Agroecology pp 83-103 | Cite as

Reduction of Damping-Off Disease in Soils from Indigenous Mexican Agroecosystem

  • R. D. Lumsden
  • R. García-E
  • J. A. Lewis
  • G. A. Frías-T
Part of the Ecological Studies book series (ECOLSTUD, volume 78)


Indigenous Mexican agroecosystems have been of considerable interest to the scientific community in recent years. Much attention has been focused on the archeological and agricultural significance of ancient Maya raised-field systems in the tropical lowlands of southeastern Mexico (Matheny, 1976; Turner and Harrison, 1981) and the chinampa system in the Valley of Mexico (Coe, 1964; Armillas, 1971). Most of these formerly intensively cultivated agricultural areas exist today only as relics on the landscape, often visible only from the air, and have been studied primarily from an archeological or sociological standpoint. On the other hand, the local farmers (campesinos) in many areas in modern-day Mexico have continued to manage several different traditional agroecosystems using time-honored farming methods. These methods balance productivity by using practices designed to sustain long-term crop production rather than maximize it on a short term basis (Gliessman et al., 1981). In addition to the more obvious effect of sustained agricultural yield, some of these systems appear to suppress or check the development of various plant diseases associated with the soil (García-E., 1980; García-E., pers. observ.).


Fluorescent Pseudomonad Healthy Plant Rhizoctonia Solani Cucumber Seedling Disease Suppression 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams, P.B. 1971. Pythium aphanidermatum oospore germination as affected by time, temperature, and pH. Phytopathology. 61: 1149–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, P.B., J.A. Lewis, and G.C. Papavizas. 1968. Survival of root-infecting fungi in soil. IV. The nature of fungistasis in natural and cellulose-amended soil on chlamydospores of Fusarium solani f. sp. phaseoli. Phytopathology. 58: 378–383.Google Scholar
  3. Alabouvette, C., F. Rouxel, and J. Louvet. 1979. Characteristics of Fusarium wiltsuppressive soils and prospects for their utilization in biological control. In Soil-borne Plant Pathogens, edited by B. Schippers and W. Gams. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Armillas, P. 1971. Gardens on swamps. Science. 174: 653–661.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ayers, W.A., and R.D. Lumsden. 1975. Factors affecting production and germination of oospores of three Pythium species. Phytopathology. 65: 1094–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker, K.F., and R.J. Cook. 1974. Biological Control of Plant Pathogens. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Co.Google Scholar
  7. Broadbent, P., and K.F. Baker. 1975. Soils suppressive to Phytophthora root rot in eastern Australia. In Biology and Control of Soil-Borne Plant Pathogens, edited by G.W. Bruehl. St. Paul: Amer. Phytopathol. Soc.Google Scholar
  8. Burbadge, D., M. Sasser, and R.D. Lumsden. 1982. A selective medium for Pseudomonas cepacia. Phytopathology. 72: 706.Google Scholar
  9. Chet, I., and R. Baker. 1981. Isolation and biocontrol potential of Trichoderma hamatum from soil naturally suppressive to Rhizoctonia solani. Phytopathology. 71: 286–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coe, M.D. 1964. The chinampas of Mexico. Sci. Amer. 211: 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cook, R.J. 1981. Biological control of plant pathogens: Overview. In Biological Control in Crop Production (BARC Symposium No. 5, Beltsville, MD), edited by G.C. Papavizas. Totowa, NJ: Allanheld, Osmun & Co.Google Scholar
  12. El-Nakeeb, M.A., and H.A. Lechevalier. 1963. Selective isolation of aerobic actinomycetes. Appl. Microbiol. 11: 75–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. García-E., R. 1980. Incidencia de algunos fitopatógenos del suelo en maíz, con énfasis en Pythium spp. bajo dos tipos distintos de agroecosistemas en el trópico húmedo. Agric. Trop. 2: 98–104.Google Scholar
  14. Gliessman, S.R., R. Garría-E., and M. Amador-A. 1981. The ecological basis for the application of traditional agricultural technology in the management of tropical agroecosystems. Agro-Ecosystems. 7: 173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Homma, Y., C. Kubo, M. Ishii, and K. Ohata. 1979. Mechanism of suppression of tomato Fusarium wilt by amendment of chicken manure to soil. Bull. Shikoku Agric. Exp. Sta. No. 34.Google Scholar
  16. Howell, C.R., and R.D. Stipanovic. 1980. Suppression of Pythium ultimum- induced damping-off of cotton seedlings by Pseudomonas fluorescens and its antibiotic, pyoluteorin. Phytopathology. 70: 712–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kawamoto, S.O., and J.W. Lorbeer. 1976. Protection of onion seedlings from Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cepae by seed and soil infestation with Pseudomonas cepacia. Plant Dis. Rep. 60: 189–191.Google Scholar
  18. King, E.O., M.K. Ward, and D.E. Raney. 1954. Two simple media for the demonstration of pyocyanin and fluorescein. J. Lab. Clin. Med. 44: 301–307.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kloepper, J.W., J. Leong, M. Teintze, and M.N. Schroth. 1980. Pseudomonas siderophores: A mechanism explaining disease-suppressive soils. Cur. Microbiol. 4: 317–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Komada, H. 1975. Development of selective medium for quantitative isolation of Fusarium oxysporum from natural soil. Rev. Plant Prot. Res. 8: 114–124.Google Scholar
  21. Liu, S., and R. Baker. 1980. Mechanism of biological control in soil suppressive to Rhizoctonia solani. Phytopathology. 70: 404–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lumsden, R.D. 1981. Nylon fabric for study of the ecology of Pythium aphanidermatum and other fungi in soil. Phytopathology. 71: 282–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lumsden, R.D., W.A. Ayers, P.B. Adams, R.L. Dow, J.A. Lewis, G.C. Papavizas, and J.G. Kantzes. 1976. Ecology and epidemiology of Pythium species in field soil. Phytopathology. 66: 2630–2641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lumsden, R.D., W.A. Ayers, and R.L. Dow. 1975. Differential isolation of Pythium species from soil by means of selective media, temperature, and pH. Can. J. Microbiol. 21: 606–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lumsden, R.D., G. Frías-T, R. García-E., and M.T. Dunn. 1982. Biocontrol of Pythium aphanidermatum on cucumber by microbial isolates from Mexican soils. Phytopathology. 72: 1010.Google Scholar
  26. Lumsden, R.D., R. García-E., J.A. Lewis, and G.A. Frías-T. 1987. Suppression of damping-off caused by Pythium spp. in soils from the indigenous Mexican chinampa agricultural system. Soil Bio. Biochem. 19: 501–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lumsden, R.D., J.A. Lewis, R. Garcia E., and T.G. Frias. 1981. Suppression of pathogens in soils from traditional Mexican agricultural systems. Phytopathology. 71: 891–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lumsden, R.D., J.A. Lewis, and G.C. Papavizas. 1983. Effect of organic amendments on soilborne plant diseases and pathogen antagonists. In Environmentally Sound Agriculture, edited by W. Lockeretz. New York: Preger Press.Google Scholar
  29. Matheny, R.T. 1976. Maya lowland hydraulic systems. Science. 193: 639–646.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Orozco-Segovia, A.D., and S.R. Gliessman. 1989. The marceño in flood-prone regions of Tabasco, Mexico. In Agroecosistemas de Mexico: Pasado y Presente, edited by A. Gonzalez-Jacome and S.R. Gliessman. Mexico City. Instituto National de Anthropologia e Historia (INAH).Google Scholar
  31. Papavizas, G.C. 1985. Trichoderma and Gliocladium: Biology, ecology and potential for biocontrol. Ann. Rev. Phytopathol. 23: 23–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Papavizas, G.C., P.B. Adams, R.D. Lumsden, J.A. Lewis, R.L. Dow, W.A. Ayers, and J.G. Kantzes. 1975. Ecology and epidemiology of Rhizoctonia solani in field soil. Phytopathology. 65: 871–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Papavizas, G.C., and J.A. Lewis. 1981. Introduction and augmentation of microbial antagonists for the control of soilborne plant pathogens. In Biological Control in Crop Production (BARC Symposium No. 5, Beltsville, MD), edited by G.C. Papavizas. Totowa, NJ: Allanheld, Osmun & Co.Google Scholar
  34. Papavizas, G.C., and R.D. Lumsden. 1982. Improved medium for isolation of Trichoderm spp. from soil. Plant Dis. 66: 1019–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Papavizas, G.C., and R.D. Lumsden. 1980. Biological control of soilborne fungal propagules. Ann. Rev. Phytopathol. 18: 189–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scher, F.M., and R. Baker. 1980. Mechanism of biological control in a Fusarium-suppressive soil. Phytopathology. 70: 412–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Scher, F.M., and R. Baker. 1982. Effect of Pseudomonas putida and a synthetic iron chelator on induction of soil suppressiveness to Fusarium wilt pathogens. Phytopathology. 72: 1567–1573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schneider, R.W., ed. 1982. Suppressive Soils and Plant Disease. St. Paul, MN: The American Phytopathological Soc.Google Scholar
  39. Skujins, J. 1973. Dehydrogenase: activity in soils. Bull. Ecol. Res. Commun. (Stockholm). 17: 235–241.Google Scholar
  40. Smith, S.N., and W.C. Snyder. 1972. Germination of Fusarium oxysporum chlamydospores in soils favorable and unfavorable to wilt establishment. Phytopathology. 62: 273–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Turner, B.L., II, and P.D. Harrison. 1981. Prehistoric raised-field agriculture in the Maya lowlands. Science. 213: 399–405.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weller, D.M., and R.J. Cook. 1983. Suppression of take-all wheat by seed treatments with fluorescent pseudomonads. Phytopathology. 73: 463–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. D. Lumsden
  • R. García-E
  • J. A. Lewis
  • G. A. Frías-T

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations