Advertisement

European Journal of Plant Pathology

, Volume 101, Issue 6, pp 665–672 | Cite as

Control ofRhizoctonia solani andSclerotium rolfsii in the greenhouse using endophyticBacillus spp.

  • Shlomo Pleban
  • Fanya Ingel
  • Ilan Chet
Research Articles

Abstract

Isolates of different endophytic bacteria were recovered from surface-disinfected seeds obtained from commercial companies, plants in the field and tissue culture. The bacteria were isolated from seeds after stringent surfacedisinfection.Pseudomonas fluorescens (isolate no. 14) from bean inhibited growth of all fungi tested and was fluorescent on King B medium.Bacillus cereus fromSinapis (isolate no. 65) inhibited growth ofRhizoctonia solani, Pythium ultimum andSclerotium rolfsii and also exhibited chitinase activity.Bacillus subtilis from onion tissue culture (isolate no. 72) inhibitedR. solani andP. ultimum growth.B. cereus from cauliflower (isolate no. 78) inhibited growth ofR. solani. B. pumilus from sunflower (isolate no. 85) inhibited growth ofR. solani andS. rolfsii. B. cereus (isolate no. 65) was introduced into cotton, and by using radioactive labelling we found that it was present for 16 days in the root-stem junction. It is most likely that these bacteria were still found 72 days after their introduction in the root and stem, at levels of 2.8·105 and 5·104 cfu g−1 fresh weight, respectively, when selective medium was used. There was no difference between control and treated plants in their height or in the fresh weight of roots, stems and leaves.

When cotton seedlings were inoculated withB. cereus (isolate no. 65),B. subtilis (isolate no. 72) orB. pumilus (isolate no. 85), disease incidence caused byRhizoctonia solani was reduced in the greenhouse by 51%, 46% and 56%, respectively. In bean seedlings inoculated withB. subtilis (isolate no. 72),B. cereus (isolate no. 78) orB. pumilus (isolate no. 65), disease incidence caused bySclerotium rolfsii was reduced by 72%, 79% and 26%, respectively, as compared to control. In both cotton and bean seedlings, these endophytes reduced the disease index more than 50%. These results indicate that endophytic bacteria can survive inside cotton plants and are efficient agents for biological control against plant pathogens under greenhouse conditions.

Key words

biological control seeds tissue culture 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bastiaens L (1983) Endogenous bacteria in plants and their implication in tissue culture — a review.Med. Fac. Landbouw. Rijksuniversiteit Gent 48: 1–11Google Scholar
  2. Bignell DE (1989) Relative assimilation of14C-labelled microbial tissues and14C-plant fibre ingested with leaf litter by the millipedeGlomeris marginata under experimental conditions. Soil Biol Biochem 21: 819–827Google Scholar
  3. Bloomfield SF (1992) Resistance of bacterial spores to chemical agents. In: Russell AD, Hugo WB and Ayliffe GAJ (eds) Principles and Practice of Disinfection, Preservation and Sterilization (pp. 230–245) Blackwell Scientific Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Cassells AC (1991) Problems in tissue culture: culture contamination. In: Debergh PC and Zimmerman RH (eds) Micropropagation Technology and Application (pp. 31–44) Kluwer Academic, Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen C, Bauske EM, Musson G, Rodriguez-Kabana R and Kloepper JW (1995) Biological control of fusarium wilt on cotton by use of endophytic bacteria. Biol Control 5: 83–91Google Scholar
  6. Chet I, Ordentlich A, Shapira R and Oppenheim A (1991) Mechanisms of biocontrol of soil-borne plant pathogens by rhizobacteria. In: Keister DL and Cregan PB (eds) The Rhizosphere and Plant Growth (pp. 229–236) Kluwer Academic Publishers, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  7. Elad Y, Chet I and Baker R (1987) Increased growth response of plant induced by rhizobacteria antagonistic to soilborne pathogenic fungi. Plant and Soil 98: 325–330Google Scholar
  8. Gagné S, Richard C and Antoun H (1989) Pour voir pathogene des bacteries endoracinaire de la luzerne. Can J Plant Pathol 11: 22–27Google Scholar
  9. Gagné S, Richard C, Antoun H and Rousseau H (1987) Xylem residing bacteria in alfalfa roots. Can J Microbiol 33: 996–1000Google Scholar
  10. Gardner JM, Feldman AW and Zablotowitz RM (1982) Identity and behaviour of xylem-residing bacteria in rough lemon roots of Florida citrus trees. Appl Environ Microbiol 43: 1335–1342Google Scholar
  11. Hall TJ and Davis WEE (1990) Survival ofBacillus subtilis in silver and sugar maple seedlings over a two year period. Plant Dis 74: 608–609Google Scholar
  12. Hallaksela A-M, Vaisanen O and Salkinoja-Salonen M (1991) Identification ofBacillus species isolated fromPicea abies by physiological tests, phage typing and fatty acid analysis. Scand J For Res 6: 365–377Google Scholar
  13. Henis Y (1984) Ecological principles of biocontrol of soilborne plant pathogens:Trichoderma model. In: Klug MJ and Reedy CA (eds) Microbiology Ecology (pp. 353–361) Am Soc Microbiol, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Hollis JP (1951) Bacteria in healthy potato tissue. Phytopathology 41: 350–366Google Scholar
  15. Inbar J and Chet I (1991) Evidence that chitinase produced byAeromonas caviae is involved in the biological control of soilborne plant pathogens by this bacteria. Soil Biol Biochem 23: 973–978Google Scholar
  16. Leben C (1965) Epiphytic microorganisms in relation to plant disease. Ann Rev Phytopathol 3: 209–230Google Scholar
  17. Misaghi I and Donndelinger LR (1990) Endophytic bacteria in symptom-free cotton plants. Phytopathology 80: 808–811Google Scholar
  18. Monreal J and Reese ET (1969) The chitinase ofSerratia marcescens. Can J Microbiol 15: 689–696Google Scholar
  19. Mundt JO and Hinkle NF (1976) Bacteria within ovules and seeds. Appl Environ Microbiol 32: 694–698Google Scholar
  20. Philipson MN and Blair ID (1957) Bacteria in clover root tissue. Can J Microbiol 3: 125–129Google Scholar
  21. Reeser PW and Kostaka SJ (1988) Population dynamics ofClavibacter xyli subsp.cynodontis (CXC) and a CXC/Bacilus thuringiensis subsp.Kurstaki (BT) recombinant in corn (Zea mays). Phytopathology 78: 1540 (Abstr.)Google Scholar
  22. Rodriguez-Kabana R, Godoy G, Morgan-Jones G and Shelby RA (1983) The determination of soil chitinase activity: conditions for assay and ecological studies. Plant and Soil 75: 95–106Google Scholar
  23. Sasser M (1990) Identification of bacteria through fatty acid analysis. In: Klement Z, Rudolph K and Sands DC (eds) Methods in Phytobacteriology (pp. 199–204) Akademiai Kiado, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  24. Sneh B, Katan J, Henis Y and Wahl I (1966) Methods for evaluating inoculum density ofRhizoctonia in naturally infested soil. Phytopathology 56: 74–78Google Scholar
  25. Tör M, Mantell SH and Ainsworth A (1992) Endophytic bacteria expressing β-glucuronidase cause false positives in transformation ofDioscorea species. Plant Cell Rep 11: 452–456Google Scholar
  26. Whitesides SK and Spotts RA (1991) Frequency, distribution and characteristics of endophyticPseudomonas syringae in pear trees. Phytopathology 81: 453–457Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shlomo Pleban
    • 1
  • Fanya Ingel
    • 1
  • Ilan Chet
    • 1
  1. 1.The Otto Warburg Center for Agricultural Biotechnology, Faculty of AgricultureThe Hebrew University of JerusalemRehovotIsrael

Personalised recommendations