Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-747cfc64b6-7hjq6 Total loading time: 0.442 Render date: 2021-06-14T22:41:28.982Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Evaluation of biocontrol agro-techniques against R. solani: study of microbial communities catabolic profile modifications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2011

G. SACRISTÁN-PÉREZ-MINAYO
Affiliation:
Microbiology Section, Faculty of Sciences, University of Burgos, Spain
J. I. REGUERA-USEROS
Affiliation:
Microbiology Section, Faculty of Sciences, University of Burgos, Spain
D. J. LÓPEZ-ROBLES
Affiliation:
Edaphology and Agricultural Sciences Section, Faculty of Sciences, University of Burgos, Spain
A. GARCÍA-VILLARACO
Affiliation:
Faculty of Pharmacy, University San Pablo CEU, Boadilla del Monte, Madrid, Spain
F. J. GUTIÉRREZ-MAÑERO
Affiliation:
Faculty of Pharmacy, University San Pablo CEU, Boadilla del Monte, Madrid, Spain
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Summary

Damping off is the most common disease caused by edaphic fungi in Spanish crops, among which Rhizoctonia solani AG-4 stands out. In the present work, two possible methods of control were evaluated, incorporation of different doses of organic matter (OM; obtained from strawberry crops) and Pseudomonas fluorescens as a plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR). The highest inhibition (43% less) against the pathogen was found in the assays that used 20 g of biofumigant/kg soil. Inoculation of the P. fluorescens strain (PGPR) did not protect against the pathogen. In addition, the microbial evolution during incubation with OM was studied. For this purpose, the bacterial and fungal catabolic profiles were determined (using Biolog Eco and FF plates, respectively) as well as bacterial counts of total aerobes, Pseudomonas sp. and aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC)-degrading populations, during OM incorporation. This agro-technique produced changes in microbial catabolic community profiles, increasing bacterial metabolic activity and minimizing metabolic diversity of micro-organisms under control with and without pathogen. As for microbial counts, aerobic and ACC-degrading populations decreased while Pseudomonas sp. population increased with OM treatments.

The OM amendment applied to control the damping off caused by R. solani is viable; it is more environmentally friendly and has a lower economic cost than chemical controls and, therefore, it could serve as a component in integrated-management programmes.

Type
Crops and Soils
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Angus, J. F., Gardner, P. A., Kirkegaard, J. A. & Desmarchelier, J. M. (1994). Biofumigation: isothiocyanates released from Brassica roots inhibit the growth of take-all fungus. Plant and Soil 162, 107112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archbold, D. D., Hamilton-Kemp, T. R., Barth, M. M. & Langlois, B. E. (1997). Identifying natural volatile compounds that control gray mold (Botrytis cinerea) during postharvest storage of strawberry, blackberry, and grape. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 45, 40324037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, K. F. & Cook, R. J. (1974). Biological Control of Plant Pathogens. San Francisco: Freeman W. H. & Co.Google Scholar
Baker, R. (1988). Trichoderma spp. as plant growth stimulants. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology 7, 97106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, M. R., Burton, D. L. & Depoe, S. (1997). Impact of sewage sludge application on soil biological characteristics. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 66, 241249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baudoin, E., Benizri, E. & Guckert, A. (2001). Metabolic fingerprint of microbial communities from distinct maize rhizosphere compartments. European Journal of Soil Biology 37, 8593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baudoin, E., Benizri, E. & Guckert, A. (2002). Impact of growth stage on the bacterial community structure along maize roots, as determined by metabolic and genetic fingerprinting. Applied Soil Ecology 19, 135145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bello, A., Escuer, M., Sanz, R., López-Pérez, J. A. & Guirao, P. (1997). Biofumigación, nematodos y bromuro de metilo en el cultivo de pimiento. In Posibilidad de Alternativas Viables al Bromuro de Metilo en Pimiento de Invernadero (Eds López, A. & Mora, J. A.), pp. 67108. Murcia, Spain: Consejería de Medio Ambiente, Agricultura y Agua de Murcia.Google Scholar
Bello, A., López-Pérez, J. A., Sanz, R., Escuer, M. & Herrero, J. (2000). Biofumigation and organic amendments. In Regional Workshop on Methyl Bromide Alternatives for North Africa and Southern European Countries, pp. 113141. France: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).Google Scholar
Bello, A., López-Pérez, J. A. & García Alvarez, A. (2003). Biofumigación en Agricultura Extensiva de Regadío. Producción Integrada de Hortícolas. Madrid: Mundi-Prensa.Google Scholar
Blok, W. J., Lamers, J. G., Termorshuizen, A. J. & Bollen, G. J. (2000). Control of soilborne plant pathogens by incorporating fresh organic amendments followed by tarping. Phytopathology 90, 253259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burr, T. J., Schroth, M. N. & Suslow, T. (1978). Increased potato yields by treatment of seed pieces with specific strains of Pseudomonas fluorescens and P. putida. Phytopathology 68, 13771383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cakmakci, R., Kantar, F. & Sahin, F. (2001). Effect of N2-fixing bacterial inoculations on yield of sugar beet and barley. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 164, 527531.3.0.CO;2-1>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, D. K. & Benson, D. M. (1995). Biological control of Rhizoctonia stem rot of poinsettia in polyfoam rooting cubes with Pseudomonas cepacia and Paecilomyces lilacinus. Biological Control 5, 237244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cezón, R., Gutiérrez Mañero, F. J., Probanza, A., Ramos, B. & Lucas García, J. A. (2003). Effects of two plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on the germination and growth of pepper seedlings (Capsicum annum) CV. Roxy. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 49, 593603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Z., Park, E. & Glick, B. R. (2007). 1-Aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate deaminase from Pseudomonas putida UW4 facilitates the growth of canola in the presence of salt. Canadian Journal of Microbiology 53, 912918.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crecchio, C., Gelsomino, A., Ambrosoli, R., Minati, J. L. & Ruggiero, P. (2004). Functional and molecular responses of soil microbial communities under differing soil management practices. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 36, 18731883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djian-Caporalino, C., Bourdy, G. & Cayrol, J. C. (2005). Nematicidal and nematode-resistant plants. In Biopesticides of Plant Origin (Eds Regnault-Roger, C., Philogène, B. J. R. & Vincent, C.), pp. 174224. Paris: Lavoisier and Intercept.Google Scholar
Domenech, J., Reddy, M. S., Kloepper, J. W., Ramos, B. & Gutierrez-Mañero, J. (2006). Combined application of the biological product LS213 with Bacillus, Pseudomonas or Chryseobacterium for growth promotion and biological control of soil-borne diseases in pepper and tomato. Biocontrol 51, 245258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glick, B. R., Karaturovic, D. M. & Newell, P. C. (1995). A novel procedure for rapid isolation of plant growth promoting pseudomonads. Canadian Journal of Microbiology 41, 533536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grayston, S. J., Wang, S., Campbell, C. D. & Edwards, A. C. (1998). Selective influence of plant species on microbial diversity in the rhizosphere. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 30, 369378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grayston, S. J., Griffith, G. S., Mawdsley, J. L., Campbell, C. D. & Bardgett, R. D. (2001). Accounting for variability in soil microbial communities of temperate upland grassland ecosystems. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 33, 533551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Z., Xu, Z. & Chen, C. (2008). Effect of mulching on labile soil organic matter pools, microbial community functional diversity and nitrogen transformations in two hardwood plantations of subtropical Australia. Applied Soil Ecology 40, 229239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Idris, A., Labuschagne, N. & Korsten, L. (2009). Efficacy of rhizobacteria for growth promotion in sorghum under greenhouse conditions and selected modes of action studies. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 147, 1730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jalili, F., Khavazi, K., Pazira, E., Nejati, A., Rahmani, H. A., Sadaghiani, H. R. & Miransari, M. (2009). Isolation and characterization of ACC deaminase-producing fluorescent pseudomonads, to alleviate salinity stress on canola (Brassica napus L.) growth. Journal of Plant Physiology 166, 667674.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jetiyanon, K. & Kloepper, J. W. (2002). Mixtures of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria for induction of systemic resistance against multiple plant diseases. Biological Control 24, 285291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnsson, L., Hökeberg, M. & Gerhardson, B. (1998). Performance of the Pseudomonas chlororaphis biocontrol agent MA 342 against cereal seed-borne diseases in field experiments. European Journal of Plant Pathology 104, 701711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kloepper, J. W., Leong, J., Teintze, M. & Schroth, M. N. (1980). Enhanced plant growth by siderophores produced by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Nature 286, 885886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kloepper, J. W., Lifshitz, R. & Schroth, M. N. (1988). Pseudomonas inoculants to benefit plant production. In ISI Atlas of Science: Animal and Plant Sciences (Ed. Anderson, L. L.), pp. 6065. Philadelphia, PA: Institute for Public Information.Google Scholar
Kumar, N. R., Arasu, V. T. & Gunasekaran, P. (2002). Genotyping of antifungal compounds producing plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria, Pseudomonas fluorescens. Current Science 82, 14631466.Google Scholar
Lacasa, A., Guirao, P., Guerrero, M. M., Ros, C., López-Pérez, J. A., Bello, A. & Bielza, P. (1999). Alternatives to methyl bromide for sweet pepper cultivation in plastic greenhouses in south east. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for the Southern European Countries (Eds Arvanitakis, E., Tjamos, E. & Batchelor, T.), pp. 133135. Brussels: The European Commission DGXI.Google Scholar
Legendre, P. & Anderson, M. J. (1999). Distance-based redundancy analysis: testing multispecies responses in multifactorial ecological experiments. Ecological Monographs 69, 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas García, J. A., Probanza, A., Ramos, B. & Gutiérrez Mañero, F. J. (2003). Effects of three plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on the growth of seedlings of tomato and pepper in two different sterilized and nonsterilized peats. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 49, 119127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mäder, P., Fliebbach, A., Dubois, D., Gunst, L., Fried, P. & Niggli, U. (2002). Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science 296, 16941697.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayak, S., Tirosh, T. & Glick, B. R. (2004). Plant growth-promoting bacteria confer resistance in tomato plants to salt stress. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 42, 565572.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MBTOC. (1998). Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee. 1998 Assessment of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP.Google Scholar
Mulder, Ch., De Zwart, D., Van Wijnen, H. J., Schouten, A. J. & Breure, A. M. (2003). Observational and simulated evidence of ecological shifts within the soil nematode community of agroecosystems under conventional and organic farming. Functional Ecology 17, 516525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muleta, D., Assefa, F., Hjort, K., Roos, S. & Granhall, U. (2009). Characterization of Rhizobacteria isolated from wild Coffea arabica L. Engineering in Life Sciences 9, 100108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nandakumar, R., Babu, S., Viswanathan, R., Sheela, J., Raguchander, T. & Samiyappan, R. (2001). A new bio-formulation containing plant growth promoting rhizobacterial mixture for the management of sheath blight and enhanced grain yield in rice. Biocontrol 46, 493510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadeem, S. M., Zahir, Z. A., Naveed, M. & Arshad, M. (2007). Preliminary investigations on inducing salt tolerance in maize through inoculation with rhizobacteria containing ACC deaminase activity. Canadian Journal of Microbiology 53, 11411149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neri, F., Mari, M. & Brigati, S. (2006). Control of Penicillium expansum by plant volatile compounds. Plant Pathology 55, 100105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pankhurst, C. E., Yu, S., Hawke, B. G. & Harch, B. D. (2001). Capacity of fatty acid profiles and substrate utilization patterns to describe differences in soil microbial communities associated with increased salinity or alkalinity at three locations in South Australia. Biology and Fertility of Soils 33, 204217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, S. L. & Wolfe, M. S. (2005). Evolutionary plant breeding for low input systems. Journal of Agricultural Science 143, 245254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piedrabuena, A., García-Álvarez, A., Díez-Rojo, M. A. & Bello, A. (2006). Use of crop residues for the control of Meloidogyne incognita under laboratory conditions. Pest Management Science 62, 919926.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pietikäinen, J., Hiukka, R. & Fritze, H. (2000). Does short-term heating of forest humus change its properties as a substrate for microbes? Soil Biology and Biochemistry 32, 277288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Probanza, A., Lucas García, J. A., Ruiz Palomino, M., Ramos, B. & Gutiérrez Mañero, F. J. (2002). Pinus pinea L. seedling growth and bacterial rhizosphere structure after inoculation with PGPR Bacillus (B. licheniformis CECT 5106 and B. pumilus CECT 5105). Applied Soil Ecology 20, 7584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ristaino, J. B. & Thomas, W. (1997). Agriculture, methyl bromide, and the ozone hole: can we fill the gaps? Plant Disease 81, 964977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, B. F. & Tate, R. L. (2001). Temporal analysis of the soil microbial community along a toposequence in Pineland soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 33, 13891401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacristán-Pérez-Minayo, G., Reguera-Useros, J. I. & López-Robles, D. J. (2007). Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) applied to biological control and to improve sugar beet, pumpkin and tomato crops production. British Crop Production Council, BCPC. In Proceedings of the XVI International Plant Protection Congress, Vol. 1, pp. 320321. Norwich: Page Bros.Google Scholar
Saravanakumar, D. & Samiyappan, R. (2007). ACC-deaminase from Pseudomonas fluorescens mediated saline resistance in groundnut (Arachis hypogea) plants. Journal of Applied Microbiology 102, 12831292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sarwar, M. & Kirkegaard, J. A. (1998). Biofumigation potential of brassicas. II. Effect of environment and ontogeny on glucosinolate production and implications for screening. Plant and Soil 201, 91101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schutter, M. & Dick, R. (2001). Shifts in substrate utilization potential and structure of soil microbial communities in response to carbon substrates. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 33, 14811491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockdale, E. A. & Brookes, P. C. (2006). Detection and quantification of the soil microbial biomass – impacts on the management of agricultural soils. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 144, 285302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suslow, T. V. & Schroth, M. N. (1982). Rhizobacteria of sugar beets: effects of seed application and root colonization on yield. Phytopathology 72, 199206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Bruggen, A. H. C. & Semenov, A. M. (2000). In search of biological indicators for soil health and disease suppression. Applied Soil Ecology 15, 1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Den Boogert, P. H. J. (1999). Mycoparasitism and biocontrol of Rhizoctonia solani. Summa Phytopathologica 25, 107110.Google Scholar
Van Loon, L. C., Bakker, P. A. H. M. & Pieterse, C. M. J. (1998). Systemic resistance induced by rhizosphere bacteria. Annual Review of Phytopathology 36, 453483.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vaughn, S. F., Spencer, G. F. & Shasha, B. S. (1993). Volatile compounds from raspberry and strawberry fruit inhibit postharvest decay fungi. Journal of Food Science 58, 793796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vidhyasekaran, P. & Muthamilan, M. (1999). Evaluation of a powder formulation of Pseudomonas fluorescens Pf1 for control of rice sheath blight. Biocontrol Science and Technology 9, 6774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters, D. R. & Fountaine, J. M. (2009). Review: practical application of induced resistance to plant diseases: an appraisal of effectiveness under field conditions. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 147, 523535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, J. E. & Bennet, M. A. (1999). Bio-osmopriming tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) seeds for improved stand establishment. Seed Science and Technology 27, 489499.Google Scholar
Watson, C. A., Walker, R. L. & Stockdale, E. A. (2008). Research in organic production systems – past, present and future. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 146, 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yao, T., Yasmin, S. & Hafeez, F. Y. (2008). Potential role of rhizobacteria isolated from Northwestern China for enhancing wheat and oat yield. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 146, 4956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yim, W. J., Poonguzhali, S., Madhaiyan, M., Palaniappan, P., Siddikee, M. A. & Sa, T. (2009). Characterization of plant-growth promoting diazotrophic bacteria isolated from field grown Chinese cabbage under different fertilization conditions. Journal of Microbiology 47, 147155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zeringue, H. J., Brown, R. L., Neucere, J. N. & Cleveland, T. E. (1996). Relationships between C6-C12 alkanal and alkenal volatile contents and resistance of maize genotypes to Aspergillus flavus and aflatoxin production. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 44, 403407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Evaluation of biocontrol agro-techniques against R. solani: study of microbial communities catabolic profile modifications
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Evaluation of biocontrol agro-techniques against R. solani: study of microbial communities catabolic profile modifications
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Evaluation of biocontrol agro-techniques against R. solani: study of microbial communities catabolic profile modifications
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *