Mycotoxin Research

, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 237–244 | Cite as

Biocontrol of the toxigenic plant pathogen Fusarium culmorum by soil fauna in an agroecosystem

  • Friederike Meyer-Wolfarth
  • Stefan Schrader
  • Elisabeth Oldenburg
  • Joachim Weinert
  • Joachim Brunotte
Original Article


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.


Plant 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.


  1. 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
  2. Bertrand M, Blouin M, Barot S, Charlier A, Marchand D, Roger-Estrade J (2015) Biocontrol of eyespot disease on two winter wheat cultivars by an anecic earthworm (Lumbricus terrestris). Appl Soil Ecol 96:33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonkowski M, Griffiths BS, Ritz K (2000) Food preferences of earthworms for soil fungi. Pedobiologia 44:666–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown GG (1995) How do earthworms affect microfloral and faunal community diversity? Plant Soil 170:209–231. doi: 10.1007/BF02183068 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cooke A (1983) The effects of fungi on food selection by Lumbricus terrestris L. In: Satchell JE (ed) Earthworm ecology: from Darwin to Vermiculture. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 365–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Edwards CA (1983) Earthworm ecology in cultivated soils. In: Satchell JE (ed) Earthworm ecology: from Darwin to vermiculture. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 123–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. EIP-AGRI Focus Group (2015) IPM practices for soil-borne diseases. Final reportGoogle Scholar
  10. Ernst G, Emmerling C (2009) Impact of five different tillage systems on soil organic carbon content and the density, biomass, and community composition of earthworms after a ten year period. Eur J Soil Biol 45:247–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Freckman DW, Caswell EP (1985) The ecology of nematodes in agroecosytems. Annu rev Phytopathol 23:275–296. doi: 10.1146/ CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Friberg H, Lagerlöf J, Rämert B (2005) Influence of soil fauna and fungal plant pathogens in agricultural and horticultural systems. Biocontrol Sci Tech 15:641–658. doi: 10.1080/09583150500086979 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grubert D, Butenschoen O, Maraun M, Scheu S (2016) Understanding earthworm—Collembola interactions and their importance for ecosystem processes needs consideration of species identity. Eur J Soil Biol 77:60–67. doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2016.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gupta MC (1986) Biological control of Fusarium moniliforme Sheldon and Pythium butleri Subramaniam by Aphelenchus avenae Bastian in chitin and cellulose-amended soils. Soil Biol Biochem 18:327–329. doi: 10.1016/0038-0717(86)90069-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heemsbergen DA, Berg MP, Loreau M, van Hal JR, Faber JH, Verhoef HA (2004) Biodiversity effects on soil processes explained by interspecific functional dissimilarity. Science 306:1019–1020CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hobbs PR (2007) Conservation agriculture: what is it and why is it important for future sustainable food production? J Agr Sci 145:127–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holland JM (2004) The environmental consequences of adopting conservation tillage in Europe: reviewing the evidence. Agric Ecosyst Environ 103:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Joschko M, Rogasik H (2002) Mehr Tiefgräber bei Pflugverzicht. Landwirtschaft Ohne Pflug 4-2002:19–21Google Scholar
  19. Kassam A, Friedrich T, Shaxson F, Pretty J (2009) The spread of conservation agriculture: justification, sustainability and uptake. Int J Agr Sustain 7:292–320. doi: 10.3763/ijas.2009.0477 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kauschke E, Komiyama K, Moro I, Eue I, König S, Cooper EL (2001) Evidence for perforin-like activity associated with earthworm leukocytes. Zoology 104:13–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuzyakov Y, Blagodatskaya E (2015) Microbial hotspots and hot moments in soil: concept and review. Soil Biol Biochem 83:184–199. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.01.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lartey RT, Curl EA, Peterson CM (1994) Interactions of mycophagous Collembola and biological control fungi in the suppression of Rhizoctonia solani. Soil Biol Biochem 26:81–88. doi: 10.1016/0038-0717(94)90198-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leplat J, Friberg H, Abid M, Steinberg C (2013) Survival of Fusarium graminearum, the causal agent of Fusarium head blight. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 33:97–111. doi: 10.1007/s13593-012-0098-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. MacFadyen A (1961) Improved funnel-type extractors for soil arthropods. J Anim Ecol 30:171–184. doi: 10.2307/2120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moody SA, Briones TG, Dighton J (1995) Selective consumption of decomposing wheat straw by earthworms. Soil Biol Biochem 27:1209–1213. doi: 10.1016/0038-0717(95)00024-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Oldenburg E, Kramer S, Schrader S, Weinert J (2008) Impact of the earthworm Lumbricus terrestris on the degradation of Fusarium-infected and deoxynivalenol-contaminated wheat straw. Soil Biol Biochem 40:3049–3053. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.09.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Parry DW, Jenkinson P, McLeod L (1995) Fusarium ear blight (scab) in small grain cereals—a review. Plant Pathol 44:207–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pereyra SA, Dill-Macky R (2008) Colonization of the residues of diverse plant species by Gibberella zeae and their contribution to Fusarium head blight inoculum. Plant Dis 92:800–807. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-92-5-0800 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pereyra SA, Dill-Macky R, Sims AL (2004) Survival and inoculum production of Gibberella zeae in wheat residue. Plant Dis 88:724–730. doi: 10.1094/PDIS.2004.88.7.724 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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. (Accessed 10 May 2017)
  32. Pestka JJ (2007) Deoxynivalenol: Toxicity, mechanisms and animal health risks. Anim Feed Sci Technol 137(3-4):283–298Google Scholar
  33. Pfeffer SP, Filser J (2010) Attraction to prey and prey-associated odours by the predatory mite Hypoaspis aculeifer in a soil experimental system. Soil Biol Biochem 42:1355–1357. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.03.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Plavsin I, Velki M, Ecimovic S, Vrandecic K, Cosic J (2017) Inhibitory effect of earthworm coelomic fluid on growth of the plant parasitic fungus Fusarium oxysporum. Eur J Soil Biol 78:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2016.11.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. R Development Core Team (2014) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  37. Roessner J, Urland K (1983) Mycophage Nematoden der Gattung Aphelenchoides an der Halmbasis von Getreidepflanzen und ihre Wirkung gegen Fusskrankheitserreger von Getreide. Nematologica 29:454–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ruess L, Lussenhop J (2005) Trophic interactions of fungi and animals. In: Dighton J, Oudemans P, White J (eds) The fungal community: its organization and role in the ecosystem. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 581–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ruess L, Häggblom MM, Zapata EJG, Dighton J (2002) Fatty acids of fungi and nematodes—possible biomarkers in the soil food chain? Soil Biol Biochem 34:745–756. doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(01)00231-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sabatini MA, Innocenti G (2000) Functional relationships between Collembola and plant pathogenic fungi of agricultural soils. Pedobiologia 44:467–478. doi: 10.1078/S0031-4056(04)70064-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schrader S, Kramer S, Oldenburg E, Weinert J (2009) Uptake of deoxynivalenol by earthworms from Fusarium-infected wheat straw. Mycotox res 25:53–58. doi: 10.1007/s12550-009-0007-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shiraishi H, Enami Y, Okano S (2003) Folsomia hidakana (Collembola) prevents damping-off disease in cabbage and Chinese cabbage by Rhizoctonia solani. Pedobiologia 47:33–38. doi: 10.1078/0031-4056-00167 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. van Capelle C, Schrader S, Brunotte J (2012) Tillage-induced changes in the functional diversity of soil biota—a review with a focus on German data. Eur J Soil Biol 50:165–181. doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2012.02.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S, Fourth edn. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wagacha JM, Muthomi JW (2007) Fusarium culmorum: infection process, mechanisms of mycotoxin production and their role in pathogenesis in wheat. Crop Prot 26:877–885. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2006.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Whalen JK, Sampedro L (2010) Soil ecology and management. CABI Publishers, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  48. Wolfarth F, Schrader S, Oldenburg E, Weinert J, Brunotte J (2011) Earthworms promote the reduction of Fusarium biomass and deoxynivalenol content in wheat straw under field conditions. Soil Biol Biochem 43:1858–1865. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wolfarth F, Schrader S, Oldenburg E, Weinert J (2013) Nematode-collembolan-interaction promotes the degradation of Fusarium biomass and deoxynivalenol according to soil texture. Soil Biol Biochem 57:903–910. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.11.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wolfarth F, Wedekind S, Schrader S, Oldenburg E, Brunotte J (2015) Regulation of the mycotoxin deoxynivalenol by Folsomia candida (Collembola) and Aphelenchoides saprophilus (Nematoda) in an on-farm experiment. Pedobiologia 58:41–47. doi: 10.1016/j.pedobi.2015.01.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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
  52. Wurst S, De Deyn GB, Orwin K (2012) Soil biodiversity and functions. In: Wall DH et al (eds) Soil ecology and ecosystem services. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 28–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Mycotoxin Research and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of BiodiversityJohann Heinrich von Thünen-Institute (TI) - Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and FisheriesBraunschweigGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Plant Protection in Field Crops and GrasslandJulius Kühn-Institute (JKI) - Federal Research Institute for Cultivated PlantsBraunschweigGermany
  3. 3.The Chamber of Agriculture Lower Saxony, Department of Plant ProtectionHannoverGermany
  4. 4.Institute of Agricultural TechnologyJohann Heinrich von Thünen-Institute (TI) - Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and FisheriesBraunschweigGermany

Personalised recommendations