, Volume 98, Issue 2, pp 69–75 | Cite as

Interaction between pathogenic and saprobic fungi isolated from soybean roots and seeds

  • J. B. Manandhar
  • P. N. Thapliyal
  • K. J. Cavanaugh
  • J. B. Sinclair


A variety of interactions was recorded in culture between 11 saprobic fungi isolated from soybean (Glycine max) roots and seeds and the soybean pathogens Cercospora sojina, Colletotrichum truncatum, Macrophomina phaseolina, Phomopsis sojae, and Septoria glycines. The most active saprobes were Aspergillus terreus, Chaetomium cupreum, Epicoccum nigrum, Gliocladium roseum, Myrothecium roridum, Penicillium thomii, and Trichothecium roseum. Hyphal lysis of several fungal pathogens by Acremonium sp., C. cupreum and P. thomii was recorded perhaps because of parasitism by G. roseum and T. roseum. In greenhouse studies, seeds coated with G. roseum, P. thomii, and T. harzianum emerged significantly (P=0.05) more than those coated with A. terreus and the control. In field studies, seeds coated with a conidial suspension of A. terreus, G. roseum, P. thomii or Trichoderma harzianum produced a significantly greater stand than the control. The area of cotyledons covered with lesions caused by C. truncatum was significantly less on seeds coated with G. roseum, P. thomii and T. harzianum than the control.


Glycine Aspergillus Fungal Pathogen Penicillium Trichoderma 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Andrew JH, Berbee FM, Nordheim EV: Microbial antagonism to the imperfect stage of the apple scab pathogen, Venturia inaequalis. Phytopathology 73:228–234, 1983.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Backman PA, Rodriguez-Kabana R: A system for the growth and delivery of biological control agents to the soil. Phytopathology 65:819–821, 1975.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bell DK, Wells HD, Markham CR: In vitro antagonism of Trichoderma species against six fungal plant pathogens. Phytopathology 72:379–382, 1982.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cook RJ, Baker KF (eds) The nature and practice of biological control of plant pathogens. The American Phytopathol Soc, St Paul, MN, 1983, 539 pp.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gindrat D: Biocontrol of plant diseases by inoculation of fresh wounds, seeds, and soil with antagonists. In: Schipper B, Gams W (eds) Soil-borne plant pathogens. Academic Press, New York, NY, 1979, pp 537–551.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hadar Y, Harman GE, Taylor AG: Evaluation of Trichoderma koningii and T. harzianum from New York soils for biological control of seed rot caused by Pythium spp. Phytopathology 74:106–110, 1984.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jackson RM: Antibiotics and fungistasis of soil microorganisms. In: Baker KF, Snyder WC (eds) Ecology of soil-borne plant pathogens. Univ Calif Press, Berkeley, CA, 1965, pp 363–369.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kommedahl T, Windeis CE: Introduction of microbial antagonists to specific courts of infection: Seeds, seedlings, and wounds. In: Papavizas CC (ed) Biological control in crop production. Allanheld, Osmun Publ, Granada, 1981, pp 227–247.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kommedahl T, Windeis CE, Sarbini G, Wiley HB: Variability in performance of biological and fungicidal seed treatments in corn, peas and soybeans. Prot Ecol 3:55–61, 1981.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lai P, Bruehl GW: Antagonism among Cephalosporium gramineum, Trichoderma spp., and Fusarium culmorum. Phytopathology 58:562–566, 1968.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marx DH: Ectomycorrhizae as biological deterrents to pathogenic root infection. In: Hacskaylo E (ed) Mycor-rhizae. USDA, ARS Misc Publ 1189, Washington, DC, 1971, pp 81–96.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Royce DJ, Ries SM: The influence of fungi isolated from peach twigs on the pathogenicity of Cytospora cincta. Phytopathology 68:603–607, 1978.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schroth MN, Hancock JG: Selected topics in biological control. Ann Rev Phytopathol 35:453–476, 1981.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sinclair JB (ed). Compendium of soybean diseases. 2nd ed. The American Phytopathol Soc, St Paul, MN, 1982, 104 pp.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sivan A, Elad V, Chet I: Biological control effects of a new isolate of Trichoderma harzianum on Pythium aphanidermatum. Phytopathology 74:498–501, 1984.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tyner LE, McKinnon BA: Fungi of barley seed and their associative effects. Phytopathology 54:506–508, 1964.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Utkhede RS, Rahe JE: Biological control of onion white rot. Soil Biol Biochem 12:101–104, 1980.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Windeis CE, Kommedahl T, Sarbini G, Wiley HB: The role of seeds in the delivery of antagonists into the rhizosphere. In: Parker CA, Rovira AD, Moore KJ, Wong PTW, Kollmorgen JF (eds) Ecology and management of soilborne plant pathogens. American Phytopathol Soc, St Paul, MN, 1985, pp 141–143.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wright JM: Biological control of a soil-borne Phytium infection by seed inoculation. Plant Soil 8:132–140, 1956.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yeh CC, Sinclair JB: Effect of Chaetomium cupreum seed germination and antagonism to the seedborne fungi of soybean. Plant Disease 64:468–470, 1980.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff/Dr W. Junk Publishers 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. B. Manandhar
    • 1
  • P. N. Thapliyal
    • 2
  • K. J. Cavanaugh
    • 3
  • J. B. Sinclair
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of AgricultureDivision of Plant PathologyKhumaltar, LalitpurNepal
  2. 2.Department of Plant PathologyG. B. Pant University of Agriculture and TechnologyPantnagarIndia
  3. 3.Department of Plant PathologyUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations