Biological control of broad-leaved dock infestation in wheat using plant antagonistic bacteria under field conditions

Abstract

Conventional weed management systems have produced many harmful effects on weed ecology, human health and environment. Biological control of invasive weeds may be helpful to minimize these harmful effects and economic losses incurred to crops by weeds. In our earlier studies, plant antagonistic bacteria were obtained after screening a large number of rhizobacteria for production of phytotoxic substances and effects on wheat and its associated weeds under laboratory conditions. In this study, five efficient strains inhibitory to broad-leaved dock and non-inhibitory to wheat were selected and applied to broad-leaved dock co-seeded with wheat both in pot trial and chronically infested field trial. Effects of plant antagonistic bacteria on the weed and infested wheat were studied at tillering, booting and harvesting stage of wheat. The applied strains significantly inhibited the germination and growth of the weed to variable extent. Similarly, variable recovery in losses of grain and straw yield of infested wheat from 11.6 to 68 and 13 to 72.6% was obtained in pot trial while from 17.3 to 62.9 and 22.4 to 71.3% was obtained in field trial, respectively. Effects of plant antagonistic bacteria were also evident from the improvement in physiology and nutrient contents of infested wheat. This study suggests the use of these plant antagonistic bacteria to biologically control infestation of broad-leaved dock in wheat under field conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Abbas T (2017) Effect of plant antagonistic bacteria on the growth and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and its associated weeds. PhD Dissertation. University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. Pakistan.

  2. Alavanja MCR, Hoppin JA, Kamel F (2004) Health effects of chronic pesticide exposure: cancer and neurotoxicity. Am Rev Public Health 25:155–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Blair A, Ritz B, Wesseling C, Freeman LB (2015) Pesticides and human health. Occup Environ Med 72(2):81–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Charudattan R (2005) Ecological, practical and political inputs into selection of weed targets: what makes a good biological control target? Biol Control 35:183–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Charudattan R, Dinoor A (2000) Biological control of weeds using plant pathogens: accomplishments and limitations. Crop Prot 19:691–695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Crone EE, Marler M, Pearson DE (2009) Non-target effects of broadleaf herbicide on a native perennial forb: a demographic framework for assessing and minimizing impacts. J Appl Ecol 46:673–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dagno K, Lahlali R, Diourte M, Jijakli MH (2012) Present status of the development of mycoherbicides against water hyacinth: successes and challenges—a review. Biotechnol Agron Soc Environ 16(3):360–368

    Google Scholar 

  8. De Prado R, Osuna MD, Fischer AJ (2004) Resistance to ACCase inhibitor herbicides in a green foxtail (Setaria viridis) biotype in Europe. Weed Sci 52:506–512

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Duncan DB (1955) Multiple range and multiple F-test. Biometrics 11:1–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ghorbani R, Leifert C, Seel W (2005) Biological control of weeds with antagonistic plant pathogens. Adv Agron 86:191–225

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Guyton KZ, Loomis D, Grosse Y, El Ghissassi F, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, Guha N, Scoccianti C, Mattok H, Straif K (2015) Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinone and glyphosate. The LANCET Oncol 16(5):490–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Harris PA, Stahlman PW (1996) Soil bacteria as selective biological control agents of winter annual grass weeds in winter Triticum aestivum. Appl Soil Ecol 3:275–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Heap IM (2013) The International survey of herbicide resistant weeds Available from: http://www.weedscience.org/

  14. Hoddle MS (2004) Restoring balance: using exotic species to control invasive exotic species. Conserv Biol 18:38–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Horwath W, Elliott LF, Lynch JM (1998) Influence of soil quality on the function of inhibitory rhizobacteria. Letters in Appl Microbil 26:87–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kennedy AC, Stubbs TL (2007) Management effects on the incidence of jointed goatgrass inhibitory rhizobacteria. Biol Control 40:213–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kennedy AC, Johnson BN, Stubbs TL (2001) Host range of a deleterious rhizobacterium for biological control of downy brome. Weed Sci 49:792–797

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kennedy AC, Elliott LF, Young FL, Douglas CL (1991) Rhizobacteria suppressive to the weed downy brome (Bromus tectorum L.) Soil Sci Soc Am J 55:722–727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. King E, Ward M, Raney D (1954) Two simple media for the demonstration of pycyanin and Xuorescein. J Lab Clin Med 44:301–307

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kremer RJ, Kennedy AC (1996) Rhizobacteria as biological control agents of weeds. Weed Technol 10(3):601–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Leiss KA (2001) Phenotic plasticity and genetic differentiation in ruderal and agricultural populations of the weed Senecio vulgaris L.: implication for its biological control. Eur Weed Res Soc Newsletter 76:15–17

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mejri D, Gamalero E, Tombolini R, Musso C, Massa N, Berta G, Souissi T (2010) Biological control of great brome (Bromus diandrus) in durum wheat (Triticum durum): specificity, physiological traits and impact on plant growth and root rchitecture of fluorescent pseudomonad strain X33d. Biol Control 55:561–572

    Google Scholar 

  23. Owen A, Zdor R (2001) Effect of cyanogenic rhizobacteria on the growth of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and corn (Zea mays L.) in autoclaved soil and the influence of supplemental glycine. Soil Biol Biochem 33:801–809

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pimentel D (2005) Environmental and economic costs of the application of pesticides primarily in the United States. Environ Dev Sustain 7:229–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Scheepens PC, Muller-Scharer S, Kempenaar C (2001) Opportunities for biological weed control in Europe. Biol Control 46:127–138

    Google Scholar 

  26. Smith ME, Lewandrowski JK, Uri ND (2000) Agricultural chemical residues as a source of risk. Rev Agric Econ 22:313–325

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Solaimalai A, Ramesh RT, Baskar M (2004) Pesticides and environment. In: Kumar A (ed) Environmental contamination and bioreclamation. APH Publishing Corporation, New Delhi, pp 351–394

    Google Scholar 

  28. Steel RGD, Torrie JH, Dicky DA (1997) Principles and procedures of statistics—a biometrical approach, 3rd edn. McGraw Hill Book International Co., Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sturz AV, Christie BR (2003) Beneficial microbial allelopathies in the root zone: the management of soil quality and plant disease with rhizobacteria. Soil Till Res 72:107–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Vargas RDF, O’Hara GW (2006) Isolation and characterization of rhizosphere bacteria with potential for biological control of weeds in vineyards. J Appl Microbiol 100:946–954

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Watson WA, Litovitz TL, Klein-Schwartz W, Rodgers GC Jr, Youniss J, Reid N, Rouse WG, Rembert RS, Borys D (2004) 2003 annual report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers Toxic Exposure Surveillance System. Am J Emerg Med 22:335–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Wolf B (1982) The comprehensive system of leaf analysis and its use for diagnosing crop nutrient status. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 13:1035–1059

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Zahir ZA, Arshad M, Frankenberger WT Jr (2004) Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria: applications and perspectives in agriculture. Adv Agron 81:97–168

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Zdor RE, Alexander CM, Kremer RJ (2005) Weed suppression by deleterious rhizobacteria is affected by soil type and formulation. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 36:1289–1299

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Zeller SL, Brandl H, Schmid B (2007) Host-plant selectivity of rhizobacteria in a crop/weed model system. PLoS One 2(9):846–858

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors are grateful to the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan for their financial support through Indigenous PhD Fellowship Program for 5000 scholars during this research work.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tasawar Abbas.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Philippe Garrigues

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abbas, T., Zahir, Z.A., Naveed, M. et al. Biological control of broad-leaved dock infestation in wheat using plant antagonistic bacteria under field conditions. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24, 14934–14944 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9144-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Phytotoxic substances
  • Rhizobacteria
  • Infested wheat
  • Inoculation
  • Physiology
  • Tillering