Advertisement

Is the Eliciting Effect of Stress Metabolites on Pathogenesis in Winter Wheat Linked to the Sulfur Supply?

  • Elke Bloem
  • Silvia Haneklaus
  • Ewald Schnug
Conference paper
Part of the Proceedings of the International Plant Sulfur Workshop book series (PIPSW, volume 1)

Abstract

The effect of a graded sulfur (S) supply to the soil combined with foliar applications of three different defense metabolites (S0, salicylic acid and cysteine) on the infection rate of winter wheat with powdery mildew (Blumeria graminis) was tested in a pot experiment. Spray applications with all three compounds reduced the infection rate in comparison to the control. The strongest effect was obtained expectedly after S0 application due to its well-established fungicidal effect in this host-pathogen relationship. S0 reduced the infection rate by 47% and 67% at maximum when 50 and 100 mg S0 pot−1 were applied, respectively 8 days after application in comparison to the control. In case of salicylic acid (SA) and cysteine the lower dose of 50 mg pot−1 resulted in a stronger reduction of the infection rate than the higher one when the S supply of the crop was low (5 mg S pot−1). Generally, the infection proceeded slower when plants were fully supplied with S though the initial infection rate was higher in these treatments. In case of spray applications with SA and cysteine the combination effect together with soil-applied sulfate never boosted the effect of a single treatment. Only with S0 the strongest reduction in fungal infection was observed when a high soil S supply was combined with a high foliar S0 application. Cysteine and SA trigger pathogen-related response in plants but defense mechanisms were not further enhanced by soil-applied S fertilization in combination with SA and cysteine spray applications, but obviously down-regulated. This suggests feedback regulation between S uptake, S metabolism, infection rate and SA and cysteine concentrations in the plant.

Keywords

Salicylic Acid Infection Rate Powdery Mildew Winter Wheat Foliar Application 
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.

References

  1. Bloem E, Haneklaus S, Schnug E (2005) Significance of sulfur compounds in the protection of plants against pests and diseases. J Plant Nutr 28:763–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bloem E, Haneklaus S, Salac I, Wickenhäuser P, Schnug E (2007) Facts and fiction about sulfur metabolism in relation to plant-pathogen interactions. Plant Biol 9:596–607PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Börner H (1997) Pflanzenkrankheiten und Pflanzenschutz, 7th edn. Eugen Ulmer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  4. Forsyth W (1802) A treatise on the culture and management of fruit trees. Nichols and Son, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Haneklaus S, Bloem E, Schnug E (2007) Sulfur and plant disease. In: Datnoff L, Elmer W, Huber D (eds) Mineral nutrition and plant diseases. APS Press, Saint Paul, pp 101–118Google Scholar
  6. Haneklaus S, Bloem E, Schnug E (2009) Plant disease control by nutrient management: sulphur. In: Walters D (ed) Disease control in crops – biological and environmentally friendly approaches. Wiley/Blackwell, Oxford, pp 221–236Google Scholar
  7. Hoy MA (1987) Sulfur as a control agent for pest mites in agriculture. In: Proceedings of the international symposium elemental sulphur in agriculture, vol 1. Nice, France, 25–27 March 1987, pp 51–61Google Scholar
  8. Kruse C, Jost R, Lipschis M, Kopp B, Hartmann M, Hell R (2007) Sulfur-enhanced defence: effects of sulfur metabolism, nitrogen supply, and pathogen lifestyle. Plant Biol 9:608–619PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Malamy J, Carr JP, Klessig DF, Raskin I (1990) Salicylic acid: a likely endogenous signal in the resistance response of tobacco to viral infection. Science 250:1002–1004PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Malinowski J, Krzymowska M, Godon K, Hennig J, Podstolski A (2007) A new catalytic activity from tobacco converting 2-coumaric acid to salicylic aldehyde. Physiol Plant 129:461–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Moll E, Walther U, Flath K, Prochnow J, Sachs E (1996) Methodische Anleitung zur Bewertung der partiellen Resistenz von Sorten bzw. Linien unter Berücksichtigung epidemiologischer Aspekte. Ber Biol Bundesanst Land- Forstwirtsch 12, 7–20Google Scholar
  12. Reuveni M (2001) Activity of trifloxystrobin against powdery and downey mildew diseases of grapevines. Can J Plant Path 23:52–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ryals JA, Neuenschwander UH, Willits MG, Molina A, Steiner H-Y, Hunt MD (1996) Systemic acquired resistance. Plant Cell 8:1809–1819PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Stauß R, Bleiholder H, van der Boom T, Buhr L, Hack H, Hess M, Klose R, Meier U, Weber E (1994) Einheitliche Codierung der phänologischen Entwicklungsstadien mono- und dikotyler Pflanzen. Ciba-Geigy AG, BaselGoogle Scholar
  15. Vidhyasekaran P (1988) Physiology of disease resistance in plants, vol II. CRC Press, Inc, Boca Raton, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Crop and Soil ScienceJulius Kühn-Institute (JKI), Federal Research Centre for Cultivated PlantsBraunschweigGermany

Personalised recommendations