Skip to content
2000
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Recent Advances in Food Nutrition & Agriculture
  4. Volume 15, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 15, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 2772-574X
  • E-ISSN: 2772-5758

Abstract

Background

Plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPR), while generally considered to aid plant growth with the provision of nutrients, can also be used as biocontrol agents for plant pathogens.

Aim

The study assessed the protective potential of inoculums and metabolites of plant growth-promoting rhizobacterial strains against bacterial and fungal pathogens on soybean seedlings.

Materials and Methods

Inoculums and metabolites of 15 rhizobacterial strains were used for the study. Five pathogens ( sp., , sp., and ) were employed for the study. Four experimental setups: treated-only seeds, infected-only seeds, infected then inoculum or metabolite treated seeds, and infected then distilled water-treated seeds.

Results

In the setup infected with sp., final germination values of seeds in the presence of the respective inoculums showed no significant variation between the treated only and the infected then treated setup. In the case of seeds infected with , higher germination and vigor index values were observed in the treated-only seeds when compared with the infected then-treated seeds. For seeds infected with sp., significantly lower germination and vigor index values were observed in the infected then-treated seeds than the treated-only seeds in the presence of the respective inoculums. With regards to setup infected with , significantly higher final germination and vigor index values were recorded for the treated only seeds when compared with the infected then treated setups. For the infected seeds, the majority of the infected then metabolite-treated seeds showed significantly lower final germination values when compared with the treated-only seeds.

Conclusion

The study findings were able to establish the efficacy of some bacteria agents against economically important species of plant pathogens.

© 2024 Bentham Science Publishers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/rafna/10.2174/012772574X282130231206103404
2024-01-24
2024-11-18

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/rafna/10.2174/012772574X282130231206103404
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Online database. Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations, 2016Available from: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/
  2. CheongD. JansenM. PetersR. Shared harvets: Agriculture, trade and employment.Geneva, SwitzerlandInternational Labour Office2013
     [Google Scholar]
  3. ŠimicB. SudaricA. LiovicI. KalinovicI. RozmanV. CosicJ. Influence of storage condition on seed quality of maize, soybean and sunflower.9th International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection20065963
     [Google Scholar]
  4. MartínI. GálvezL. GuaschL. PalmeroD. Fungal pathogens and seed storage in the dry state.Plants20221122316710.3390/plants11223167 36432896
     [Google Scholar]
  5. LijuanQ. RuzhenC. Chang RuZhen CR. The origin and history of soybean. In: The soybean: Botany, production and uses.Wallingford, UKCABI2010123
     [Google Scholar]
  6. WijewardanaC. ReddyK.R. BellalouiN. Soybean seed physiology, quality, and chemical composition under soil moisture stress.Food Chem.20192789210010.1016/j.foodchem.2018.11.035 30583452
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Online database. Food and Agriculture Organization Statistics,2021Available from: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/
  8. SharmaS. KaurM. GoyalR. GillB.S. Physical characteristics and nutritional composition of some new soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill) genotypes.J. Food Sci. Technol.201451355155710.1007/s13197‑011‑0517‑7 24587531
     [Google Scholar]
  9. DugjeI.Y. OmoiguiL.O. EkelemeF. BandyopadhyayR. KumarP.L. KamaraA.Y. Farmers’ guide to soybean production in northern Nigeria.IITA2009
     [Google Scholar]
  10. NzossiéEJ. BringC. Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) production in the Cameroonian cotton basin between the dynamics of structuring an agricultural value chain and sustainability issues. In: Soybean for Human Consumption and Animal Feed; Intechopen,2020
     [Google Scholar]
  11. KhojelyD.M. IbrahimS.E. SapeyE. HanT. History, current status, and prospects of soybean production and research in sub-Saharan Africa.Crop J.20186322623510.1016/j.cj.2018.03.006
     [Google Scholar]
  12. IdrisaY.L. OgunbameruN.B. AmazaP.S. Influence of farmers’ socio-economic and technological characteristics on soybean seeds technology adoption in Southern Borno State, Nigeria.Agro Sci.201093209214
     [Google Scholar]
  13. AkahN.P. KunyangaC.N. OkothM.W. NjueL.K. Pulse production, consumption and utilization in Nigeria within regional and global context.Sustain. Agric. Res.2021102486410.5539/sar.v10n2p48
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Emergen Research. Plant based protein market, by source (soybeans, wheat, pea, others), by type (isolates, concentrates, textured), by form (dry form, wet form), by application, and by region forecast to 2030. 2022Available online: https://www.emergenresearch.com/industry-report/plant-based-protein-market
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Dell’OlmoE. TiberiniA. SigilloL. Leguminous seedborne pathogens: Seed health and sustainable crop management.Plants20231210204010.3390/plants12102040 37653957
     [Google Scholar]
  16. SinghM. TrivediN. EnamalaM.K. KuppamC. ParikhP. NikolovaM.P. ChavaliM. Plant-based meat analogue (PBMA) as a sustainable food: A concise review.Eur. Food Res. Technol.2021247102499252610.1007/s00217‑021‑03810‑1
     [Google Scholar]
  17. AgarwalV.K. SinclairJ.B. Principles of seed pathology.CRC Press1996
     [Google Scholar]
  18. SoesantoL. HartonoA.R.R. MugiastutiE. WidartaH. Seed-borne pathogenic fungi on some soybean varieties.Biodiversitas 20202194010401510.13057/biodiv/d210911
     [Google Scholar]
  19. GovindarajM. MasilamaniP. AlbertV.A. BhaskaranM. Effect of physical seed treatment on yield and quality of crops: A review. . Agric. Rev., 201738OF1410.18805/ag.v0iOF.7304
     [Google Scholar]
  20. GowdaB. HiremathU. KumaraV. MattiS.C. Effect of seed treatment with fungicides on seed quality of soybean (Glycine max L.) during storage.Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci.202081420424
     [Google Scholar]
  21. EtawareP.M. EtawareE.U. OlaoluwaO.O. OyetunjiO.J. AiyelaagbeO.O. OdebodeA.C. The impact crude plant extracts: As potential biofertilizers and treatment against tomato plant infection.J. Plant Pathol. Microbiol.201910481491
     [Google Scholar]
  22. O’CallaghanM. Microbial inoculation of seed for improved crop performance: Issues and opportunities.Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.2016100135729574610.1007/s00253‑016‑7590‑9 27188775
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Al-AniR.A. AdhabM.A. MahdiM.H. AboodH.M. Rhizobium japonicum as a biocontrol agent of soybean root rot disease caused by Fusarium solani and Macrophomina phaseolina.Plant Prot. Sci.201248414915510.17221/16/2012‑PPS
     [Google Scholar]
  24. ZhangJ.X. XueA.G. TambongJ.T. Evaluation of seed and soil treatments with novel Bacillus subtilis strains for control of soybean root rot caused by Fusarium oxysporum and F. graminearum.Plant Dis.200993121317132310.1094/PDIS‑93‑12‑1317 30759515
     [Google Scholar]
  25. CusworthG. GarnettT. LorimerJ. Legume dreams: The contested futures of sustainable plant-based food systems in Europe.Glob. Environ. Change20216910232110.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102321 34471332
     [Google Scholar]
  26. AkporO.B. AkinwusiO.D. OgunnusiT.A. Production, characterization and pesticidal potential of Bacillus species metabolites against sugar ant (Camponotus consobrinus).Heliyon2021711e0844710.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08447 34877429
     [Google Scholar]
  27. International rules for seed testing. Rules 1985.Seed Sci. Technol.1985132299513
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Abdul-BakiA.A. AndersonJ.D. Vigor determination in soybean seed by multiple criteria 1.Crop Sci.197313663063310.2135/cropsci1973.0011183X001300060013x
     [Google Scholar]
  29. VankudothK.R. SivadeveuniG. ReddyS.M. Influence of different species of Penicillium and their culture filtrates on seed germination and seedling growth of sorghum.J. Biochem. Technol.201554832837
     [Google Scholar]
  30. KumarV. BasuM.S. RajendranT.P. Mycotoxin research and mycoflora in some commercially important agricultural commodities.Crop Prot.200827689190510.1016/j.cropro.2007.12.011
     [Google Scholar]
  31. BhatR. RaiR.V. KarimA.A. Mycotoxins in food and feed: Present status and future concerns.Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf.201091578110.1111/j.1541‑4337.2009.00094.x 33467806
     [Google Scholar]
  32. HabschiedK. KrstanovićV. ZdunićZ. BabićJ. MastanjevićK. ŠarićG.K. Mycotoxins biocontrol methods for healthier crops and stored products.J. Fungi 20217534810.3390/jof7050348 33946920
     [Google Scholar]
  33. ShivaS.A. ReddyD.M. PadmavatiK. PindiP.K. Potential bio-control agent Serratia sp. SCP isolated from rhizosphere soil, Mahbubnagar, Telangana. Open Access.J. Biomed. Sci.20224419131922
     [Google Scholar]
  34. RuiuL. Plant-growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) against insects and other agricultural pests.Agronomy 202010686110.3390/agronomy10060861
     [Google Scholar]
  35. GroverM. BodhankarS. SharmaA. SharmaP. SinghJ. NainL. PGPR mediated alterations in root traits: Way toward sustainable crop production.Front. Sustain. Food Syst.2021461823010.3389/fsufs.2020.618230
     [Google Scholar]
  36. ElbouazaouiA. SijilmassiB. MaafaI. AllalD. AhmedS. Biocontrol activity of Bacillus, Paenibacillus and Pseudomonas against Fusarium wilt of chickpea in Morocco.Acta Agric. Scand. B Soil Plant Sci.202272184785910.1080/09064710.2022.2100819
     [Google Scholar]
  37. LavaniaM. ChauhanP.S. ChauhanS.V.S. SinghH.B. NautiyalC.S. Induction of plant defense enzymes and phenolics by treatment with plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria Serratia marcescens NBRI1213.Curr. Microbiol.200652536336810.1007/s00284‑005‑5578‑2 16586018
     [Google Scholar]
  38. KöhlJ. KolnaarR. RavensbergW.J. Mode of action of microbial biological control agents against plant diseases: relevance beyond efficacy.Front. Plant Sci.20191084510.3389/fpls.2019.00845 31379891
     [Google Scholar]
  39. GuptaV.G. PandeyA. Eds.; New and future developments in microbial biotechnology and bioengineering: Microbial secondary metabolites biochemistry and applications.Elsevier2019
     [Google Scholar]
  40. ArfaouiA. El HadramiA. MabroukY. SifiB. BoudabousA. El HadramiI. DaayfF. ChérifM. Treatment of chickpea with Rhizobium isolates enhances the expression of phenylpropanoid defense-related genes in response to infection by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris.Plant Physiol. Biochem.2007456-747047910.1016/j.plaphy.2007.04.004 17544286
     [Google Scholar]
  41. AkhtarM.S. SiddiquiZ.A. Effects of Glomus fasciculatum and Rhizobium sp. on the growth and root-rot disease complex of chickpea.Arch. Phytopathol. Pflanzenschutz2007401374310.1080/03235400500320133
     [Google Scholar]
  42. RajjouL. DuvalM. GallardoK. CatusseJ. BallyJ. JobC. JobD. Seed germination and vigor.Annu. Rev. Plant Biol.201263150753310.1146/annurev‑arplant‑042811‑105550 22136565
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Al-SmanKM. Abo-ElyousrK. ErakyA. El-Zawahry, A Potential activities of Bacillus simplex as a biocontrol agent against root rot of Nigella sativa caused by Fusarium camptoceras.Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control20192916
     [Google Scholar]
  44. FerreiraF.V. MusumeciM.A. Trichoderma as biological control agent: scope and prospects to improve efficacy.World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol.20213759010.1007/s11274‑021‑03058‑7 33899136
     [Google Scholar]
  45. AshwiniN SrividyaS. Potentiality of Bacillus subtilis as biocontrol agent for management of anthracnose disease of chilli caused by Colletotrichum gloeosporioides OGC1. 3 Biotechnology 2014142127136
     [Google Scholar]
  46. ZohoraU.S. AnoT. RahmanM.S. Biocontrol of Rhizoctonia solani K1 by iturin A producer Bacillus subtilis RB14 seed treatment in tomato plants.Adv. Microbiol.20166642443110.4236/aim.2016.66042
     [Google Scholar]
  47. XieS. ZangH. WuH. Uddin RajerF. GaoX. Antibacterial effects of volatiles produced by Bacillus strain D13 against Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae.Mol. Plant Pathol.2018191495810.1111/mpp.12494 27682316
     [Google Scholar]
  48. KoumoutsiA. ChenX.H. HenneA. LiesegangH. HitzerothG. FrankeP. VaterJ. BorrissR. Structural and functional characterization of gene clusters directing nonribosomal synthesis of bioactive cyclic lipopeptides in Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain FZB42.J. Bacteriol.200418641084109610.1128/JB.186.4.1084‑1096.2004 14762003
     [Google Scholar]
  49. LeveauJ.H.J. PrestonG.M. Bacterial mycophagy: Definition and diagnosis of a unique bacterial–fungal interaction.New Phytol.2008177485987610.1111/j.1469‑8137.2007.02325.x 18086226
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Kilic-EkiciO. YuenG.Y. Induced resistance as a mechanism of biological control by Lysobacter enzymogenes strain C3.Phytopathology20039391103111010.1094/PHYTO.2003.93.9.1103 18944093
     [Google Scholar]
  51. IndiragandhiP. AnandhamR. MadhaiyanM. SaT.M. Characterization of plant growth-promoting traits of bacteria isolated from larval guts of diamondback moth Plutella xylostella (lepidoptera: plutellidae).Curr. Microbiol.200856432733310.1007/s00284‑007‑9086‑4 18172718
     [Google Scholar]
  52. ThahirB.S. RadhaiahA. NagalakshmiD.M. EswaraR.N. Biocontrol potential of indigenous Pseudomonas spp. against Sclerotium rolfsii causing stem rot of groundnut. International Journal of Food.Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences20122134141
     [Google Scholar]
  53. TiloccaB. CaoA. MigheliQ. Scent of a killer: Microbial volatilome and its role in the biological control of plant pathogens.Front. Microbiol.2020114110.3389/fmicb.2020.00041 32117096
     [Google Scholar]
  54. KongW.L. LiP.S. WuX.Q. WuT.Y. SunX.R. Forest tree associated bacterial diffusible and volatile organic compounds against various phytopathogenic fungi.Microorganisms20208459010.3390/microorganisms8040590 32325752
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/rafna/10.2174/012772574X282130231206103404
Loading
Assessment of the Protective Potential of Inoculums and Metabolites of Rhizobacteria on Soybean (Glycine max) Seedlings against Bacterial and Fungal Pathogens
Recent Pat Food Nutr Agric 15, 193 (2024); https://doi.org/10.2174/012772574X282130231206103404
/content/journals/rafna/10.2174/012772574X282130231206103404
/content/journals/rafna/10.2174/012772574X282130231206103404
Loading

Data & Media loading...


  • Article Type:     Research Article
Keyword(s): Bacteria; germinability; phytopathogens; plant diseases; rhizobacteria; seed protection

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test