| Literature DB >> 35890629 |
Grażyna Korbecka-Glinka1, Klaudia Piekarska2, Maria Wiśniewska-Wrona2.
Abstract
Fungal pathogens cause significant yield losses of many important crops worldwide. They are commonly controlled with fungicides which may have negative impact on human health and the environment. A more sustainable plant protection can be based on carbohydrate biopolymers because they are biodegradable and may act as antifungal compounds, effective elicitors or carriers of active ingredients. We reviewed recent applications of three common polysaccharides (chitosan, alginate and cellulose) to crop protection against pathogenic fungi. We distinguished treatments dedicated for seed sowing material, field applications and coating of harvested fruits and vegetables. All reviewed biopolymers were used in the three types of treatments, therefore they proved to be versatile resources for development of plant protection products. Antifungal activity of the obtained polymer formulations and coatings is often enhanced by addition of biocontrol microorganisms, preservatives, plant extracts and essential oils. Carbohydrate polymers can also be used for controlled-release of pesticides. Rapid development of nanotechnology resulted in creating new promising methods of crop protection using nanoparticles, nano-/micro-carriers and electrospun nanofibers. To summarize this review we outline advantages and disadvantages of using carbohydrate biopolymers in plant protection.Entities:
Keywords: antifungal coatings; edible coatings; field applications; phytopathogenic fungi; plant protection; polysaccharides; post-harvest treatments; pre-harvest treatments; seed coating; seed treatments
Year: 2022 PMID: 35890629 PMCID: PMC9322042 DOI: 10.3390/polym14142854
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.967
Figure 1Stages and forms of antifungal plant protection applications which can be based on carbohydrate biopolymers.
Examples of antifungal seed treatments based on carbohydrate biopolymers (chitosan, alginate or cellulose) or their derivatives.
| Form of Application | Chemical Composition of the Seed Treatment Formulation * | Target Pathogen(s) | Effects of the Treatment | Ref. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbohydrate Polymer or Its Derivative | Other | ||||
| Seed | CS (low and medium Mw) | propolis extract, Tween 80, | All coatings significantly reduced the post-emergence mortality of | [ | |
| Seed | CS | Fungi isolated from | Inhibited mycelium growth, sporulation and spore germination in vitro; improved germination of | [ | |
| Seed | CS | Fungicide: tetramethylthiuram disulfide; Span 80 | seed borne fungi | Stimulated formation of an abundant root system, reduced fungal infection of seeds/seedlings, but | [ |
| Seed | CS | HCl, | Significantly reduced growth, sporulation, dried biomass and spore germination of | [ | |
| Seed | CS | Fungicide: | Soil borne | Improved the germination at 25 °C, higher emergence in cold test, increased activity of chitinase and glucanase in chitosan-treated seeds compared to the untreated ones. | [ |
| Seed | CS | CS-Garlic EO NPs, | Synergistic effect of CS NPs and garlic EO resulting in a strong antifungal activity; stimulated germination and seedling growth. | [ | |
| - | COS | - | Antifungal effects against | [ | |
| Spray | COS | ε-poly-l-lysine | Strong antifungal, synergistic effect of application of two bio-fungicides in combination, inhibition rate of | [ | |
| Spray, seed | COS | TEMPO, NaBr, |
| Effective control | [ |
| Seed | AG | The application of encapsulated | [ | ||
| Seed | AG | Three strains of | [ | ||
| Seed | AG | Ag NPs, | Nanopesticide with a broad-spectrum antifungal activity in vitro. No negative effects on seed germination were detected. | [ | |
| Seed | AG | Silica NPs, | The rate of disease control was >20% higher than in control when tested on wheat | [ | |
| Seed | EC, | sodium | storage fungi e.g., | After few months of storage: lower moisture content of the seeds, higher germination percentage, higher emergence in the field and lower fungal infestation. | [ |
| Seed | CMC | Biocontrol | Reduced disease severity after seed treatment with biocontrol in controlled conditions. | [ | |
| Seed | CMC | Fungicides: | Reduced severity sharp eyespot disease in the field. | [ | |
| Electrospun seed coating | CDA | Pesticides (abamectin, fluopyram) acetone, | soil borne fungi | Laboratory tests showed: slow release of pesticides in water environment and growth inhibition of | [ |
| Electrospun seed coating | CA | Cu2+, gelatin |
| Promoted seed germination in diseased media, increased seedling biomass. | [ |
* Abbreviations: CS—Chitosan, Mw—molecular weight, AG—Alginate, COS—Chitosan oligosaccharides, EOS—Essential oils, CMC—Carboxymethyl cellulose, MC—Methyl cellulose, EC—Ethyl cellulose, HEC—Hydroxyethyl cellulose, CA—Cellulose acetate, CDA—Cellulose diacetate, TEMPO-2,2,6,6-Tetramethylpiperidine-1-oxyl, NPs—Nanoparticles.
Examples of antifungal treatments dedicated for field application and based on carbohydrate biopolymers (chitosan, alginate or cellulose) or their derivatives.
| Form of Application | Chemical Composition of the Seed Treatment Formulation * | Target Pathogen(s) | Effects of the Treatment | Ref. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbohydrate Polymer or Its Derivative | Other | ||||
| - | CS | CS NPs, |
| Reduced fungal growth in vitro, morphological and ultrastructural changes in of the mycelium | [ |
| Soil | CS | CS-Ag | Nanocomposites of chitosan combined with CuO or ZnO provided the most effective protection against wilt disease and promoted growth of chickpea plants | [ | |
| Seed | CS | CS-Cu NPs | Lower disease severity observed in maize in pot and field experiments, plant growth stimulation. | [ | |
| Seedling | CS | vanilin, | Strong inhibitory effect on the linear growth of both target pathogens, reduced disease incidence under greenhouse conditions | [ | |
| - | CS | CS-Saponin NPs, | Compared to CS-Saponin NPs, CS-Cu NPs were more effective and caused fungal growth inhibition in vitro of 89.5%, 63.0% and 60.1% in case of | [ | |
| Encapsulation | CS | CS-pectin NPs, | 100% inhibition of tested fungi. Carbendazim nanoformulation showed greater efficacy at a lower concentration compared to the top carbendazim and commercial form against target species | [ | |
| Foliar | CS | CS-Cu NPs, | Significant defense response and control of the disease in maize. | [ | |
| Encapsulation | AG | Fungicide: Bosphorus -(formerly nicobiphene); bentonite | Broad-spectrum fungicide inhibits the respiration of fungi by binding to the enzyme succinate dehydrogenase in fungal mitochondria. | [ | |
| Encapsulation | AG beads | Fungicide: thiram | various fungi | Slower release the active fungicide in vitro and in the soil. | [ |
| Spray | AOS |
| The results showed that AOS (5 g/L) combined with | [ | |
| Encapsultion | EC | Fungicide: fluazinam; gum arabic, emulsifier | In in vitro tests: stronger inhibitory effect on | [ | |
| Nano- | fatty acid | Fugicides: | In in vitro tests: pesticide release in contact with cellulolytic fungi and fungal growth inhibition | [ | |
| Nano- | HPC | Fungicide | Fungicide release induced either by low pH or cellulase. Prolonged photostability and reduced cytotoxicity of the fungicide delivered in nanocarriers compared to commercial formulations. | [ | |
| Micro-spheres | Copolymer: | EOS: citral | Antifungal activity in vitro and reduced disease incidence in tomato tested in vivo | [ | |
| Electrospun memebrane | CA | 5-chloro-8-hydroxyquinolinol, polyethylene glycol, acetone | Membranes prevent fungal spore penetration of plant tissues wounded by pruning procedure | [ | |
* Abbreviations: CS -Chitosan, AG—Alginate, AOS—Alginate oligosaccharides, EOS—Essential oils, CMC—Carboxymethyl cellulose, HPC—Hydroxypropyl cellulose, CA—Cellulose acetate, NPs—Nanoparticles.
Examples of antifungal coatings of fruits and vegetables based on carbohydrate biopolymers (chitosan, alginate or cellulose) or their derivatives.
| Fruit or Vegetable | Chemical Composition of the Coating * | Fungi Responsible for Crop Decay | Effects of the Coating | Ref. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbohydrate Polymer or Its Derivative | Other | ||||
| Apple | CS | licorice |
| CS-licorice coating inhibited | [ |
| Cherry | CS | EOS from | CS-EOS combination strongly inhibited mycelial growth and spore germination of target fungi. CS-EOS coatings reduced decay of inoculated tomato fruits and preserved quality of the stored fruit | [ | |
| Grapes | CS | salicylic acid, glacial acetic acid, |
| Compared to pure CS coatings, coatings based on CS-salicylic acid conjugate were the most effective at promoting plant resistance, reducing fruit decay while improving their storability | [ |
| Grapes | CS NPs | Silica |
| Compared to both types of NPs, CS-silica nanocomposites were the most effective in inhibiting | [ |
| Bell pepper | CS NPs |
| CS NPs inhibited | [ | |
| Orange | CS | pomegranate peel extract, |
| Coatings combining CS, pomegranate peel extract and | [ |
| Blueberry | AG | Cyclolipopeptides from |
| Compared to uncoated control, coated fruit showed >10× lower fungal contamination, reduced respiratory rate and weight loss during cold storage | [ |
| Papaya | AG | Thyme and | not specified | Coatings reduced weight loss of fresh-cut fruit, retarded pH changes, reduced respiration rate thus delayed senescence | [ |
| Apple | AG | EOS: lemongrass, |
| Coatings with EOS inhibited the growth of | [ |
| Pineapple | AG | EOS: lemongrass, | yeast and | Reduced weight loss, respiration rate, total counts of microorganisms, yeast and molds during storage | [ |
| Raspberry | AG | EOS: citral and | yeast and | Improved storability, nutritional and sensory quality of fruits, growth inhibition of molds, yeasts and aerobic mesophilic microorganisms (compared to uncoated control) | [ |
| Grapes | AG | vanillin, glycerol |
| Maintained nutritional quality, sensory quality and extended the shelf-life of grapes, reduced growth of yeasts and molds | [ |
| Peach | AG | rhubarb extract |
| Reduced weight loss, firmness loss, respiratory rate and higher nutritional value compared to uncoated control fruits; reduced decay index recorded for coated fruit which were previously inoculated with | [ |
| Shiitake mushrooms | AG | Nano-Ag | bacteria, yeasts | Enhanced shelf-life, higher physicochemical and sensory quality, reduced weight loss, lower counts of different groups of microorganisms. | [ |
| Strawberry | AG | ZnO | not specified | Enhanced shelf-life, reduced loss of weight, texture quality and the content of the ascorbic acid, total phenols and anthocyanins. | [ |
| Kiwifruit | AOS | - |
| AOS did not inhibit the growth of | [ |
| Guava | CMC | - | not specified | Reduced decay and weight loss of fruits; higher firmness; better sensory attributes; higher sugar, ascorbic acid and phenol contents; higher titratable acidity | [ |
| Mandarin | CMC | - |
| Best results compared to chitosan and beeswax coatings: reduced decay and weight loss of fruits; higher juice content and firmness of the fruits; lower activity of cell wall degrading enzymes; higher titratable acidity; higher ascorbic acid and carotenoids contents | [ |
| Strawberry | CMC | probiotic bacteria: | Reduced counts of yeast and molds and reduced percentage of decayed fruits after cold storage (better results compared to control and compared to pure CMC coating); reduced weight loss, slower deterioration of ascorbic acid and phenolic compounds. | [ | |
| Tangerine | CMC | ethanol extract of | Improved results compared to pure CMC coating: lowest decay and weight loss after cold storage; highest total soluble solid, titratable acid, total sugar and ascorbic acid contents; highest activity of antioxidant and defence-related enzymes | [ | |
| Avocado | CMC | Moringa plant | Reduced decay and weight loss of the stored fruit higher firmness of the fruit; reduced ethylene production and respiration rate; confirmed antifungal effect in fungal inoculation in vivo test. | [ | |
| Orange | HPMC | food preservatives, shellac, beeswax, | Lower incidence and severity of the disease observed on | [ | |
| Cherry | HPMC | food preservatives | Positive effect on the fruit quality and antifungal properties of coatings were confirmed. | [ | |
* Abbreviations: CS—chitosan, AG—alginate, AOS—alginate oligosaccharides, EOS—essential oils, CMC—carboxymethyl cellulose, HPMC—hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, NPs—nanoparticles.
Figure 2Alternative modification methods of carbohydrate polymers which can be used in the process of preparing antifungal plant protection formulations.