Biocontrol of the toxigenic plant pathogen Fusarium culmorum by soil fauna in an agroecosystem
In 2011 and 2013, a field experiment was conducted in a winter wheat field at Adenstedt (northern Germany) to investigate biocontrol and interaction effects of important members of the soil food web (Lumbricus terrestris, Annelida; Folsomia candida, Collembola and Aphelenchoides saprophilus, Nematoda) on the phytopathogenic fungus Fusarium culmorum in wheat straw. Therefore, soil fauna was introduced in mesocosms in defined numbers and combinations and exposed to either Fusarium-infected or non-infected wheat straw. L. terrestris was introduced in all faunal treatments and combined either with F. candida or A. saprophilus or both. Mesocosms filled with a Luvisol soil, a cover of different types of wheat straw and respective combinations of faunal species were established outdoors in the topsoil of a winter wheat field after harvest of the crop. After a time span of 4 and 8 weeks, the degree of wheat straw coverage of mesocosms was quantified to assess its attractiveness for the soil fauna. The content of Fusarium biomass in residual wheat straw and soil was determined using a double-antibody sandwich (DAS)-ELISA method. In both experimental years, the infected wheat straw was incorporated more efficiently into the soil than the non-infected control straw due to the presence of L. terrestris in all faunal treatments than the non-infected control straw. In addition, Fusarium biomass was reduced significantly in all treatments after 4 weeks (2011: 95–99%; 2013:15–54%), whereupon the decline of fungal biomass was higher in faunal treatments than in non-faunal treatments and differed significantly from them. In 2011, Fusarium biomass of the faunal treatments was below the quantification limit after 8 weeks. In 2013, a decline of Fusarium biomass was observed, but the highest content of Fusarium biomass was still found in the non-faunal treatments after 8 weeks. In the soil of all treatments, Fusarium biomass was below the quantification limit. The earthworm species L. terrestris revealed a considerable potential as an effective biocontrol agent contributing to a sustainable control of a Fusarium plant pathogen in wheat straw, thus reducing the infection risk for specific plant diseases in arable fields.
KeywordsPlant pathogen repression Biocontrol Ecosystem services Soil health Functional soil biodiversity
We thank Prof. Dr. Liliane Ruess and Michael Ackermann (HU Berlin) for providing the mass cultures of A. saprophilus and their valuable advice for the breeding procedure. Furthermore, the excellent technical assistance of Sabine El Sayed, Berthold Ortmeier, Evelin Schummer, Anke Führer, Sina Wedekind, Marco Hornbostel, Svenja Wiedenroth, Annika Rickmann and Sarah Havertz is gratefully acknowledged. For providing the climate data of the field site, we thank Jan Bug from the Institute of Physical Geography and Landscape Ecology, University of Hannover. The study was supported by the German Federal Environmental Foundation, Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt (DBU), by providing a personal grant to Friederike Meyer-Wolfarth. Furthermore, the financial support of the Brigitte und Wolfram Gedek-Stiftung is gratefully acknowledged.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
- Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R Package Version 1:1–5Google Scholar
- Curtui V, Brockmeyer A, Dietrich R, Kappenstein O, Klaffke H, Lepschy J, Märtlbauer E, Schneider E, Seidler C, Thielert G, Usleber E, Weber R, Wolff J (2005) Deoxynivalenol in Lebensmitteln. Mycotox Res 21:83–88Google Scholar
- Edwards CA, Bohlen P, Linden DR, Subler S (1995) Earthworms in Agrosystems. In: Hendrix PF (ed) Earthworm ecology and biogeography in North America. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, pp 185–213Google Scholar
- EIP-AGRI Focus Group (2015) IPM practices for soil-borne diseases. Final reportGoogle Scholar
- Joschko M, Rogasik H (2002) Mehr Tiefgräber bei Pflugverzicht. Landwirtschaft Ohne Pflug 4-2002:19–21Google Scholar
- Okada H (2006) Ecology of fungivorous nematodes and their use for suppression of plant diseases. Bulletin of the National Agricultural Research Centre for Tohoku 105:155–197 published in Japanese with English summaryGoogle Scholar
- Pertot I, Alabouvette C, Hinarejos E, Franca S (2015) Mini paper—the use of microbial biocontrol agents against soil-borne diseases. EIP-AGRI Focus Group Soil-borne diseases. http://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/sites/agri-eip/files/8_eip_sbd_mp_biocontrol_final.pdf (Accessed 10 May 2017)
- Pestka JJ (2007) Deoxynivalenol: Toxicity, mechanisms and animal health risks. Anim Feed Sci Technol 137(3-4):283–298Google Scholar
- Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, R Core Team (2015) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R Package Version 3:1–120Google Scholar
- R Development Core Team (2014) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
- van Vliet PCJ, Beare MH, Coleman DC, Hendrix PF (2004) Effects of enchytraeids (Annelida: Oligochaeta) on soil carbon and nitrogen dynamics in laboratory incubations. Appl Soil Ecol 25(2):147–160Google Scholar
- Whalen JK, Sampedro L (2010) Soil ecology and management. CABI Publishers, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
- Wolfarth F, Schrader S, Oldenburg E, Brunotte J (2016) Mycotoxin contamination and its regulation by the earthworm species Lumbricus terrestris in presence of other soil fauna in an agroecosystem. Plant Soil. doi: 10.1007/s11104-015-2772-2