SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türkiye Biyolojik Mücadele Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 17 Sayı: 2026

Antifeedant effects of some bryophyte species on Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni Tams, 1925 (Lepidoptera: Notodontidae)

Bazı bryofit türlerinin Thaumetopea wilkinsoni Tams, 1925 (Lepidoptera: Notodontidae) üzerindeki antifeedant etkileri

Burak Bahar(İZMİR KATİP ÇELEBİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-3292-8052
Cenk Durmuşkahya(İZMİR KATİP ÇELEBİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-8092-9770
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-07-29
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Based on these results, the highest AFI (Antifeeding Index) value (71.68) was obtained from the 5% concentration solution of C. conicum extract applied to 1st larvae.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, antifeedant effects of ethanol extracts obtained from the bryophyte species Hypnum cupressiforme Hedw. and Conocephalum conicum (L.) Dumort. against larvae of Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni Tams a major defoliator of pine trees in Türkiye, were investigated.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Within the scope of the study, 0.5%, 1%, and 5% concentration solutions were prepared from the extracts of both plant species, and pine needles dipped into these solutions were placed into containers containing pine processionary moth larvae.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Based on these results, the highest AFI (Antifeeding Index) value (71.68) was obtained from the 5% concentration solution of C. conicum extract applied to 1st larvae.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Beslenme engelleyici etki · Hypnum cupressiforme · Conocephalum conicum

Abstract

In this study, antifeedant effects of ethanol extracts obtained from the bryophyte species Hypnum cupressiforme Hedw. and Conocephalum conicum (L.) Dumort. against larvae of Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni Tams a major defoliator of pine trees in Türkiye, were investigated. Within the scope of the study, 0.5%, 1%, and 5% concentration solutions were prepared from the extracts of both plant species, and pine needles dipped into these solutions were placed into containers containing pine processionary moth larvae. As a result, the needle consumption amounts of the 0.5%, 1%, and 5% solutions of Hypnum cupressiforme extract were calculated as 77 mg, 41 mg, and 31 mg for the 1st larvae; 100 mg, 87 mg, and 48 mg for the 2nd larvae; 142 mg, 131 mg, and 91 mg for the 3rd larvae; 207 mg, 193 mg, and 158 mg for the 4th larvae; and 298 mg, 285 mg, and 257 mg for the 5th larvae, respectively. Similarly, needle consumption amounts of the 0.5%, 1%, and 5% solutions of Conocephalum conicum extract were determined as 60 mg, 32 mg, and 16 mg for the 1st larvae; 93 mg, 54 mg, and 30 mg for the 2nd larvae; 135 mg, 111 mg, and 67 mg for the 3rd larvae; 194 mg, 171 mg, and 131 mg for the 4th larvae; and 286 mg, 269 mg, and 238 mg for the 5th larvae, respectively. Based on these results, the highest AFI (Antifeeding Index) value (71.68) was obtained from the 5% concentration solution of C. conicum extract applied to 1st larvae.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, bryofit türlerinden olan Hypnum cupressiforme Hedw. (Hypnaceae) ve Conocephalum conicum (L.) Dumort. (Conocephalaceae) türlerinden elde edilen etanol ekstraktların, Türkiye’de çam ağaçlarında yaprak zararlısı olan Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni Tams, 1926 (çam kese böceği) larvaları üzerindeki beslenme engelleyici etkileri araştırılmıştır. Bu kapsamda her iki bitki türünün ekstraktlarından %0.5, %1 ve %5 derişimli çözeltiler hazırlanmış ve çam ibreleri bu çözeltilere batırılarak çam kese böceği larvalarının kaplarına yerleştirilmiştir. Sonuç olarak H. cupressiforme ekstraktının %0.5, %1 ve %5 çözeltilerinin 1. dönem larvalar için yiyim miktarları sırasıyla 77 mg, 41 mg, 31 mg, 2. dönem larvalar için 100 mg, 87 mg, 48 mg, 3. dönem larvalar 142 mg, 131 mg, 91 mg, 4. dönem larvalar için 207 mg, 193 mg, 158 mg, 5. dönem larvalar için ise 298 mg, 285 mg ve 257 mg olarak hesaplanmıştır. C. conicum ekstraktının %0.5, %1 ve %5 çözeltilerinin 1. dönem larvalar için yiyim miktarları sırasıyla 60 mg, 32 mg, 16 mg, 2. dönem larvalar için 93 mg, 54 mg, 30 mg, 3. dönem larvalar için 135 mg, 111 mg 67 mg, 4. dönem larvalar için 194 mg, 171 mg, 131 mg, 5. dönem larvalar için ise 286 mg, 269 mg ve 238 mg olarak hesaplanmıştır. Bu sonuçlara bağlı olarak en yüksek AFI (Antifeeding Index) değeri (71.68) 1. larva larvalara uygulanan C. conicum ekstraktının %5 derişimli çözeltisinde bulunmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

Bahar, B., Durmuşkahya, C. (2026). Antifeedant effects of some bryophyte species on Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni Tams, 1925 (Lepidoptera: Notodontidae). Türkiye Biyolojik Mücadele Dergisi, Cilt: 17 Sayı: 2026. https://doi.org/10.31019/tbmd.1957239

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (54)

  1. Abay, G., M. Altun, O. C. Karakoc, F. Gul, & I. Demirtas, 2013. Insecticidal activity of fatty acid-rich Turkish bryophyte extracts against Sitophilus granarius (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening, 16(10), 806-816.
  2. Abay, G., Ö. C. Karakoç, A. R. Tüfekçi, S. Koldaş, & I. Demirtas, 2012. Insecticidal activity of Hypnum cupressiforme (Bryophyta) against Sitophilus granarius (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Journal of stored products research, 51, 6-10.
  3. Asad, M., Khan, R. R. Aljuboory, A. B. Rashid, M. H. U. Kumar, U. Haq, I. U., & K. Alharbi, 2023. Toxic and antifeedant effects of different pesticidal plant extracts against beet. Phyton, 92(4).
  4. Aydın, G. 2018. Determination of indicator species in coastal successions in Tentsmuir National Nature Reserves (NNR), Scotland. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 27 (7): 5037-5044.
  5. Aydın, G., 2021. Comparison of insect biological diversity parameters in natural and degraded habitats in Gölcük Nature Park (Isparta, Turkey). Turkish Journal of Forestry, 22(4), 362-365.
  6. Aydın, G. & İ. Karaca, 2018. The effects of pesticide application on biological diversity of ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 27 (12A): 9112-9118.
  7. Bahuguna, Y. M., S. Gairola, D. P. Semwal, P. L. Uniyal, & A. B. Bhatt, 2013. Bryophytes and ecosystem. Biodiversity of lower plants, 2013, 279-296.
  8. Basile, A., S. Giordano, S. Sorbo, M. L. Vuotto, M. T. L. Ielpo, & R. Castaldo Cobianchi, 1998. Antibiotic effects of Lunularia cruciata (Bryophyta) extract. Pharmaceutical biology, 36(1), 25-28.
  9. Binwal, N., P. Joshi, S. D. Tewari, & M. Kandpal, 2025. Insecticidal activity of leafy liverworts, Heteroscyphus hyalinus (Steph.) A. Srivast. & SC Srivast. and Plagiochila asplenioides (L.) Dum. against, Sitophilus granarius Linn.-a common wheat weevil. Vegetos, 1-6.
  10. Boydak, M., 2024. Silvicultural characteristics and natural regeneration of Pinus brutia Ten. — a review. Plant Ecology, 171, 153–163.
  11. Campôa, J. T. Calvão, P. N. Firmino, & C. S. Pimentel, 2021. Disentangling the effects of climate and defoliation on forest growth: The case of an outbreak of a Thaumetopoea pityocampa population with a shifted phenology in a Pinus pinaster monoculture. Forest Ecology and Management, 498, 119548.
  12. Catal Y., 2011. The effects of pine processionary moth (PPM) defoliation degree on radial growth of brutian pine (Pinus brutia). African Journal of Agricultural Research, 6(21), 4931-4936.
  13. Cebeci, H. H., R. T. Oymen, & S. Acer, 2010. Control of pine processionary moth, Thaumetopoea pityocampa with Bacillus thuringiensis in Antalya, Turkey. Journal of Environmental Biology, 31(3), 357-361.
  14. Chen, F., A. Ludwiczuk, G. Wei, X. Chen, B. Crandall-Stotler, & J. L. Bowman, 2018. Terpenoid secondary metabolites in bryophytes: chemical diversity, biosynthesis and biological functions. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 37(2-3), 210-231.
  15. Cianciullo, P., V. Maresca, S. Sorbo, & A. Basile, 2021. Antioxidant and antibacterial properties of extracts and bioactive compounds in bryophytes. Applied Sciences, 12(1), 160.
  16. Çetin, H., F. Erler, & A. Yanikoglu, 2006. Toxicity of essential oils extracted from Origanum onites L. and Citrus aurentium L. against the pine processionary moth, Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni Tams. Folia biologica (Kraków), 54(3-4), 153-157.
  17. Daşdemir, İ., & Y. Yeşilbaş, 2025. The Effects of Pine Processionary Moth (Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni Tams.) on Diameter and Volume Increment in Crimean Pine (Pinus nigra Arnold) Forests of Bartın. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(1), 46-61.
  18. Değirmenci, A.S., 2026. Projected future distributions of dominant tree species in the Western Black Sea region under climate change scenarios. New Forests, 57, 24.
  19. Del Río, M., I. Barbeito, A. Bravo-Oviedo, R. Calama, I. Cañellas, C. Herrero, & F. Bravo, 2017. Mediterranean pine forests: Management effects on carbon stocks. In Managing forest ecosystems: the challenge of climate change (pp. 301-327). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  20. Demir, Ü., & G. Aydın, 2020. Antalya Kurşunlu Şelalesi Tabiat Parkında insan aktivitesinin böcek biyolojik çeşitliliğine etkisinin araştırılması. Turkish Journal of Forestry, 21(4), 349-354.
  21. Dziwak, M., K. Wróblewska, A. Szumny, & R. Galek, 2022. Modern use of bryophytes as a source of secondary metabolites. Agronomy, 12(6), 1456.
  22. Elibol, B., T. Ezer, R. Kara, G. Y. Çelik, & E. Çolak, 2011. Antifungal and antibacterial effects of some acrocarpic mosses. African Journal of Biotechnology, 10(6), 986.
  23. Erasmus, R., J. van den Berg, P. J. van Rensburg, & H. du Plessis, 2023. Residual activity of spinosad applied as a soil drench to tomato seedlings for control of Tuta absoluta. Pest Management Science, 79(5), 1860-1867.
  24. Erkan N., 2011. Impact of pine processionary moth (Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni Tams) on growth of Turkish red pine (Pinus brutia Ten.). African Journal of Agricultural Research, 6(21), 4983-4988.
  25. Erkaya İ., 2020. Predators and parasitoids of pine processionary moth (Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni Tams) in Western Mediterranean region in Turkey. Bilge International Journal of Science and Technology Research, 4(1), 7-13.
  26. Ertaş T. B., 2024. Türkiye ormancılığında fıstıkçamı (Pinus pinea L.). Theoretical and Applied Forestry, 4(1), 22-26.
  27. Ertürk, Ö., V. Şekeroğlu, H. Ünal, & H. Arslan, 2006. Lymantria dispar l.(lep: Lymantridae)‘nın larva gelişmesi üzerine bazı bitki özütlerinin antifeedant (iştah kesici) ve toksik etkileri. Anadolu Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 21(3), 289-295.
  28. Gindin, G., A. Navon, N. Saphir, A. Protasov, & Z. Mendel, 2007. Environmental persistence of Bacillus thuringiensis products tested under natural conditions against Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni. Phytoparasitica, 35(3), 255-263.
  29. Göksu, E., İ. Daşdemir, & Z. Ş. Abedı, 2026. Ege Bölgesi Kızılçam (Pinus brutia Ten.) Ormanlarında Çam Balı Üretiminin Sosyoekonomik ve Teknik Analizi. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(1), 32-54.
  30. Güney A., 2026. Pine processionary moth defoliation affects secondary growth dynamics and tree vitality in Pinus brutia. European Journal of Forest Research, 145(2), 37.
  31. Güven, Ö., T. Aydin, I. Karaca, & T. Butt, 2021. Biopesticides offer an environmentally friendly solution for control of pine processionary moth (Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni Tams) larvae and pupae in urban areas. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 31(1), 35-52.
  32. Jeyasankar, A., S. Premalatha, & K. Elumalai, 2014. Antifeedant and insecticidal activities of selected plant extracts against Epilachna beetle, Henosepilachna vigintioctopunctata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Advances in Entomology, 2(1), 14-19.
  33. Kherroubi, M., F. Mouhouche, Z. Z. Izzeddine, & M. Chahbar, 2019. Biocontrol of the pine processionary moth Thaumetopoea pityocampa (Denis and Schiffermuller, 1775) with plant extracts. Arxius de Miscel· lània Zoològica, 17, 73-84.
  34. Kiełczewski, M., B. Drożdż, & J. Nawrot, 1979. Badania nad repelentami pokarmowymi trojszyka ulca (Tribolium confusum Duv.). Materiały, 19, 367-376.
  35. Koç, M., D. B. Eski, & A. Eski, 2025. Biocontrol of the pine processionary moth, Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni (Tams.) (Lepidoptera: Notodontidae) by forest-derived entomopathogenic fungi. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 55, 1-9.
  36. Kostić, M., Z. Popović, D. Brkić, S. Milanović, I. Sivčev, & S. Stanković, 2008. Larvicidal and antifeedant activity of some plant-derived compounds to Lymantria dispar L. (Lepidoptera: Limantriidae). Bioresource Technology, 99(16), 7897-7901.
  37. Lasa, A. V., A. J. Fernández-González, P. J. Villadas, J. Mercado-Blanco, A. J. Pérez-Luque, & M. Fernández-López, 2024. Mediterranean pine forest decline: A matter of root-associated microbiota and climate change. Science of The Total Environment, 926, 171858.
  38. Ludwiczuk, A., & Y. Asakawa, 2020. Terpenoids and aromatic compounds from bryophytes and their central nervous system activity. Current Organic Chemistry, 24(1), 113-128.
  39. Mirchev, P., G. Tsankov, M. Avci, & M. Matova, 2007. Study of some aspects of ecology of pine processionary moth, Thaumetopoea pityocampa (Den. & Schiff.)(Lep., Thaumetopoeidae) and its egg parasitoids in Turkey. Silva Balcanica, 8(1), 66-78.
  40. Montgomery, D. C., 2017. Design and analysis of experiments. John Wiley & Sons.
  41. Moreno, J. M., C. Morales-Molino, I. Torres, & M. Arianoutsou, 2021. Fire in Mediterranean pine forests: past, present and future. In Pines and their mixed forest ecosystems in the Mediterranean basin (pp. 421-456). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  42. Nocentini, S., D. Travaglini, & B. Muys, 2022. Managing Mediterranean forests for multiple ecosystem services: research progress and knowledge gaps. Current Forestry Reports, 8(2), 229-256.
  43. Oğuz, G., Aydın, G., & M. R. Ulusoy, 2021. Balcalı (Adana)’da Farklı Ekosistemlerdeki Epigean Hexapoda Türlerinin Biyolojik Çeşitlik Parametrelerinin Karşılaştırılması. Turkish Journal of Science and Engineering, 3(2), 69-76.
  44. Ok, K., & Y. Z. Tengiz, 2018. Türkiye’de odun dışı orman ürünlerinin yönetimi. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tarım ve Doğa Dergisi, 21(3), 457-471.
  45. Pathak, V. M., V. K. Verma, B. S. Rawat, B. Kaur, N. Babu, A. Sharma, & J. M. Cunill, 2022. Current status of pesticide effects on environment, human health and it’s eco-friendly management as bioremediation: A comprehensive review. Frontiers in microbiology, 13, 962619.
  46. Puri, E., G. Hoch, & C. Körner, 2015. Defoliation reduces growth but not carbon reserves in Mediterranean Pinus pinaster trees. Trees, 29(4), 1187-1196.
  47. Ramachandra, T. V., P. Negi, T. Mondal, & S. A. Ahmed, 2025. Insights into the linkages of forest structure dynamics with ecosystem services. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 15606.
  48. Seki, M., & O. E. Sakıcı, (2022). Ecoregional variation of Crimean pine (Pinus nigra subsp. pallasiana) stand growth. Forest Science, 68(5–6), 452–463.
  49. Singh, S., R. Sharma, S. Joshi, & A. Alam, 2023. Utilization of the first land plants (Bryophytes) as a source of beneficial bioactive chemicals. Research Journal of Phytochemistry, 17(1), 26-36.
  50. Soriano, G., M. Á. Del-Castillo-Alonso, L. Monforte, E. Núñez-Olivera, & J. Martínez-Abaigar, 2019. Phenolic compounds from different bryophyte species and cell compartments respond specifically to ultraviolet radiation, but not particularly quickly. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 134, 137-144.
  51. Tekeş, A., & K. Özkan, 2025. Kızılçam (Pinus brutia Ten.) ve Karaçam (Pinus nigra JF Arnold.) ormanlarında farklı yaklaşımlarla gösterge bitki türlerinin analizi. Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences, 10(1), 69-78.
  52. Torres, I., J. M. Moreno, C. Morales-Molino, & M. Arianoutsou, 2021. Ecosystem services provided by pine forests. In Pines and their mixed forest ecosystems in the Mediterranean Basin (pp. 617-629). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  53. Tukey, J. W., 1949. Comparing individual means in the analysis of variance. Biometrics, 99-114. Wilkinson, D. S. (1926). The Cyprus processionary caterpillar (Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni Tams). Bulletin of Entomological Research, 17(2), 163-182.
  54. Zaller, J. G., & C. A. Brühl, 2019. Editorial: Non-target effects of pesticides on organisms inhabiting agroecosystems. Frontiers in environmental science, 7, 75.