Plant and Soil

, 347:255 | Cite as

Effects of soil pH on rhizoctonia damping-off of sugar beet and disease suppression induced by soil amendment with crop residues

  • Kaori Watanabe
  • Mariko Matsui
  • Hitoshi Honjo
  • J. Ole Becker
  • Ryo Fukui
Regular Article

Abstract

Effects of soil pH on damping-off of sugar beet by R. solani (AG2-2) and soil suppressiveness against the disease were studied by comparing disease incidences in pasteurized versus non-pasteurized, infested soils. Soil pH was correlated neither to disease incidence in five soils ranging from pH 4.5 to 7.2 nor to indigenous disease suppressiveness, the difference in disease incidences between non-treated soil and its pasteurized counterpart. When an alkaline soil was acidified with H2SO4, disease suppression markedly declined, increasing disease incidence in the non-pasteurized soil. Inversely, disease suppression was enhanced when an acidic soil was neutralized by adding Ca(OH)2. Soil amendment with dried peanut plant residue suppressed the disease in two pasteurized, near-neutral soils, lowering the incidence to the levels in the non-pasteurized soils, but was less effective in two pasteurized, acidic soils. In vitro mycelial growth of the pathogen and seedling growth was optimal at pH 4.5–5.5 and 6.0–6.5, respectively, and declined as the pH became higher or lower. (Conclusions) These results suggest that the seedlings were inhibited more than the pathogen at low pH, and that indigenous disease suppressiveness through the activity of antagonistic soil microorganisms operates effectively in near-alkaline soils, but is weakened or nullified in acidic soils.

Keywords

Biological control Brassica rapa Crop residue Damping-off Peanut Rhizoctonia solani Soil suppressiveness Sugar beet 

Notes

Acknowledgement

We thank Jennifer S. Becker for critical reviewing of the manuscript, and Japan Society of the Promotion of Science for offering The JSPS Invitation Research Fellowship to initiate this research. We also thank Gene Bank of MAFF for providing the isolate of R. solani

References

  1. Becker JO, Matsui M, Fukui R (2008) Detection and evidence of biologically-caused Rhizoctonia solani-suppression. J Plant Pathol 90(S2):401–02Google Scholar
  2. Block WJ, Lamers JG, Termorshuizen AJ, Bollen GJ (2000) Control of soilborne pathogens by incorporating fresh organic amendments followed by tarping. Phytopathology 90:253–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brady NC, Weil RR (2000) Elements of the nature and properties of soils. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  4. Chet I, Baker R (1980) Induction of suppressiveness to Rhizoctonia solani in soil. Phytopathology 70:994–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chung YR, Hoitink HAJ, Dick WA, Herr LJ (1988) Effect of organic matter decomposition level and cellulose amendment on the inoculum potential of Rhizoctonia solani in hardwood bark media. Phytopathology 78:836–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cook RJ (2006) Toward cropping systems that enhance productivity and sustainability. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103:18389–18394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cook RJ (2007) Tell me again what it is that you do. Annu Rev Phytopathology 45:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davet P (2004) Microbial ecology of the soil and plant growth. Science Publishers, EnfieldGoogle Scholar
  9. Diab HG, Hu S, Benson DM (2003) Suppression of Rhizoctonia solani on impatiens by enhanced microbial activity in composted swine waste-amended potting mixes. Phytopathology 93:1115–1123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Draycott AP, Christenson DR (2003) Nutrients for sugar beet production. CABI Publishing, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fukui R, Campbell GS, Cook RJ (1994) Factors influencing the incidence of embryo infection by Pythium spp. during germination of wheat seeds in soils. Phytopathology 84:695–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Garbeva P, Postma J, van Veen JA, van Elsas JD (2006) Effect of above-ground plant species on soil microbial community structure and its impact on suppression of Rhizoctonia solani. Environment Microbiol 8:233–246Google Scholar
  13. Hoitink HAJ, Boehm MJ (1999) Biocontrol within the context of soil microbial communities: a substrate-dependent phenomenon. Annu Rev Phytopathology 37:427–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kasuya M, Olivier AR, Ota Y, Tojo M, Honjo H, Fukui R (2006) Induction of soil suppressiveness against Rhizoctonia solani by incorporation of dried plant residues into soil. Phytopathology 96:1372–1379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kasuya M, Honjo H, Fukui R (2010) Suppressive effects of soils against sugar beet damping-off diseases induced by a fixed period of time after incorporation of dried crop residues. Soil Microorg 64:81–88Google Scholar
  16. Koike ST, Subbarao KV (2000) Broccoli residues can control Verticillium wilt of cauliflower. Calif Agric 54:30–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Larkin RP, Honeycutt CW (2006) Effect of different 3-year cropping systems on soil microbial communities and Rhizoctonia diseases of potato. Phytopathology 96:68–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Manici LM, Caputo F, Babini V (2004) Effect of green manure on Pythium spp. population and microbial communities in intensive cropping systems. Plant Soil 263:133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martin FN (2003) Development of alternative strategies for management of soilborne pathogens currently controlled with methyl bromide. Annu Rev Phytopathology 41:325–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mazzola M, Gu Y-h (2002) Wheat genotype-specific induction of soil microbial communities suppressive to disease incited by Rhizoctonia solani anastomosis group (AG)-5 and AG-8. Phytopathology 92:1300–1307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mazzola M, Granatstein DM, Elfving DC, Mullinix K (2001) Suppression of specific apple root pathogens by Brassica napus seed meal amendment regardless of glucosinolate content. Phytopathology 91:673–679PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mazzola M, Brown J, Izzo AD, Cohen MF (2007) Mechanism of action and efficacy of seed meal-induced pathogen suppression differ in a Brassicaceae species and time dependent manner. Phytopathology 97:454–460PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peters RD, Sturz AV, Carter MR, Sanderson JB (2003) Developing disease-suppressive soils through crop rotation and tillage management practices. Soil Tillage Res 72:181–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ritchie F, Bain RA, McQuilken MP (2009) Effects of nutrient status, temperature and pH on mycelial growth, sclerotial production and germination of Rhizoctonia solani from potato. J Plant Pathol 91:589–596Google Scholar
  25. Scheuerell SJ, Sullivan DM, Mahaffee WF (2005) Suppression of seedling damping-off caused by Pythium ultimum, P. irregulare, and Rhizoctonia solani in container media amended with a diverse range of Pacific Northwest compost sources. Phytopathology 95:306–315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Thurston HD (1997) Slash/mulch systems in the Americas. In: Thurston HD (ed) Slash/mulch systems: sustainable methods for tropical agriculture. Westview Press, CO, pp 31–72Google Scholar
  27. Tuitert G, Szczech M, Bollen GJ (1998) Suppression of Rhizoctonia solani in potting mixtures amended with compost made from organic household waste. Phytopathology 88:764–773PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yulianti T, Sivasithamparam K, Turner DW (2006) Saprophytic growth of Rhizoctonia solani Kühn AG2-1 (ZG5) in soil amended with fresh green manures affects the severity of damping-off in canola. Soil Biol Biochem 38:923–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kaori Watanabe
    • 1
  • Mariko Matsui
    • 1
  • Hitoshi Honjo
    • 1
  • J. Ole Becker
    • 2
  • Ryo Fukui
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Bio-productive Science, Faculty of AgricultureUtsunomiya UniversityUtsunomiyaJapan
  2. 2.Department of NematologyUniversity of California at RiversideRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations