Co-inoculation of different antagonists can enhance the biocontrol activity against Rhizoctonia solani in tomato
Biological control by using microbial inoculants is adopted as the best alternative to chemical pesticides to manage plant diseases. In the present study, a microbial consortia based management strategy involving the microbes Bacillus velezensis MB101 (BV), Streptomyces atrovirens N23 (SA) and Trichoderma lixii NAIMCC-F-01760 (TL), was evaluated for the management of Rhizoctonia solani (RS), the causal agent of tomato root rot. The efficacy of these microbial inoculants was evaluated in glasshouse and field experiments. Plant defense-related enzymes were assayed in the glasshouse, and biocontrol effect was evaluated in the field with RS infected soil. In the glasshouse experiment, co-inoculated SA + TL treated plants showed maximum disease resistance in comparison to control. Also, the plant defense-related enzymes such as chitinase, β-1,3-glucanase, peroxidases, polyphenol oxidase, and phenylalanine ammonia lyase were increased in this treatment. Furthermore, three application methods were assessed in the field, and SA + TL showed maximum disease reduction (76%) by the dual application. Based on glasshouse and field study results, it was concluded that co-inoculation of SA + TL activated plant defense against RS as compared to the individual microbes, and co-inoculation could be a new effective strategy to manage the root rot pathogen in an eco-compatible manner.
KeywordsBio-control Root rot Bacillus velezensis Trichoderma lixii Streptomyces atrovirens Plant defense Rhizoctonia solani Tomato
This work was funded by the Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR) by a network project ‘Application of Microorganisms in Agriculture and Allied Sectors’ (AMAAS). Microbial culture collection unit (NAIMCC) of ICAR-NBAIM is highly appreciable for providing cultures for this study.
Conceptualization, MKS, SK, and MSY; Experiment setup, data collection and analysis MKS, and RKS; Funding acquisition, SK and MSY; Project administration and supervision, SK and AKS; Writing—original draft, MKS, RKS and MSY, Writing—review and editing, SK and AKS
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
- Anandaraj B, Delapierre ABL (2010) Studies on influence of bioinoculants (Pseudomonas fluorescens, Rhizobium sp., Bacillus megaterium) in green gram. J Biosci Technol 1:95–99Google Scholar
- Cook RJ (1993) Making greater use of introduced microorganisms for biological control of plant pathogens. Annu Rev Phytopathol 31:53–80. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.py.31.090193.000413 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dickerson DP, Pascholati SF, Hagerman AE et al (1984) Phenylalanine ammonia-lyase and hydroxycinnamate: CoA ligase in maize mesocotyls inoculated with Helminthosporium maydis or Helminthosporium carbonum. Physiol Plant Pathol 25:111–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-4059(84)90050-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Domenech J, Reddy MS, Kloepper JW et al (2006) Combined application of the biological product LS213 with Bacillus, Pseudomonas or Chryseobacterium for growth promotion and biological control of soil-borne diseases in pepper and tomato. Biocontrol 51:245–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-005-2940-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- dos Reis Almeida FB, Cerqueira FM, do Nascimento Silva R et al (2007) Mycoparasitism studies of Trichoderma harzianum strains against Rhizoctonia solani: evaluation of coiling and hydrolytic enzyme production. Biotechnol Lett 29:1189–1193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10529-007-9372-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Errakhi R, Bouteau F, Lebrihi A, Barakate M (2007) Evidences of biological control capacities of Streptomyces spp. against Sclerotium rolfsii responsible for damping-off disease in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). World J Microbiol Biotechnol 23:1503–1509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-007-9394-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hoagland DR, Amen DI (1950) The water-culture method for growing plants without soil: Hoagland, D. R. (Dennis Robert), 1884–1949: free download & streaming: internet archive. In: California agricultural experiment station. CircularGoogle Scholar
- Jung W-J, Jin Y-L, Kim Y-C et al (2004) Inoculation of Paenibacillus illinoisensis alleviates root mortality, activates of lignification-related enzymes, and induction of the isozymes in pepper plants infected by Phytophthora capsici. Biol Control 30:645–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2004.03.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pan SQ, Ye XS, Kuć J (1991) Association of β-1,3-glucanase activity and isoform pattern with systemic resistance to blue mould in tobacco induced by stem injection with Peronospora tabacina or leaf inoculation with tobacco mosaic virus. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 39:25–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-5765(91)90029-H CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Patil HJ, Solanki MK (2016a) Molecular prospecting: advancement in diagnosis and control of Rhizoctonia solani diseases in plants. Springer, Berlin, pp 165–185Google Scholar
- Radjacommare R, Ramanathan A, Kandan A et al (2005) PGPR mediates induction of pathogenesis-related (PR) proteins against the infection of blast pathogen in resistant and susceptible ragi [Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertner] cultivars. Plant Soil 266:165–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-005-0996-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Srivastava R, Khalid A, Singh US, Sharma AK (2010) Evaluation of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus, fluorescent Pseudomonas and Trichoderma harzianum formulation against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici for the management of tomato wilt. Biol Control 53:24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2009.11.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Yandigeri MS, Malviya N, Solanki MK et al (2015) Chitinolytic Streptomyces vinaceusdrappus S5MW2 isolated from Chilika lake, India enhances plant growth and biocontrol efficacy through chitin supplementation against Rhizoctonia solani. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 31:1217–1225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-015-1870-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Zieslin N, Ben-Zaken R (1993) Peroxidase activity and presence of phenolic substances in peduncles of rose flowers. Plant Physiol Biochem 31:333–339Google Scholar