Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Phytotoxicity assessment for potential biological control of leafy spurge by soilborne microorganisms

  • Published:
Australasian Plant Pathology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula-virgata), a native of Eurasia, is a serious invasive weed of western grasslands of North America. It is very difficult and cost-prohibitive to control with herbicides; control by insect biological control agents and cultural practices are minimally effective in suppressing vegetative growth and seed production. Current biological control of leafy spurge with pathogens is primarily with mycoherbicides, which require specific environmental conditions and repeated applications to be effective. Alternative biological control approaches using selected microorganisms to attack roots and adventitious shoots may effectively decrease vigor of leafy spurge without environmental manipulations to ensure control efficacy. Our objectives were to survey leafy spurge accessions and their native soils for associated microorganisms, and to assess these microorganisms for potential biological control. A proposed screening protocol, consisting of primary and secondary assays, effectively detected bacteria and fungi with high phytotoxicity toward leafy spurge. Primary lettuce seedling bioassays indicated that 62 % of rhizosphere and 54 % of endorhizal bacteria significantly (P = 0.05) inhibited root growth, causing necrotic lesions. Over 60 % of fungal isolates bioassayed on rice agar significantly inhibited root growth of lettuce seedlings. The most effective microbial isolates, based on primary bioassays, were screened directly on leafy spurge cuttings in secondary assays. Only intact cells of bacteria were detrimental to leafy spurge, indicating that host-bacterial contact was required for pathogenicity. Culture filtrates of 40 % of the test fungi caused complete chlorosis and leaf wilting. The most effective fungi originated from leafy spurge adventitious shoots. Results of the survey suggest that leafy spurge rhizospheres and adventitious shoots are potential sources of biological control microorganisms, which should be considered for inclusion in comprehensive management programs for leafy spurge.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbas HK, Mirocha CJ, Shier WT (1984) Mycotoxins produced from fungi isolated from foodstuffs and soil: comparison of phytotoxicity in fibroblasts and rat feeding tests. Appl Environ Microbiol 48:654–661

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Alström S (1987) Factors associated with detrimental effects of rhizobacteria on plant growth. Plant Soil 102:3–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caesar AJ (2003) Synergistic interaction of soilborne plant pathogens and root-attacking insects in classic biological control of a rangeland weed. Biol Control 28:144–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caesar AJ (2011) The importance of intertrophic interactions in biological weed control. Pest Technol 5:28–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Caesar AJ, Rees NE, Spencer NR, Quimby PC Jr (1993) Characterization of Rhizoctonia spp. causing disease of leafy spurge in the northern plains. Plant Dis 77:681–684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caesar AJ, Campobasso G, Terraglitti G (1998) Identification, pathogenicity and comparative virulence of Fusarium spp. associated with diseased Euphorbia spp. in Europe. Biocontrol Sci Technol 8:313–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eugenio CP, Christensen CM, Mirocha CJ (1970) Factors affecting production of the mycotoxin F-2 by Fusarium roseum. Phytopathology 60:1055–1057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasson MJ (1980) Indicator technique for antimetabolite toxin production by pathogenic species of Pseudomonas. Appl Environ Microbiol 39:25–29

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gould WD, Hagedorn C, Bardinelli TR, Zablotowicz RM (1985) New selective medium for enumeration and recovery of fluorescent pseudomonas from various habitats. Appl Environ Microbiol 49:28–32

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hartman GL, Huang YH, Li S (2004) Phytotoxicity of Fusarium solani culture filtrates from soybeans and other hosts assayed by stem cuttings. Australas Plant Pathol 33:9–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kremer RJ (2000) Combinations of microbial and insect biocontrol agents for management of weed seeds. In: Spencer NR (ed) Proceedings of the Xth international symposium on biological control of weeds. Montana State University, Bozeman, pp 799–806

    Google Scholar 

  • Kremer RJ (2006) Deleterious rhizobacteria. In: Gnanamanickam SS (ed) Plant-associated bacteria. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 335–357

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kremer RJ, Peterson HL (1982) Effect of inoculant carrier on survival of Rhizobium on inoculated seed. Soil Sci 134:117–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kremer RJ, Begonia MFT, Stanley L, Lanham ET (1990) Characterization of rhizobacteria associated with weed seedlings. Appl Environ Microbiol 56:1649–1655

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kremer RJ, Sasseville DN, Mills HA (1996) Promotion of phytotoxic bacteria in rhizospheres of leatherleaf fern by Benlate DF. J Plant Nutr 19:939–953

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kremer RJ, Ceasar AJ, Souissi T (2006) Soilborne microorganisms of Euphorbia are potential biological control agents of the invasive weed leafy spurge. Appl Soil Ecol 32:27–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sasser M (1990) Identification of bacteria through fatty acid analysis. In: Klement A, Rudolgh K, Sands DC (eds) Methods in phytobacteriology. Akadamiai Kiado, Budapest, pp 199–204

  • Schaad NW (2001) Initial identification of common genera. In: Schaad NW, Jones JB, Chun W (eds) Laboratory guide for identification of plant pathogenic bacteria. APS Press, St. Paul, pp 1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroth MN, Hancock JG (1982) Disease-suppressive soil and root-colonizing bacteria. Science 216:1376–1381

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Souissi T, Kremer RJ (1994) Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.) cell cultures for screening deleterious rhizobacteria. Weed Sci 42:310–315

    Google Scholar 

  • Souissi T, Kremer RJ (1998) A rapid microplate callus bioassay for assessment of rhizobacteria for biocontrol of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.). Biocontrol Sci Technol 8:83–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weller DM (1988) Biological control of soilborne plant pathogens in the rhizosphere with bacteria. Annu Rev Phytopathol 26:379–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windels CE (1992) Fusarium. In: Singleton LL, Mihail JD, Rush CM (eds) Methods for research on soilborne phytopathogenic fungi. APS Press, St. Paul, pp 115–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Woltz SS (1978) Nonparasitic plant pathogens. Annu Rev Phytopathol 16:403–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang S-M, Johnson DR, Dowler WM (1990) Pathogenicity of Alternaria angustiovoidea on leafy spurge. Plant Dis 74:601–604

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Lynn Stanley for technical assistance. Mention of trademark or proprietary products does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and does not imply approval to the exclusion of other products that may also be suitable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. J. Kremer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kremer, R.J., Souissi, T. Phytotoxicity assessment for potential biological control of leafy spurge by soilborne microorganisms. Australasian Plant Pathol. 42, 441–447 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13313-013-0203-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13313-013-0203-5

Keywords

Navigation