European Journal of Plant Pathology

, Volume 108, Issue 9, pp 821–829

Reduction of Bacterial Speck (Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato) of Tomato by Combined Treatments of Plant Growth-promoting Bacterium, Azospirillum brasilense, Streptomycin Sulfate, and Chemo-thermal Seed Treatment

  • Yoav Bashan
  • Luz E. de-Bashan


Inoculation of tomato seeds with the plant growth-promoting bacterium Azospirillum brasilense, or spraying tomato foliage with A. brasilense, streptomycin sulfate, or commercial copper bactericides, separately, before or after inoculation with Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato, the casual agent of bacterial speck of tomato, had no lasting effect on disease severity or on plant height and dry weight. Seed inoculation with A. brasilense combined with a single streptomycin foliar treatment and two foliar bactericide applications at 5-day intervals (a third or less of the recommended commercial dose) reduced disease severity in tomato seedlings by over 90% after 4 weeks, and significantly slowed disease development under mist conditions. A. brasilense did not induce significant systemic resistance against the pathogen although the level of salicylic acid increased in inoculated plants. Treatment of tomato seeds that were artificially inoculated with P. syringae pv. tomato, with a combination of mild chemo-thermal treatment, A. brasilense seed inoculation, and later, a single foliar application of a copper bactericide, nearly eliminated bacterial leaf speck even when the plants were grown under mist for 6 weeks. This study shows that a combination of otherwise ineffective disease management tactics, when applied in concert, can reduce bacterial speck intensity in tomatoes under mist conditions.

Azospirillum brasilense bacterial leaf diseases biological control disease control induced systemic resistance plant growth-promoting bacteria Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato seed treatment 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alström S (1991) Induction of disease resistance in common bean susceptible to halo blight bacterial pathogen after seed bacterization with rhizosphere pseudomonads. Journal of General and Applied Microbiology 37: 495–501Google Scholar
  2. Bakanchikova TI, Lobanok EV, Pavlova-Ivanova LK, Redkina TV, Nagapetyan ZA and Majsuryan AN (1993) Inhibition of tumor formation process in dicotyledonous plants by Azospirillum brasilense strains. Mikrobiologiya (Russian Federation) 62: 515–523 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  3. Bashan Y (1986) Significance of timing and level of inoculation with rhizosphere bacteria on wheat plants. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 18: 297–301Google Scholar
  4. Bashan Y (1991) Air-borne transmission of the rhizosphere bacterium Azospirillum. Microbial Ecology 22: 257–269Google Scholar
  5. Bashan Y (1997) Alternative strategies for controlling plant diseases caused by Pseudomonas syringae. In: Rudolph K, Burr TJ, Mansfield JW, Stead D, Vivian A and von Kietzell J (eds) Pseudomonas syringae Pathovars and Related Pathogens. Developments in Plant Pathology, Vol 9 (pp 575–583) Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  6. Bashan Y (1998) Azospirillum plant growth-promoting strains are nonpathogenic on tomato, pepper, cotton, and wheat. Canandian Journal of Microbiology 44: 168–174Google Scholar
  7. Bashan Y and de-Bashan LE (2002) Protection of tomato seedlings against infection by Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato by using the plant growth-promoting bacterium Azospirillum brasilense. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 68: 2635–2643Google Scholar
  8. Bashan Y and Holguin G (1997) Azospirillum-plant relationships: Environmental and physiological advances (1990–1996). Canadian Journal of Microbiology 43: 103–121Google Scholar
  9. Bashan Y and Holguin G (1998) Proposal for the division of plant growth-promoting Rhizobacteria into two classifications: Biocontrol-PGPB (plant growth-promoting bacteria) and PGPB. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 30: 1225–1228Google Scholar
  10. Bashan Y and Okon Y (1981) Inhibition of seed germination and development of tomato plants in soil infested with Pseudomonas tomato. Annals of Applied Biology 98: 413–417Google Scholar
  11. Bashan Y, Okon Y and Henis Y (1978) Infection studies of Pseudomonas tomato, causal agent of bacterial speck of tomato. Phytoparasitica 6: 135–145Google Scholar
  12. Bashan Y, Fallik E, Okon Y, and Kedar N (1981) Lycopersicon pimpinellifolium P.I. 126927:Asource of resistance to bacterial speck of tomato. Hassadeh 62: 533–534 (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  13. Bashan Y, Okon Y and Henis Y (1982) Long-term survival of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato and Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria in tomato and pepper seeds. Phytopathology 72: 1143–1144Google Scholar
  14. Bashan Y, Ream Y, Levanony H and Sade A (1989) Nonspecific responses in plant growth, yield, and root colonization of noncereal crop plants to inoculation with Azospirillum brasilense Cd. Canadian Journal of Botany 67: 1317–1324Google Scholar
  15. Colin JE and Chafic Z (1986) Comparison of biological and chemical treatments for control of bacterial speck of tomato under field conditions in Morocco. Plant Disease 70: 1048–1050Google Scholar
  16. Conlin KC and McCarter SM (1983) Effectiveness of selected chemicals in inhibiting Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato in vitro and in controlling bacterial speck. Plant Disease 67: 639–644Google Scholar
  17. Cooksey DA (1988) Reduction of infection by Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato using a nonpathogenic, copper-resistant strain combined with a copper bactericide. Phytopathology 78: 601–603Google Scholar
  18. Cooksey DA (1990) Genetics of bactericide resistance in plant pathogenic bacteria. Annual Review of Phytopathology 28: 201–219Google Scholar
  19. Cooksey DA and Azad HR (1992) Accumulation of copper and other metals of copper-resistant plant-pathogenic and saprophytic pseudomonads. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 58: 274–278Google Scholar
  20. Delanay TP, Uknes S, Vernooij B, Friedrich L, Weymann K, Negrotto D, Gaffney T, Gut-Rella M, Kessmann H, Ward E and Ryals J (1994) A central role of salicylic acid in plant disease resistance. Science 266: 1247–1250Google Scholar
  21. De Meyer G, Audenaert K and Höfte M (1999) Pseudomonas aeroginosa 7NSK2–induced systemic resistance in tobacco depends on in planta salicylic acid accumulation but is not associated with PR1 expression. European Journal of Plant Pathology 105: 513–517Google Scholar
  22. Diab S, Bashan Y, Okon Y and Henis Y (1982) Effect of relative humidity on bacterial scab caused by Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria on pepper. Phytopathology 72: 1257–1260Google Scholar
  23. Fallik E, Bashan Y, Okon Y, Cahaner A and Kedar N (1983) Inheritance and sources of resistance to bacterial speck of tomato caused by Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato. Annals of Applied Biology 102: 365–371Google Scholar
  24. Gu YQ and Martin GB (1998) Molecular mechanisms involved in bacterial speck disease resistance of tomato. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 353: 1455–1461Google Scholar
  25. Holguin G and Bashan Y (1996) Nitrogen-fixation by Azospirillum brasilense Cd is promoted when co-cultured with a mangrove rhizosphere bacterium (Staphylococcus sp.) Soil Biology and Biochemistry 28: 1651–1660Google Scholar
  26. Jardine DJ and Stephens CT (1987) Influence of timing of application and chemical on control of bacterial speck of tomato. Plant Disease 71: 405–408Google Scholar
  27. Kritzman G (1993) A chemi-thermal treatment for control of seedborne bacterial pathogens of tomato. Phytoparasitica 21: 101–109Google Scholar
  28. Levanony H, Bashan Y and Kahana ZE (1987) Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for specific identification and enumeration of Azospirillum brasilense Cd. in cereal roots. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 53: 358–364Google Scholar
  29. Liu L, Kloepper JW and Tuzun S (1995) Induction of systemic resistance in cucumber against bacterial angular leaf spot by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Phytopathology 85: 843–847Google Scholar
  30. Maurhofer M, Hase C, Meuwly P, Métraux JP and Defago G (1994) Induction of systemic resistance of tobacco to tobacco necrosis virus by the root-colonizing Pseudomonas fluorescens strain CHA0: Influence of the gacA gene and pyoverdine production. Phytopathology 84: 139–146Google Scholar
  31. Meuwly P and Métraux JP (1993) Ortho-ansinic acid as internal standard for the simultaneous quantification of salicylic acid and its putative biosynthetic precursors in cucumber leaves. Analytical Chemistry 214: 500–505Google Scholar
  32. Oldroyd GED and Staskawicz BJ (1998) Genetically engineered broad-spectrum disease resistance in tomato. Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Science USA 95: 10300–10305Google Scholar
  33. Oliveira RGB and Drozdowicz A (1987) Inhibition of bacteriocin producing strains of Azospirillum lipoferum by their own bacteriocin. Zentralblat Mikrobiologie 142: 387–391Google Scholar
  34. Pernezny K, Kudela V, Kokoskova B and Hladka I (1995) Bacterial diseases of tomato in the Czech and Slovak Republics and lack of streptomycin resistance among copper-tolerant bacterial strains. Crop Protection 14: 267–270Google Scholar
  35. Pyke NB, Milne KS and Neilson HF (1984) Tomato seed treatments for the control of bacterial speck. New Zealand Journal of Experimental Agriculture 12: 161–164Google Scholar
  36. Sharon E, Okon Y, Bashan Y and Henis Y (1982) Detached leaf enrichment: A method for detecting small numbers of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato and Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria in seeds and symptomless leaves of tomato and pepper. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 53: 371–377Google Scholar
  37. Sotirova V, Bogatsevska N and Stamova L (1994) Sources of resistance to bacterial diseases in tomato wild species. Acta Horticulturae 376: 353–359Google Scholar
  38. Stockinger EJ and Walling LL (1994) Pto3 and Pto4: Novel genes from Lycopersicon hirsutum var. glabratum that confer resistance to Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 89: 879–884Google Scholar
  39. Sudhakar P, Gangwar SK, Satpathy B, Sahu PK, Ghosh JK and Saratchandra B (2000) Evaluation of some nitrogen fixing bacteria for control of foliar diseases of mulberry (Morus alba). Indian Journal of Sericulture 39: 9–11Google Scholar
  40. van Loon LC, Bakker PAHM and Pieterse CMJ (1998) Systemic resistance induced by rhizosphere bacteria. Annual Review of Phytopathology 36: 453–483Google Scholar
  41. van Wees SCM, De Stewart EAM, van Pelt JA, van Loon LC and Pieterse CMJ (2000) Enhancement of induced disease resistance by simultaneous activation of salicylateand jasmonate-dependent defense pathways in Arabidopsis thaliana. Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Science USA 97: 8711–8716Google Scholar
  42. Vidhyasekaran P, Kamala N, Ramanathan A, Rajappan K, Paranidharan V and Velazhahan R (2001) Induction of systemic resistance by Pseudomonas fluorescens Pf1 against Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae in rice leaves. Phytoparasitica 29: 155–166Google Scholar
  43. Völksch B and May R (2001) Biological control of Pseudomonas syringae pv. glycinea by epiphytic bacteria under field conditions. Microbial Ecology 41: 132–139Google Scholar
  44. Wei G, Kloepper JW and Tuzun S (1996) Induced systemic resistance to cucumber diseases and increased plant growth by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria under field conditions. Phytopathology 86: 221–224Google Scholar
  45. Yunis H, Bashan Y, Okon Y and Henis Y (1980a) Two sources of resistance to bacterial speck of tomato caused by Pseudomonas tomato. Plant Disease 64: 851–852Google Scholar
  46. Yunis H, Bashan Y, Okon Y and Henis Y (1980b) Weather dependence, yield losses and control of bacterial speck of tomato caused by Pseudomonas tomato. Plant Disease 64: 937–939Google Scholar
  47. Zehnder GW, Yao CB, Murphy JF, Sikora ER and Kloepper JW (2000) Induction of resistance in tomato against cucumber mosaic virus by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Biocontrol 45: 127–137Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yoav Bashan
    • 1
  • Luz E. de-Bashan
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Environmental MicrobiologyThe Center for Biological Research of the Northwest (CIB)La Paz, BCSMexico
  2. 2.Department of BiologyPontificia Universidad JaverianaSantafe de BogotaColombia

Personalised recommendations