Plant and Soil

, Volume 136, Issue 1, pp 103–109 | Cite as

Quantification of the geocarposphere and rhizosphere effect of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.)

  • Joseph W. Kloepper
  • Kira L. Bowen


Roots and pods of field-grown peanut (groundnut) (Arachis hypogaea L.) were sampled at the R3, R5, and R7 developmental stages and examined in comparison to root- and pod-free soil for microbial population densities to assess the geocarposphere and rhizosphere effects. G/ S (no. geocarposphere microorganisms/no. soil microorganisms) and R/S (no. rhizosphere microorganisms/no. soil microorganisms) ratios were calculated for total fungi,Asperigillus flavus, spore-forming bacilli, coryneform bacteria, fluorescent pseudomonads, and total bacteria isolated on low- and high-nutrient media. A clear geocarposphere effect was evidenced by increased population densities of bacteria and fungi associated with developing pods compared to soil. G/S and R/S ratios were generally greater than 1.0 for all groups of microorganisms except bacilli. G/S ratios were greater for total bacteria than for total fungi at two of the three sample times, suggesting that bacteria were stimulated more than fungi in the zone around developing pods. In contrast, R/S ratios, were higher for total fungi than for total bacteria at two of three sample times. The preferential association of fungi and bacteria with early developmental stages of the pod indicates that some microorganisms are particularly well adapted for colonization of the peanut geocarposphere. These microorganisms are logical candidates for evaluation as biological control candiates forA. flavus.

Key words

Archis hypogaea Aspergillus flavus geocarposphere groundnut peanut Pseudomonas rhizosphere 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Boote K J 1982 Growth stages of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Peanut Sci. 9, 40–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bowen K L and Backman P A 1989 Effectiveness of fungicides for control of mycotoxigenic fungi and mycotoxins in peanuts. Phytopathology 79, 1188.Google Scholar
  3. Cook R J and Baker K F 1983 The Nature and Practice of Biological Control of Plant Pathogens. APS Press, St. Paul, MN. p 127.Google Scholar
  4. Curl E A and Truelove B 1986 The Rhizosphere. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 288 p.Google Scholar
  5. Davidson J I Jr., Whitaker T B and Dickens J W 1982 Grading, cleaning, storage, shelling, and marketing of peanuts in the United States.In Peanut Science and Technology. Eds. H E Pattee and C T Young. pp 571–623. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc. Inc., Yoakum TX.Google Scholar
  6. Garren K H 1964 Isolation procedures influence the apparent make-up of the terrestrial microflora of peanut pods. Plant Dis. Reptr. 48, 344–348.Google Scholar
  7. Garren K H 1966 Peanut (groundnut) microfloras and pathogenesis in peanut pot rot. Phytopathol. Z. 55, 359–367.Google Scholar
  8. Gilman G A 1969 An examination of fungi associated with groundnut pods. Trop. Sci. 11, 38–48.Google Scholar
  9. Griffen G J and Garren K H 1974 Population levels ofAspergillus flavus and theA. niger group in Virginia peanut field soils Phytopathology 64, 322–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gross D and Vidaver A 1978 A selective medium for isolation ofCorynebacterium nebraskense from soil and plant parts. Phytopathology 69, 82–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hancock H G 1981 Effects of Foliar Fungicides on the Soil-Borne Microflora of Peanuts. MS Thesis. Auburn University, Auburn, AL.Google Scholar
  12. Jackson C R 1964 Location of funga contamination or infection in peanut kernels from intact pods. Plant Dis. Reptr. 48, 980–983.Google Scholar
  13. Jackson C R 1965 Peanut-pod mycoflora and kernal infection. Plant and Soil 23, 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Joffe A Z 1969 The mycoflora of groundnut rhizosphere, soil and geocarposphere on light, medium and heavy soils and its relations toAspergillus flavus. Mycopathol. Mycol. Appl. 37, 150–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Joffe A Z and Borut S Y 1966 Soil and kernel mycoflora of groundnut fields in Israel. Mycologia 58, 629–640.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Katznelson H 1946 The “rhizosphere effect” of mangels on certain groups of soil microorganisms. Soil Sci. 62, 343–357.Google Scholar
  17. McDonald D 1970 Fungal infection of groundnut fruit before harvest. Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc. 54, 453–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Norton D C, Menson S K and Flangas A L 1956 Fungi associated with unblemished spanish peanuts in Texas. Plant Dis. Reptr. 40, 374–376.Google Scholar
  19. Peanut Administrative Committee 1978 1978 Marketing agreement for peanuts. Peanut Administrative Committee, P.O. Box 18856, Atlanta, GA 30326.Google Scholar
  20. Porter D M, Wright F S and Steele J L 1972 Relationship of microscopic shell damage to colonization of peanut byAspergillus flavus. Oleagineux 41, 23–27.Google Scholar
  21. Rao A S 1962 Fungal populations in the rhizosphere of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Plant and Soil 17, 260–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Thornton H G 1922 On the development of a standardized agar medium for counting soil bacteria, with special regard to the repression of spreading colonies. Ann. Appl. Biol. 9, 241–274.Google Scholar
  23. Vancura V 1980 Fluorescent pseudomanads in the rhizosphere of plants and their relation to root exudates. Folia Microbiol. 25, 168–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph W. Kloepper
    • 1
  • Kira L. Bowen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant Pathology and Alabama Agricultureal Experiment StationAuburn UniversityAuburnUSA

Personalised recommendations