Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 237, Issue 1, pp 81–89 | Cite as

Suppression of the root rot–root knot disease complex by Pseudomonas aeruginosa in tomato: The influence of inoculum density, nematode populations, moisture and other plant-associated bacteria

  • Imran Ali SiddiquiEmail author
  • Syed Ehteshamul-Haque
Article

Abstract

The influence of different application rates of the plant growth-promoting rhizobacterium, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, population densities of the root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne javanica, moisture and other plant-associated bacteria in the suppression of root rot–root knot disease complex of tomato are described. The impact of these factors on bacterial rhizosphere and inner root and shoot establishment are also presented. The highest inoculum level of P. aeruginosa (7.4 × 108 cfu ml−1) in the presence of the lowest population density of M. javanica (500 J2/plant) caused the greatest reduction in gall formation due to M. javanica. The number of root–knot nematodes recovered from soil and roots treated with P. aeruginosa were also significantly reduced. Root infection caused by the soilborne root-infecting fungi Fusarium oxysporum, F. solani and Rhizoctonia solani was also effectively suppressed following application of P. aeruginosa. A P. aeruginosa-Bacillus subtilis treatment was the most effective in the suppression of root-rot disease complex with enhancement of plant growth. Biocontrol and growth promoting potential of the bacterium was enhanced when soil was kept at 50% or 75% moisture holding capacity, whereas a 25% MHC reduced bacterial efficacy. Rhizosphere population of P. aeruginosa declined drastically in P. aeruginosa-Bradyrhizobium japonicum treatments. Rhizosphere colonisation by P. aeruginosa seems to be governed by two factors: Initial inoculum size of the bacterium and severity of the root-knot disease. Endoroot and endoshoot colonisation of the bacterium was dependent on degree of root-colonisation by Fusarium oxysporum. An inoculum level 2.5 × 108 cfu/ml of P. aeruginosa was optimal for the enhancement of plant growth, whereas inoculum below this level reduced plant growth.

Pseudomonas aeruginosa endophyte root-knot nematode root-infecting fungi root-colonisation rhizosphere colonisation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Armstrong J M, Jatala P and Jensen H J 1976 Bibliography of nematode interactions with other organisms in plant disease complex. pp 623. Bull. Oregon State University.Google Scholar
  2. Becker J O, Zavaleta-Mejia E, Colbert S F, Schroth M N, Weinhold A R, Hancock J G and Van Gundy S D 1988 Effects of rhizobacteria on root knot nematodes and gall formation. Phytopathology 78: 1466–1469.Google Scholar
  3. Bull C T, Wellerbb D M and Thomashow L S 1991 Relationship between root colonization and suppression of Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici by Pseudomonas fluorescens strain 2-79. Phytopathology 81, 954–959.Google Scholar
  4. Davies K G and Whitbread R 1989 Factors affecting colonization of a root system by fluorescent pseudomonads: The effects of water, temperature and soil mycoflora. Plant Soil, 116, 247–256.Google Scholar
  5. Francl L J and Wheeler T A 1993 Interaction of plant parasitic nematodes with wilt inducing fungi. In Nematode Interactions. Ed. M W Khan. pp 79–103. Chapman and Hall, India.Google Scholar
  6. Gamliel A and Katan J 1992 Influence of seed and root exudates on fluorescent pseudomonads and fungi in solarized soil. Phytopathology 82, 320–327.Google Scholar
  7. Goodey J B, Franklin M T and Hooper D J 1965 T. Goodey's The nematode parasites of Meloidogyne arenaria eggs in an Alabama soil. A mycological survey and greenhouse studies. Nematropica 13, 201–213.Google Scholar
  8. Heckenberg C and Sikora R A 1992 Influence of cultivar, temperature and soil moisture on the antagonistic potential of Agrobacterium radiobacter against Globodera pallida. J. Nematol. 24,594.Google Scholar
  9. Heckenberg C and Sikora R A 1994. Wirkung des pflanzendesundheitsfördenden Rhizobakteriums Agrobacterium radiobacter stamm G12 gagen den Kartoffelzystennematoden Globodera pallida bei unterschiedlicher temperatur und Bodenfeuchte. J. Phytopath. 142, 338–344.Google Scholar
  10. Hallmann J, Kloepper J W, Rodriguez-Kabana R and Sikora R A 1995 Endophytic rhizobacteria as antagonists of Meloidogyne incognita on cucumber. Phytopathology 85,1136.Google Scholar
  11. Kado C L 1992 Plant pathogenic bacteria. In The Prokaryotes. Eds. A Balows, H G Truper, M Dworkin, W Hardar and K H Schleifer. pp 660 Springer-Verlag, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Maqbool M A 1992 Distribution and Host Association of Plant Parasitic Nematodes in Pakistan. National Nematological Research Center, University of Karachi, Karachi-75270, Pakistan.Google Scholar
  13. Nash S M and Snyder W C 1962 Quantitative estimations by plate counts of propagules of the bean root rot Fusarium in field soil. Phytopathlogy 52: 567–572.Google Scholar
  14. Oostendorp M and Sikora R A 1989 Seed treatment with antagonistic rhizobacteria for the suppression of Heterodera schachtii early root infection of sugar beet. Rev. Nematol. 12, 77–83.Google Scholar
  15. Oostendorp M and Sikora R A 1990 In vitro interrelationships between rhizosphere bacteria and Heterodera schachtii.Rev. Nematol. 13, 269–274.Google Scholar
  16. Pillay V K and Nowak J 1997 Inoculum density, temperature and genotype effect on in vitro growth promotion and epiphytic and endophytic colonization of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) seedlings inoculated with a Pseudomonad bacterium. Can. J. Microbiol 43, 354–361.Google Scholar
  17. Quadt-Hallmann A, Benhamou N and Kloepper J W 1997a Bacterial endophytes in cotton: Mechanisms of entering the plant. Can. J. Mirobiol. 43, 577–582.Google Scholar
  18. Quadt-Hallmann A, Hallmann J and Kloepper J W 1997b Bacterial endophytes in cotton: Location and interaction with other plantassociated bacteria. Can J. Microbiol. 43, 254–259.Google Scholar
  19. Raaijmakers J M, Leeman M, Van Oorschot M M P, Van der Sluis I, Schipper B and Baker P A H M 1995 Dose-response relationship in biological control of Fusarium wilt of radish by Pseudomonas spp. Phytopathology 85, 1075–1081.Google Scholar
  20. Reddy M S, Campbell S E, Young S E and Brown G 1991 Greenhouse evaluation of rhizobacteria for the suppression of crown and root rot of tomato caused by Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. lycopersici. In Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria: Progress and Prospects. Eds. C Keel, B Koller and G Defago. pp 39–44 IOBC/WPRS, XIV/8. Switzerland.Google Scholar
  21. Schroth M N and Hancock G 1982 Disease suppressive soil and root colonizing bacteria. Science 216, 1376–1381.Google Scholar
  22. Sharma V K and Nowak J 1998 Enhancement of Verticillium wilt resistance in tomato transplants by in vitro co-culture of seedlings with a plant growth promoting rhizobacterium (Pseudomonas sp. Strain PsJN). Can. J. Microbiol. 44, 528–536.Google Scholar
  23. Siddiqui I A and Ehteshamul-Haque S 2000a. Effects of Verticillium chlamydosporium and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the control of Meloidogyne javanica on tomato. Nematol. Medit. 28: 193–196.Google Scholar
  24. Siddiqui I A and Ehteshamul-Haque S 2000b. Use of Pseudomonas aerugiosa (Schroeter) Migula in the control of root rot-root knot disease complex on tomato. Nematol. Medit. 28, 189–192.Google Scholar
  25. Siddiqui I A, Qureshi S A, Sultana V, Ehteshamul-Haque S and Ghaffar A 2000. Biological control of root rot-root knot disease complex of tomato. Plant Soil, 227, 163–169.Google Scholar
  26. Siddiqui I A, Ehteshamul-Haque S and Shaukat S S 2001. Use of rhizobacteria in the control of root rot-root knot disease complex of mungbean. J. Phytopath. 149, 337–346.Google Scholar
  27. Sikora R A 1988 Interrelationship between plant health promoting rhizobacteria, plant parasitic nematodes and soil microorganisms. Med. Fac. Landbouww. Rijksuniv. Gent, 53/2b, 867–878.Google Scholar
  28. Sokal R R and Rohlf F J 1995. Biometry: The Principals and Practices of Statistics in Biological Research. Freeman, New York. pp 887.Google Scholar
  29. Suslow T V and Schroth M N 1982 Rhizobacteria of sugarbeets: Effects of seed application and root colonization on yield. Phytopathology, 72, 199–206.Google Scholar
  30. Weller D M 1988 Biological control of soil-borne plant pathogens in the rhizosphere with bacteria. Ann. Rev. Phytopath. 26, 379–407.Google Scholar
  31. Westcott III S W and Kluepfel D L 1993 Inhibition of Criconemella xenoplax egg hatch by Pseudomonas aureofaciens. Phytopathology 83, 1245–1249.Google Scholar
  32. Wilhelm S 1955 Longevity of the Verticillium wilt fungus in the laboratory and field. Phytopathology 45, 180–181.Google Scholar
  33. Zavaleta-Mejia E and Van Gundy S D 1982 Effects of rhizobacteria on Meloidogyne infection. J. Nematol. 14, 475A–475B. Secton editor: T. C. Paulitz Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Soilborne Diseases Research Laboratory, Department of BotanyUniversity of KarachiKarachiPakistan

Personalised recommendations