Advertisement

Biocontrol Prospects of Pseudomonas fluorescens AS15 Against Banded Leaf and Sheath Blight Disease of Maize Under Field Condition in Conducive Soil

  • Anjul RanaEmail author
  • Manvika Sahgal
  • Pradeep Kumar
Short Communication
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

Banded leaf and sheath blight (BL&SB) disease of maize caused by Rhizoctonia solani is widespread in humid Terai region of Western Himalayas and leads to 11–40% yield loss in maize. Pseudomonas fluorescens AS15 is an ideal antagonist against BL&SB pathogen. Disease severity is reduced when population of AS15 reaches threshold level 5.3 × 105 CFU g−1 in soil at 45 days after inoculation. It is metabolically versatile and utilizes various carbohydrates and nitrogen sources of plants root exudates. Application of P. fluorescens AS15 in conducive soil reduced disease incidence and disease severity and increased grain yield to 33.4%, 46.8% and 8.4%, respectively, during June 2014 field trial. The reduction in disease incidence (18.1%) and disease severity (35.6%) along with the increase in yield (8.1%) was also observed in June 2015 trial carried out in the same fields without further application of antagonistic bacteria. The results clearly demonstrate biocontrol efficacy and successful rhizospheric colonization of P. fluorescens AS15 in natural conditions.

Keywords

Pseudomonas fluorescens Rhizoctonia solani BL&SB Biocontrol agent 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The financial support by Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR) to MS and Dr. Renu Singh is duly acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Haas D, Blumer C, Keel C (2000) Biocontrol ability of fluorescent pseudomonads genetically dissected: importance of positive feedback regulation. Curr Opin Biotechnol 11:290–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Keel C, Defago G (1997) Interactions between beneficial soil bacteria and root pathogens: mechanisms and ecological impact. In: Gange AC, Brown VK (eds) multitrophic interactions in terrestrial system. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 27–47Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Voisard C, Bull CT, Keel C, Laville J, Maurhofer M, Schnider U, Défago G, Haas D (1994) Biocontrol of root diseases by Pseudomonas fluorescens CHA0: current concepts and experimental approaches. In: O’Gara F, Dowling DN, Boesten B (eds) Molecular ecology of rhizosphere microorganisms. Wiley, Weinheim, pp 69–89Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kiely PD, Haynes JM, Higgins CH, Franks A, Mark GL, Morrissey JP, O’Gara F (2006) Exploiting new systems-based strategies to elucidate plant-bacterial interactions in the rhizosphere. Microb Ecol 51(257–111):266Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garland JL, Mills AL (1991) Classification and characterization of heterotrophic microbial communities on the basis of patterns of community-level sole-carbon-source utilization. Appl Environ Microbiol 57:2351–2359PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ahuja SC, Payak MM (1978) A field inoculation technique for evaluating maize germplasm to banded leaf & sheath blight. Indian Phytopath 31:517–520Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lal S, Butchaiah K (1978) A field inoculation technique for evaluating maize germplasm to Rhizoctonia solani. Indian Phytopathol 31:141–152Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thomashow LS, Weller DM (1996) Current concepts in the use of introduced bacteria for biological disease control: mechanisms and antifungal metabolites. In: Stacey G, Keen NT (eds) Plant-microbe interactions, vol 1. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 187–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weller DM (1988) Biological control of soilborne plant pathogens in the rhizosphere with bacteria. Annu Rev Phytopathol 26:379–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goddard VJ, Bailey MJ, Darrah P, Lilley AK, Thompson IP (2001) Monitoring temporal and spatial variation in rhizosphere bacterial population diversity: a community approach for the improved selection of rhizosphere competent bacteria. Plant Soil 232:181–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lugtenberg BJJ, Bloemberg GV (2004) Life in rhizosphere. In: Ramos J-L (ed) Pseudomonas, vol 1. Kluwer Academic, New York, pp 403–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Penrose DM, Glick BR (2003) Methods for isolating and characterizing ACC deaminase-containing plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Physiol Plant 118:10–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hass D, Defago G (2005) Biological control of soil borne pathogens by fluorescent Pseudomonads. Nat Rev Microbiol 3:307–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Landa BB, Mavrodi DM, Thomashow LS, Weller DM (2003) Interactions between strains of 2,4-diacetylphloroglucinol-producing Pseudomonas fluorescens in the rhizosphere of wheat. Phytopathology 93:982–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vidyasekaran P, Muthamilan M (1995) Development of formulation of Pseudomonas fluorescens for control of chickpea wilt. Plant Dis 79:782–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dandurand LM, Menge JA (1994) Influence of Fusarium solani on chemotaxis of zoospores of Phytophthora parasitica and Phytophthora citrophthora and on distribution of 14C in citrus tissues and root exudates. Soil Biol Biochem 26:75–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Saxena SC (2002) Bio-intensive integrated disease management of banded leaf and sheath blight of maize. In: Proceedings of 8th Asian regional workshop, Bangkok, Thailand, August 5–8, pp 392–401Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The National Academy of Sciences, India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Microbiology, College of Basic Sciences and HumanitiesG.B. Pant University of Agriculture and TechnologyPantnagarIndia
  2. 2.Department of Plant Pathology, College of AgricultureG.B. Pant University of Agriculture and TechnologyPantnagarIndia

Personalised recommendations