| Literature DB >> 31024469 |
Giovanni Bubici1, Manoj Kaushal2, Maria Isabella Prigigallo1, Carmen Gómez-Lama Cabanás3, Jesús Mercado-Blanco3.
Abstract
In the last century, the banana crop and industry experienced dramatic losses due to an epidemic of Fusarium wilt of banana (FWB), caused by Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. cubense (Foc) race 1. An even more dramatic menace is now feared due to the spread of Foc tropical race 4. Plant genetic resistance is generally considered as the most plausible strategy for controlling effectively such a devastating disease, as occurred for the first round of FWB epidemic. Nevertheless, with at least 182 articles published since 1970, biological control represents a large body of knowledge on FWB. Remarkably, many studies deal with biological control agents (BCAs) that reached the field-testing stage and even refer to high effectiveness. Some selected BCAs have been repeatedly assayed in independent trials, suggesting their promising value. Overall under field conditions, FWB has been controlled up to 79% by using Pseudomonas spp. strains, and up to 70% by several endophytes and Trichoderma spp. strains. Lower biocontrol efficacy (42-55%) has been obtained with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, Bacillus spp., and non-pathogenic Fusarium strains. Studies on Streptomyces spp. have been mostly limited to in vitro conditions so far, with very few pot-experiments, and none conducted in the field. The BCAs have been applied with diverse procedures (e.g., spore suspension, organic amendments, bioformulations, etc.) and at different stages of plant development (i.e., in vitro, nursery, at transplanting, post-transplanting), but there has been no evidence for a protocol better than another. Nonetheless, new bioformulation technologies (e.g., nanotechnology, formulation of microbial consortia and/or their metabolites, etc.) and tailor-made consortia of microbial strains should be encouraged. In conclusion, the literature offers many examples of promising BCAs, suggesting that biocontrol can greatly contribute to limit the damage caused by FWB. More efforts should be done to further validate the currently available outcomes, to deepen the knowledge on the most valuable BCAs, and to improve their efficacy by setting up effective formulations, application protocols, and integrated strategies.Entities:
Keywords: Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense; Musa acuminata; Panama disease; beneficial microorganisms; biocontrol; soil microbiota
Year: 2019 PMID: 31024469 PMCID: PMC6459961 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00616
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Figure 1Typical symptoms of Fusarium wilt on a banana plant cv. Pequeña Enana (or “Dwarf Cavendish”; AAA genome) in Tenerife.
Figure 2Control strategies of Fusarium wilt of banana at different epidemic stages. In the absence of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense (Foc), exclusion measures must be used to prevent the pathogen entrance. At the first incursion of Foc, containment measures must be rapidly initiated. Once Foc is established, containment measures must be continued, and integrated disease management can be adopted. With a high disease prevalence, the use of resistant varieties is the only way to successfully combat FWB.
Figure 3Main topics of scientific articles dealing with Fusarium wilt of banana. Articles were retrieved from the CAB Direct database (1970–2018) by searching the keywords “Fusarium cubense” or “Panama disease” in the title and abstract. Foc: Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense; FWB: Fusarium wilt of banana; VCGs: vegetative compatibility groups.
Figure 4Possible modes of action of biological control agents (BCAs). Beneficial microorganisms can exhibit direct antagonism against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense (Foc) and can affect the plant physiology and/or the microbiota with a consequent, indirect effect against the pathogen.
Figure 5Effectiveness of biological control agents against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense (Foc). The dual culture method (A) allows testing the in vitro antifungal activity of metabolites produced by biological control agents (BCAs). Pot experiments (B) provide first evidence for the in planta efficacy of BCAs.
List of biocontrol field trials against Fusarium wilt of banana.
| 82 | Colonization study with antibiotic-marked strains | Yu C. et al., | |||||
| Root dripping into the fermentation broth | 4 | 105 conidia mL−1 | 71 | Strain isolated from disease-free | Liu and Lu, | ||
| Root dipping (OD600 = 0.6–0.7) | TR4 | Natural infestation | 86 | 11 | Growth-promoting effects | Ho et al., | |
| Talc powder formulation | 1 | Natural infestation | 42.2 | 214 | Combined effect with rhizospheric isolates ( | Thangavelu and Gopi, | |
| Pre-planting soil drenching | 4 | Pre-planting soil drenching (106 conidia mL−1) | 70 | Isolated from the rubber tree | Tan et al., | ||
| Increased leaf nutrient status and enhanced growth, bunch yield and fruit quality | Kavino et al., | ||||||
| Root dipping (3·1010CFU mL−1) | 1 | Injection into the corm (106 conidia mL−1) | 78 | 119 | Kavino and Manoranjitham, | ||
| Root dipping and soil drenching (106 conidia mL−1) | STR4 | Natural infestation | 0 | Endophytes from healthy micropropagated Cavendish banana roots (South Africa) | Belgrove et al., | ||
| Colonized rice chaffy grains | 1 | Natural infestation | 47 | 45 | Growth-promoting effects | Thangavelu and Gopi, | |
| Root dipping (106 conidia mL−1), followed by application of colonized wheat bran:saw dust mixture | Natural infestation | 75 | 60 | Raguchander et al., | |||
| Colonized rice chaffy grains (1·1031 CFU g−1) + 5% jaggery solution | Colonized sand:maize mixture | 80 | Induction of peroxidase, phenylalanine ammonia lyase, and total phenolic content | Thangavelu and Mustaffa, | |||
| TR4 | 0 | Wibowo et al., | |||||
| Soil inoculation in the nursery | 68 | Mukhongo et al., | |||||
| Root dipping (106 conidia mL−1), followed by wheat bran application | Natural infestation | 77 | 68 | Raguchander et al., | |||
| Different combinations of paring and pralinage with a | Natural infestation | 80.6 | Two field trials. Pairing and pralinage with | Raguchander et al., | |||
| Soil inoculation at transplanting and post-planting with a talc-based powder formulation | 100 | 68 | Rajappan et al., | ||||
| Soil application combined with | Natural infestation | 75 | Also, 64% FWB reduction in greenhouse | Akila et al., | |||
| 4 L ha−1 of liquid formulation (9·108 CFU mL−1) | 60 | 47 | Three field trials. Also, 41.3–89% reduction of | Selvaraj et al., | |||
| Root dipping | 73.9 | Yu G. et al., | |||||
| Soil application combined with | Natural infestation | 75 | Also, 64% FWB reduction in greenhouse | Akila et al., | |||
| Soil inoculation in the nursery | 50 | Mukhongo et al., | |||||
| Colonized bio-organic fertilizer | 68.5 | 100 | Isolated from suppressive soil | Xue et al., | |||
| Colonized bio-organic fertilizer (109 CFU g−1) | Natural infestation | 44.4 | 34.5 | Banana root exudates | Wang et al., | ||
| Colonized sand:maize mixture | 1 | Colonized sand:maize mixture | 84 | Thangavelu and Jayanthi, | |||
| Colonized peat:perlite:oats (2:1:2 vol.) (106 UFC g−1) | TR4 | 0 | Ting et al., | ||||
| Inoculation at transplanting | 1 | Colonized sorghum grains (1.5·106 CFU g−1) | 68 (measured by ELISA) | 75 | Growth promotion | Mohandas et al., | |
| Soil inoculation in the nursery | 23 | Ineffective when | Lin et al., | ||||
| Rhizatech® | Soil inoculation in the nursery | 55 | Mukhongo et al., | ||||
| Bentonite and kaolin formulations | TR4 | Bentonite performed better. In bentonite formulation, PABA should be omitted, while NFSM, and sucrose levels should be optimized | Ting A.S.Y. et al., | ||||
List of biocontrol pot-experiments against Fusarium wilt of banana.
| Root dipping (106 spores mL−1) | 4 | 104 conidia mL−1 | 47 | Siderophore-producing strain, selected from 131 banana roots-endophytic actinomycetes | Cao et al., | |
| Colonized ground millet | 1, STR4 | Colonized ground millet | 75 (R1) | Obtained from banana roots in suppressive soil | Forsyth et al., | |
| Root dipping (5·107 CFU mL−1) | 97 (CFU) | Isolated from roots and stem of pineapple and banana | Weber et al., | |||
| Endophytic bacteria (mainly γ-Proteobacteria) | Crude endophytes inoculum (7.1 log CFU g−1) | 4 | 105 conidia mL−1 | 67 | Growth-promoting effects | Lian et al., |
| 4 | 60.67 | Endophytic strain from a healthy banana plant in a | Yin et al., | |||
| Soil drenching (106 conidia mL−1) | 4 | 106 UFC mL−1 | 2 | Host defense response | Ting et al., | |
| Kavino et al., | ||||||
| Root dipping (106 CFU mL−1) | 1 | Soil inoculation (106 CFU mL−1) | 62.5 | Plant growth promotion | Caballero Hernández et al., | |
| 1 | Chaves et al., | |||||
| Soil inoculation | Shamarao et al., | |||||
| Soil inoculation | 4 | 0 | Ting et al., | |||
| Colonized organic amendments | Neem cake, groundnut cake, | Satheesh and Venu, | ||||
| Colonized corn grits | Colonized corn-meal:sand | 81.76 | Abaca ( | Bastasa and Baliad, | ||
| Soil inoculation (8·109 UFC g−1) | 4 | Naturally infested soil | 95 | Plantains | Pérez Vicente et al., | |
| Soil drenching (106 UFC ml−1) | 41 | Hima and Beena, | ||||
| Soil drench (107 spores mL−1) | 4 | Colonized millet seeds | 62 | Isolated from suppressive soil | Nel et al., | |
| Root dipping and soil drenching | Pushpavathi et al., | |||||
| Root-injury irrigating method | 4 | Root-injury irrigating method | 48 | Plant growth promotion | Qin et al., | |
| Root dipping (108 CFU mL−1) | 1, 4 | 108 conidia mL−1 | 80 | Less severe wilting and internal discoloration. Improved root growth and enhanced plant height in | Sivamani and Gnanamanickam, | |
| Root dipping (108 UFC mL−1) | Shamarao et al., | |||||
| Soil inoculation | 50 | Detoxification of fusaric acid | Thangavelu et al., | |||
| Soil drenching (109 CFU mL−1) | 1 | Colonized sand:maize mixture | Induction of defense enzyme and phenolics | Thangavelu et al., | ||
| Talc powder formulation (108 CFU g−1) | 1 | 106 conidia mL−1 | 50 (vascular discoloration) | Enzymatic activity assay | Saravanan et al., | |
| Talc powder formulation (108 CFU g−1) | 1 | 7.4 (spore germination) | Rifampicin resistant strain of | Saravanan et al., | ||
| Colonized charcoal (108 CFU mL−1) | Colonized sorghum seeds (9.2·104 CFU mL−1) | 72 | Immunolocalization of both organisms in banana roots | Mohandas et al., | ||
| Inoculation of | Plant growth promotion | Ayyadurai et al., | ||||
| Root dipping and soil drenching | Pushpavathi et al., | |||||
| du Plessis, | ||||||
| Root dipping (106 CFU mL−1) | Shamarao et al., | |||||
| Root dipping | Sun and Wang, | |||||
| Soil drenching (5·105 CFU mL−1) | 4 | Soil drenching (5·105 CFU mL−1) | 33 | Induction of defense-related enzymes | Sun et al., | |
| Colonized bio-organic fertilizer | 82 | Biofilms formation and enhancement of root elongation and differentiation zones | Zhang et al., | |||
| Root dipping (OD540 = 0.5) | Soil drenching (105 CFU mL−1) | 16 | Also, a dual effect on mortality and motility of | Ribeiro et al., | ||
| Colonized bio-organic fertilizer (109 CFU g−1) | Naturally infested field soil (1.5·104 CFU g−1) | 77 | Antifungal lipopeptides | Wang et al., | ||
| Colonized bio-organic fertilizer (3·108 CFU g−1) | Naturally infested field soil (1·103 CFU g−1) | 75.7 | Antifungal lipopeptides | Wang J. et al., | ||
| Soil drench (107 spores mL−1) | TR4 | Colonized millet seeds | 87.4 | Obtained from suppressive soil | Nel et al., | |
| Soil drenching (108 CFU mL−1) | 4 | 104 or 106 conidia mL−1 | 47 | Effective against | Getha et al., | |
| Fermentation broth | 4 | 106 CFU mL−1 | 73 | Effective | Zhou et al., | |
| 8 actinomycetes | Fermentation broth | 4 | 1.85·106 conidia mL−1 | 87 | Selected from 139 isolates. Effective | Qin et al., |
| Soil inoculation in the nursery | Plant growth promotion | Jaizme-Vega et al., | ||||
| Soil culture (500 chlamydospores) | 43 (CFU) | Increased cell size and number. More total insoluble polysaccharides, total proteins, and total nucleic acids | Habeeba et al., | |||
| Soil inoculation in the nursery | FWB reduction dependent on AMF and | Borges et al., | ||||
| Native arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi | 3.5·103 or 7·103 kg−1 | 106 conidia mL−1 | More mycorrhiza in plants treated with a biofertilizer rather than three concentrations of Hoagland solution | Sampaio et al., | ||
| Rhizospheric strains FB5, FB2, T2WF, T2WC, and W10 | Root dipping | 4 | 81 | Yang et al., | ||
| Bacteria 0202 and 1112 | 4 | Wang et al., | ||||
| Root dipping (OD540 = 0.5) | Soil drenching (105 CFU mL−1) | 16 | Dual effect on mortality and motility of | Ribeiro et al., | ||
| Marine rhizobacteria YS4B1, YS1A3, YS2A5 | Isolated from mangrove rhizosphere. Effective also against | Bonsubre et al., | ||||
| 104 CFU mL−1 | 100 | Chand et al., | ||||
Figure 6Overview of the efficacy of biological control agents against Fusarium wilt of banana. Data of pot and field trials separated by microbial groups (A) or by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense (Foc) races (B). Dots correspond to the best control levels (viz. reduction of disease incidence or severity) obtained in each scientific article in the literature. In the boxes, the mean is reported as a cross and the median as a horizontal line.