| Literature DB >> 34946012 |
Zayneb Kthiri1, Maissa Ben Jabeur1, Kalthoum Harbaoui2, Chahine Karmous1, Zoubeir Chamekh3, Fadia Chairi4, Maria Dolores Serret4,5, Jose Luis Araus4,5, Walid Hamada1.
Abstract
Durum wheat production is seriously threatened by Fusarium head blight (FHB) attacks in Tunisia, and the seed coating by bio-agents is a great alternative for chemical disease control. This study focuses on evaluating, under field conditions, the effect of seed coating with Trichoderma harzianum, Meyerozyma guilliermondii and their combination on (i) FHB severity, durum wheat grain yield and TKW in three crop seasons, and (ii) on physiological parameters and the carbon and nitrogen content and isotope composition in leaves and grains of durum wheat. The results indicated that the treatments were effective in reducing FHB severity by 30 to 70% and increasing grain yield with an increased rate ranging from 25 to 68%, compared to the inoculated control. The impact of treatments on grain yield improvement was associated with higher NDVI and chlorophyll content and lower canopy temperature. Furthermore, the treatments mitigated the FHB adverse effects on N and C metabolism by resulting in a higher δ13Cgrain (13C/12Cgrain) and δ15Ngrain (15N/14Ngrain). Overall, the combination outperformed the other seed treatments by producing the highest grain yield and TKW. The high potency of seed coating with the combination suggests that the two microorganisms have synergetic or complementary impacts on wheat.Entities:
Keywords: Fusarium head blight; bioagents; durum wheat; grain yield; isotope
Year: 2021 PMID: 34946012 PMCID: PMC8705052 DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms9122410
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microorganisms ISSN: 2076-2607
The climatic conditions (temperature, precipitation and humidity) of the three years in the experimental station of Oued Beja.
| Parameter | Mean Temperature (°C) | Precipitation (mm) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Season | 2016–2017 | 2017–2018 | 2018–2019 | 2016–2017 | 2017–2018 | 2018–2019 |
| November | 15.63 | 16.65 | 15.25 | 60 | 67.8 | 74 |
| December | 12.63 | 11.25 | 11 | 40.8 | 84.8 | 60.4 |
| January | 8.7 | 12.15 | 8 | 119.2 | 44.4 | 138.4 |
| February | 13.15 | 11.75 | 10.2 | 96.4 | 89.8 | 49.8 |
| March | 13.3 | 14.9 | 13.6 | 25.6 | 89.1 | 55 |
| April | 16.55 | 17.4 | 15.5 | 42.4 | 17.8 | 37 |
| May | 21.3 | 22.85 | 17.3 | 0 | 48.9 | 106.2 |
| June | 28.3 | 27.25 | 26.25 | 19.8 | 4.2 | 0 |
| Sum/Average | 16.195 | 16.775 | 14.6375 | 404.2 | 446.8 | 520.8 |
The soil’s physicochemical characteristics of Oued Beja station.
| pH | 7.2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soil Type | Vertosol (Texture: Clay Loam) | ||||
| Composition of Soil | |||||
| Depth | Clay (%) | Loam (%) | Sand (%) | Mineral N (ppm) | Total N (%) |
| 0–20 | 67.5 | 22.5 | 10 | 859 | 0.17 |
| 20–40 | 65 | 23.7 | 11.3 | 934.7 | 0.16 |
Figure 1Illustration of the timeline of the field experiment; six manipulative steps are shown along the experiment timeline: (1) seed coating with 3 treatments (M. guilliermondii; the combination M. guilliermondii-T. harzianum; “Panoramix”) plus the non-inoculated and inoculated controls (each on 3 replicated pots) at one hour before sowing; (2) sowing; (3) aerial inoculation of wheat spikes with F. culmorum at the mid-flowering growth stage. (4) At 20 days post-inoculation (at the early milk stage), destructive sampling for disease assessment (100 heads per plot) and non-destructive measurements at the flag leaf level (NDVI, SPAD, stomatal conductance, canopy temperature); (5) collection of flag leaf samples for N/C content and isotopic compositions. (6) At harvest, quantification of grain yield, TKW, and grain sampling for N/C content and isotopic compositions. See methods for further details.
Effect of treatments on FHB severity in durum wheat evaluated in a three-year study.
| Treatments | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | NIC | IC | CM | CP | CT | CC |
| 2017 | 15.1 ± 0.7 | 54.3 ± 0.5 | 16.3 ± 1.5 | 17.0 ± 2.0 | 17.3 ± 0.5 | 22.5 ± 0.5 |
| 2018 | 23.3 ± 1.2 | 62.3 ± 0.5 | 38.6 ± 0.5 | 30.1 ± 1.0 | 22.1 ± 1.2 | 22.8 ± 0.7 |
| 2019 | 26.6 ± 0.2 | 73.1 ± 0.7 | 40.0 ± 1.0 | 40.1 ± 0.7 | 41.1 ± 1.0 | 24.6 ± 0.5 |
| Comparison | IR (%) | RR compared to inoculated control (IC) (%) | ||||
| 2017 | 72.1 | 69.98 | 68.7 | 68.1 | 58.5 | |
| 2018 | 62.6 | 37.97 | 51.6 | 64.4 | 63.3 | |
| 2019 | 63.6 | 45.32 | 45.1 | 43.7 | 66.29 | |
NIC: non-inoculated-control; IC: inoculated control; CM: coated with M. guilliermondii; CT: coated with T. harzianum; CP: coated with Panoramix; CC: coated with combination M. guilliermondii-T. harzianum; IR: increase rate; RR: reduction rate.
Effect of treatments on yield components of durum wheat evaluated in a three-year study.
| Traits | Treatments | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | NIC | IC | CM | CP | CT | CC | |
| Grain yield (Mg/ha) | 2017 | 2.62 ± 0.62 | 2.17 ± 0.48 | 3.70 ± 0.16 | 3.40 ± 0.28 | 6.38 ± 0.01 | 6.82 ± 0.03 |
| 2018 | 2.41 ± 0.17 | 2.01 ± 0.08 | 3.60 ± 0.23 | 2.70 ± 0.26 | 4.02 ± 0.17 | 6.37 ± 0.03 | |
| 2019 | 1.87 ± 0.17 | 1.46 ± 0.31 | 2.76 ± 0.25 | 2.86 ± 0.24 | 2.64 ± 0.12 | 2.77 ± 0.03 | |
| Comparison | RR (%) | IR compared to inoculated control (IC) (%) | |||||
| 2017 | 17.3 | 41.4 | 36.3 | 66.0 | 68.2 | ||
| 2018 | 16.6 | 44.1 | 25.5 | 49.9 | 68.3 | ||
| 2019 | 21.8 | 47.1 | 48.8 | 44.7 | 47.3 | ||
| Thousand Kernels weigh (TKW) (g) | 2017 | 49.2 ± 0.2 | 48.1 ± 0.6 | 50.9 ± 0.2 | 51.9 ± 0.9 | 50.3 ± 0.2 | 52.6 ± 0.8 |
| 2018 | 39.9 ± 0.6 | 38.8 ± 0.2 | 42.9 ± 1.4 | 42.1 ± 3.3 | 41.9 ± 0.8 | 45.9 ± 0.5 | |
| 2019 | 39.8 ± 0.7 | 37.7 ± 1.0 | 41.9 ± 0.9 | 36.2 ± 1.9 | 37.8 ± 0.9 | 39.0 ± 0.2 | |
| Comparison | RR (%) | IR compared to inoculated control (IC) (%) | |||||
| 2017 | 2.2 | 5.4 | 7.2 | 4.2 | 8.5 | ||
| 2018 | 2.9 | 9.6 | 7.9 | 7.4 | 15.5 | ||
| 2019 | 5.4 | 10.2 | −4.2 | 0.3 | 3.3 | ||
NIC: non-inoculated-control; IC: inoculated control; CM: coated with M. guilliermondii; CT: coated with T. harzianum; CP: coated with Panoramix; CC: coated with combination M. guilliermondii-T. harzianum; IR: increase rate; RR: reduction rate.
Figure 2The Pearson’s correlation matrix among physiological traits, Fusarium head blight severity, yield components and grain stable isotope composition (2018 field trial). Traits; C: carbon, N: nitrogen, 13C: δ13C, 15N: δ15N, GY: grain yield, TKW: thousand kernel weight, CT: canopy temperature, F severity: Fusarium head blight severity, SC: stomatal conductance. The darker, bigger blue squares indicate a stronger positive correlation. The darker, bigger red squares indicate a stronger negative correlation. Crossed cells indicate statistically insignificant correlations. Black rectangles indicate the traits that have a similar pattern of correlation according to hierarchical clustering.
Effect of the biostimulants on the physiological traits and carbon and nitrogen isotope discrimination in the 2018 cropping season.
|
|
| |||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| NIC | 2.41 ± 0.17 | 39.96 ± 0.68 | 23.33 ± 1.2 | 0.70 ± 0.003 | 45.19 ± 0.22 | 22.06 ± 0.4 | 276.8 ± 30.5 | |
| IC | 2.01 ± 0.08 | 38.80 ± 0.26 | 62.33 ± 0.5 | 0.66 ± 0.040 | 42.39 ± 2.00 | 22.76 ± 0.5 | 249.9 ± 1.3 | |
| CM | 3.60 ± 0.23 | 42.90 ± 1.42 | 38.66 ± 0.5 | 0.72 ± 0.017 | 45.81 ± 0.41 | 20.16 ± 0.5 | 276.8 ± 30.5 | |
| CP | 2.70 ± 0.26 | 42.13 ± 3.31 | 30.16 ± 1.0 | 0.77 ± 0.018 | 48.94 ± 0.51 | 20.96 ± 0.3 | 249.5 ± 0.6 | |
| CT | 4.02 ± 0.17 | 41.92 ± 0.89 | 22.16 ± 1.2 | 0.80 ± 0.003 | 50.49 ± 0.83 | 19.26 ± 0.05 | 220.0 ± 21.7 | |
| CC | 6.37 ± 0.03 | 45.93 ± 0.58 | 22.83 ± 0.7 | 0.79 ± 0.006 | 46.80 ± 0.64 | 19.03 ± 0.2 | 212.3 ± 31.1 | |
| The carbon and nitrogen content and isotope discrimination | ||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NIC | 40.58 ± 0.29 | −29.14 ± 0.11 | 3.06 ± 0.057 | 4.26 ± 0.07 | 41.80 ± 0.11 | −25.45 ± 0.01 | 2.06 ± 0.019 | 2.58 ± 0.07 |
| IC | 39.20 ± 0.38 | −29.27 ± 0.04 | 2.73 ± 0.24 | 4.13 ± 0.06 | 39.19 ± 0.43 | −25.75 ± 0.08 | 1.85 ± 0.074 | 1.38 ± 0.33 |
| CM | 37.03 ± 0.55 | −29.42 ± 0.04 | 3.15 ± 0.079 | 2.51 ± 0.11 | 42.39 ± 0.28 | −25.18 ± 0.05 | 2.00 ± 0.016 | 2.21 ± 0.2 |
| CP | 40.00 ± 0.004 | −28.81 ± 0.09 | 1.70 ± 0.14 | 3.33 ± 0.39 | 41.26 ± 0.23 | −25.31 ± 0.07 | 2.24 ± 0.028 | 3.28 ± 0.02 |
| CT | 39.79 ± 0.067 | −28.95 ± 0.05 | 1.43 ± 0.006 | 4.01 ± 0.04 | 40.70 ± 0.16 | −25.56 ± 0.06 | 1.94 ± 0.015 | 1.87 ± 0.11 |
| CC | 40.22 ± 0.11 | −27.80 ± 0.23 | 2.19 ± 0.05 | 2.04 ± 0.12 | 40.39 ± 0.29 | −25.49 ± 0.02 | 2.16 ± 0.008 | 2.89 ± 0.28 |
GS: growth stage; FHB: Fusarium head blight; CT: canopy temperature; SC: stomatal conductance; Cleaf: leaf carbon content; Nleaf: leaf nitrogen content; NIC: non-inoculated, control; IC: inoculated control; CM: coated with M. guilliermondii; CT: coated with T. harzianum; CP: coated with Panoramix; CC: coated with combination M. guilliermondii-T. harzianum. At the early milk stage, all the treatments resulted in higher NDVI and SPAD values and lower values of canopy temperature. Differently, the treatments Panoramix, T. harzianum, and the combination M. guilliermondii-T. harzianum decreased stomatal conductance compared to inoculated control, while no effect was observed for M. guilliermondii (Table 5).
Figure 3Schematic representation of the impact of FHB disease and the highest yielding treatment M. guilliermondii-T. harzianum on physiological traits, grain yield and N/C metabolism in durum wheat.