Biologicals. https://ucanr.edu/blogs/

NX
blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=43633.
EPA (2016) https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/what-are-biopesticides
downloaded dated 27.12.2021.
Harman GE (2000) Myths and dogmas of biocontrol changes in perceptions derived from
research on Trichoderma harzinum T-22. Plant dis 84(4):377-393.
GE
Karabulut OA, Tezcan H, Daus A, Cohen L, Wiess B, Droby S (2004) Control of Preharvest
and Postharvest Fruit Rot in Strawberry by Metschnikowiafructicola. Biocontrol Sci
Technol 14:513-521.
Kohi Alfred K, Yapi Eric Y, Mathias NC, Jean-Paul BK, Hermann CW, Alloue-Boraud WM,
Marcellin DK (2020) Effects of bacterial biopesticides on some physico-chemical
biochemical characteristics mango juice. Cogent Food Agric 6(1):1858533.
Nelson EB (2004) Biological control of oomycetes and fungal pathogens. Encyclopedia of Plant
PA

and Crop Science. Marcel Dekkerpp137-140.

Pascale A, Vinale F, Manganiello G, Nigro M, Lanzuise S, Ruocco M, Marra R, Lombardi N,
Woo SL, Lorito M (2017) Trichoderma and its secondary metabolites improve yield and
quality of grapes. Crop protect 92:176-81.
NI

Sellitto VM, Zara S, Fracchetti F, Capozzi V and Nardi T (2021) Microbial biocontrol as an
alternative to synthetic fungicides: Boundaries between pre-and postharvest applications
on vegetables and fruits. Fermentation 7(2):60.
©
7
Indian Biopesticides:
Market, Consumption, Growth
and Opportunities

Abstract
In India, the market for biopesticides has reportedly grown at a quick and
rapid rate (23%) over the previous ten years, whereas the market for chemical

NX
pesticides has only grown by 2%. However, the usage of biopesticides has not
yet reached the same level as that of chemical pesticides, but it is predicted to
do so between 2040 and 2050. There is reportedly a 30% difference between
the demand for and consumption of microbial biopesticide in India. Anytime
GE
the use of biopesticide is encouraged to a broad adoption by stakeholders
through appropriate development of awareness, further market sizing is
conceivable. Maharashtra state consumed the most biopesticide formulations,
whereas Chhattisgarh, Haryana, and other Indian states consumed the least.
According to crop consumption, cereal crops receive the most, followed by
pulses, oilseeds, fibre, fruits, and vegetables. The market and consumption of
biopesticides in India and globally are reported.
PA

Keywords: Biopesticide, Demand and Consumption, State-wise, Crop-wise

NI

Introduction
A tremendous change in the Indian biopesticide industry and market has
reflected on increased global trade in agricultural commodities, a healthy
revolution in the consumers and stack-holders with adequate understanding
on negative effective of chemical pesticides in plant protection. Currently
©

biopesticides comprise approximately 3-5% of the Indian pesticide market,

with at least 15 microbial species and 970 microbial formulations registered
through the Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee (CIBRC).
As of 2017, over 200 products based on entomopathogenic fungi (Beauveria
bassiana, B. brongniartii, Metarhizium anisopliae, Lecanicillium lecanii and
100 Microbial Biopesticides in India

Hirsutella thompsonii) and nematicidal fungi (Purpureocillium lilacinum and

Pochonia chlamydosporia) are registered for use against various arthropods
and plant parasitic nematodes. Regarding bacteria, over 30 products based on
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) subsp. kurstaki are registered against bollworms,
loopers and other Lepidoptera, while 12 based on Bt subsp. israelensis and
three with Bt subsp. sphaericus are being used against mosquitoes.
Two viruses are registered, namely Helicoverpa armigera nucleopolyhedron
virus (22 products) and Spodoptera litura NPV (5 products) for use against
bollworms and armyworms. Four entomopathogenic nematode species
consisting wettable powder formulations of Heterorhabditis indica developed
by the ICAR-National Bureau of Agricultural Insect Resources, Bengaluru
which have been distributed on a large scale to control white grubs and other
sugarcane pests. Biopesticide research in developing countries like India
though in infant stage, but evolving rapidly, and focusing on indigenous
entomopathogens. Despite enormous regulation, quality-control issues and
limited large-scale production facilities, investment in domestic fermentation

NX
technologies, improved delivery systems, and promotion of biological control
through private and public initiative will increase the share of microbial
biopesticides in the country.
GE
Biopesticide Market: Global and Indian Perspectives
Biopesticides are organic substances used to control pests that are derived from
plants, animals, microbes, and some minerals. Only one entomopathogenic
bacteria, Bacillus thuringiensis, is the source of about 90% of the microbial
biopesticides currently on the market (Kumar and Singh 2015). Currently,
biopesticides only account for a small portion of the overall crop protection
PA

business, with a value of roughly $3 billion globally, or 5% of the total crop

protection market (Marrone 2014; Olson 2015).
There are more than 200 items accessible on the United States (US) market,
NI

compared to only 60 comparable products on the European Union (EU)

market. Although the global market for these pesticides appears to need to
expand further in the future if these products are to play a significant role in
replacing chemical pesticides and lessening the current over-reliance on them,
even though the use of biopesticides is rising globally by almost 10% annually
(Kumar and Singh 2015). However, it should be noted that the EU uses the
©

same regulations for evaluating biopesticides as they do for synthetic active

substances. As a result, several new provisions in the law were needed, and
new guidelines were also created to make it easier for potential biopesticide
products to be registered (Czaja et al. 2015). The EU currently has less
 Indian Biopesticides: Market, Consumption, Growth and Opportunities 101

registered biopesticide active chemicals than the US, India, Brazil, or China.
The greater complexity of EU-based biopesticide laws is connected to the
comparatively low level of biopesticide research in the EU (Balog et al. 2017).
With compounded annual growth rates of more than 15%, biopesticides are
expected to outgrow chemical pesticides in terms of growth (Marrone 2014).
Between the late 2040s and the early 2050s, it is anticipated that the market
size for biopesticides will equal that of synthetics, but there are significant
uncertainties surrounding the rates of uptake, particularly in regions like
Africa and Southeast Asia, which account for a significant portion of the
flexibility in those projections (Olson 2015). In recent years, biopesticides
have grown in popularity and are thought to be safer than traditional pesticides.
Biopesticides have the potential to reduce the usage of conventional pesticides
as essential elements of IPM programmes because they are effective in small
amounts and breakdown quickly without leaving harmful residues. However,
it should be noted that while there may be situation-specific exceptions to the
aforementioned qualities, they do not negate the overall norm.

NX
Indian market is a house to hundreds of biopesticides that are duly registered
by the Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee (CIB&RC), but
quality control is a major problem in most of these products. Extensive research
on biopesticides in national laboratories and State Agricultural Universities has
GE
clearly demonstrated the efficacy of biopesticides for management of pests and
diseases. Regardless of the persistent government programs and initiatives,
the consumption of biopesticides in India has remained relatively low, for
several years in past especially since 2000s. The recent years have witnessed
the introduction of nanotechnology mediated biopesticides. Nanoparticles
PA

mediated biopesticides have shown considerate potential in alleviating the

problems associated with conventional pesticides. The market has attained
speedy growth over the period of six years from FY’2013 to FY’2019. The
potential benefits of using biopesticides in agriculture and public health
NI

programs are considerable. This has tremendously escalated the consumption

for biopesticides in the country over the years resulting in a double digit
CAGR growth (https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5003583/
biopesticide-market-trends-forecast-and#rela3-5214644). In FY’2019 the
revenue generated through microbial pesticides consisted of a microorganism
(e.g., a bacterium, fungus, virus or protozoan) as the active ingredient which
©

contributed to a majority of the proportion in the overall Biopesticides market.

Microbial biopesticides are eco-friendly pests management solutions and have
high specificity due to which share of microbial biopesticides has contributed
highest share in terms of revenue in FY’2019. Invertebrate pathogenic
microorganisms employed as active substances in pest management are
102 Microbial Biopesticides in India

recognized as generally safe for the environment and non-target species, in

comparison with synthetic chemicals. Botanical/biochemical and PIP was
observed to capture the remaining volume share in the FY’ 2019.
With improved seed vigor and introduction of systematic disease resistance,
the demand for this fungal symbiont has remained high and rendered a majority
share in the Indian biofungicides market in FY’2019. During FY’2019, Bacillus
thuringiensis var. kurstaki contributed to a majority of the bioinsecticides sold
in India. Due to its high effectiveness and quicker results, it is preferred over
any other bioinsecticide present in the Indian market and thus, contributed
the highest share of in the Indian Bioinsecticide market in FY’2019. The
application of biopesticides is spread across several crops in agriculture. The
share of cereals, pulses and oilseeds has been recorded the highest, and has
commanded a major portion of the overall bio-pesticide consumption in India
during FY’2019. Flower, spices and tea constituted the smallest market share
in terms of revenue generated.
In India, the demand for indigenous biopesticides has dominated the overall

NX
biopesticides market during FY’2019. Imported biopesticides which mainly
includes Bacillus, semiochemicals and others have accounted for the rest of the
market. The consumption of biopesticides was dominated by western region in
FY’2019 followed by South, East, North and North Eastern region. The Major
GE
companies in the market of biopesticides are EID Parry, T Stanes, Fortune
Biotech, Excel Crop Care, International Panaacea Ltd, Biotech International,
Kan Biosys, PCI, PJ Margo, Prathibha Biotech and Zytex Biotech. Price,
quality and distribution network are some of the critical parameters on the
basis of which companies compete in the organized segment.
PA

India Biopesticide Market

In India, the usage of biopesticides is growing at a faster pace than that of
the chemical pesticides. According to the Directorate of Plant Protection,
NI

Quarantine and Storage, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, in the

last 10 years, consumption of bio-pesticides increased by 23%, while that of
chemical pesticides grew only by 2%. The total demand by various states/UTs
of India was reported as 59,458 MT technical grade of biopesticides which
was 8795 MT at 2014-15 and 10,852 MT at 2019-20 with a sharp decline at
2018-19 (9725 MT) (Fig. 1). However, there was a gap between demand and
©

consumption of biopesticides in India in which only 70.2 % of total demand

was consumed under various crops, grown in different states of India (Fig.
2,3).
 Indian Biopesticides: Market, Consumption, Growth and Opportunities 103

Fig. 1: India biopesticide demand during 2014-2020

NX
GE
Fig. 2: India biopesticide formulations consumption during 2014-2020
PA
NI
©

Fig. 3: Total demand and consumption of biopesticide formulations in India during 2014-2020

The total consumption of biopesticides was computed as 22,404 MT technical

grade during 2014-2020 which was 9.07% of total chemical pesticides
consumed (2,41,969 MT) (Fig. 4).
104 Microbial Biopesticides in India

Fig. 4: Comparative analysis on consumption of chemical pesticides and biopesticides in India

during 2014-2020

Among the states, Maharashtra was leading to absorb maximum quantity of

biopesticides (6630 MT) during 2014-2020, followed by West Bengal (5433

NX
MT), Kerala (4257 MT), Karnataka (3160 MT), Tamil Nadu (2816 MT),
Madhya Pradesh (2737 MT), Chhattisgarh (2549 MT) and Haryana (2250
MT) (Fig. 5) (https ://ppqs.gov.in/statistical-database).
GE
PA
NI

Fig. 5: State-wise consumption of biopesticide formulations during 2014-20 in India

The 9.4% of total cultivated areas (4.86 million ha) in cereals, pulses, oilseeds,
©

fibre, furits, vegetables, plantation and other crops during 2014-2020 was
reported to be covered with biopesticides in India. Cereal crops consumed the
maximum quantity of biopesticides (4876 MT), followed by oilseeds (4434
MT), vegetables (3980 MT), pulses (2905 MT), fruits (1819 MT) etc., during
2014-2020 (Fig. 6)
 Indian Biopesticides: Market, Consumption, Growth and Opportunities 105

Fig. 6: Crop-wise consumption of biopesticide formulations during 2014-20 in India

Global Biopesticide Market Growth

Global biopesticides market has occupied in a small fraction of the total global
crop protection market and it was estimated as $ 1.72 billion in 2014; $ 1.89

NX
billion in 2015; $ 2.09 billion in 2016; $ 2.31 billion in 2017; $ 2.55 billion in
2018; $ 2.81 billion in 2019; and $ 3.09 billion in 2020. The biopesticide market
is anticipated to contribute $ 3.42 billion in 2021; $ 3.77 billion in 2022; $ 4.5
billion in 2023; and $ 8.19 billion in 2025 (Fig. 7). At 2020, the compound
GE
annual growth rate (CAGR) of global biopesticide market was approximately
3-5% of the total crop protection market (Marrone 2014; Olson, 2015; Kumar
et al. 2018; Damalas and Koutroubas 2018) while the market was anticipated
to grow by 8.64 % at 2023; 9.7% at 2015-2023; 10.3% at 2014-2022; 15%
at 2019-2024; 16% at 2020-2025 (https://www.researchandmarkets.com/
reports/5003583/biopesticide-market-trends-forecast-and#rela3-5214644).
PA
NI
©

Fig. 7: Global Biopesticide Market Value during 2014-2025

106 Microbial Biopesticides in India

India Biopesticide Market Growth

The India biopesticides market generated revenue of $102 million in 2016 and
is anticipated to contribute $778 million by 2025, growing at a CAGR of 25.4%
(Fig. 8). The growth rate of biopesticide market in India varied in different
periods of report and the CAGR was reported/ anticipated to be 9.3% at 2013-
2018; 16.4% at 2013-2019; 7.3% at 2016-2026; 25.4% at 2017-2025; 10.3% at
2018-2024; 13.1% at 2019-2027; 25.1% at 2016-2025 (https:// inkwoodresearch.
com/reports/india-biopesticides-market-forecast- 2017-2025) (Fig. 8).

NX
GE
Fig. 8: India Biopesticde market value during 2016-2027

Conclusions
As restrictions have tightened in recent years, the pipeline of new chemistry
has significantly decreased. Products are being pulled off the market because
they no longer adhere to the severe standards. As a result, a smaller selection
PA

of chemical remedies continues to target numerous pests in a small number

of staple crops. These effects, which have always been clear in the market for
pesticides, are now more clear than ever. Future market growth for biopesticides
will be closely correlated with biological control agent research. There are
NI

few comprehensive and systematic studies on the preliminary research that

a number of scientists from various research institutes have conducted in the
area. Therefore, it is crucial to improve businesses and research institutions’
cooperation on this issue. The agriculture industry can and should profit from
the coexistence of biopesticides and chemical pesticides as it appears that
biopesticides cannot yet totally replace chemical pesticides. In this context,
©

it is anticipated that large-scale industrial development will be facilitated by

speeding the practical application of research findings.
 Indian Biopesticides: Market, Consumption, Growth and Opportunities 107

References
Balog A, Bartel T, Loxdale HD, Wilson K (2017) Differences in the progress of the biopesticide
revolution between the EU and major crop-growing regions. Pest Manag Sci 73:2203-
2208.
Czaja K, Goralczyk K, Strucifnski P, Hernik A, Korcz W, Minorczyk M, Lyczewska M,
Ludwicki JK (2015) Biopesticides-Towards increased consumer safety in the European
Union. Pest Manag Sci 71:3-6.
Damalas CA, Koutroubas SD (2018) Current status and recent developments in biopesticide
use. Agriculture 8(13). doi:10.3390/agriculture8010013.
Kumar KK, Sridhar J, Murali-Baskaran RK, Senthil-Nathan S, Kaushal P, Dara SK, Arthurs S
(2019) Microbial biopesticides for insect pest management in India: current status and
future prospects. J Invert Pathol 165:74-81.
Kumar S, Singh A (2015) Biopesticides: Present status and the future prospects. J Fertil Pestic
6e 129.
Marrone PG (2014) The market and potential for biopesticides 245-258pp. In: AD Gross et
al. (eds), Biopestiides: State of the Art and Future Opportunities, American Chemical
Society, Washingtone DC, USA.
Olson S (2015) An analysis of the biopesticide market now and where is going. Outlooks Pest
Manag 26:203-206.

NX
Links
https ://ppqs.gov.in/statistical-database
https://inkwoodresearch.com/reports/india-biopesticides-market-forecast-2017-2025
https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5003583/biopesticide-market-trends-forecast-
and#rela3-5214644
GE
https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5003583/biopesticide-market-trends-forecast-
and#rela3-5214644
PA
NI
©
©
NI
PA
GE
NX
8
Biopesticides:
Research and Development Activities

Abstract
In the creation of prospective biopesticides, bacteria and fungi are the main
focus among the beneficial microbes utilised in biological control. Even
if there is more research and development being done on the discovery of
microorganisms and subsequent commercialization, the slow kill rate, short

NX
shelf life, resistance to microbe etc., are seen as a setback in the biopesticide
industry. Several attempts have been made to increase the rate of kill,
including developing Bt-based transgenics, transferring the genes encoding
the production of toxins from scorpion, spider, etc. into the genome of helpful
GE
microbes etc., that increased the rate of kill by several folds. To perfect such
genetically modified microbe based biopesticides, additional research is
necessary.
Keywords: Beneficial microbes, Biopesticide, Genetic improvement
PA

Introduction
Worldwide, various biopesticides have been created and are in use, including
viruses, microorganisms (bacteria, fungi, etc.), microorganism derived
NI

products, animal derived goods (pheromones, hormones, insect-specific

toxins, etc.), plant derived products, and genetically modified organisms
(Nicholson 2007; Erlandson 2008; Mazhabi et al. 2011; Islam and Omar
2012). Microbial biopesticides are the greatest class of broad-spectrum,
pest-specific among all currently employed biopesticides (safe to non-target
organisms and eco-friendly). Thirty member nations of the Organization
©

for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) offer more than 200
microbial biopesticides (Kabaluk and Gazdik 2007). According to Kiewnick
(2007), there are 21 microbial biopesticides registered in the European Union
(EU), 22 in Canada, and 53 in the United States. However, reports of the
110 Microbial Biopesticides in India

items registered for usage in Asia vary (Thakore 2006). Overall, microbial
biopesticide registrations are increasing globally, the expansion of various
technologies has increased the scope for more products and the change in the
trend to develop microbial products is definitely on the rise (Bailey et al. 2010
and Kristiofferesen et al. 2008; Shukla 2019).

Entomopathogenic Bacteria
Bacillus that forms crystalliferous spores (Bacillus thuringiensis), obligate
pathogens (Bacillus popilliae), prospective pathogens (Serratia marcesens),
and facultative pathogens (Pseudomonas aeruginosa) can all be classified
as biopesticide-producing bacteria. Due to their efficacy and safety, spore
formers have been the most commonly used for commercial purposes. Bacillus
sphaericus and B. thuringiensis are the most often used microorganisms. A
unique, secure, and efficient tool for controlling insects is B. thuringiensis (Roy
et al. 2007). It is largely a pathogen of lepidopterous pests like rice stem borers
and the American bollworm in cotton. Bt releases poisons when consumed

NX
by insect larvae, damaging the pest’s midgut and ultimately killing it. The
strains of the subspecies kurstaki, galeriae, and dendrolimus are the primary
sources for the manufacturing of Bt preparations. Other bacterial species have
limited effect on pest management, although there are commercial products
GE
based on Agrobacterium radiobacter, B. popilliae, B. subtilis, Pseudomonas
cepacia, Pseudomonas chlororaphis, Pseudomonas flourescens, Pseudomonas
solanacearum, and Pseudomonas syringae.

Insect Viruses
More than 700 viruses that infect insects have been discovered, the majority
PA

of which originate from Lepidoptera (560), followed by Hymenoptera (100),

Coleoptera, Diptera, and Orthoptera (40) (Khachatourians 2009). A dozen
or more of these viruses have been made available for commercial usage as
biopesticides. The RNA-containing reoviruses, cytoplasmic polyhedrosis
NI

viruses, nodaviruses, picrona-like viruses, and tetraviruses, as well as the

DNA-containing baculoviruses (BVs), nucleopolyhedrosis viruses (NPVs),
granuloviruses (GVs), acoviruses, iridoviruses, parvoviruses, polydnaviruses,
and poxviruses are used in insect management. However, NPVs and GVs
have been the primary categories utilised in pest management. These viruses
are efficient against insects that consume plants and are used extensively
©

around the world to control pests in vegetables and field crops. Their use has
significantly reduced the populations of gypsy moths, pine sawflies, Douglas
fir tussock moths, and pine caterpillars in forest settings. Potato tuber moth
is controlled by Phthorimaea operculella GVs in stored tubers, and codling
 Biopesticides: Research and Development Activities 111

moth is managed by Cydia pomonella GVs on fruit trees (Arthurs et al.

2008). Insects including cabbage moths, corn earworms, cotton leaf worms
and bollworms, beet armyworms, celery loopers, and tobacco budworms can
also be controlled with virus-based solutions. Target-specific viruses called
baculoviruses can infect and kill a variety of significant plant pests. When
they are used against lepidopterous pests of cotton, rice, and vegetables,
they are especially effective. Their use has been constrained to small areas
because of the challenges associated with their large-scale manufacture. They
are not available commercially in India, but are being developed on a modest
scale by various IPM institutions and state agricultural departments. Natural
baculoviruses have been successfully used to preserve crops and forests, but
from an agro-industrial standpoint, they are ineffective insecticides and have
a number of potential drawbacks (Possee et al. 1997; Inceoglu et al. 2006).
Compared to chemical insecticides, they have a slower rate of mortality (from
five days to more than two weeks) and have a narrower host specificity, limited
field stability, susceptibility to UV exposure, short shelf life, and higher
production costs.

NX
Entomopathogenic Fungi
Trichoderma harzianum, Trichoderma viridae, Streptomyces griseoviridis,
GE
Verticillium chlamydosporium, Beauveria bassiana, Metarhizium anisopilae,
Nomuraea rileyi, Paecilomyces farinosus, and Verticillium lecanii are some
of the most often employed species and many of them have received global
commercialization. An efficient fungicide against root rot that is transmitted
through the soil is Trichoderma. It is especially important for dry land crops
like chickpeas, groundnuts, black gram, and green gram that are prone to
PA

various diseases. Trichoderma based biopesticide is simple to make and only

needs a fundamental understanding of microbiology. For the management of
soil- and seed-borne diseases, this bio-fungicide is advised for use as a seed
treatment, soil application, soil drenching, root dip technique, etc. Important
NI

crop diseases which are well managed with Trichoderma based biopesticides
are Armillaria, Botrytis, Chondrostereum, Colletotrichum, Dematophora,
Diaporthe, Endothia, Fulvia, Fusarium, Fusicladium, Helminthosporium,
Macrophomina, Monilia, Nectria, Phoma, Phytophthora, Plasmopara,
Pseudoperonospora, Pythium, Rhizoctonia, Rhizopus, Sclerotinia, Sclerotium,
Venturia, Verticillium, and wood rot fungi. Many Trichoderma strains, mainly
©

T. harzianum, T. viride and T. virens (formerly Gliocladium virens) play vital

role in plant diseases management (Singh 2014). Additionally, recent studies
suggest that Trichoderma strains may be used to handle abiotic stresses as
salt and drought (Shukla et al. 2012; Rawat et al. 2011). In addition, green
112 Microbial Biopesticides in India

muscardine fungus (Metarizhium anisopliae), white halo fungus (Beauveria

bassiana) and verticillium lecanii based biopesticides are also popular in
management of beetle pests, Lepidoptera pests, sucking pests etc.

Entomopathogenic Nematodes
The entomopathogenic nematodes (EPN), which control weevils, gnats,
white grubs, and numerous species of the Sesiidae family, are another group
of biopesticide (Klein 1990; Shapiro-Ilan et al. 2002; Grewal 1990). Insects
feeding in enigmatic settings such as soil-borne pests and stem borers are kept
under control by this interesting EPN. Nematodes from the genera Steinernema
and Heterorhabditis, which attack hosts as infective juveniles (IJs), are
frequently used in pest management (Kaya and Gaugler 1993; Koppenhofer
and Kaya 2002).

Protozoans
The use of protozoan pathogens as biopesticide agents has not been particularly

NX
effective, despite the fact that they naturally infect a wide variety of pests and
cause chronic and crippling effects that lower the target pest populations.
Taxonomically speaking, protozoa are split into various phyla, some of which
have entomogenous species. In-depth research has been done on microsporan
GE
protozoans as potential inclusions in integrated pest management plans.
For many insect species, microsporidia are the disease-causing intracellular
parasites that are ubiquitous and necessary. Because they target lepidopteran
and orthopteran insects and tend to kill hoppers more frequently than any other
insect, two genera, Nosema and Vairimorpha, offer some potential (Lewis
2002). According to research on the microsporidium Nosema pyrausta, which
PA

infects the European corn borer Ostrinia nubilalis, a spore is consumed by a

larva of the European corn borer, which then germinates in the midgut, extrudes
a polar filament, and injects sporaplasm into a midgut cell. The sporaplasm
multiplies and creates additional spores, which can spread infection to other
NI

tissues. Infected midgut cells shed their spores into the gut lumen, where they
are eliminated to the maize plant with the animal’s waste. The infection cycle
is repeated in the midgut cells of the new host as a result of these spores,
which are still viable, being ingested during larval feeding. If a female larva
is affected, Nosema is vertically transmitted to the filial generation. The
developing oocytes and ovarian tissue get infected with N. pyrausta as the
©

infected larva grows into an adult. When the larvae hatch, they are infected
with N. pyrausta since the embryo is already contaminated within the yolk.
N. pyrausta is maintained in naturally occurring populations of the European
corn borer by both horizontal and vertical transmissions.
 Biopesticides: Research and Development Activities 113

Resistance to Microbes
The development of resistance has been observed most frequently in B.
thuringiensis among the numerous families of microbial pathogens. At
least 16 insect species have been discovered recently that are resistant to B.
thuringiensis. Noctuid species like Spodoptera frugiperda, Busseola fusca,
and H. zea have been found to have developed resistance to 8-endotoxins in
the field (Tabashnik et al. 2009). The majority of reports of the development
of resistance in Plutella xylostella field populations come from the nations that
employ Bacillus thuringiensis widely, including China, Japan, the Phillipines,
Malaysia, India, and North America. We now have B. thuringiensis Bt cotton
and B. thuringiensis maize available in 13 and nine countries, respectively,
grown on 42.1 million ha of land (Shelton et al. 2008). Genetic engineering
was thought to be a useful tool to avoid this resistance problem where microbial
genes from B. thuringiensis were transferred to plants to produce transgenics.
In terms of microbial pest control, the introduction of such transgenics was
hailed as a miracle cure; nevertheless, field resistance in H. zea as a result of an

NX
increase in the frequency of resistance alleles is concerning (Tabashnik et al.
2008). The field-evolved insect resistance to B. thuringiensis crops and various
aspects related to resistance monitoring methods have been comprehensively
reviewed recently (Tabashnik et al. 2009); obviously more prominent in
GE
lepidopterans (Downes et al. 2010; Huang et al. 2011). Factors associated
with field resistance are the failure to use high dose B. thuringiensis cultivars
and lack of a sufficient refuge. While implementation of the high-dose/
refuge insect resistance management strategy has been successful in delaying
field resistance to Bt crops (Huang et al. 2011), Gene pyramiding is another
approach used to try and address the emerging resistance problem (Zhao et
PA

al. 2003; Manyangariwa et al. 2006). Pyramiding is the stacking of various

genes to cause the transgenic plant to express numerous toxins. However, gene
pyramiding must be sustained and shouldn’t result in numerous resistances or
cross-resistances. Multiple resistance cannot be completely ignored because
NI

doing so would render these techniques useless in the end. In order to maintain
the efficacy of pyramided B. thuringiensis crops, it is critical to account for the
potential implications of such cross-resistance in resistance management plans.
Pink bollworm has asymmetrical cross-resistance between B. thuringiensis
toxins Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab (Tabashnik et al. 2009).
©

Gene pyramiding may not be a sustainable tactic per se, according to recent
research, thus management plans must also include other tactics including
refugia, the employment of predators and parasitoids, and crop rotation schemes
(Zhao et al. 2003; Tabashnik et al. 2009). Soon, RNA interference-based
transgenic plants that control insects will be a reality (Baum et al. 2007; Mao
114 Microbial Biopesticides in India

et al. 2007), expanding the potential applications of transgenics and reducing

the negative effects of resistance. Recent research has demonstrated that
toxin-binding proteins like cadherin increase the toxicity of B. thuringiensis
(Soberon et al. 2007). In contrast to the usual B. thuringiensis toxins, these
binding proteins help toxin oligomerization and hence change the toxin, which
can avoid resistance. The experiments show that cadherin gene silencing
using RNA interference in M. sexta reduces the toxicity of B. thuringiensis
toxin Cry1Ab. M. sexta and Pectinophora gossypiella that were resistant to
B. thuringiensis were killed by the toxins that possessed cadherin deletion
mutations (Soberon et al. 2007).
Recently, resistance in a baculovirus in the field has been found in Europe
where Cydia pomnella GV is one of the main components of the codling moth
control. C. pomonella GV in apple orchards has led to a high degree of resistance
in some populations (Sauphanor et al. 2006; Frisch et al. 2007). This is the first
documented instance of field resistance to a commercially applied baculovirus
(Eberle and Jehle 2006). Apparently, this is either the result of the overuse of

NX
the product or the predominant control strategy applied. However, there do
not seem to be any reported examples of field development of resistance to
entomopathogenic fungi or nematodes (Shelton et al. 2007). However, there
is evidence to demonstrate the existence of natural resistance mechanisms in
GE
insects against fungi (Wilson et al. 2001) and nematodes (Kunkel et al. 2004),
suggesting that resistance to these pathogens cannot be summarily ignored.

Genetic Improvement of Insect Pathogens

Entomopathogenic Bacteria
PA

The goal of genetically modifying microbial pathogens is to increase their

potential to cause disease by enhancing toxin production, reproduction,
and transmission rates. One strain of B. thuringiensis, for instance, exhibits
insecticidal action against both coleopteran and lepidopteran insects as a
NI

result of genetic modification (Lereclus et al. 1992). Genetic modification

can potentially increase B. thuringiensis activity on crop foliage or in soil
treatments. For instance, the Cry34 and Cry35 families of crystal proteins
from B. thuringiensis operate as binary toxins with action against the western
maize rootworm, Diabrotica virgifera virgifera. Pairings Cry34A/Cry35A are
busier than pairs Cry34B/Cry35B. The binary Cry34/Cry35 B. thuringiensis
©

crystal proteins are closely linked to one another, are found throughout the
environment, and have sequence similarities that are consistent with their
ability to affect their target organisms’ membranes. Plant pests and rootworms
can be effectively controlled by modified Cry35 proteins, which have had
 Biopesticides: Research and Development Activities 115

their segments, domains, and motifs swapped with those of other proteins
to increase their insecticidal activity (Schnepf et al. 2007). Similar to this,
the B. thuringiensis Cry8Bb1 toxin polypeptide was developed to feature a
proteolytic protection site that renders it insensitive to a plant protease, aiding
in the toxin’s protection from any proteolytic inactivation. Modified Cry8Bb1
has been used for controlling corn rootworms, wireworms, boll weevils,
Colorado potato beetles and the alfalfa weevils (Abad et al. 2008).
A new study demonstrates the presence of the Bacillus enhancin-like (bel)
gene in the genomes of the B. cereus group, which has the potential to
boost the insecticidal action of biopesticides based on B. thuringiensis and
transgenic plants derived from B. thuringiensis genes (Fang et al. 2009). Bel
genes produce peptides that resemble viral enhancin protein by 20-30%. As
they destroy the peritrophic matrix of insect midguts, these proteins are known
to strengthen viral infections. The mortality rate was 2.2 times higher when
Bel and Cry1Ac were combined (Fang et al. 2009).

NX
Insect Baculoviruses
Since the slow mortality rate of wild-type baculoviruses makes them
impractical to utilise, numerous methods have been devised to increase the
baculovirus’s ability to kill by introducing genes encoding insect hormones,
GE
enzymes, or particular toxins (Kamita et al. 2005; Li and Bonning 2007;
Gramkow et al. 2010). Maeda was the first to create a genetically altered
baculovirus that expressed a gene encoding a hormone successfully in 1989
(Maeda 1989). This baculovirus produced the gene for a diuretic hormone,
which led to water loss in Bombyx mori larvae and interfered with the insect’s
normal physiology. This modified BmNPV had a 20% quicker kill rate than
PA

the parent BmNPV’s wild-type counterpart. This work developed a novel idea
and laid the groundwork for later usage of baculoviruses to eradicate insects.
Other enzymes and hormones were tested to alter baculoviruses in the years
that followed.
NI

Recombinant baculoviruses have demonstrated promise as more effective

insect pest controllers. However, it is important to consider how utilising
such viruses may affect the environment. Baculoviruses are not contagious
to non-target creatures, including beneficial insect species, predators, and
parasitoids of lepidopteran larvae, according to the findings of several research
©

(Boughton et al. 2003; Sun et al. 2009). According to Hartig et al. (1991),
recombinant AcMNPV baculovirus expressing AaiT was not infectious to
adherent mammalian cells, and recombinant HaSNPV expressing AaiT was
not pathogenic to fish, birds, or other vertebrates in any way (Sun et al. 2002). A
116 Microbial Biopesticides in India

recombinant baculovirus does not possess any selected ecological advantages

over the wild-type baculovirus, according to numerous investigations
conducted both in the field and in greenhouse environments (Cory et al. 1994;
Black et al. 1997; Lee et al. 2001). Additionally, there is a negative selection
towards recombinant baculoviruses, which causes the wild-type to swiftly
displace them (Georgievska et al. 2010; Zwart et al. 2010). The likelihood
that the cloned gene will transfer from the recombinant baculovirus to another
creature has also been conjectured. Although this is theoretically possible, it
has never been demonstrated because of variables that prevent or restrict the
occurrence of this genetic recombination (Inceoglu et al. 2001). Combination
viruses have the potential to be more effective insect pests.
Recombinant baculoviruses were effectively used to express juvenile hormone
esterase (Hammock et al. 1990), eclosion hormone (Eldridge et al. 1991),
and prothoracicotropic hormone (O’Reilly et al. 1995). Only those producing
juvenile hormone esterase, however, significantly outperformed parent wild-
type baculoviruses in terms of insecticidal efficacy (El-Sheikh et al. 2011a).

NX
Juvenile hormone esterase controls the hormone, therefore when it is over
expressed, the hormone’s concentration falls. This causes the insect to stop
feeding and pupate (El-Sheikh et al. 2011b). The effective utilisation of
recombinant baculoviruses expressing this enzyme is severely hampered by
GE
the juvenile hormone esterase’s brief half-life in the hemolymph. However,
numerous attempts have been made to increase in vivo stability in order to
make it more effective (Hinton and Hammock 2003; Inceoglu et al. 2006;
Kamita and Hammock 2010).
Baculoviruses that have undergone genetic modification to express toxins
PA

have been widely used in the past. The first successful insertion of toxin
genes into baculoviruses was reported in the late 1980s (Carbonell et al.
1988; Tomalski et al. 1991; Ooi et al. 1989). Since then, most studies have
concentrated on comprehending arthropod-specific venoms produced by mites,
NI

spiders, or scorpions (Inceoglu et al. 2006). The Androctonus australis insect-

specific toxin (AaiT) was the first and most effective insecticide expressed
in baculoviruses (MacCutchen et al. 1991; Maeda et al. 1991; Stewart et
al. 1991). When compared to the parent wild-type baculovirus, using a
recombinant Bombix mori baculovirus (BmNPV) expressing AaiT accelerated
the death of silkworm larvae by up to 40%. (Maeda et al. 1991). Another study
©

utilising a different baculovirus expressing AaiT revealed that Manduda sexta

larvae were paralysed many hours before death, increasing pesticidal efficacy
(MacCutchen et al. 1991). The efficacy of baculoviruses that express AaiT was
further validated in field experiments. (Cory et al. 1994; Sun et al. 2002; Sun
et al. 2004).
 Biopesticides: Research and Development Activities 117

Although AaiT has been the focus of numerous studies and is thought to
be the best model peptide neurotoxin for enhancing the insecticidal activity
of baculoviruses (Inceoglu et al. 2006; Sun et al., 2009), other scorpion
toxins such as those from Leiurus quinquestriatus quinquestriatus, Leiurus
quinquestriatus hebraeus, and Buthus marten (Kopeyan et al., 1990; Zlotkin
et al. 1993; Moskowitz et al. 1998; Froy et al. 2000; Tang et al. 2011), spiders
Agelenopsis aperta, Dighetia canities, Tegenaria agrestis and Araneus
ventricosus (Prikhodko et al. 1996; Hughes et al. 1997; Jung et al. 2012), or
straw itch mite, Pyemotes tritici is another source of powerful toxins that, when
expressed in baculovirus, are active against insect pests and may one day be
employed as biopesticides (Tomalski and Miller 1991; Lu et al. 1996; Burden
et al. 2000). Another method for quickening the death of the baculoviruses
is to delete an endogenous gene, such as the gene encoding the baculovirus-
encoded enzyme ecdysteroid UDP-glucosyltransferase (O’Reilly and Miller
1991). Because ecdysteroids are hormones that regulate larval-pupal moulting
and eating behaviour, infection with an egt deletion mutant baculovirus results
in a reduction in food consumption and an early mortality (Eldridge et al.

NX
1992; Wilson et al. 2000; Cai et al. 2010; Georgievska et al. 2010).
The insect sodium channel is the molecular target of the majority of these
neurotoxins (Cestele and Catterall 2000; Casida and Durkin 2013), which
GE
is also the main target of insecticides of the pyrethroid class. However,
since their individual binding sites on the channel do not overlap, there is
a chance of creating a synergistic effect that would permit the employment
of both pyrethroids and baculoviruses that express toxins at the same time
(McCutchen et al. 1997). The newest strategy involves the expression of the
crystal protein gene from Bacillus thuringiensis in Autographa californica
PA

mNPV. In comparison to the parent wild-type AcMNPV, this recombinant

baculovirus has demonstrated a high insecticidal activity against Spodoptera
exigua and Plutella xylostella (Jung et al. 2012; Shim et al. 2013).
NI

Entomopathogenic Fungi
Metarhizium anisopliae and B. bassiana, two commonly employed
entomopathogenic fungi, have undergone substantial study for the clarification
of pathogenic mechanisms and alteration of the genes of the pathogens
to increase biocontrol efficacy (St. Leger et al. 2010). In the genome of M.
©

anisopliae, extra copies of the gene encoding the controlled cuticle-degrading

protease Pr1 were introduced and over expressed. Compared to the parent
wild-type strain, the offspring strain decreased tobacco hornworm (M. sexta)
survival time by 25%. (St. Leger et al. 1996). The scorpion toxin (AaIT)
expressed in the M. anisopliae strain ARSEF 549 illustrates the astonishing
118 Microbial Biopesticides in India

extent to which pathogenicity can be boosted. At 22-fold lower spore dosages

than the wild type, the modified fungus produced the same mortality rates in
M. sexta, and survival times at some concentrations were 40% lower (Wang et
al. 2007). Similar outcomes have been seen with mosquitoes, where the LC50
was reduced by 9 times, and coffee berry borer beetles, where the LC50 was
reduced by 16 times (Pava-Ripoll et al. 2008).

Entomopathogenic Nematode
Artificial selection has proven successful in boosting infectivity and nematicide
resistance in entomopathogenic nematodes (Griffin 1993). With relation to host
penetration and reproductive potential, the strain selection has demonstrated
an improvement in fitness. The possibility of examining whether a selection
strategy might enhance the control of root pests has been made possible by
the recent revelation that maize roots harmed by the western corn rootworm
release a crucial attractant for insect-killing nematodes (Hiltpold et al. 2010).
After 10 to 25 selection cycles, a diverse population of Steinernema feltiae

NX
was produced for desiccation tolerance and host-seeking capacity. Artificial
selection for one characteristic, however, may come at the expense of other
crucial traits like contagiousness, establishment, and/or field persistence. In the
near future, it may be possible to produce GM nematodes with higher storage
GE
stability, more resilience to environmental challenges, and greater biological
control potential using data from the sequenced genomes of EPN (Sandhu et
al. 2006; Ciche et al. 2007; Bai et al. 2009).

Conclusions
Despite having a slower death rate than chemical pesticides, wild-type
PA

beneficial organisms have demonstrated to be an effective long-term solution

in particular situations, such as forest ecosystems. However, the parent wild-
type microbe does not kill insects as quickly as recombinant microbes do,
which is a severe drawback. These recombinant microorganisms are generally
NI

made of toxin genes from scorpions or spiders. Hopefully, recombinant

microorganisms will get more market share worldwide. Numerous papers state
that there is no evidence showing that genetically modified organisms pose a
greater harm to animals and the environment than do organisms of the natural
variety.
©

References
Abad AR, Flannagan RD, McCutchen BF, Yu CG (2008) Bacillus thuringiensis cry gene and
protein. US Patent 20087329736.
Arthurs, SP, Lacey LA, Rosa FDL (2008) Evaluation of granulovirus (PoGV) and Bacillus
thuringiensis subsp. Kurstaki for control of the potato tuberworm (Lepidoptera:
Gelechiidae) in stored tubers. J Econ Entomol 101:1540-1546.
 Biopesticides: Research and Development Activities 119

Bai X, Adams BJ, Ciche TA, Clifton S, Gaugler R, Hogenhout SA et al (2009) Transcriptomic
analysis of the entomopathogenic nematode Heterorhabditis bacteriophora TTO1. BMC
Genom 10:205-218.
Bailey, KL, Boyetchko SM, Langle T (2010) Social and economic drivers shaping the future of
biological control: a Canadian perspective on the factors affecting the development and
use of microbial biopesticides. Biol Control 52:221-229.
Baum JA, Bogaert T, Clinton W, Heck GR, Feldmann P, Ilagan 0, et al (2007) Control of
coleopteran insect pests through RNA interference. Nature Biotechnol 25:1322-1326.
Black BC, Brennan, LA, Dierks PM, Gard IE (1997) Commercialization of baculoviral
insecticides. In: Miller, L. K. (ed) The Baculoviruses. Plenum, New York, USA, 341-
387pp.
Boughton AJ, Obrycki JJ, Bonning BC (2003) Effects of a protease-expressing recombinant
baculovirus on nontarget insect predators of Heliothis virescens. Biol Control 28:101-
110.
Burden J, Hails RS, Windass JD, Suner MM, Cory J (2000) Infectivity, speed of kill, and
productivity of a baculovirus expressing the itch mite toxin txp-1 in second and fourth
instar larvae of Trichoplusia ni. J Invertebr Pathol 75:226-236.
Caballero, P., R. Murillo, D. Muñoz and T. Williams (2009) The nucleopolyhedrovirus of
Spodoptera exigua (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) as a biopesticide: analysis of recent
advances in Spain. Rev Colom Entomol 35:105-115.

NX
Cai Y, Cheng Z, Li C, Wang F, Li G, Pang Y (2010) Biological activity of recombinant
Spodoptera exigua multicapsid nucleopolyhedrovirus against Spodoptera exigua larvae.
Biol Control 55:178-185
Casida JE Durkin KA (2013) Neuroactive insecticides: targets, selectivity, resistance, and
GE
secondary effects. Annu Rev Entomol 58:99-117.
Cestele S, Catterall WA (2000) Molecular mechanisms of neurotoxin action on voltage gated
sodium channels. Biochimie 82:883-892.
Ciche TA, Sternberg PW (2007) Postembryonic RNAi in Heterorhabditis bacteriophora: A
nematode insect parasite and host for insect pathogenic symbionts. BMC Dev Biol
7:101-111.
Cory JS, Hirst ML, Williams T, Hails RS, Goulson D, Green BM, Carty TM, Downes RDS,
PA

Mahon RJ, Rossiter L, Kauter G, Leven T, Fitt G, (2010) Adaptive management of pest
resistance by Helicoverpa species (Noctuidae) in Australia to the Cry2Ab Bt toxin in
Bollgard II cotton. Evol Appl 3:574-584.
Eberle KE, Jehle JA (2006) Field resistance of codling moth against Cydia pomonella
granulovirus (CpGV) is autosomal and incompletely dominant inherited. J Invertebr
NI

Pathol 93:201-206.
Eldridge, R., F. M. Horodyski, D. B. Morton, D. O’Reilly, J. W. Truman, L. M. Riddiford
and L. K. Miller (1991) Expression of an eclosion hormone gene in insect cells using
baculovirus vectors. Insect Biochem. 21: 341-51.
El-Sheikh E.S.A., S. G. Kamita, K. Vu and B. D. Hammock (2011a) Improved insecticidal
efficacy of a recombinant baculovirus expressing mutated JH esterase from Manduca
sexta. Biol Control 58:354-361.
©

El'Sheikh ESA, Mamtha MD, Ragheb DA, Ashour BA (2011b) Potential of juvenile hormone
esterase as a bio-insecticide: an overview. Egyp J Biol Pest Cont 21(1):103-110
Erlandson ME (2008) Insect pest control by viruses. In: BWJ Mahy, MHV Van REgenmortel
(eds), Encyclopedia of virology, 3rd ed Elsevier, Oxford 125-133pp.
Fang S, Wang L, Guo W, Zhang X, Peng D, Luo C, (2009) Bacillus thuringiensis Bel Protein
enhances the toxicity of Cry1Ac protein to Helicoverpa armigera larvae by degrading
insect intestinal mucin. Appl Environ Microbiol 75:5237-5243.
120 Microbial Biopesticides in India

Fowler (1991) Insecticidal effects of an insectspecific neurotoxin expressed by a recombinant

baculovirus. Virol 184:77-80.
Frisch E, Undorf-Spahn K, Kienzle J, Zebitz CPW, Huber J (2010) Codling moth granulosivirus:
First indication of variations in the susceptibility of local codling moth populations.
IOBC/from the essential initiation site of a baculovirus polyhedrin gene. J Mol Biol
210:721-736.
Froy O, Zilberberg N, Chejanovsky N, Anglister J, Loret E, Shaanan B, Gordon D, Gurevitz
M (2000) Scorpion neurotoxins: structure/function relationship and application in
agriculture. Pest Manag Sci 56:472-474.
Georgievska L, Joosten N, Hoover K, Cory JS, Vlak JM, van der Werf W (2010) Effects
of single and mixed infections with wild type and genetically modified Helicoverpa
armigera nucleopolyhedrovirus on movement behaviour of cotton bollworm larvae.
Entomol Exp Appl 135:56-67.
Gramkow AW, Perecmanis S, Sousa RLB, Noronha EF, Felix CR, Nagata T, Ribeiro BM (2010)
Insecticidal activity of two proteases against Spodoptera frugiperda larvae infected with
recombinant baculoviruses. Virol J 29(7):143.
Grewal PS, Ehlers RU, Shapiro-Ilan DI (2005) Nematodes as Biological Control Agents. CAB
International, Wallingford, UK.
Griffin CT (1993) Temperature responses of entomopathogenic nematodes: Implications for the
success of biological control programmes. In: R. Bedding, R Akhurst, HK Kaya (eds),

NX
Nematodes and the Biological Control of Insects. CSIRO, East Melbourne 115-126pp.
Hammock BD, Bonning BC, Possee RD, Hanzlik T, Maeda S (1990) Expression and effects of
the juvenile hormone esterase in a baculovirus vector. Nature 344:458-461.
Hartig PC, Cardon MC, Kawanishi CY (1991) Insect virus: Assays for viral replication and
GE
persistence in mammalian cells. J Virol Methods 31:335-344.
Hiltpold I, Baroni M, Toepfer S, Kuhlmann U, Turlings TC (2010) Selection of entomopathogenic
nematodes for enhanced responsiveness to a volatile root signal helps to control a major
root pest. J Exp Biol 213:2417-2423.
Hinton AC, Hammock BD (2003) In vitro expression and biochemical characterization of
juvenile hormone esterase from Manduca sexta. Insect Biochem Mol Biol 33:317-329.
Huang F, Andow DA, Buschman LL (2011) Success of the high-dose/refuge resistance
PA

management strategy after 15 years of Bt crop use in North America. Entomol Exp Appl
140:1-16.
Hughes PR., H. A. Wood, J. P. Breen, S. F. Simpson, A. J. Duggan and J. A. Dybas (1997)
Enhanced bioactivity of recombinant baculoviruses expressing insect-specific spider
toxins in Lepidoptera crop pests. J Invertebr pathol 69:112-118.
NI

Inceoglu AB, Kamita SG, Hammock BD (2006) Genetically Modified Baculoviruses: A

Historical Overview and Future Outlook. Adv Virus Res.68: 23-360.
Inceoglu AB, Kamita SG, Hinton AC, Huang Q, Severson TF, Kang KD, Hammock BD (2001)
Recombinant baculoviruses for insect control. Pest Manag Sci 57:981-987.
Islam MT, Omar DB (2012) Combined effect of Beuveria bassiana with neem on virulence of
insect in case of two application approaches. J Anim Plant Sci 22(1):77-82.
Jung MP, Choi JF, Tao XY, Jin BR, Je YH, Park HH (2012) Insecticidal activity of recombinant
©

baculovirus expressing both spider toxin isolated from Araneus ventricosus and Bacillus
thuringiensis crystal protein fused to a viral polyhedrin. Entomol Res 42(6):339-346.
Kabaluk T, Gazdik K, (2007) Directory of microbial biopesticides for agricultural crops in
OECD countries. http://www4.agr.gc.ca/ resources/prod /doc/pmc/ pdf/ micro.e.pdf.
Kamita SG, Hammock BD (2010) Juvenile hormone esterase: biochemistry and structure. J Pest
Sci 35:265-274.
 Biopesticides: Research and Development Activities 121

Kaya HK, Gaugler R (1993) Entomopathogenic nematodes. Annu Rev Entomol 38:181-206
Khachatourians GG (2009) Insecticides, microbials. Appl Microbiol Agro/ Food 95-109pp.
Kiewnick S (2007) Practicalities of developing and registering microbial biological control
agents. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture Veterinary Science Nutrition and
Natural Resources, No.013, CABI Publishing (http://www.cababstracts plus.org/
cabreviews)
Klein MG (1990) Efficacy against soil-inhabiting insect pests. In: Gaugler R, Kaya HK, editors.
Entomopathogenic Nematodes in Biological Control. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL 195-
214pp.
Kopeyan C, Mansuelle P, Sampieri F, Brando T, Bahraoui EM, Rochat H, Granier C (1990)
Primary structure of scorpion anti-insect toxins isolated from the venom of Leiurus
quinquestriatus. FEBS Lett 261:423-426.
Koppenhofer AM, Kaya HK (2002) Entomopathogenic nematodes and insect pest management.
In: O Koul, GS Dhaliwal (eds), Microbial Biopesticides. Taylor & Francis, London
277-305pp.
Kristiofferesen P, Rask AM, Grundy AC, Franken I, Kempenaar C, Raison J (2008). A review of
pesticide policies and regulations for urban amenity areas in seven European countries.
Weed Research; 48: 201-14.
Kunkel BA, Grewal PS, Quigley MF (2004) A mechanism of acquired resistance against an
entomopathogenic nematode by Agrotis ipsilon feeding on perennial ryegrass harboring

NX
a fungal endophyte. Biol Control 29:100-8
Lee Y, Fuxa JR, Inceoglu AB, Alaniz SA, Richter AR, Reilly LM, Hammock BD (2001)
Competition between wild-type and recombinant nucleopolyhedroviruses in a
greenhouse microcosm. Biol Control 20: 84-93.
GE
Lereclus D, Val lade M, Chaufaux J, Arnates 0, Rambaud S (1992) Expansion of insecticidal
host range of Bacillus thuringiensis by in vivo genetic recombination. Bio/technology
10:418-421.
Lewis LC (2002) Protozoan Control of D Pimental (ed), editor. Encyclopedia of Pest
Management. Taylor & Francis, UK 673-676pp.
Li H, Bonning BC (2007) Evaluation of insecticidal efficacy of wild-type and recombinant
baculoviruses. Mothod Mol Biol 388:379-404.
PA

Lu A, Seshagiri S, Millar LK (1996) Signal sequence and promoter effects on the efficacy of
toxin-expressing baculoviruses as biopesticides. Biol Control 7:320-332.
Maeda S, Volrath SL, Hanzlik TN, Harper SA, Majima K, Maddox DW, Hammock BD, Flower
E (1991) Insecticidal effects of an insect specific neurotoxin expressed by recombinant
baculovirus. Virol 184:77-80.
NI

Manyangariwa W, Turnbill M, McCutcheon GS, Smith JP (2006) Gene pyramiding as a Bt

resistance management strategy: how sustainable is this strategy. African J Biotechnol
5:781-785.
Mao YB, Cai WJ, Wang JW, Hong GJ, Tao XY, Wang LJ, et al (2007) Silencing a cotton
bollworm P450 monoxygenase gene by plant-mediated RNAi impairs larval tolerance
of gossypol. Nature Biotechnol 25:1307-13.
Mazhabi M, Nemati H, Rouhani H, Tehranifar A, Moghadam EM, Kaveh H, Rezaee A (2011)
©

The effect of Trichoderma on polianthes qualitative and quantitative properties. J Anim.

Plant Sci 21(3):617-621.
McCutchen BF, Hoover K, Preisler HK, Betana MD, Herrmann R, Robertson JL, Hammock
BD (1997) Interaction of recombinant and wild-type baculoviruses with classical
insecticides and pyrethroid-resistant tobacco budworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J
Econ Entomol 90: 1170-1180.
122 Microbial Biopesticides in India

Merryweather PJ, Weyer U, Harris MP, Hirst M, Booth M, Booth T, Possee RD (1990)
Construction of genetically engineered baculovirus insecticides containing the Bacillus
thuringiensis subp. kurstaki HD-73 delta endotoxin. J Gen Virol 71:1535-1544.
Moskowitz H, Herrmann R, Jones AD, Hammock BD (1998) A depressant insect-selective
toxin analog from the venom of the scorpion Leiurus quinquestriaus hebraeus. Eur J
Biochem 254:44-49.
Nicholson GM (2007) Fighting the global pest problem: Preface to the special Toxicon issue
on insecticidal toxins and their potential for insect pest control. Toxicon 49:413-422.
O’Reilly DR, Miller LK (1991) Improvement of a baculovirus pesticide by deletion of the egt
gene. Biotechnol 9:1086-1089.
Ooi BG, Rankin C, Miller LK (1989) Downstream sequences augment transcription from the
essential initiation site of a baculovirus polyhedron gene. J Mol Biol 210:721-736.
Pava-Ripoll M, Posada FJ, Momen B, Wang CS, St. Leger RS (2008) Increased pathogenicity
against coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) by
Metarhizium anisopliae expressing the scorpion toxin (AaIT) gene. J Invert Pathol
99:220-226.
Possee PJ, Cayley and Bishop DHL (1994) Field trial of a genetically improved baculovirus
insecticide. Nature 370:138-140.
Possee RD, Barnett AL, Hawtin RE King LA (1997) Engineered baculoviruses for pest control.
Pestic Sci 51:462-470.

NX
Prikhodko GG, Robson M, Warmke J, Cohen CJ, Smith MM, Wang P, Warren V, KaczorowskiG,
van der Ploeg LHT, Miller LK (1996) Properties of three baculoviruses expressing genes
that encode insect-selective toxins: u-Aga-IV, As II, and Sh I. Biol. Control 7:236-244.
Rawat L, Singh Y, Shukla N, Kumar J (2011) Alleviation of the adverse effects of salinity stress
GE
in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) by seed biopriming with salinity tolerant isolates of
Trichoderma harzianum. Plant soil 347(1-2):387.
Regenmortel (2008) Encyclopedia of virology, 3rd ed. Elsevier, Oxford 125-133pp. ISBN-10:
0123739357
Roh JY, Choi JY, Li MS, Jin BR, Je YH (2007) Bacillus thuringiensis as a specific, safe, and
effective tool for insect pest control. J Microbiol Biotechnol 17:547-549.
Salame L, Glazer I, Chubinishvilli MT, Chkhubianishvilli T (2010) Genetic improvement of
PA

the desiccation tolerance and host seeking ability of the entomopathogenic nematode
Steinemema feltiae. Phytoparasitica 38:359-368.
Sandhu SK, Jagdale GB, Hogenhout SA, Grewal PS (2006) Comparative analysis of the
expressed genome of the infective juvenile entomopathogenic nematode, Heterorhabditis
bacteriophora. Molecular Biochemistry and Parasitology 145:239-244.
NI

Sauphanor B, Berling M, Toubon J-F, Reyes M, Delnatte J, Allemoz P (2006) Carpocapse des
pommes. Cas de resistance auvirus de la granulose en vergers biologique. Phytoma-La
Defense Des Vegetaux 590:24-27.
Schnepf HE, Narva KE, Evans SL (2007) Modified chimeric Cry35proteins. US Patent
20077309785
Shapiro-Ilan DI, Gouge DH, Koppenhofer AM (2002) Factors affecting commercial success:
Case studies in cotton, turf and citrus. In: Gaugler R, editor. Entomopathogenic
©

Nematology. CAB International, New York 333-356pp.

Shelton AM, Romeis J, Kennedy GG (2008) IPM and GM, insect-protected plants: thoughts for
the future. In: Romeis J, Shelton AM, Kennedy GG, editors. Genetically Modified Crops
within IPM Programs. Springer, New York 419-429pp.
Shelton AM, Wang P, Zhao J-Z, Roush RT (2007) Resistance to insect pathogens and strategies
to manage resistance: an update. In: LA Lacey, HK Kaya (eds), Field Manual of
Techniques in Invertebrate Pathology. Springer, Dordrecht, 793-811pp.
 Biopesticides: Research and Development Activities 123

Shim HJ, Choi JY, Wang Y, Tao XY, Liu Q, RohJY, Kim JS, Kim WJ, Woo SD, Jin BN,
Je YH (2013) NeuroBactrus, a novel, highly effective, and environmentally friendly
recombinant baculovirus insecticide. Appl Environ Microbiol 79(1):141-149.
Shukla N, Awasthi RP, Rawat L, Kumar J (2012). Biochemical and physiological responses of
rice (Oryza sativa L.) as influenced by Trichoderma harzianum under drought stress.
Plant Physiol Biochem 54:78–88.
Shukla N, Singh EANA, Kabadwa, BC, Sharma R, Kumar J (2019) Present status and future
prospects of bio-agents in agriculture. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci 8(4):2138-2153.
Singh HB, Singh A, Sarma BK, Upadhyay DN (2014). Trichoderma viride 2% WP (Strain
No. BHU–2953) formulation suppresses tomato wilt caused by Fusarium oxysporum f.
sp. lycopersici and chilli damping–off caused by Pythium aphanidermatum effectively
under different agroclimatic conditions. Int J Agri Environ Biotechnol 7:313-320
Soberon M, Pardo-Lopez L, Lopez I, Gomez I, Tabashnik BE, Bravo A (2007) Engineering
modified Bt toxins to counter insect resistance. Science 318:1640-1642.
St. Leger RJ, Joshi L, Bidochka MJ, Roberts DW (1996) Construction of an improved
mycoinsecticide overexpressing a toxic protease. Proceedings of National Academy of
Sciences USA, 93:6349-6354.
St. Leger RJ, Wang C (2010) Genetic engineering of fungal biocontrol agents to achieve greater
efficacy against insect pests. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 85:901-907.
Stewart LM, Hirst M, Ferber ML, Merryweather AT, Cayley PJ, Possee RD (1991) Construction

NX
of an improved baculovirus insecticide containing an insect-specific toxin gene. Nature
352:85-88.
Sun X, Chen X, Zhang Z, Wang H, Bianchi FJAA, Peng H, Vlak JM, Hu Z (2002)
Bollworm responses to release of genetically modified Helicoverpa armigera
GE
nucleopolyhedroviruses in cotton. J Invertebr Pathol 81:63-69.
Sun X, Wu D, Sun X, Jin L, Ma Y, Bonning BC, Peng H, Hu Z (2009) Impact of Helicoverpa
armigera nucleopolyhedroviruses expressing a cathepsin L-like protease on target and
nontarget insect species on cotton. Biol Control 49:77-83.
Tabashnik BE, Gassmann AJ, Crowder DW, Corriere Y (2008) Insect resistance to Bt crops:
Evidence versus theory. Nature Biotechnol 26:199-202.
Tabashnik BE, Unnithan GC, Masson L, Crowder DW, Li X, Corriere Y (2009) Asymmetrical
cross-resistance between Bacillus thuringiensis toxins Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab in pink
PA

bollworm. Proc National Acad Sci USA 106:11889-11894

Tabashnik BE, Van Rensburg JBJ, Carriere Y (2009) Field evolved insect resistance to Bt crops:
definition, theory, and data. J Econ Entomol 102:2011-25.
Tang XX, Sun XL, Pu GQ, Wang WB, Zhang CX Zhu J (2011). Expression of a neurotoxin
NI

gene improves the insecticidal activity of Spodoptera litura nucleopolyhedrovirus

(SpltNPV). Virus Res 159(1):51-56.
Thakore Y. (2006) The biopesticide market for global use. Ind Biotechnol 2:194-208.
Tomalski MD, Miller LK (1991) Insect paralysis by baculovirus-mediated expression of a mite
neurotoxin gene. Nature 352:82-85.
Wang CS, St. Leger RJ (2007) A scorpion neurotoxin increases the potency of a fungal
insecticide. Nature Biotechnol 25:1455-56.
©

Wilson K, Cotter SC, Reeson AF, Pell JK (2001) Melanism and disease resistance in insects.
Ecological Lett 4:637-49.
Wilson K, Yhomas MB, Blanford S, Doggett M, Simpson SJ, Moore SL (2002) Coping with
crowds: density-dependent disease resistance in desert locusts. Proceedings of National
Academy of Sciences USA 99:5471-5475.
124 Microbial Biopesticides in India

Wilson KR, O’Reilly DR, Hails RS, Cory JS (2000) Age-related effects of the Autographa
californica multiple nucleopolyhedrovirus egt gene in the cabbage looper (Trichoplusia
ni ). Biol Control 19:57-63.
Zhao JZ, Cao J, Li Y, Collins HL, Roush RT, Earle ED, et al (2003) Transgenic plants expressing
two Bacillus thuringiensis toxins delay insect resistance evolution. Nature Biotechnol
21:1493-1497.
Zlotkin E, Fowler E, Gurevitz M, Adams ME (1993) Depressant insect selective neurotoxins
from scorpion venom: chemistry, action, and gene cloning. Arch Insect Biochem Physiol
22:55-73.
Zwart MP, van der Werf W, Georgievska L, van Oers M, Vlak JM, Cory JS (2010) Mixed
genotype infections of Trichoplusia ni larvae with Autographa californica multicapsid
nucleopolyhedrovirus: Speed of action and persistence of a recombinant in serial
passage. Biol Control 52:77-83.

NX
GE
PA
NI
©
9
Biopesticide Commercialization:
World-wide Regulation, Policies for
Registration and Use of Biopesticides

Abstract
Biopesticides have become viable substitutes for man-made chemical
pesticides in recent years. They are less expensive and don not endanger

NX
agro-ecosystems. Because of this, their demand and production are rising
globally as well. In-depth examination reveals that there is no consistent
regulatory approach that can streamline their regulation and registration
procedure because the laws and regulations governing their usage and
GE
development differ from one country to the next. In spite of various effort
by several international organisations like the Organization for Economic
and Co-operative Development (OECD), International Organization
for Biological Control (IOBC), and European and Mediterranean Plant
Protection Organization (EPPO), some flexibility in biopesticide regulation
has been offered, it still falls short of chemical pesticides, which have a
strong market and well-established, non-overlapping legislation. World-wide
PA

regulation policies on biopesticide commercialization including registration

and field use, limitations in regulations and modified regulations required
are discussed in brief to understand the growth of biopesticides across the
world.
NI

Keywords: Biopesticide, Commercialization, Regulation policies

Registration, Use

Introduction
©

The single piece of legislation under the Indian Government that regulates
the import, manufacturing, sale, transportation, distribution, and use of all
varieties of insecticides, including biopesticides, is the Insecticide Act (1968).
Various parameters like shelf life, cross-contamination, moisture content, and
126 Microbial Biopesticides in India

packaging are significant factors that must be addressed before a biopesticide

is registered. According to Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development’s (OECD) recommendations, CIB simplified the protocols
and listed the infrastructure needs for manufacturing of biopesticides.
Information required to generate toxicity calls a strenuous effort. The demand
for meteorological data, though, adds load on manufacturers and suppressed
them from growing businesses. For instance, isolated microorganisms from
one agroclimatic zone, possessing biocontrol property may or may not result
the same findings in another agroclimatic zone. According to Rabindra
(2005), Keswani et al. (2016), and available at http://ppqs.gov.in/divisions/
cib-rc/guidelines, new biopesticides should go through provisional/temporary
registration under either 9(3B) or 9(3) section of the Insecticide Act 1968 by
providing information on moisture content, shelf life, commodity potency
with reference to LC50, toxicity, secondary non-pathogenic microbial.

Regulation Policies of Biopesticide Registration

NX
Generally speaking, the organisms chosen for insect management are effective
only against the target insect. Therefore, it is assumed that there is a minimal
chance of hurting non-target creatures, such as people. Before authorizing the
widespread use of biopesticides, it is required to conduct certain standardized
GE
safety tests that will support the presumption and provide evidence of their
efficacy. As a result, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations has established criteria, accordingly several countries have also
developed their own guidelines for licensing biopesticides (Kulshrestha
2004). Perhaps the most difficult aspect of biopesticides is their registration.
The number of registered biopesticide products has increased recently, but
PA

this number could increase further if the registration process is standardised

globally. There are many different authorities and laws emerging to control
biopesticides, but very little latitude is offered. The laws observed in various
nations and continents around the world are outlined in this section.
NI

China
To regulate pesticide use and manufacturing in China, the Regulation on
Pesticide Administration law was enacted in 1997. The law requires biopesticides
to be registered before they can be sold (Kabaluk et al. 2010). Among other
ministries, the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) is authority of pesticide
©

registration, manufacture, and commercial administration (Fang 2014). The

Ministry of Agriculture’s Institute for the Control of Agrochemicals (ICAMA
2008) is the apex regulatory body on monitoring the registration of pesticides,
including biopesticides. The General Administration of Quality Supervision,
 Biopesticide Commercialization 127

Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China only permits

registered and approved businesses to submit applications for the registration
of pesticides (Kabaluk et al. 2010). Through financial support for insect control
in forests, the Chinese Ministry of Forestry promotes the use of biopesticide.
The good agricultural practices was inculcated among farmers by encouraging
the use of biopesticides.

India
Government of India made many changes in regulations and laws to promote
biopesticide manufacturers for registration. The Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) initiative was overseen by the National Agricultural Technology Project
(NATP) from 1998 to 2005, and the National Farmer Policy (2007) also
supported the use of biopesticides in agriculture. By streamlining the licencing
and regulating process for biopesticides, the Insecticide Act (1968) encouraged
increased development and application of biopesticides. Under this act, the
Central Insecticides Board (CIB) and the Registration Committee (RC) both

NX
functioned as extremely powerful entities for biopesticide regulation (www.
cibrc.nic.in) (Kabaluk et al. 2010). The Apex Advisory Committee, or CIB,
is composed of professionals from all relevant areas and fields. The CIB has
simplified the criteria and data requirements for registration as well as the
GE
minimal infrastructure needs for the manufacture of biopesticides based on
the OECD recommendations (NAAS 2013). After carefully examining and
confirming claims on their bio-efficacy and safety for both humans and animals,
the RC issues registrations. A key factor in the promotion of biopesticides is
the National Agricultural Research System in which many ICAR institutes
and State Agricultural Universities are involved (www.icar.org.in) (Rabindra
PA

2005).

Africa
In order to create systems for the registration and regulation of biopesticides
NI

in the control of pests and diseases, some African nations adopt a variety
of standards. Some African nations are taking the initiative to build their
capabilities to control microbial pesticides. A regional inventory of the
regulatory environments was conducted in 2012 by six country representatives
from the West African region, including Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, Tanzania,
Nigeria, and Ghana as part of the commercial Products (COMPRO II) project,
©

which is run by the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA). The

project’s goal is to make biopesticides and biofertilizers more strictly regulated
(Simiyu et al. 2013).
128 Microbial Biopesticides in India

South Africa
The use, sale, and registration of biological control agents are governed by
laws and regulations in South Africa. In accordance with Act 36 of 1947, the
Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (DAFF) (www.daff.gov.za)
regulates the registration of biological medicines (DAFF 2010).

European Union
In terms of the use and production of biopesticides, it is the second-largest
continent. Microorganisms, plants, and pheromones were all governed under
the EU’s 1991 Directive 91/414/EEC, which was initially designed for
chemical pesticides (Regnault-Roger et al. 2012). While new plant protection
legislation was added in the EU in 2009, the following four pieces of legislation
are also included: (1) Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, (2) Directive 2009/128/
EC, (3) Directive 2009/127/EC, and (4) Regulation (EC) No 1185/2009. The
Directive 91/414 was amended by 2001/36/EC (EC 2001) and 2005/25/EC
(EC 2005) to add the specific requirements for microorganisms. As of 2011, all

NX
member states must abide by the new Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009, which
takes the place of Directive 91/414/EEC (Meeussen 2012). The registration
of biopesticides in EU nations appears to be more challenging than elsewhere
in the world because the dossier must be submitted along with results of
GE
environmental and toxicological testing, as well as an efficacy assessment.
According to Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009, product registrations are
handled by three zones based on geographic and climatic factors (Hauschild
2012). Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, and Sweden are in Zone A
(North); Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Hungary,
the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, and the UK
PA

are in Zone B (Central); and Bulgaria, Spain, Greece, France, Italy, Cyprus,
Malta, and Portugal are in Zone C (South). Plant protection product (PPP)
applicants must submit their registration dossier to a “Zonal reporters member
NI

state” (zRMS), which reviews the dossier. Regulation (EC) No. 283/2013,
which was recently adopted, implements Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009 for
establishing data-related concerns (EC 2013).

USSR (formerly)
The Russian Agricultural Control regulates the state registration of
©

microbiological pesticides in Russia (RAC). In addition to managing pesticide

registration, RAC oversees pesticide usage, manufacture, sale, transportation,
storage, disposal, advertising, import, and export (Kabaluk et al. 2010). The
Russian Agricultural Academy (RAN), which houses the All-Russian Institute
for Plant Protection (VIZR) in St. Petersburg, is involved in the registration
 Biopesticide Commercialization 129

procedure as well as research and development of biopesticides (Kabaluk et

al. 2010).

United Kingdom
The Chemicals Regulatory Directorate (CRD)/Pesticide Safety Directorate
(PSD) (http://www.hse.gov.uk/pesticides/) is the primary regulatory authority
in the UK in charge of plant protection products, including biopesticides.
Pesticides, biocides, detergents, and other chemicals are regulated by
the CRD, a new Directorate of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), in
accordance with the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of
Chemicals Act (REACH). Agricultural pesticide registration is handled by the
Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) entity known
as PSD (DEFRA 2006). The UK regulatory framework was created on a
chemical pesticide model, which might have prevented the commercialization
of biopesticides (ACP 2004). The biopesticide scheme was created in 2003
as a significant initiative, and its primary goal was to increase the production

NX
of biopesticides (http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/environment.asp). In order to
register and regulate biopesticides, this approach introduced the position of
“biopesticide champion” in 2006 (Chandler et al. 2011).
GE
USA
A sizeable component of the worldwide biopesticide market is in the United
States. According to USEPA (2010), the EPA in the USA has a comprehensive
and complicated regulatory system for the registration and regulation of
biopesticides, and this system has registration requirements that are different
from those of other regulatory systems (Harman et al. 2010; Chandler et al.
PA

2011). The Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP)

and the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) are in charge of regulating
biopesticides, and OPP is divided into three divisions that are involved in
pesticide registration: the Antimicrobial Division, the Registration Division,
NI

and the Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) (Matthews

2014). EPA typically mandates the use of biopesticides since they pose fewer
dangers than chemical pesticides.
The Insecticides Act of 1968, which was endorsed by the pesticide registration
committee in India, set the rules for the registration of biopesticides. The
©

research and commercialization of pest control solutions involves a number

of stakeholders, including scientists, regulators, marketers, and end users.
Although some members of this chain are frequently involved from the very
beginning of the development process, there are still many problems to be
solved. For example, marketers may frequently disagree with regulators and
130 Microbial Biopesticides in India

scientists, leaving end users perplexed about alleged flaws in the finished
product (Damalas and Koutroubas 2018; Satapathy 2018).

Biopesticide Registration Protocol in India

Regulations for biopesticide registration and further marketing were framed
during the 357th Meeting of CIB&RC held on 10th August, 2015. Important
regulations are hereunder.
1. The earlier registrants of the strain/inventor of the strain has to deposit
one sample containing at least one kg of product/formulation to the
Secretary, CIBRC that should be subject to 16 SR-DNA/Gene code
sequencing/finger printing for creating data bank of all the strains by
ICAR-NBAIM, Mau.
2. Registration of already registered strains of biopesticides:
a. Requirement of the data/information to be submitted for getting
permanent registration under section 9(3) /9(3B)

NX
b. Form-I duly filled in along with requisite registration fee of Rs. 100
as per existing requirement.
c. Already approved Label leaflets of the product/strain
d. Testimonial/documents about the company as per existing
GE
requirement.
e. Undertaking about the strain from the inventor of the strain or first
registrant or subsequent registrant of the strain or the applicant.
f. One sample (minimum one kg) for pre-registration verification (PRV)
through Central Insecticides Laboratory
PA

g. Another sample (minimum one kg) for pre-registration verification

(PRV) of Gene code sequencing/16 SR-DNA/finger printing along
with a demand draft (as per invoice obtained as testing fee from
NBAIM, Mau) in favour of NBAIM, Mau as testing fee for Gene
NI

code sequencing/16 SR-DNA/finger printing.

3. Registration of new strain of the biopesticides:
a. The applicants for registration of new strain has to submit all the data
as per existing guidelines for registration under section 9(3)/9(3B)
for all the disciplines. Two samples have to be submitted to the Sectt.
©

of CIB&RC; one for pre-registration verification (PRV) from Central

Insecticides Laboratory as per product specification requirement &
another sample to be used for pre-registration verification (PRV)
of Gene code sequencing/16 SR-DNA/finger printing along with a
demand draft (as per invoice obtained as testing fee from NBAIM,
 Biopesticide Commercialization 131

Mau) in favour of NBAIM, Mau as testing fee for Gene code

sequencing/16 SR-DNA/finger printing
b. Minimum infrastructure required for production and registration of
biopesticides:
c. Verification of the infrastructure and technical competency of the
applicants already registered under section 9(3B) and applying for
registration u/s 9(3) and/9(3B) extension has to be conducted by a
team constituted by the Secretary (CIB&RC) for the purpose.
d. Minimum CFU count and nominal concentration strength of the
formulation to be continued as per existing guidelines
e. Verification of shelf life of strain and verification of product
f. Submission of photographs for veracity of research, test and trails
Policies on Biopesticide Use
The National Agriculture Policy of India from 2000 placed a strong emphasis

NX
on farmers receiving timely and appropriate supplies of agricultural inputs,
including biopesticides. In accordance with the “Zero Budget Natural Farming”
(ZBNF) initiative put forth by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO), which promotes the use of locally obtainable natural
GE
fertilisers and biopesticides as well as farmer-owned seeds for organic farming,
the Government of India has taken the necessary coordinated action (https://
www.fao.org/agroecology/detail/en/c/443712/).
The marketing of biopesticides to farmers is the responsibility of the Ministry
of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare and the Department of Biotechnology
(DBT), in addition to the Central Integrated Pest Management Centre
PA

(CIPMC), Faridabad, the National Centre for IPM (NCIPM) under the Indian
Agricultural Research Council, and the Directorate of Biological Control
(Alam 1994). The Department of Biotechnology (DBT), in addition to the
aforementioned regulatory bodies, funds research into the development
NI

of biopesticides (Sinha and Biswas 2008). Both the National Accreditation

Board (NBA) and the National Agricultural Research System (NARS) conduct
quality control testing on biopesticides and train state agricultural departments
in these techniques.
The registration procedure for biopesticide products seems to be impeding
©

their commercialisation. In order to enable quick registration of biopesticide

products based on justifiable standards, regulatory agencies should encourage
the use of safer technology in the creation of commercial products. Additionally,
the regulatory framework should support the growth of small and medium-
132 Microbial Biopesticides in India

sized biopesticide companies, enabling them to provide consumers high-

quality products and giving growers trustworthy tools for the cost-effective
control of pests. Data requirements for biological goods are frequently derived
from those for synthetic chemical products. However, risk assessment for
biopesticides ought to be based on pertinent scientific knowledge rather
than synthetic chemical criteria. In order to reflect the nature of the various
categories of biopesticide active ingredients, it is required to modify the
standards. Data standards and instructions for biopesticides are now accurately
modified (Isman 2014). The major problem for the biocontrol sector seems
to be the length of submission procedures at both the EU and Member State
levels. In order for new products to succeed on the market, faster processes and
the enforcement of deadlines are essential. The high expense associated with
registering new medicines is another barrier to the commercialization of novel
products (Pavela 2014).
Legislation that prohibit the use of conventional pesticides like dicrotophos,
azinphos ethyl, and ammonium sulphate, among others, that have been passed

NX
by governments of countries like India, Germany, and other European nations.
These laws are projected to help the biopesticides market grow as a result of
the extraction of pesticides from natural resources such as animals, plants,
microbes, and particular minerals. It was predicted that the ban on a certain
GE
class of chemical pesticides might affect crop exports from India to other
countries, particularly Europe. For instance, the Agricultural and Processed
Food Products Export Development Authority between the United States and
India has decided to end their collaboration as of 2020 APEDA. All organic
businesses in India that seek to export to the US after July 2022 needed a
certificate provided by a USDA-accredited certifier in order to export the
PA

generated crops. This requirement took effect after an 18-month transition

period. For instance, the export amount of rice declined from 2018 to 2019
as a result of limits on specific chemicals, and it was projected that the use of
biopesticides might assist rice growers increase the export volume in 2020.
NI

The usage of biopesticides was therefore expected to rise during the anticipated
period as a result of rules regarding the use of chemicals for crop protection.
(https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5175605/india-biopesticides-
market-growth-trends-and#rela2-5214644).

Limitations in Regulations of Biopesticide Registration

©

The primary issue with biopesticide regulation, which is a systemic one, is

that it is based on the models used for traditional chemical pesticides (Greaves
2009). In the EU system, regulatory failure, according to Chandler et al.
(2008), results from the use of an ineffective synthetic pesticide paradigm and
 Biopesticide Commercialization 133

a lack of regulatory innovation. In addition, the evaluation of biopesticides

and their registration for commercial use are also drawn-out processes. The
sector complains that the current registration period is expensive and time-
consuming, notably for microbial biological control, and that the EU system
takes a long time to process registrations (Bailey et al. 2010). As an illustration,
the average time required in the EU was 75 months as opposed to 28 months
in the USA (Hokkanen and Menzler-Hokkanen 2008). The US approach is
flexible, and it occasionally invites applicants to pre-submission meetings
where the applicant is informed on which investigations are required, based
on available literature and preliminary data (Mubyana-Jhon and Taylor 2015).
Asia’s biopesticide production system is underdeveloped and underutilised as
a result of a number of institutional, social, and technical barriers that prevent
the commercial production of innovative biopesticides (NAAS 2013). There
is a difficulty with quality control in developing nations like Asia and Africa,
which makes it difficult for farmers to have confidence in their products.
Only an effective regulatory structure will be able to remedy this issue. Even

NX
though India is producing and using biopesticides, the increase is still lagging
behind that of chemical pesticides. In a study, Rabindra (2005) projected that
less than 10% of the identified need is being met by existing production of
microbial pesticides. The CIB has registered around 500 biopesticides, which
GE
are available on the Indian market. However, quality control is a significant
problem for the majority of the products (NAAS 2013).
Even though data requirements are becoming more transparent and standardised
for more effective regulatory procedures, Mensink and Scheepmaker (2007)
contend that insufficient guidance on the evaluation and use of biological
PA

products prevents premarket evaluations of the environmental safety from

being carried out. It is difficult to establish an evaluation method that is equally
fair to both biopesticides and chemical pesticides since regulatory authorities
are aware that biopesticides are fundamentally different from chemical
NI

pesticides and should not be evaluated with the same standards of safety
and efficacy (Bailey et al. 2010). One issue is that regulatory mechanisms
only evaluate individual items, although the nature of microbial pesticides
is extremely complicated and varied (Hubbard et al. 2014). In addition to
providing guidelines, Ravensberg (2011) provided advice on how to compile
a dossier and what sources to consult in order to better comprehend the exact
©

requirements of the authorities. A data requirement is rather widespread in the

USA and Canada, however the EPA does not call for a comprehensive dossier
of efficacy and phytotoxicity data, while PMRA does.
134 Microbial Biopesticides in India

The regulation of biopesticides with diverse modes of action is another

complicated problem. For instance, Trichoderma species that are utilised as
biopesticides against soil borne plant pathogenic fungi can parasitize such fungi
in the soil; they can also create antibiotics (Ghisalberti and Sivasithamparam
1991; Vey et al. 2001) and enzymes that break down fungal cell walls (Bech et
al. 2015). Trichoderma compete with soil borne pathogens for carbon, nitrogen,
and other resources (Limon and Codon 2004). They can also encourage plant
development by producing chemicals that are similar to auxin (Vinale et al.
2008; Nega 2014). Some Trichoderma products have been marketed as plant
growth promoters rather than plant pesticides (Nega 2014), which has allowed
them to avoid regulatory review of their effectiveness and safety (Bailey et
al. 2010). Pseudomonas is in a same situation. Fluorescent Pseudomonas
can be employed for both biocontrol and encouraging plant development
(Negi et al. 2005; Mehnaz 2013; Tewari and Arora 2014). There aren’t any
specific regulatory controls in place to prevent this, though. To effectively use
biopesticides, there are a number of technological and regulatory gaps that
must be filled in order to reduce the use of chemical pesticides and to advance

NX
the use of biopesticides (Kumar 2015).

Interventions in Regulations of Biopesticide

GE
In order to increase the production of agrobiologicals on a global scale,
innovation in the current biopesticide control framework is essential (Arora
et al. 2012). Currently, the regulatory environment differs by country; some
have developed systems, some are making progress in their regulatory
frameworks, and a few do not have adequate rules for biopesticides (Simiyu et
al. 2013). In order to effectively control pests, the regulatory structure in place
PA

should be environmentally benign, scientifically sound, and technologically

advanced (Greaves 2009). The issue of why biopesticides aren’t utilised more
frequently could be resolved by cutting registration fees and doing away with
effectiveness requirements (Greaves 2009). Another sensible strategy for
NI

improving biopesticide regulation is for nations to enact laws on a worldwide

scale by holding conferences, workshops, and meetings to raise the status of
biopesticides (Mishra et al. 2015).
Exogenous pressure, such as government action, and endogenous pressure,
such as pressure within regulatory organisations, are some variables that may
©

encourage the necessary regulatory improvements (Greaves 2009). There is a

need for guidelines to encourage the collaboration of businesses and research
institutes because several institutions have conducted some preliminary
research about the industrialization of biopesticides and institutional changes
may be significant; however, no systematic reports have yet been published
 Biopesticide Commercialization 135

(Leng et al. 2014). The innovative strategy for the manufacturing and
marketing of biopesticides depends heavily on the global harmonisation of
biopesticide regulatory rules, and the OECD is crucial for this harmonisation
at the global level (Holm et al. 2005). The World Health Organization (WHO)
and the OECD have an impact on pesticide control, and their participation is
crucial (NAAS 2013). In order to assist its member nations in harmonising
the methods and procedures used to analyse biological pesticides, the OECD
project on biopesticides was launched in 1999 (Sigman 2005).
More than 70 emerging and transition economies have working links with
the OECD, which now comprises 34 member countries (http://www.oecd.
org/chemicalsafety/pesticides-biocides/). The OECD’s working group on
pesticides is made up of the I Registration Steering Group (RSG), (ii) Risk
Reduction Steering Group (RRSG), and (iii) Biopesticides Steering Group
(BPSG). Through the creation of working documents and guidance, the
BPSG has made significant strides toward harmonisation and work sharing
(Richards and Kearns 1997). The OECD group’s headquarters are in Paris,

NX
France, and they work closely with EU governments to carefully examine
the risks that biopesticides pose to people and the environment (http://www.
biopesticideindustry alliance.org/).
The OECD, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and EU have all
GE
focused their emphasis on pesticide control globally, in general and in specific
(Greaves and Grant 2011; FAO 2012). An intergovernmental organisation
in Paris called EPPO is financed by contributions from its member nations
(www.eppo.int). The International Organization for the Control of Noxious
Animals and Plants (IOBC) examined the rapid global spread of the use of
PA

microbial pesticides and improvements in their regulatory systems in 2010

(IOBC 2010). Various organisations, including the OECD, North American
and European governments, have made significant strides toward promoting
harmonisation for biopesticide legislation and facility developments for
NI

work sharing between governments (AGBR 2015). As the most significant

international organisations for biopesticide regulation and innovation, the
BPSG of the OECD, the FAO, the European Commission (EC), the IOBC,
the EPPO, the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO), and
NAFTA have all worked together (AGBR 2015).
©

Conclusions
Worldwide, the commercialization of biopesticides is expanding quickly,
however the increase is not proceeding as anticipated due to a lack of
appropriate laws and other restrictions. Effective regulation can also stop fake
136 Microbial Biopesticides in India

biopesticides from being sold. The regulation of biopesticides is a barrier to

their manufacturing and commercialization. The aforementioned explanation
makes clear that different countries have different regulation criteria. It
is suggested that a common regulatory system be developed to overcome
this obstacle. In order to examine the potential dangers related to microbial
biopesticides, it is also necessary to increase communication and information
exchange between regulatory agencies, scientists, and enterprises. Guidelines
for assessing the efficacy, quality, and field testing of biopesticides also need to
be updated because they are frequently carried out by non-experts, particularly
in poor nations. Establishing regulatory organisations is necessary to ensure
quick registration of biopesticide products with justifiable regulations and
open processes, as well as to support the adoption of new, safer technology in
the creation of commercial products. The standard for regulating should be the
same across all nations and should be based on the nature of agro-biologicals
rather than chemical pesticides.

References

NX
ACP (2004) Advisory Committee on Pesticides. Final report of the sub-group of the advisory
committee on pesticides on: alternative to conventional pest control techniques in
the UK: a scoping study of the potential for their wider use. Advisory Committee on
Pesticides,York. http://www/pesticides.gov.uk/uploadedfiles/WebAssests/ACP/ACP_
GE
alternatives_web_subgrp_report.pdf.
AGBR (2015) Agrow Global Biopesticide Regulations. Commodity analysis. Available at
www.agra-net.com.
Alam G (1995) Biotechnology and sustainable agriculture: Lessons from India. OECD
development centre, working paper no. 103, Sustainable Development: Environment,
Resource Use, Technology and Trade.
Arora NK, Tewari S, Singh S, Lal N, Maheshwari DK (2012) PGPR for protection of plant health
PA

under saline conditions, 239-258pp. In: DK Maheshwari (ed), Bacteria in agrobiology:

stress management, Springer, Berlin.
Bailey KL, Boyetechko SM, Langle T (2012) social and economic drivers shaping the future of
biological control: a Canadian perspective on the factors affecting the development and
use of microbial biopesticides. Biol Control 52:221-229.
NI

Bech I, Busk PK, Lange L (2015) Cell wall degrading enzymes in Trichoderma asperellum
grown on wheat bran. Fungal genome Biol 4:116.
Chandler D, Bailey AS, Tatchell GM, Davidson G, Greaves J, Grant WP (2011) The development,
regulaltion and use of biopesticides for integrated pest management. Philos Trans R Sco
Lond H: Biol Sci 366(1573):1987-1998.
Chandler D, Davidson G, Grant WP, Greaves J, Tatchell GM (2008) Microbial biopesticides
for integrated crop management: an assessment of environmental and regulatory
©

sustainability. Trends Food Sci Technol 19:275-283.

DAFF (2010) Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Act No. 36 of 1947, Guidelines
on the data required for registration of biological/biopesticides remedies in South Africa,
Republic of South Africa.
Damalas CA, Koutroubas SD (2018) Current status and recent developments in biopesticide
use. Agriculture 8(13). doi:10.3390/agriculture8010013.
 Biopesticide Commercialization 137

DEFRA (2006) Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The royal commission
on environmental pollution report on crop spraying and the health of residents and
bystanders-governmentresponse.http://www.defra,gov.uk/environment/rcep/index.htm.
EC (2013) European Commission. No. 283/2013 setting out the data requirements for active
substances, in accordance with regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009 of the European
parliament and of the council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the
market. Off Eur Union L 93:1-84
FAO (2012) Food and Agriculture Organization. Guidance for harmonizing pesticide regulatory
management in Southeast Asia RAP publication 2012/13. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok,
p 480.
Ghisalberti EL, Sivasithamparam K (1991) antifungal antibiotics produced by Trichoderma
spp. Soil Biol Biochem 23(11):1011-1020.
Greaves J (2009) Biopesticides, regulatory innovation and the regulatory state. Public Policy
Adm 24(3):245-264.
Greaves J, Grant WP (2011) The development, regulation and use of biopesticides for integrated
pest management. Phil Trans R Soc B 366:1987-1998.
Harman GE, Obregon MA, Samuels GJ, Lorrito M (2010) Changing models for commercialization
and implementation of biocontrol in the developing and developed world. Plant Dis Int
J Appl Plant Pathol 94(8):928-993.

NX
Hauschild R (2012) Safety and regulation of microbial pest control agents and microbial plant
growth promoters: Introduction and overview, 67-71pp. In: I. Sundh, A Wilcks, MS
Goettel (eds), Beneficial microorganism in agriculture, food and the environment: safety
assessment and regulation. CAB International, Wallingford.
GE
Hokkanen H, Menzler-Hokkanen (2008) Deliverable 24: cost, trade-off and benefit analysis,
In: Regulation of biological control agents: final activity report. Christain-albrechts-
University, kiel.
Holm RE, Baron JJ, Kunkel DL (2005) World horticulture in crisis, 31-40pp. In: The BCPC
international congress proceedings, British Crop Protection Council, Alton.
ICAMA (2008) Institute for the Control of Agrochemicals, Ministry of Agriculture. Pesticide
manual, the institute for the control of agrochemicals. Ministry of Agriculture, China.
PA

www.agrolex.com.cn.
IOBC (2010) International Organization for Biological Control. Global newsletter; Issue 88.
http://www.iobc-wprs.org/pub/.
Isman MB, Grieneisen ML (2014) Botanical insecticide research: Many publications, limited
useful data. Trends Plant Sci 19:140-145.
NI

Kabaluk JT, Antonet MS, Mark SG, Stephanie GW (2010) The use and regulation of microbial
pesticides in representative jurisdictions worldwide. IOBC Global.
Keswani C, Sarma B, Singh H (2016) Synthesis of Policy Support, Quality Control, and
Regulatory Management of Biopesticides in Sustainable Agriculture. 10.1007/978-981-
10-2576-1_1.
Kulshrestha S (2004) Status of regulatory for biopesticides in India, 67-71pp. In: Kaushik N
(ed), Biopesticides for sustainable agriculture: prospects and constraints, Teri Press, The
©

Energy and Resource Institute, New Delhi.

Kumar S (2015) Biopesticides: a need for food and environmental safety. J Biofertil Biopestici
3:e127.
Leng P, Zhang Z, Pan G, Zhao M (2014) Applications and development trends in biopesticide.
Aft J Biotechnol 10(8):19864-19873.
138 Microbial Biopesticides in India

Limon MC, Codon AC (2004) Biocontrol mechanisms of Trichoderma strains. Int Microbiol
7:249-260.
Matthews KA (2014) Regulaltion of biopesticides by the environmental protection agency, 267-
279pp. In: JR Coats (ed), Biopesticides: state of the art and future opportunities, vol 18,
Symposium series, 1172, Sidley Austin, Washington, DC.
Meeussen J (2012) OECD guidelines and harmonization for microbial control agents, 308-321pp.
In: I Sundh, A. Wilcks, MS Goettel (eds), Beneficial microorganism in agriculture, food
and the environment: safety assessment and regulation. CAB International, Wallingford.
Mensink BJWG, Scheepmaker JWA (2007) how to evaluate the environmental safety of
microbial plant protection products: a proposal. Biocontrol Sci Technol 17:3-20.
Mishra J, Tewari S, Singh S, Arora NK (2015) Biopesticides: Where we stand?, 37-75pp. In:
NK Arora (ed), Plant microbes symbiosis: applied facets, Springer, New Delhi.
Mubyana-John T, Taylor J (2015) Nematophagous fungi: regulations and safety, 203-213pp.
In: TH Askary, PRP Martinelli (eds) Biocontrol agents of phytonematodes, CABI,
Wallingford.
NAAS (2013) National Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Biopesticides- quality assurance.
http://naasindia.org/Policy%20Papers/Policy%2062.pdf.
Nega A (2014) Review on concepts in biological control of plant pathogens. J Biol Agric
Healthc 4(27):33-54.
Negi YK, Garg SK, Kumar J (2005) Cold-tolerat fluorescent Pseudomonas iisolates from

NX
Garhwal Himalayas as potential plant growth promoting and biocontrol agents in pea.
Curr Sci 89:2151-2156.
Pavela R, Benelli G (2016) Essential oils as ecofriendly biopesticides?. Challenges and
constraints. Trends Plants Sci 21(12):1000-1007.
GE
Rabindra RJ (2005) Current status of production and use of microbial pesticides in India and
the way forward, 1-12pp. In: RJ Rabindra, SS Hussaini, B Ramanujam (eds), Microbial
biopesticide formulations and applications Technical Document no. 55. Project
Directorate of Biological Control.
Ravensberg WJ (2011) A roadmap to the successful development and commercialization of
microbial pest control products for control of arthropods, Springer, Dordrecht 171-
233pp.
PA

Regunault-Roger C, Vincent C, Amason JT (2012) Essential oils in insect control: low-risk

products in a high stakes world. Ann Rev Entomol 57:405-424.
Richards J, Kearns P (1997) Work on micro-organisms within the OECD’s environmental health
and safety programme. In: Evans HF (ed) Microbial insecticides: novelty or necessity?
BCPC symposium proceedings no. 68. Coventry BCPC, Farnham, pp 223-226.
NI

Satapathy SN (2018) Regulatory norms and quality control of bio-pesticides in India. Int J Curr
Microbiol App Sci 7(11):3118-3122.
Sigman R (2005) OECD’s vision for the regulation of crop protection products, 329-336pp. In:
proceedings of the BCPC International Congress-Crop Sci & Technol, Glasgow.
Simiiyu NSW, Tarus D, Watiti J, Nang’ayo F (2013) Effective regulation of bio-fertilizers and
bio-pesticides: a potential avenue to increase agricultural productivity, Policy series,
COMPRO II, IITA.
©

Sinha B, Biswas I (2008) S&T for rural India and inclusive growth, potential of biopesticide in
Indian agriculture vis-à-vis rural development. Ind Sci Technol. WWW.bistads.res.in/
indiansnt2008/t6rural/t6rur17.htm.
Tweari S, Arora NK (2014) Multifunctional exoploysaccharides from Pseudomonas aeruginosa
PF23 involved in plant growth stimulation biocontrol and stress amelioration in
sunflower under saline conditions. Curr Microbiol 69(4):484-494.
 Biopesticide Commercialization 139

USEPA (2010) United States Environmental Protection Agency. Prevention, pesticides and
toxic substances, Series 885-microbial pesticides test guidelines. EPA, Washington, DC.
Vey A, Hogland RE, Butt TM (2001) Toxic metabolites of fungal biocontrol agents 311-346pp.
In: TM Butt, C Jackson, N morgan (eds), Fungi as biocontrol agent: progress, problem
and potential, CAB International, Bristol.
Vinale F, Sivasithamparam K, Ghisalberti EL, Marra R, Woo SL, Lorito M (2008) Trichoderma
plant-pathogen interactions. Soil Biol Biochem 40:1-10.
Links
http://www.biopesticideindustry alliance.org/
https ://www.fao.org/agroecolog y/detail/en/c/443712/
https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5175605/india-biopesticides-market-growth-
trends-and#rela2-5214644

NX
GE
PA
NI
©
©
NI
PA
GE
NX
10
Promotion of Biopesticides in India:
Role of Government and Growers

Abstract
Biopesticides are cutting-edge crop protection agents that shield crops from
a wide range of pests and pathogens in an environmentally responsible way.
They outperform synthetic pesticides in a wide range of ways, including
target specificity, reduced toxicity, and biodegradability. Despite this, they

NX
are underrepresented in the crop protection industry, accounting for only
3.5 percent of the worldwide pesticides market. Biopesticides have a lot
to offer for the development of sustainable agriculture, despite their slow
adoption in the commercial pesticide industry. Understanding the main
GE
obstacles and constraints that affect the market for biopesticides can help
in the development of innovative approaches including improving delivery
systems, selecting new and improved strains, and preparing farmers and
other stakeholders to deal with issues.
Keywords: Biopesticide, Promotion, Initiatives, Consumer awareness
PA

Introduction
Pest and pathogen incidence is a natural occurrence that frequently goes
NI

unreported. However, they become a concern when their spectra expand

and cause significant losses. Chemical pesticides are now commonly used in
agricultural techniques to lessen the impact of such severe damages. Without
a question, the use of chemical pesticides has put human health, ecological
health, and sustainability at danger. Therefore, the use of biopesticides in pest
management programmes has been recognised as a sustainable solution to
©

free agriculture from the debt of disease occurrence and insect infestation.
Increased organic farming areas and related efforts in India, such as SOM,
NPOP, SMPMA, NMSA, PKVY, ZBNF, etc., are thought to support the market
and use of biopesticides.
142 Microbial Biopesticides in India

Government Initiatives
Due to the subsidy component/incentive on conventional pesticides, the
current agro-industry is reticent to do research and produce biopesticides.
However, due to restrictions on the broad use of chemical pesticides and the
phasing out and banning of a few toxic substances, there has been an increased
push in recent decades to develop biopesticides for commercial usage. The
percentage share of biocontrol products is still considerably lower than that
of chemicals, though. Policies such as entrepreneurial education, institutional
finance availability, subsidies, insurance, and tax and duty exemption can all
increase the production of biopesticides. Government support for the use of
biopesticides and the designation of no-pesticide zones may help the situation
for bioproducts. For example, the Sikkim Organic Mission (SOM), which
converted about 75,000 hectares of agricultural land, is now India’s first
organic state as a result of more strictly enforcing the National Programme
for Organic Production (NPOP) criteria connected to the organic mission.
Examining the SOM model, it was discovered that in this situation, producers

NX
and authorities were urged to employ organic inputs while avoiding synthetic
ones. The similar idea of becoming organic is also being tried in Kerala,
Arunachal Pradesh, and Mizoram.
GE
In order to advance the organic movement and lower chemical risk, the Ministry
of Agriculture’s Department of Agriculture & Cooperation introduced the
Organic Farming Policy in 2005. The regulation recognised organic sources of
nutrients such biofertilizers, organic manures, compost, and biocontrol agents
as certified inputs for organic farming (biopesticides). The National Bank for
Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) introduced the Strengthening
PA

and Modernizing Pest Management Approach in India (SMPMA) capital

investment subsidy programme, which provided financial assistance for the
establishment of bio-fertilizer/bio-pesticide units as a 25% subsidy up to a
maximum of 4 million rupees.
NI

The National Action Plan on Climate Change included the establishment of

the National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA), which dealt with
“Sustainable Agriculture” issues (NAPCC). The third mission intervention of
NMSA was related to pest management and aimed to promote biopesticide
research, commercial manufacturing, and commercialization. The major
objective was to develop new biopesticides and technology for disease
©

prediction employing innovative botanical applications, sterile insect

approaches, transgenic insects, semiochemicals, and endophytic microbial
metabolites. Additionally, the “Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana” (PKVY)
and “Soil Health Management” (SHM) programmes have been launched to
 Promotion of Biopesticides in India: Role of Government and Growers 143

support organic farming by adopting organic communities through a cluster

model and PGS certification (Reddy 2017). Farmers ensure their product is
free of any synthetic chemicals, including fertilisers, pesticides, and hormones,
under the self-regulatory PGS programme. A neighbourhood group of five
or more organic farms supports the programme. The PGS Organic Council
unifies the standards for production quality control and permits the use of its
PGS label as a quality stamp on goods (https://www.pgsorganic.in).
In the last five years, the government has also taken the required steps to support
the widespread use of biopesticides. The “Zero-Budget Farming” method,
which has had considerable success in southern India, is already in use in a
few other states across the country. Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF),
as the technique is known by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO), emphasises minimising the superfluous expenditure
of agricultural inputs such the purchase of pricey seed, chemical fertilisers,
and pesticides. Instead of such expensive machinery, it encourages the use of
farmer-owned seeds, naturally occurring local fertilisers, and biopesticides for

NX
organic farming.

Consumer Awareness on Biopesticides

The inadequate usage of biopesticides is primarily the result of consumer and
GE
user ignorance (Arora et al. 2010). The word “biopesticides” is unfamiliar to
many farmers, and others are unsure whether to use them instead of chemicals.
Because of imprecise and unfavourable results, several people have stopped
using biopesticides. However, since the production techniques utilised in such
formulations do not meet the requirements specified by regulatory agencies,
low-quality, non-registered products are particularly affected by this issue. It
PA

is imperative to stress that the proposed biopesticides should have reliable,

repeatable, consistent, and focused activity (Mishra et al. 2015). The host
range and circumstances under which the formulation will work should be
clearly stated on the product. Knowing how farmers feel about biopesticides is
NI

important because they are the ultimate users of these products. This is because
it helps determine the suggestions and needs for appropriate biological control
measures in farming systems. However, there is a marked difference between
small and large farmers in adopting biopesticides in practice.
Smaller farmers frequently ignore or disregard government initiatives and
©

programmes pertaining to organic agriculture. Additionally, there are myths

about biopesticide requirements such as higher costs, lesser yield, and other
requirements. Furthermore, the illicit sale and usage of counterfeit goods is
a serious problem that has caused farmers to lose faith in biopesticides; this
144 Microbial Biopesticides in India

calls for prompt government attention (FICCI 2015). By offering orientation

and demonstration sessions where farmers may learn how to use quality
products, private enterprises may also help to resolve this issue. For the same
reason, farmer field schools (FFS), which offer field-based, location-specific
instruction on biopesticides for the development of knowledge and confidence
among the end-users, have been established in various states (Mohanty and
Sahu 2019).
Despite being safer for the environment than synthetic pesticides, the use
of biopesticides is far lower than that of synthetic pesticides due to lack of
information, lack of trust, and unavailability in local markets. In order for
governmental, non-governmental, and educational institutions to properly
apply biopesticides, farmers must be educated about the advantages of doing
so through on-farm training. The government should offer the biopesticides as
a subsidy or for free when purchasing agricultural products to promote their
use by farmers.

NX
Conclusions
Although biopesticides have demonstrated their value in the sustainable
management of pests and pathogens, they are currently a niche product in the
crop protection market. The primary causes of the market for biopesticides
GE
still being in its infancy are farmers’ lack of confidence as a result of their
long-standing reliance on chemical pesticides for crop protection, their lack of
awareness, poor government support, a lax regulatory system, inappropriate
technologies, and a lack of knowledge. Governmental, non-governmental,
corporate, and public institutions, as well as universities, must all take a
holistic approach to meet these difficulties.
PA

References
Arora NK, Khare E, Maheshwari DK (2010) Plant growthpromoting rhizobacteria: constraints
NI

in bioformulation, commercialization, and future strategies 97-116pp. In: D Maheshwari

(ed) Plant growth and health promoting bacteria. Microbiology Monographs, vol 18,
Springer, Heidelberg.
FICCI (2015) Study on sub-standard, spurious/counterfeit pesticides in India 2015-report.
Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry 96p.
Mishra J, Tewari S, Sing S, Arora NK (2015) Biopesticides: where we stand? 37-75pp. In: N
Arora (ed) Plant microbes symbiosis: applied facets, Springer, New Delhi
Mohanty A, Sahu R (2019) Farmer Field School-building knowledge on the farm LEISA INDIA
©

available online at https://leisaindia.org/farmer-field-school-building-knowledge-on-

the-farm/
Reddy AA (2017) Impact study of paramparagat krishi vikas yojana. National Institute of
Agricultural Extension Management (MANAGE), Hyderabad 210p.
Links
https://www.pgsorganic.in
11
Growth of Biopesticides:
Driving Force and Set-Back

Abstract
The toxicity and non-biodegradability of chemical pesticides have stoked the
demand for more sustainable alternatives. In addition to this, the persistently
rising demand for cost-effective pest control measures has increased the
utilization of biopesticides across several countries. However, their use

NX
has remained low in certain under-developed nations but are expected to
witness better growth in the coming years. India offers a wide range of
options in terms of supplies for natural biological control organisms as well
as natural plant-based insecticides because of its great biodiversity. The
GE
widely diverse indigenous tribes in India’s rich traditional knowledge base
may hold important hints for the development of more advanced and efficient
biopesticide. The National Farmer Policy of 2007 aggressively encouraged
the adoption of biopesticides to boost agricultural output while maintaining
farmer and environmental health. Additionally, it states that biopesticides
will receive the same funding and promotion as chemical pesticides.
PA

Biopesticides are yet to take off in a major way in India because of mixed
constraints, despite their enormous market potential and the national and
state initiatives to promote them as alternatives to chemical pesticides. This
chapter seeks to examine the factors enabling growth in the market as well as
those restraining its trajectory.
NI

Keywords: Biopesticide, Adaptation, Driving force, Demerits

Introduction
©

Regulations should make it easier to utilise creative, long-lasting solutions,

allowing for the selection of the most environmentally friendly pest management
method. This can be accomplished by using expedited registration, priority
registration, and a combination of comparative evaluation of pest control
techniques and the substitution principle, which allows a natural pest control
146 Microbial Biopesticides in India

technique to take the place of a synthetic pesticide. More microbial biological

control agents will be registered more quickly as a result of the modifications
in registration procedures, which will logically lead to lower product costs (EC
2009; van Lenteren et al. 2018).
Another significant step toward making biological control more appealing
and available to farmers is the development of a standardised process for the
registration of microbial biological control agents that may be used locally
or globally. Use of biopesticides is prompted by the removal of pesticides
from the market as a result of observed health, non-target, and environmental
effects, the emergence of new pests for which no pesticides are available, the
development of resistance that reduces the effectiveness of pesticides, and
all stimulate use of biopesticides (Urbaneja et al. 2012). Non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) have had success switching from chemical to biological
control in a number of instances by providing information on the impacts of
pesticides on the environment and their illegitimate usage (Calvo et al. 2012).
A rise in the use of biological control has also been attributed to the

NX
development of new and improved biological control methods, improved
and more stable formulations for microbial biological control agents and
their use as seed treatments, more practical application techniques for
GE
invertebrate biological control agents (equipment to release biological control
agents in crops, use of drones, etc.), and steadily more stable formulations
of microbial biological control agents. It’s interesting to note that growers
quickly adopted the additional information and techniques needed to make
biological control effective, and in many cases they developed new ideas and
technology to enhance the release and establishment of invertebrate biological
PA

control agents. Additionally, they inspired scientists and the biological control
sector to develop fresh invertebrate biological control techniques for newly
emergent pests. When farmer organisations recognise the various benefits
of biopesticides, including their economics, crop protection will undergo a
NI

new renaissance. They should take a far more proactive stance and demand
expedited registration of cutting-edge sustainable control technologies in order
to protect their own interests.
The market for biological control would significantly expand if the “real cost”
theory were applied to chemical pesticides. Governments support the use of
pesticides since the industry is not held accountable for human illnesses and
©

deaths brought on by prolonged exposure to pesticides, nor is it required to pay

for the cost of repairing environmental harm. As a result, costs associated with
pesticides that have negative effects on human health and the environment
are externalised and paid for by society, which is unethical and unscrupulous
 Growth of Biopesticides: Driving Force and Set-Back 147

because the pesticide industry only benefits financially from these costs while
bearing none of the responsibility. In the past, pesticides’ profitability was in
fact overstated. Chemical pesticide costs would increase significantly with
realistic pricing that took into account true costs, and non-chemical alternative
controls would face fairer competition. Despite the fact that there have
been known hidden costs associated with pesticides since the 1980s, prices
of pesticides have rarely increased as a result. Applying levies on synthetic
pesticides would be a first step toward true cost pricing because it would result
in higher, more accurate costs for these products as well as more competitive
pricing for the biological control agents employed in IPM programmes.
(Pimentel and Burgess 2014; Bourguet and Guillemaud 2016; https://www.
fortunebusinessinsights.com/thoughtleadership/biopesticides-trend-9099).

Supporting Points for Biopesticide Growth

1. Because of the rigorous battery of tests required for commercialization,
some promising strains created by publicly supported research

NX
organisations in India are essentially confined to the shelf.
2. DNA bar-coding for precise identification of the species to be included
in the creation of biopesticides before their field applications.
3. For the licensing and marketing of biopesticides in India, a comprehensive
GE
federal action plan, realistic budget, and efficient administrative
procedures are required.
4. Farmers should receive sufficient training on using biopesticides in order
to reap the greatest benefits.
5. The main drivers of the market expansion for biopesticides are the rise
PA

in demand for high-quality food, average entry hurdles, ecological

imbalances, changing markets in developing nations, and ecological and
health concerns for people, animals, and plants.
6. Environmental safety awareness raising, increased demand for
NI

chemical-free and environmentally friendly farming products, new

product introductions, enhanced scientific validity of biopesticides,
strict regulatory pressure, increased demand for organic products, and
higher user confidence
7. Due to the efforts of Government of India programmes like
©

Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana (PKVY), Mission Organic Value

Chain Development for North Eastern Region (MOVCDNER), and
National Programme of Organic Production (NPOP), the area under
organic cultivation increased from 1.5 million ha in 2016 to 1.9 million
ha in 2018. A total of 1.35 million metric tonnes of organic food
148 Microbial Biopesticides in India

were produced in the nation in 2016 by 0.65 million organic farmers.

The biopesticide market in India is being driven by a sizable organic
farming sector, and this trend is expected to continue (https://www.
researchandmarkets.com/reports/5175605/india-biopesticides-market-
growth-trends-and#rela2-5214644).
8. The ‘Green Revolution’ is progressively giving way to the ‘Ever-green
Revolution’, especially in countries with strong agricultural foundations.
Due to their eco-friendly, economical, farmer- and consumer-friendly
qualities, the role of agri-bio inputs will thus be vital in fostering this
shift. Additionally, it is anticipated that growing consumer demand for
foods (organic food products) free of synthetic pesticides would further
fuel market expansion.
9. Growers are becoming more and more eager to try biological solutions
when conventional synthetic alternatives lose their effectiveness as a
result of biotic stressors acquiring resistance.
10. The prohibitively high costs of developing synthetic crop protection

NX
chemistries are another factor driving the development of biopesticides.
According to tech developers, the development and approval of a novel
synthetic pesticide typically takes $250 million and nine years, whereas
a biopesticide requires less than $10 million and four years.
GE
11. The proliferation of start-ups in the biopesticide industry has produced
a highly competitive and cutting-edge environment for advancements.
Synthetic pesticides have not seen as much recent release as innovative
biopesticide components.
12. The Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee, GOI,
PA

provided straight forward and quick regulatory approval for the

registration of biopesticides.
13. The government of India banned 18 active chemical compounds in
response to growing environmental concerns and household awareness
NI

of food safety.
14. A lot of Indian export goods don’t match the required minimum residue
level
15. Biopesticide usage is scaled up owing to government support and
increasing awareness about the use of non-toxic, environment-friendly
©

pesticides.
16. A long-term collaboration agreement for the sale of biological products
from Bioworks Inc., including biopesticides, in India and South Asia.
 Growth of Biopesticides: Driving Force and Set-Back 149

17. The market is primarily driven by the issue of chemical pesticide

residues, the appeal of organic farming, environmental concerns, and
the simple registration procedure.
18. New applications for biocontrol, such as nanotechnology, RNAi, etc.
that are not achievable with synthetic crop protection are what are
causing the expansion of biopesticides.
19. Concrete proof of biopesticides’ effectiveness in reducing crop damage
and the resulting rise in crop yield
20. Affordable, high-quality items are readily available.
21. Supply chain management needs to be improved in order to use
biopesticides more frequently. An effective distribution mechanism for
biopesticides from the plant where they are produced to the farm where
they are used is crucial in this regard.
Factors Restrain Biopesticide Market
1. Due to federal and state initiatives, the demand for biopesticides

NX
has increased, which has resulted in “driving the marketing of fake
biopesticides.”
2. The limited production of biopesticides with biopesticidal formulations,
GE
registered under the 1968 Insecticide Act
3. The expense and lengthy licensing process for biopesticides in India
discourage businesses from investing in the study and development of
biological pesticides.
4. Before registering and propagating biopesticides, it is necessary to
confirm the microorganism’s bio-safety. In order to do rigorous safety
PA

and allergy tests, many universities and research institutes who conduct
the original research and create biopesticides are unable to cover the
additional costs. For instance, immune-compromised people have
reported allergies to various fungi, such as Trichoderma, Metarhizium,
NI

Anisopliae, and Beauveria.

5. They cannot be employed against a variety of pests since they are target-
specific, which is a limitation.
6. Biopesticides’ effectiveness varies from climate to climate and is also
extremely dose-dependent.
©

7. Due to the wide variations in the active and related substances of the
parent plants in different agro-climatic zones, it is frequently challenging
to make pure botanical pesticides, in contrast to synthetic pesticides,
which can be made in desired purity and yield. Their physical and
150 Microbial Biopesticides in India

chemical characteristics, as well as toxicological and other relevant

features, change as a result. Their contamination by physical, chemical,
or microorganisms also makes things more difficult.
8. The main market restrictions are farmers’ lack of awareness and
biopesticides’ expensive price.
9. The market’s expansion may be constrained by the lower acceptance
rate of biopesticides than that of chemical agri-inputs.
10. Key heavyweights are strongly represented in the traditional and
conventional agri-inputs sector, which is well-structured globally.
But the biopesticides business is characterised by a number of start-
ups that are having trouble getting enough money, building the right
infrastructure, and getting traction with customers.
11. Many smaller developers may find it difficult to compete with established,
potent synthetic pesticides, both in terms of proving the effectiveness
of biopesticides and, more crucially, in persuading producers to switch
from their tried-and-true ways to new and somewhat unproven products.

NX
12. In addition, several types of biopesticides, particularly those produced
from genetic materials or crop diseases, face unknown regulatory approval
paths; this increases the difficulty of licensing and commercialization
GE
and impedes the innovation and development of biopesticides.
13. The bulk of biocontrol strategies necessitate repeated, frequent treatments
for best results. These applications require more work and money, which
sometimes acts as a barrier and stunts the development of biopesticides.
14. The research and development (R&D) of biopesticides carried out by
small businesses consistently fails to understand the demand dynamics
PA

of a given location, which can further impede market growth.

15. The development of biopesticides is a high-risk business since it requires
an initial large capital outlay to choose prospective strains for sales, as
NI

well as packaging, storage, and distribution.

16. Aside from the aforementioned problems, the single biggest barrier to
the development and growth of biopesticides is the widespread selling of
substandard (low CFU count), fake (no CFU count products) (Alam 1995).
and misbranded (pesticide-laced bioproducts-pseudo-biopesticides)
biopesticides (Keswani et al. 2016). APEDA (Ministry of Commerce)-
©

certified organic bio-inputs supplied under the pretence of uncontrolled

organic bio-inputs (not permitted by CIBRC) also constitute a severe
threat to high-quality biopesticides. The organic bio-input products
are not put through any bio-efficacy/safety experiments as required by
 Growth of Biopesticides: Driving Force and Set-Back 151

CIBRC. These categories account for over 65% of overall biopesticide

sales (Singh and Arora 2016). To make biopesticides an effective tool
for IPM/Sustainable Agriculture, the agriculture departments should
strictly enforce the licensing requirements and quality controls for them.
17. The high prices for biopesticide registration (http://ppqs.gov.in/
divisions/cib-rc/guidelines) are another barrier to advancing research,
development, and usage of biopesticides in IPM/Sustainable Agriculture.
Relaxed rules for CIBRC registration should be drafted in order to
enable the registration of many biopesticides (GHS). The main barrier
to promoting the use of biopesticides, biofertilizers, and botanicals is the
imposition of a 12 percent Goods and Services Tax (GST) on microbial
goods as well as on the botanical product (neem) (the same GST rate as
for toxic/hazardous conventional chemical pesticides).
18. Farmers have a lot of concerns about the short shelf life of biopesticides.
Because live bacteria make up the majority of biopesticides, changes in
temperature, humidity, or even exposure to ultraviolet radiation reduce

NX
their effectiveness (Arora et al. 2016). Additionally, contamination may
significantly lower the product’s microbial count, greatly decreasing its
efficacy in real-world settings (Alam 2000; Evans et al. 1993). Due to a
shortage of money for the next steps, everything stalls before: adherence
GE
to regulatory requirements, scalability for application and delivery,
marketing, and commercialization.
19. The rapid emergence of the corona virus pandemic has had an impact
on the world market as countries have implemented lockdown measures
and restricted public movement. These activities are having a substantial
impact on the manufacturing of biopesticides, as firms are experiencing
PA

supply chain disruptions, a shortage of raw materials, forced plant

closures, and a lack of staff.
Conclusions
NI

Long-lasting shelf of biopesticide formulations, DNA-bar-coding for precise

identification of organism, comprehensive federal action plan, training and
awareness, rise in demand for high quality food, strict regulatory pressure,
increase of area under organic farming, Green revolution to Ever-green
revolution, proliferation of start-ups of biopesticide units, quick regulatory
©

approval for registration by CIB&RC, New Delhi, India, withdrawal of

dangerous chemical pesticides, negative consequences of Green revolution,
failure of novel applications such as nanotechnology, RNAi etc., in
development synthetic plant protection solutions etc., are considered as few
152 Microbial Biopesticides in India

driving forces to boost the growth of biopesticide in Indian agriculture. The

USEPA has implemented a number of measures for the quick expansion of
the biopesticide market, including appropriate changes to the registration
process for the quick commercialization of biopesticide formulations, real cost
policy, stakeholder perspectives, manufacturer and dealer of biopesticides,
etc. Sustainable agriculture is referred to as “Conscious Agriculture” and is
positioned between contemporary agriculture and conventional agriculture.
All parties involved in the production and consumption processes must
participate in conscious agriculture, which also protects the environment and
the availability of resources for future generations. According to a position
paper Fresco and Poppe recently issued, conscious agriculture is smoothly
integrated into a “shared agricultural and food policy” (2016).

References
Alam G (1995) Biotechnology and sustainable agriculture: Lessons from India. OECD
development centre, working paper no. 103, Sustainable Development: Environment,
Resource Use, Technology and Trade. doi:10.1787/711068780307

NX
Arora NK, Verma M, Prakash J, Mishra J (2016) Regulation of biopesticides: Global concern
and Policies, 283-299pp. In: NK Arora et al. (eds), Bioformulations for sustainable
agriculture. Springer India
Bourguet D, Guillemaud T (2016) The hidden and external costs of pesticide use. In: Lightfouse
GE
E (ed) Sustanable agriculture reviews. Springer, Dordrecht, 35-120pp.
Calvo FJ, Bolckmans K, Belda JE (2021) Biological control-based IPM in sweet pepper
greenhouses using Amblyseius swirskii (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Biocontrol Sci Technol
22:1398-1416.
EC (2009) Sustainable use directive. European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October
2009establishing a frame-work for community action to achieve the sustainable use of
pesticides. Off J Eur Union L 309:71-86.
PA

Evans J, Wallace C, Dobrowolski N (1993) Interaction of soil type and temperature on the
survival of Rhizobium leguminosarum bv Viciae. Soil Biol Biochem 25:1153-1160
Fresco L, Poppe K (2016) Towards a common agricultural and food policy. Wageningen
University and Research, Wageningen. doi:10.18174/390280.
Keswani C, Sarma B, Singh H (2016) Synthesis of Policy Support, Quality Control, and
NI

Regulatory Management of Biopesticides in Sustainable Agriculture. 10.1007/978-981-

10-2576-1_1.
Pimentel D, Burgess M (2014) Environmental and economic costs of the application of
pesticides primarily in the United States. In: Pimentel D, Peshin R (eds) Integrated pest
management. Springer, Dordrecht, 47-71pp.
Singh R, Arora NK (2016) Bacterial formulations and delivery systems against pests in
sustainable agro-food production systems against pests in sustainable agro-food
©

production. Module in Food Sci, Elsevier, 1-11pp.

Urbaneja A, Gonzalez-Cabrera J, Arno J, Gabarra R (2012) Prospects for the Mediterranean
basin. Pest Man Sci 68:1215-1222.
van Lenteren JC, Bolckmans K, Kohl J, Ravensberg WJ, Urbaneja A (2018) Biological control
using invertebrates and microorganisms: plenty of new opportunities. BioControl 63:39-
59.
 Growth of Biopesticides: Driving Force and Set-Back 153

Links
https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/thoughtleadership/biopesticides-trend-9099
https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5175605/india-biopesticides-market-growth-
trends-and#rela2-5214644

NX
GE
PA
NI
©
©
NI
PA
GE
NX
 ISBN 939531988-7

9 789395 319881