| Literature DB >> 25762345 |
Yanetri Asi Nion, Koki Toyota.
Abstract
Previous studies have described the development of control methods against bacterial wilt diseases caused by Ralstonia solanacearum. This review focused on recent advances in control measures, such as biological, physical, chemical, cultural, and integral measures, as well as biocontrol efficacy and suppression mechanisms. Biological control agents (BCAs) have been dominated by bacteria (90%) and fungi (10%). Avirulent strains of R. solanacearum, Pseudomonas spp., Bacillus spp., and Streptomyces spp. are well-known BCAs. New or uncommon BCAs have also been identified such as Acinetobacter sp., Burkholderia sp., and Paenibacillus sp. Inoculation methods for BCAs affect biocontrol efficacy, such as pouring or drenching soil, dipping of roots, and seed coatings. The amendment of different organic matter, such as plant residue, animal waste, and simple organic compounds, have frequently been reported to suppress bacterial wilt diseases. The combined application of BCAs and their substrates was shown to more effectively suppress bacterial wilt in the tomato. Suppression mechanisms are typically attributed to the antibacterial metabolites produced by BCAs or those present in natural products; however, the number of studies related to host resistance to the pathogen is increasing. Enhanced/modified soil microbial communities are also indirectly involved in disease suppression. New promising types of control measures include biological soil disinfection using substrates that release volatile compounds. This review described recent advances in different control measures. We focused on the importance of integrated pest management (IPM) for bacterial wilt diseases.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25762345 PMCID: PMC4356456 DOI: 10.1264/jsme2.ME14144
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microbes Environ ISSN: 1342-6311 Impact factor: 2.912
Various biocontrol agents that have been tested in the field to control bacterial wilt diseases caused by Ralstonia solanacearum (2005–2014)
| Microorganisms | Inoculation method and application rate | Mechanisms | BE (%) | Yield* | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Pouring, 6.8×1010 cfu plant−1 (SQR-7), 7.5×1010 cfu plant−1 (SQR-101), 8.2×1010 cfu plant−1 (SQR-7) | Production of indole acetic acid and siderophores | 18–60% in tobacco | 25–38% | |
| 2. | Stem injection, 10 μL of 107 CFU mL−1 | Competition | 73% in the tomato | NA | |
| 3. | Stem cuttings were dipped in A (9.1×108 mL−1), B (53 infective propagules) was added to each cutting, and A was then poured again | Increased plant nutrient uptake (N, P, K) and reduced the pathogen population | 56–75% in herbs ( | 54% | |
| 4. | Mixed with soil at a density of 7.3×107 (L-25) and 5.0×105 (L-9) cfu g−1 of soil | Decreased root colonization by the pathogen | 30–95% in tobacco | 87–100% | |
| 5. | Mixed with soil at a density of 5.5×106 (BIO23) and 7.0×106 (BIO36) cfu g−1 of soil | Plant growth promotion | 58–66% in the potato | 64–65% | |
| 6. | 3×108 cfu g−1 (talc formulation). Seedlings were dipped in antagonist suspension (25 g talc formulation L−1). Leftover suspension was poured around the root zone of the seedling (50 mL plant−1) | Production of inhibitory compounds and siderophores | 81% in the eggplant | 60–90% | |
| 7. | D (53 infective propagules) was added to each stem cutting that was dipped in A (1.2×106 CFU mL−1), B (1.8×108 CFU mL−1), C (2.3×107 CFU mL−1), and E (2.5×108 CFU mL−1). A total of 5 mL of A, B, C, and E was then poured into 200 g soil. | Competition for nutrient uptake (NPK) and reduced | 7–43% in herbs ( | 159–227% | |
| 8. | Mixed with soil at a density of 1×107 (QL-5) or 1×107 (QL-18) cfu g−1 of soil | Decreased root colonization by the pathogen | 17–87% in the tomato | NA | |
| 9. | Poured 10 mL of bacterial suspension plant−1 (potato dextrose broth culture). | Production of antimicrobial proteins | 60–80% in Capsicum | NA | |
| 10. | Poured 20 mL of the bacterial suspension (1×109 cells mL−1) plant−1 or seedling roots were soaked in the bacterial suspension. | Rhizocompetence and root colonization | 57–67% in the tomato | 32–41% | |
| 11. | Bacterial suspension was mixed into an organic fertilizer (106 cfu mL−1) and poured onto soil. | Induction of systemic resistance | 48–49% in the tomato | 17% | |
| 12. | A total of 30 g of the inoculum (650–700 spores of | Competition for nutrients and decreased pathogen population | 25% in the tomato | 16% |
BE: biological control efficacy, NA: not applicable, Yield*: increase in yield