American Potato Journal

, Volume 68, Issue 5, pp 269–278 | Cite as

Response of selected soilborne fungi and bacteria to herbicides utilized in potato crop management systems in Maine

  • S. S. Leach
  • C. W. Murdoch
  • C. Gordon
Article
Accepted:

Abstract

The response of nine soilborne fungi associated with potato production:Rhizoctonia solani, Fusarium solani ‘Coerculeum,’F. roseum ‘Sambucinum,’F. avenaceum, Helminthosporium solani, Verticillium alboatrum, Alternaria solani, Trihcoderma viride, andLaetisaria arvalis; and five soilborne bacteriaAzotobacter chroococcum, Bacillus subtilis, Erwinia carotovora subsp. carotovora,Pseudomonas aeruqinosa andPseudomonas fluorescens to the herbicides linuron, metribuzin, dinoseb, paraquat, EPTC, and dalapon were determined by growth on amended media. None of the herbicides increased radial growth of the fungi, and only dinoseb significantly (P = 0.05) reduced radial growth of all fungi at concentrations less than 64 ppm. EPTC, dalapon, linuron, paraquat, and dinoseb severely inhibited bacterial survival (91, 82, 44%, respectively) when evaluated on trypticase soy and cimmons citrate agar media amended with herbicides at concentrations of 1, 10, and 100 ppm. Dinoseb, when applied to field soil in pots, significantly reduced total microorganism populations in the top 5 cm of soil. Results suggest that soil applications of herbicides can selectively inhibit soil microflora with possible effects on disease incidence and severity, and may also be a factor in determining effectiveness of biolgical control agents.

Additional Key Words

Dinoseb Fusarium spp. Verticillium spp. Rhizoctonia Solani 

Compendio

Se determinó la respuesta de nueve hongos del suelo asociados con la producción de papa:Rhizoctonia solani, Fusarium solani ‘Coeruleum’,F. roseum ‘Sambucinum’,F. avenaceum, Helminthosporium solani, Verticillium alboatrum, Alternaria solani, Trichoderma viride yLaetisaria arvalis; y cinco bacterias, también del suelo,Azotobacter chroococcum, Bacillus subtilis, Erwinia carotovora subsp.carotovora,Pseudomonas aeruginosa yPseudomonas fluorescens a los herbicidas linuron, metribuzin, dinoseb, paraquat, EPTC y dalapon, mediante el crecimiento en medios modificados. Ninguno de los herbicidas incrementó el crecimiento radial de los hongos y solamente dinoseb redujo significativamente (P = 0,05) el crecimiento radial de todos los hongos a concentraciones menores de 64 ppm. EPTC, dalapon, linuron, paraquat y dinoseb inhibieron severamente la supervivencia bacteriana (91, 82, 44%, respectivamente) cuando se evaluó sobre soya tripticasa y agar-citrato de Simmons con herbicidas a concentraciones de 1, 10 y 100 ppm. Dinoseb, cuando se aplicó a suelo de campo en macetas, redujo significativamente las poblaciones totales de microorganismos en los 5 cm superiores de suelo. Los resultados sugieren que las aplicaciones de herbicidas al suelo pueden.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Alexander, M. 1977. Introduction to Soil Microbiology, 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York. pp. 436–456.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Altman, J. and C.L. Campbell. 1977. Effect of herbicides on plant disease. Ann Rev Phytopathology 15: 361–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andus, L.J. 1970. The action of herbicides and pesticides on soil microflora. Meded Fact Landbouww Gent 35: 465–492.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bollen, W.B. 1961. Interaction between pesticides and soil microorganisms. Ann Rev Microbiol 15: 69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Broadbent, P., K.R. Baker and Y. Waterworth. 1971. Bacteria and actinomycetes antagonistic to fungal root pathogens in Australian soils. Aust J Biol Sci 24: 925–944.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Caswell, R.L. 1977. Pesticide Handbook. ENTOMA 27th ed., Entomological Society of America, pp. 55–64.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davis, B.D., R. Dulbecco, H.N. Eisen, H.S. Ginsberg, W.B. Wood and M. McCarty. 1973. Microbiology, 2nd ed. Harper and Row, New York. pp. 772.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Diener, U.L. 1955. Sporulation in pure culture byStemphylium solani. Phytopathology 45: 141–145.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    El-Khadem and G.C. Papavias. 1984. Effect of the herbicides EPTC and linuron on cotton diseases caused byRhizoctonia solani andFusarium oxysporium f.sp vasiceatum. Plant Pathology 33: 411–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fletcher, W.W. 1960. The effect of herbicides on soil microorganism. In: Herbicides and the soil. E.K. Woodford and R. Sagar (Eds.). pp. 20–62. Blackwell Scientific Publ, Oxford, England.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Funderburk, H.H., Jr. and G. A. Bozarth. 1967. Review of the metabolism and decomposition of diquat and paraquat. J Agric Food Chem 15: 563–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gough, H.C. 1977. Pesticides on crops — some benefits and problems. In: Ecological Effects of Pesticides, Eds., F.H. Perring and K. Mallanby, pp. 7–26, Linnean Soc Symp Series 5, Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Helling, C.S., P.C. Kearney and M. Alexander. 1971. Behavior of pesticides in soils. Advances in Agron 23: 147–240.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Henis, Y., A. Chaffer, R. Baker and S.L. Gillespie. 1978. A new pellet soil sampler and its use for the study of population dynamics ofRhizoctonia solani in soil. Phytopathology 68: 371–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kearney, P.C., C.I. Harris, D.D. Kaufman and T.J. Sheets. 1965. Behavior and fate of chlorinated aliphatic acids in soils. Advan Pest Res 6: 1–30.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leach, S.S. and C.W. Murdoch. 1983. Evaluation ofLaetisaria arvalis as a biological control agent ofRhizoctonia solani on white potato. (Abstr.). Am Potato J 60: 813–814.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Muschinek, G., G.I. Garob, L.A. Mustardy and A. Faludi-Daniel. 1979. The mechanism of linuron phytotoxicity in Maize. Weed Res 19: 101–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Parr, J.F. 1974. Effects of pesticides on microorganisms in soil and water. In: Pesticides in Soil and Water, W.D. Guenz, Ed., pp. 315–340, Soil Science Society of America, Inc., Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Porter, G. and H.J. Murphy. 1982. Effects of several microbial seedpiece treatments on emergence, yield, tuber defects, tuber size distribution, and specific gravity of Katahdin and Russet Burbank potatoes in Maine. Am Potato J 60: 179–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schmidt, K.A. 1980. The effects of the herbicides EPTC, linuron, dinoseb, metribuzin, and diquat on bacteria and soil biogeochemical activity. M.S. Thesis, Univ of Maine, Orono. 39 pp.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sezgin, E. 1978. Investigations on the effects of some herbicides on the growth and virulenceof Rhizoctonia solani andTrichoderma viride. J. Turkish Phytopath 7: 105–112.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Verma, P.A. and D.L. McKenzie. 1985.In Vitro effects of solani isolates from camela/rapeseed. Phytopathology 75: 1363 (Abstr.)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vlassak, K., K.A.H. Heremans and A.R. Van Rossen. 1976. Dinoseb as a specific inhibitor of nitrogen fixation in soil. Soil Biol Biochem 8: 91–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Walker, C. Bareta and J. Altman. 1984. The influence of trifluralin on the bean rot pathogen:Fusarium solani, F. sp. phaseolis. Phytopathology 74: 814 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wilkinson, V. and R.L. Lucas. 1969. Effects of herbicides on the growth of soil fungi. New Phytologist 68: 709–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© 1991 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. S. Leach
    • 1
  • C. W. Murdoch
    • 2
  • C. Gordon
  1. 1.N.E. Plant, Soil and Water LaboratoryUSDA/ARS. University of MaineOrono
  2. 2.College of Forest ResourcesUniversity of MaineOrono

Personalised recommendations