RESEARCH
Peer reviewed scientific video journal
Video encyclopedia of advanced research methods
Visualizing science through experiment videos
EDUCATION
Video textbooks for undergraduate courses
Visual demonstrations of key scientific experiments
BUSINESS
Video textbooks for business education
OTHERS
Interactive video based quizzes for formative assessments
Products
RESEARCH
JoVE Journal
Peer reviewed scientific video journal
JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments
Video encyclopedia of advanced research methods
EDUCATION
JoVE Core
Video textbooks for undergraduates
JoVE Science Education
Visual demonstrations of key scientific experiments
JoVE Lab Manual
Videos of experiments for undergraduate lab courses
BUSINESS
JoVE Business
Video textbooks for business education
Solutions
Language
English
Menu
Menu
Menu
Menu
Research Article
Shawn A. Steffan1,2, Sehrish Gulzar3, Camila Oliveira-Hofman3, David I. Shapiro-Ilan3
1US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Vegetable Crops Research Unit, 2Department of Entomology,University of Wisconsin-Madison, 3US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service,Southeast Fruit and Tree Nut Research Unit
Erratum Notice
Important: There has been an erratum issued for this article. View Erratum Notice
Retraction Notice
The article Assisted Selection of Biomarkers by Linear Discriminant Analysis Effect Size (LEfSe) in Microbiome Data (10.3791/61715) has been retracted by the journal upon the authors' request due to a conflict regarding the data and methodology. View Retraction Notice
We present two methods for farmers to mass-propagate entomopathogenic nematodes as bio-insecticides. The first method uses polyacrylamide gel as the nematode culturing substrate, while the second uses polymer-coated cotton wool as the culturing substrate. Both methods rely on in vivo propagation of nematodes within insect cadavers.
Entomopathogenic nematodes (EPNs) produced through in vitro or in vivo methods are highly effective biocontrol agents for insect pest management. In vivo mass-propagation systems result in high-quality nematodes but are often more labor-intensive and/or less cost-effective than commercial in vitro methods. Grower-oriented nematode propagation systems described to date are generally unreliable because they rely on external sources (industry or academic laboratories) to calibrate the inoculum. We designed novel grower-based systems where farmers can continuously produce their own nematodes after acquiring inoculum from established EPN production laboratories/companies.
Here, we present two methods for farmers to mass-propagate EPNs as bio-insecticides. In the first method, we compared in vivo nematode production using the standard White trap method to a grower-oriented approach involving polyacrylamide gel as the nematode substrate. The grower-oriented method produced more nematodes than the standard method when culturing two commonly available EPN species (Steinernema carpocapsae and Heterorhabditis bacteriophora).
In the second method, two native nematode species (Oscheius onirici and Heterorhabditis georgiana) were mass-propagated within live beetle larvae (Tenebrio molitor) that were embedded between two layers of a polymer-coated cotton wool. Harvesting the emerged nematodes from the wool bilayer employed systematic irrigation of a tray, creating a nematode slurry ready for field applications. These grower-oriented systems hold promise for wide adoption by agricultural stakeholders because the approaches are technically simple and scalable for those who seek accessible, reliable methods to produce nematodes. By providing growers a means to create their own pest management tools, these methods should facilitate greater independence and profitability on US farms.
Entomopathogenic nematodes (EPNs), commonly represented by species of Steinernema and Heterorhabditis, have been relied upon as effective biocontrol agents of soil-borne insect pests for many years1. EPNs forage in the soil for insect hosts, and when a nematode finds a suitable host, it enters the insect's body and deploys symbiotic bacteria to kill the insect2. These symbiotic bacteria consume the host, multiply within the cadaver, and become the primary food source for the nematodes3. Ultimately, after multiple generations of nematodes within the host cadaver, the infective juvenile nematodes (IJs) emerge to search for new insect hosts. It is at this stage that the nematodes can be harvested and deployed as a bio-insecticide for crop protection. Farmers (and other agricultural stakeholders) can purchase formulations of such beneficial nematodes, but rarely can farmers grow their own nematodes to use as part of pest management programs.
Culturing and harvesting nematodes via typical production methods can be quite difficult. Small-scale production of EPNs is often based on in vivo methods, while at larger scales, in vitro production is used4. Most in vitro methods use homogenates of animal byproducts as the diet for the nematodes, thereby side-stepping the handling of insects. Not surprisingly, in vivo production can be challenging and expensive because it involves inoculation of live insect hosts, often using the White trap method5 with either Galleria mellonella L. ('waxworms') or Tenebrio molitor L. ('mealworms'). Culturing nematodes within insect hosts adds not only the high cost of live insects but also the labor associated with handling them.
As EPNs develop within their insect hosts, the cadavers show characteristic signs of infection corresponding to the EPN genus infecting them6. The cadavers can then be placed onto a moistened surface within a holding dish that has been placed inside a larger, water-filled dish7. When nematodes have completed their life cycle inside the host cadaver, the IJs exit the cadaver and are collected, typically using gentle irrigation with water, and then stored in a variety of media, including inert substrates like gels (Figure 1), sawdust, or vermiculite8. In vivo production generally reflects a low economy of scale due to labor and insect costs7,9.
In vitro production is based on the rearing of EPNs on artificial media containing monoxenic cultures of EPNs and their symbiotic bacteria, Photorhabdus (for Heterorhabditis) and Xenorhabdus (for Steinernema)4,10. This method necessitates advanced expertise and significant capital outlay for the materials and instrumentation attendant to high-throughput fermentation11. As a result, reliable in vitro EPN production is likely to be cost-prohibitive for many farming operations.
For farmers and other agricultural stakeholders, the technical challenges associated with in vitro techniques can be circumvented by improving in vivo methodologies, particularly enhanced insect rearing12 combined with automated nematode inoculation and harvest7,13. Such in vivo methods can become substantially more efficient, given that they optimize EPN inoculation, production, and storage procedures7,14,15,16. Further, in vivo production can be tailored to the needs of the end users by facilitating EPN production by the farmers themselves17. One basic disadvantage of this method is that the nematode inoculum must be resupplied to the growers from a commercial or publicly funded source for each round of production9, rendering the grower perpetually dependent on the externally provided inoculum source. Therefore, a sustainable, long-term EPN production method was needed for growers. The resulting sustainable methods are presented in this paper.
To explore these approaches, we set up two different in vivo production methods. In the first method, we compared in vivo production from the standard White trap approach to the novel grower-oriented method. The result is a relatively simple, low-cost approach for EPN production that is sustainable and easily adaptable to various EPN species9. One of the key advantages of this method is that a small subset of the EPNs produced in any 'batch' can be used to inoculate insect hosts for subsequent batches. Thus, once a grower has been provided the initial EPN inoculum, the external source material is no longer needed. This process is responsive to the continual use by the grower.
A similarly low-cost/low-input approach to nematode propagation has been developed in-parallel, focused largely on biocontrol of cranberry pests in Wisconsin, USA. Recently, two nematode strains of the species, Oscheius onirici (Nematoda: Rhabditidae) and Heterorhabditis georgiana (Nematoda: Rhabditidae), were discovered in the acidic peatlands of central Wisconsin18 and tested repeatedly in field studies18,19. These species are native and have been shown to be highly virulent against historically problematic insect pests18,19,20. As such, many farmers have been interested in using these nematodes as biocontrol agents for crop pests (sparganothis fruitworm and redheaded flea beetle). The nematodes can be mass-propagated in vivo using beetle larvae (Tenebrio molitor) that have been embedded within wet, well-aerated layers of a polymer-coated cotton wool (i.e., 'horse gauze'). Importantly, the fibers are wettable yet stiff enough to maintain the thickness of the gauze after water has been added. As a result, the bilayers of gauze do not compress when wet, facilitating better air circulation and nematode survivorship. The bilayer gauze system better simulates the pore spaces within moist soil and is suitable for nematode storage once the IJs have emerged. Harvesting of IJs from the gauze bilayer is readily accomplished via systematic irrigation of the gauze and collection of the nematode-rich slurry.
1. Obtaining the initial inoculation and basic procedures
NOTE: Mass production for the grower-based methods is based on infected insect hosts. In the first method, once the initial inoculum is produced, aqueous suspensions of nematodes are no longer needed to infect new hosts.
2. Steinernema carpocapsae experiment
NOTE: The objective of this study was to validate IJ production in a grower-based approach relative to the standard White trap approach by varying arena size.
3. Heterorhabditis bacteriophora experiment
NOTE: This experiment was designed to test a grower-based production procedure for H. bacteriophora (procedures were based on the results of the S. carpocapsae experiment).
4. Oscheius onirici and Heterorhabditis georgiana propagation
NOTE: The objective of this study was to validate IJ production using a second grower-based approach that relied upon a commercially available polymer-coated cotton wool (horse gauze) as the culturing substrate. In this procedure, the horse gauze serves as the substrate for emerging IJs because its physical properties allow for both aeration and an efficient harvest of IJs. The horse gauze approach was compared to a standard nematode substrate (simple cotton wool).
S. carpocapsae experiment
Treatment effects were significant based on the mean numbers of IJs/cadaver (One-way ANOVA: F4,39 = 2.95, P = 0.0362). Only T2 and T4 were significantly different from each other, as T4 produced more IJs per cadaver (244,029 ± 16,241) than T2 (159,114 ± 9,669) (Figure 2).
H. bacteriophora experiment
A significant treatment effect was observed on the mean number of IJs per cadaver in this experiment (One-way ANOVA: F1,19 = 5.0, P = 0.040). The treatment based on the grower-oriented method had significantly more IJs/cadaver (186,389 ± 28,645) than the White trap treatment (124,470 ± 19,129) (Figure 3).
Oscheius onirici and Heterorhabditis georgiana propagation
The bilayer of horse gauze was equally effective as cotton wool at providing a culturing substrate for O. onirici and H. georgiana nematodes (Two-way ANOVA: main effect of Nematode Identity: F1,23 = 0.146; P = 0.706; main effect of Substrate Type: F1,23 = 0.104; P = 0.751; interaction between Nematode Identity and Substrate Type: F1,23 = 0.346; P = 0.563). Mean O. onirici per L from trays with cotton and horse gauze were, respectively (in millions), 101.11 ± 13.73 and 95.93 ± 20.19. Mean H. georgiana per L from trays with cotton and horse gauze were, respectively (in millions), 82.23 ± 18.69 and 99.93 ± 18.40.

Figure 1: Diagram of the grower-based method. Step 1: inoculation; Step 2: mass incubation; Step 3: transfer to polyacrylamide gel with screen. Abbreviation: IJs = infective juvenile nematodes. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: Mean Steinernema carpocapsae (All) infective juvenile (IJ) production per Galleria mellonella cadaver across five treatments. Abbreviation: IJs = infective juvenile nematodes. This figure was taken with permission from Oliveira-Hofman et al.9. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3: Mean Heterorhabditis bacteriophora (VS strain) infective juvenile production per Galleria mellonella cadaver from a White trap and a polyacrylamide gel treatment. This figure was taken with permission from Oliveira-Hofman et al.9. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
This research has revealed that grower-oriented methods (with polyacrylamide gel and/or a polymer-coated gauze bilayer) can reliably produce high numbers of nematodes for pest control programs. Importantly, basic parameters of the processes mentioned above can be improved to fulfill grower needs (e.g., host density, arena sizes, and substrates used). The two approaches may be suitable for different cropping systems; a comparison and further optimization of the methods will be a major topic of future research.
When comparing the polyacrylamide gel to the White trap-based method, the gel substrate produces greater numbers of IJs. A critical element of these findings is that IJs can move directly into the gel, whereas in White traps they must move from inside the holding dish to the harvest dish, and, therefore, some IJs may not reach the harvest dish. There are advantages to harvesting IJs directly from gel, given that IJs tend to disperse into their surroundings, effectively concentrating themselves in the gel, facilitating storage and/or harvest15.
Similarly, IJs cultured in mealworms embedded in the gauze bilayer can also leave the cadavers, and by tracking gravity, will move down and gather on/in the wetted fibers of the gauze. The structure of the polymer-coated bilayer creates a high surface area on which nematodes can be concentrated. The ease of culturing and harvesting of the IJs makes this approach amenable to growers wishing to produce nematodes in-house. The finding that horse gauze was as productive as cotton wool is quite important because it indicates that the benefits of horse gauze (i.e., improved nematode harvest efficiency) can be sustained without reductions in productivity. It is likely that horse gauze provides greater aeration, compared to cotton wool, because the gauze fibers do not collapse into a dense, water-soaked mat. Importantly, the nematodes that emerge directly from an infected host (per our in vivo methods) will have demonstrated -- as a population -- their capacity to find, subdue, and kill insect hosts, thereby indicating a high degree of infectivity (invasion capacity), better dispersal capacity, higher virulence, and environmental (abiotic) tolerance, compared with nematodes produced via in vitro methods21,22.
The grower-oriented production system proposed herein can be easily adapted to other EPN species, as the insect host, Galleria mellonella, is very susceptible to most Steinernema and Heterorhabditis species6. Other insect hosts may be used, such as T. molitor6,7,18,19. The value of gel formulation was demonstrated by Leite et al. (2018)23; if preserved under the right temperature in the gel system, they can be stored for several months before usage. The gel-based formulation is highly suitable for most application systems; gels with polyacrylamides have been successfully used as standard EPN formulations for decades6,7,24. Moreover, gels have high levels of storage capacity as well as harvesting from gel via screening and rinsing is very easy24, can take less than 5 min (Shapiro-Ilan personal observation) and higher yields are observed in the gel system approach relative to White traps. Gel formulations retain the IJs within the formulations (while other formulations (based on peat, vermiculite, potting mix diatomaceous and mushroom compost) had a higher percentage of IJs that escaped the medium23. Further trials on nematode storage substrates that can completely dissolve in the water of a spray tank (e.g., phenolic sponge as utilized by Leite et al. (2023)25 would be of value to growers.
Our grower-oriented approach has a potential drawback -- repeated sub-culturing can cause deterioration of the nematodes' virulence, which is a potential issue for all production systems. This issue can be avoided if growers use an initial inoculum from inbred lines26 and then limit nematode densities during infection events, thereby limiting the incidence of "cheaters" (non-virulent nematodes that rely on other nematodes to kill the host) within nematode cultures27.
Our novel grower-based production methods represent sustainable, accessible, high-yielding, high-longevity, and low-cost (yet labor-intensive) approaches to EPN production. The key to continuous production is the use of a reliable initial inoculum, based on infected hosts or stored gel. The process is thus responsive to continual use by the growers, which is an alternative to other methods in which the grower is continually dependent on an externally provided inoculum source. Having multiple methods for grower-oriented nematode propagation systems will allow growers to tailor the system to their own farming practices.
The impetus for growers to produce their own nematodes will be as varied as the growers themselves, but considering that nematodes produced via in vivo methods often exhibit greater searching capacity, fitness, and virulence21,22, there is intrinsic value to in vivo rearing of nematodes. Conversely, EPNs produced via in vitro approaches do not encounter live insects during their development, which effectively denies the nematodes the opportunity to maintain high per-capita lethality (an important metric of their value as a biocontrol agent)7,21,22. The cost-effectiveness of our methods should be considered relative to other in vivo techniques, as well as to the cost-effectiveness of commercial EPNs. Field efficacy and costs are important determinants of any biocontrol program.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
We acknowledge Stacy Byrd for technical assistance. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the United States Department of Agriculture.
| Clear plastic Containers | Sterile Crop, Townsend MA | https://www.sterilite.com/ | |
| Clear plastic Containers | Iris USA, Inc, Pleasant Prairie, WI | https://www.irisusainc.com/ | |
| Cotton wool | MedLine Cotton Rolls, 1 × 8.5 ft rolls | https://athome.medline.com/en/medline-sterile-cotton-roll-1in-x-8-5ft-1lb-10ct-non6028 | |
| Heterorhabditis georgiana | USDA ARS Vegetable Crops Research Unit, Madison, WI | N/A | |
| Ocheius onirici | USDA ARS Vegetable Crops Research Unit, Madison, WI | N/A | |
| Polyacrylamide gel powder | Soil Moist, JRM Chemical, Cleveland OH | https://www.soilmoist.com/ | |
| Polymer-coated cotton wool (horse gauze) | Leggett & Platt | BB Satin Star 12'S, 30 × 36 inch roll | |
| Steinernema carpocapsae (All strain) Heterorhabditis bacteriophora (VS strain) | USDA ARS Southeastern Fruit and Tree Nut Research Laboratory, Byron, GA. | N/A |