Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 283

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Current status and perspectives of fungal entomopathogens used for microbial control of arthropod pests in Brazil

Open access
Mascarin, Gabriel Moura, Lopes, Rogerio Biaggioni, Delalibera, Ítalo, Fernandes, Éverton Kort Kamp, Luz, Christian, Faria, Marcos·2019·Journal of Invertebrate Pathology

Abstract

Entomopathogenic fungi play a central role in Brazil's biopesticide market. Approximately 50% of registered microbial biopesticides comprise mycoinsecticides and/or mycoacaricides consisting of hypocrealean fungi, with most based on Metarhizium anisopliae sensu stricto (s. str.) and Beauveria bassiana s. str. These fungi are mainly used to control spittlebugs in sugarcane fields and whiteflies in row crops, respectively, with annual applications surpassing three million hectares. Research also emphasizes the potential of fungal entomopathogens to manage arthropod vectors of human diseases. Most registered fungal formulations comprise wettable powders or technical (non-formulated) products, with relatively few new developments in formulation technology. Despite the large area treated with mycoinsecticides (i.e., approx. 2 million ha of sugarcane treated with M. anisopliae and 1.5 million ha of soybean treated with B. bassiana), their market share remains small compared with the chemical insecticide market. Nevertheless, several major agricultural companies are investing in fungus-based products with the aim at achieving more sustainable IPM programs for major pests in both organic and conventional crops. Government and private research groups are pursuing innovative technologies for mass production, formulation, product stability and quality control, which will support cost-effective commercial mycoinsecticides. Here, we summarize the status of mycoinsecticides currently available in Brazil and discuss future prospects.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jip.2018.01.001

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 19 references

Cited by

See all 283

Metadata

Authors
Mascarin, G. M., Lopes, R. B., Delalibera, Í., Fernandes, É. K. K., Luz, C., & Faria, M.
Venue
Journal of Invertebrate Pathology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-07
Volume
165
Pages
46-53
ISSN
0022-2011 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2784238356
Cited by
283
References
19
FWCI
18.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Current status and perspectives of fungal entomopathogens used for microbial control of arthropod pests in Brazil. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jip.2018.01.001
The paper
Mascarin, G. M., Lopes, R. B., Delalibera, Í., Fernandes, É. K. K., Luz, C., & Faria, M. (2019). Current status and perspectives of fungal entomopathogens used for microbial control of arthropod pests in Brazil. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2018.01.001

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.