ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Differential antagonism of Trichoderma sp. against Macrophomina phaseolina
 
More details
Hide details
1
Plant Pathology Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, 9-Gamaa, St. Giza, Egypt
2
Deptement of Agricultural Botany Faculty of Agriculture, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Aly A. Aly
Plant Pathology Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, 9-Gamaa, St. Giza, Egypt
 
Journal of Plant Protection Research 2007;47(2):91–102
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
In view of the ecological hazards of chemicals, pot experiments were conducted to determine the efficacy of Trichoderma sp. against Macrophomina phaseolina. Greenhouse evolution of the interaction between M. phaseolina isolates and Trichoderma sp. isolates revealed a very highly significant (p = 0.0000). M. phaseolina isolate x antagonist isolate interaction for all the following parameters: preemergence damping-off, postemergence damping-off, survival, plant height, and dry weight. This interaction implies that a single isolate of antagonist can be highly effective againstan isolate of M. phaseolina, but may have only minimal effectsonotherisolatesof M. phaseolina. Therefore, isolates of antagonist should be tested against as many isolates of M. phaseolina as possible, as this will improve the chance of identifying antagonist isolates effective against several isolates of M. phaseolina .
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors have declared that no conflict of interests exist.
 
REFERENCES (24)
1.
Abdel-Aziz M.A., Moustafa-Mahmoud S.M., Ismail A.A. 1996. Impact of Imidacloprid insecticide on efficiency of some fungicides in controlling damping-off and root rot diseases of cotton seedlings. J. Agric. Res.Tanta Univ. 22: 243–255.
 
2.
Adekunle A.T., Cardwell K.F., Florini D.A., Ikotun T. 2001. Seed treatment with Trichoderma species for control of damping-off of cowpea caused by Macrophomina phaseolina. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 11: 449–457.
 
3.
Adekunle A.T., Ikotun T., Florini D.A., Cardwell K.F. 2006. Field evaluation of selected formulations of Trichoderma species as seed treatment to control damping-off of cowpea caused by Macrophomina phaseolina. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 5: 419–424.
 
4.
Aly A.A., El-Shazly A.M.M., Youssef R.M., Omar M.R. 2001. Chemical and biological control of charcoal rot of cotton caused by Macrophominaphaseolina. J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura Univ. 26: 7661–7674.
 
5.
Aly A.A., Abdel-Sattar M.A., Omar M. R. 2006. Susceptibility of some Egyptian cotton cultivars to charcoal rot disease caused by Macrophomina phaseolina . J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura Univ. 31: 5025 – 5037.
 
6.
Bell D.K., Wells H.D., Markham C.R. 1982. In vitro antagonism of Trichoderma species against six fungal plant pathogens. Phytopathology 72: 379–382.
 
7.
Cardona R., Rodriguez H. 2006. Effects of Trichoderma harzianum fungus on the incidence of the charcoal rot disease on sesame. Rev. Fac. Agron. 23: 44–50.
 
8.
Chowdhury A.K. 1998. Biocontrol of Macrophomin infection of jute. Environ. Ecol. 16: 44–45.
 
9.
Dhingra O.D., Sinclair J.B. 1978. Biology and Pathology of Macrophomina phaseolina. Imprensia Universidade Federal de Viscosa, Brazil, 166 pp.
 
10.
Karthikeyan V., Sankaralingam A., Nakkeeran S. 2006. Management of groundnut root rot with biocontrol agents and organic amendments. Arch. Phytopatol. Plant Prot. 39: 215–223.
 
11.
Khan M.R., Gupta J. 1998. Antagonistic efficacy of Trichoderma species against Macrophomina phaseolina on eggplant. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 105: 387–393.
 
12.
Kumar S.M., Khare M.N. 1990. Studies on the antagonistic relationship of soybean spermosphere microflora with Rhizoctonia bataticola and Sclerotium rolfsii.J. Biol. Control 4: 72– 74.
 
13.
Mathur A.C. 2006. Management of charcoal rot of cowpea caused by Macrophomina phaseolina by using biocontrol agents. Res. Crops 7: 558–560.
 
14.
Omar M.R. 1999. Studies on susceptibility of cotton to Macrophomina phaseolina. M.Sc. Thesis, Al-Azhar Univ. Cairo, 139 pp.
 
15.
Papavizas G.C., Lewis J.A. 1981. Introduction and augmentation of microbial antagonists for the control of soil borne plant pathogens. p. 305–322. In: “Biological Control in Crop Production (BARC.Symposium No.5) (Gorge C. Papavizas, ed.). Allahnheld, Osmun, Totowa.
 
16.
Parveen S., Ghaffar A. 1991. Effect of microbial antagonists in the control of root rot of tomato. Pak. J. Bot. 23:179–182.
 
17.
Raguchander T., Rajappan K., Samiyappan R. 1997. Evaluating methods of application of biocontrol agent in the control of mungbean root rot. Indian Phytopathol. 50: 229–234.
 
18.
Raguchander T., Rajappan K., Samiyappan R. 1998. Influence of biocontrol agents and organic amendments on soybean root rot. Int. J. Trop. Agric. 16: 247–252.
 
19.
Rajurkar R.B., Gade R.M., Paslawar A.N., Chauke R.P. 1998. Management of betel vine wilt through cultural and biological methods. J. Soils Crops 8: 176–178.
 
20.
Singh R., Sindhan G.S. 1998. Effect of fungicides on the incidence of dry root rot and biochemical status of chickpea plants. Plant Dis. Res. 13: 14–17.
 
21.
Wells H.D., Bell D.K. 1983. Antagonism in vitro between isolates of Trichoderma harzianum and Rhizoctonia solani AG4. Phytopathology 73, p. 507 (Abstract).
 
22.
Williams R.J., Gisi U. 1992. Monitoring pathogen sensitivity to phenylamide fungicides:Principles and Interpretation. EPPO Bull. 22: 297 – 322.
 
23.
Wyllie T.D., 1989. Charcoal rot. p. 30–33. In: “Compendium of Soybean Diseases” (J.B. Sinclair, P.A. Backman, eds.). The APS Press, St. Paul.
 
24.
Zaki K., Misagi I.J., Heydari A., Shatala M.N. 1998. Control of cotton seedling damping off in the field by Burkholderia ( Pseudomunas ) cepacia. Plant Dis. 82: 291–293.
 
eISSN:1899-007X
ISSN:1427-4345