MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4224112955 · doi:10.21271/zjpas.34.2.6

Evaluation of Pseudomonas and Bacillus Strains as Potential Biocontrol Agents against Fusarium Wilt of Chickpea

2022· article· en· W4224112955 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
T. Amein, Kamalaldeen M. Fatah

Notice bibliographique

RevueZANCO Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineAgricultural and Biological Sciences
ThématiquePlant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFusarium wiltBiological pest controlBiologyPseudomonasBacterial wiltMicrobiologyBacillus (shape)BiotechnologyHorticultureBacteriaFusarium oxysporum

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) production is severely reduced by Fusarium wilt caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris (Foc) in most chickpea growing areas worldwide. The effect of treating chickpea seeds with three bacterial strains of Bacillus and two strains of Pseudomonas to control wilt caused by this pathogen was carried out in plots under field conditions. The Bacillus strains had much better effect than Pseudomonas strains on plants health. Bacillus strain (K3) significantly increased seed germination, plant weight, number of pods and the yield. These were increased by (12, 21.2, 39.8 and 14.2%) respectively. Also, the strain B. amyloliquefaciens (5113) showed significantly increases of plant weight, number of pods and the yield (19.6, 19.9 and 10.1%) respectively. It can be concluded that bacterial seed coating combined with other control strategies as integrated pest management could be used successfully to control or at least decrease the effect of Fusarium wilt on chickpea production. References AMEIN, T., OMER Z. & WELCH C. 2008. Application and evaluation of Pseudomonas strains for biocontrol of wheat seedling blight. Crop Protection 27, 532–536. AMEIN, T. & WEBER, Z. 2002. Seed treatment with strains of Pseudomonas fluorescens as potential biocontrol agents of wheat take-all. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection.109, 6. 655 – 661. AMEIN, T., WRIGHT, S. A. I., VIKSTRÖM, M., & et al., 2011. Evaluation of non-chemical seed treatment methods for control of Alternaria brassicicola on cabbage seeds. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection, 118, 6, 214 –221. ANJAJAH, V., CORNELIS, P. & KOEDAM, N. 2003. Effect of genotype and root colonization in biological control of Fusarium wilt in pigeon pea and chickpea by Pseudomonas aeruginosa PNA1. Canadian Journal of Microbiology 49: 85-91. BAYSAL, Ö., ÇALIŞKAN, M. & YEŞILOVA, Ö. 2008. An inhibitory effect of a new Bacillus subtillis strain (EU07) against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. radicis-lycopersici. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 73: 25-32. BELABID, L., AMINE. B. A. & SOUAD, Z. 2018. Induction of systemic resistance in chickpea against Fusarium wilt by Bacillus strains. Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection 51(1):1-11. DOI: 10. 1080/03235408.2018.1438819. BURR, A., ORTUNO, A. & ARMERO, T. 1998. Phosphate solubilizing effect of Aspergillus niger and Pseudomonas. Microbiol. Espanola. 30:113. BUTLER, E. J. 1918. Fungi and Diseases in Plants. Thacker Spink and Co., Calcutta, India, 547pp. CHEN, F., WANG, M., ZHANG, Y., LUO, J., YANG, X. & WANG, X. 2010. Quantitative changes of plant defense enzymes and phytohormone in biocontrol of cucumber Fusarium wilt by Bacillus subtillis B579. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 26: 675-684. DUBEY, S. C., SURESH, M. & SINGH, B. 2007. Evaluation of Trichoderma species against Fusarium oxysporum f.sp ciceris for integrated management of chickpea wilt. Biol Cont 40: 118-127. GAJBHIYE, A., RAI, A.R., MESHRAM, SU. & DONGRE, AB. 2010. Isolation, evaluation and characterization of Bacillus subtillis from cotton rhizospheric soil with biocontrol activity against Fusarium oxysporum. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 26: 1187-1194. GLICK, B. R. 1995. The enhancement of plant growth by free-living bacteria. Cand. J. Microbiol. 41:109- 117. GOLAKIYA, B. B., BHIMANI, M. D. & AKBARI, L.F. 2018. Efficacy of different fungicides for the management of chickpea wilt (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp.ciceri). International. Journal of Chemical Studies. 6 (2); 199 – 205. HALILA, M. H. & STRANGE, R. N. 1996. Identification of the causal agent of wilt of chickpea in Tunisia as Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceri race 0. Phytopathol. Mediterr. 35:67-74. HASHEM, A., TABASSUM, B. & ABDALLAH, E. F. 2020. Omics Approaches in Chickpea Fusarium Wilt Disease Management. Management of Fungal Pathogens in Pulses pp 57-72. HAWARE, M. P., NENE, Y. L. & NATARAJAN, M. 1996. Survival of Fusarium oxysporum f.sp ciceris in the soil in the absence of chickpea. Phytopathol Medditer 35: 9-12. HAWARE, M. P. & NENE, Y. L. 1982. Races of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceri. Plant Dis. 66:809-810. HERVÀS, A., LANDA, B. B. & JIMÉNEZ-DÎA, R. M. 1997. Influence of chickpea genotype and Bacillus sp. on protection from Fusarium wilt by seed treatment with nonpathogenic Fusarium oxysporum. Eur J Plant Pathol 103: 631-642. HOSSAIN, S., FORD, R., NEIL, D. M., PITTOCK, C. & PANOZZO, J. F. 2010. Inheritance of seed size in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and identification of QTL based on 100-seed weight and seed size index. Aust J Crop Sci 4: 126-135. JOSEPH, B., PATRA, R. R. & LAWRENCE, R. 2007. Characterization of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria associated with chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). International Journal of Plant Production 1(2): 141-151. JUKANTI, A. K., GAUR, P. M., GOWDA, C. L.& CHIBBAR, R. N. 2012. Nutritional quality and health benefits of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.): a review. Br. J. Nutr. 108, 11 - 26. KARIMI, K., AMINI, J., HARIGHI, B. & BAHRAMNEJAD, B. 2012. Evaluation of biocontrol potential of Pseudomonas and Bacillus spp. against Fusarium wilt of chickpea. Australian Journal of Crop Science, AJCS 6 (4):695-703. KHAN, M. R., KHAN, S. M. & MOHIDDIN, F. A. 2004. Biological control of Fusarium wilt of chickpea through seed treatment with the commercial formulation of Trichoderma harzianum and/ or Pseudomonas fluorescens. Phytopathol.Mediterri. 43:20-25. KLOEPPER, J. W., RYU, C. M. & ZHANG, S. 2004. Induced systemic resistance and promotion of plant growth by Bacillus spp. Phytopathology 94: 1259-1266. KOCH, E., SCHMITT, A., DIETRICH, S. & ET AL., 2010. Evaluation of non-chemical seed treatment methods for the control of Alternaria dauci and A. radicina on carrot seeds. European J. of Plant Pathology. 127: 99 – 112. LANDA, B. B., NAVAS-CORTÉS, J. A., HERVÁS, A. & JIMÉNEZ-DÍAZ, R. M. 2001. Influence of temperature and inoculum density of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. Ciceris on suppression of Fusarium wilt of chickpea by rhizosphere bacteria. Phytopathology 91:807-816. LANDA, B. B., NAVAS-CORTÉS, J. A. & JIMÉNEZ-DÍAZ, R. M. 2004a. Influence of temperature on plant-rhizobacteria interactions related to biocontrol potential for suppression of Fusarium wilt of chickpea. Plant Pathol. 53:341-352. LANDA, B. B., NAVAS-CORTÉS, J. A. & JIMÉNEZ- DÍAZ, R. M. 2004b. Integrated management of Fusarium wilt of chickpea with sowing date, host resistance, and biological control. Phytopathology. 94:946-960. MAHMOOD, Y., KHAN, M. A., JAVED, N.& ARIF, M. J. 2015. Comparative efficacy of fungicides and biological control agents for the management of chickpea wilt caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris. The Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences, 25 (4): P.1063-1071. MANIKANDA, R., SARAVANAKUMAR, D., RAJENDRAN, L., RAGUCHANDER, T. & SAMIYAPPAN, R. 2010. Standardization of liquid formulation of Pseudomonas fluorescens Pf1 for its efficacy against Fusarium wilt of tomato. Biol control 54: 83-89. MEKI, S., AHMED, S. & SAKHUJA P. K. 2009. Control of chickpea wilt (Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. ciceris) using Trichoderma spp. in Ethiopia. Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection, 44: 5. MERKUZ, A., SAKHUJA, P. K., CHEMEDA, F. & SEID, A. 2011. Status of chickpea fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp .ciceris) in northwesters Ethiopia. Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection. 44:13, 1261 –1272. MERKUZ, A. & GETACHEW, A. 2012. Influence of chickpea Fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp .ciceris) on Desi and Kabuli-type of chickpea in integrated disease management option at wilt sick plot in North Western Ethiopia. International Journal of Current Research Vol. 4, Issue, 04, pp.046-052. MORADI, H., BAHRAMNEJAD, B., AMINI, J., SIOSEMARDEH, A. & HAJI-ALLAHVERDIPOOR, K. 2012. Suppression of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Fusarium wilt by Bacillus subtillis and Trichoderma harzianum. Plant Omics Journal. POJ 5(2):68-74. MURALI SANKAR, P., VANITHA, S., KAMALAKANNAN, A., ANANTHA RAJU, P. & JEYAKUMAR, P. 2018. Prevalence of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. Ciceris Causing Wilt in Chickpea and Its Pathogenic, Cultural and Morphological Characterization. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. Vol. 7 Nr. 02. 1301-1313. MURALI SANKAR, P., VANITHA, S., KAMALAKANNAN, A., ANANTHA RAJU, P. & JEYAKUMAR, P. 2019. Biological Management of Fusarium Wilt in Chickpea (Cicer Arietinum L.) caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris. Legume Research-An International Journal. (42):838-843. NAVAS-CORTES, J. A., HAU, B. & JIMENEZ-DIAZ, R. M. 2000. Yield loss in chickpea in relation to development to Fusarium wilt epidemics. Phytopathology 90:1269-1278. RAFAEL, M., JIMÉNEZ-DÍAZ, PABLO C. ET AL., 2015. Fusarium wilt of chickpeas: Biology, ecology and management. Crop Protection, Volume 73, Issue null, Pages 16-27. SCHMITT, A., KOCH, E., STEPHAN, D. & ET AL., 2009. Evaluation of non-chemical seed treatment methods for the control of seed-borne infections by Phoma valerianellae on lamb`s lettuce. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection, 116, 200 - 207. STAGNARI, F., MAGGIO, A., GALIENI, A. & PISANTE, M. 2017. Multiple benefits of legumes for agriculture sustainability: an overview. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 4:2, DOI 10.1186/s40538-016-0085-1. SUBHANI, M. N., SAHI, S. T., ALI, L., HUSSAIN, S., IQBAL, J. & HUSSAIN, N. 2013. Management of Chickpea wilt caused by Fusarium oxysporium f. sp. ciceris through antagonistic microorganisms. Canadian Journal of Plant Protection. Vol.1, N. 1, P. 1-6. ZAIM, S., BELABID, L. & BELLAHCENE, M. 2013. Biocontrol of chickpea fusarium wilt by bacillus spp. Rhizobacteria. Journal of plant protection research vol. 53, no. 2 P. 1 – 7.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,513
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,290

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,030
Tête enseignante GPT0,256
Écart entre enseignants0,226 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueZANCO Journal of Pure and Applied SciencesMême sujetPlant-Microbe Interactions and ImmunityTravaux en français237 207