Trichoderma hamatum: Its hyphal interactions withRhizoctonia solani andPythium spp.
- 286 Downloads
The mode of hyphal interaction and parasitism ofPythium spp. andRhizoctonia solani byTrichoderma hamatum was studied by both phase-contrast and Nomarski differential interference-contrast microscopy. Directed growth of the mycoparasite toward its host was observed. In the area of interaction,T. hamatum produced appressorial-like structures attached to the host cell wall. Subsequently, several different types of interactions occurred.T. hamatum either grew parallel to and along the host hypha or coiled around its host. In the contrast regions the parasite formed bulbular or hook-like structures that contained granular cytoplasm. In other cases the parasite penetrated into and grew within the mycelium ofR. solani orP. ultimum. As a consequence of the attack, the host hypha became vacuolated, shrank, collapsed, and finally disintegrated. These observations suggest the involvement of parasitism followed by lysis rather than involvement of antibiotics in this host-mycoparasite relationship.
KeywordsMicroscopy Cell Wall Host Cell Nature Conservation Trichoderma
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Backman. P. A., and R. Rodrigues-Kabana: A system for the growth and delivery of biological control agents to the soil. Phytopathology65, 819–821 (1975)Google Scholar
- 2.Chet, I., and R. Baker: Induction of suppressiveness toRhizoctonia solani in soil. Phytopathology70: 994–998 (1980)Google Scholar
- 3.Chet, I. and R. Baker: Isolation ofTrichoderma hamatum from soil. naturally suppressive toRhizoctonia solani and its application as a biocontrol agent. Phytopathology (in press)Google Scholar
- 5.Dennis, C., and J. Webster: Antagonistic properties of species-groups ofTrichoderma. I. Production of nonvolatile antibiotics. Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc.57, 25–39 (1971)Google Scholar
- 6.Dennis, C., and J. Webster: Antagonistic properties of species-groups ofTrichoderma. II. Production of volatile antibiotics. Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc.57, 41–48 (1971)Google Scholar
- 7.Dennis, C., and J. Webster: Antagonistic properties of species-groups ofTrichoderma. III. Hyphal interaction. Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc.57, 363–369 (1971)Google Scholar
- 8.Elad, Y., I. Chet, and J. Katan:Trichoderma harzianum: A biocontrol agent ofSclerotium rolfssi andRhizoctonia solani, Phytopathology70: 119–121 (1980)Google Scholar
- 9.Hadar, Y., I. Chet, and Y. Henis: Biological control ofRhizoctonia solani damping-off with wheat bran culture ofTrichoderma harzianum. Phytopathology69, 64–68 (1978)Google Scholar
- 10.Harman, G. E., I. Chet, and R. Baker: Seed treatment withTrichoderma hamatum as a means of preventing seed and seedling disease induced byPythium spp. orRhizoctonia solani. Phytopathology (in press)Google Scholar
- 12.Jansson, H. B., and B. Norbring-Hertz: Attraction of nematode to living mycelium of nematophagous fungi. J. Gen. Microbiol.112, 89–93 (1979)Google Scholar
- 14.Jordan, E. G., and H. L. Barnett: Nutrition and parasitism ofMelanospora zamiae. Mycologia70, 306–312 (1978)Google Scholar
- 15.Liu, S., and R. Baker: Mechanism of biological control in soil suppressive toRhizoctonia solani. Phytopathology (in press)Google Scholar
- 16.Toyama, N., and K. Ogawa: Purification and properties ofTrichoderma viride mycolytic enzymes. J. Ferment. Technol.46, 626–633 (1968)Google Scholar
- 17.Wells, H. C., K. K. Bell, and C. A. Jawarsky: Efficacy ofTrichoderma harzianum as a biological control forSclerotium rolfsii. Phytopathology62, 442–447 (1972)Google Scholar