ORIGINAL ARTICLE
In vitro evaluation of antagonistic microorganisms for the control of die-back of neem causal agent Phomopsis azadirachtae
1, 2,
1, 3,
1, 4
| 1 | Department of Studies in Microbiology, Manasagangotri, University of Mysore,
Mysore – 570 006, India |
| 2 | Department of Microbiology (P.G.), Maharani’s Science College for Women,
JLB Road, Mysore – 570 005, India |
| 3 | Advisor, Labland Biodiesel Private Limited, # 98, 7
th
main, Jayalakshmipuram,
Mysore – 570 012, India |
| 4 | Department of Studies in Botany, Manasagangotri, University of Mysore,
Mysore – 570 006, India |
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Krishna Girish
Department of Microbiology (P.G.), Maharani’s Science College for Women, JLB Road, Mysore – 570 005, India
Department of Microbiology (P.G.), Maharani’s Science College for Women, JLB Road, Mysore – 570 005, India
Journal of Plant Protection Research 2009;49(4):363–368
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
The die-back of neem caused by Phomopsis azadirachtae is a devastating disease in India reducing the life span and seed production of neem. Six isolates of antagonistic bacteria and fungi, Bacillus cereus (MTCC 430), B. subtilis (MTCC 619), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (MTCC 2581), P. oleovorans (MTCC 617), Trichoderma harzianum (MTCC 792) and T. viride (MTCC 800) were evaluated against P. azadirachtae under in vitro conditions. Culture filtrates of all these microorganisms were extracted using ethyl acetate, and the obtained fractions were tested for their antifungal activity against P. azadirachtae at different concentrations. Ethyl acetate extracts of B. subtilis and P. aeruginosa were highly effective and completely inhibited the growth of P. azadirachtae at 25 ppm concentration. Both these isolates may be considered as factors for the biological control of die-back of neem
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors have declared that no conflict of interests exist.
REFERENCES (15)
1.
Krishna Kishore G., Pande S., Podile A.R. 2005. Management of late leaf spot of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) with chlorothalonil-tolerant isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Plant Pathol. 54: 401–408.
2.
Lange L., Breinholt J., Rusmussen F.W., Neilson R.I. 1993. Microbial fungicides – The natural choice. Pestic. Sci. 39: 55–160.
3.
Lavermicocca P., Valerio F., Evidente A., Lazzaroni S., Corsetti A., Gobbetti M. 2000. Purification and characterization of novel antifungal compounds from the sourdough Lactobacillus plantarum strain 21B. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 66: 4084–4090.
4.
Leclere V., Bechet M., Adam A., Guez J.S., Wathelet B., Ongena M., Thonart P., Gancel F., Chollet-Imbert M., Jacques P. 2005. Mycosubtilin overproduction by Bacillus subtilis BBG100 enhances the organism’s antagonistic and biocontrol activities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71: 4577–4584.
5.
Lugtenberg B.J.J., Bloemberg G.V. 2004. Life in the rhizosphere. p. 403–430. In: ”Pseudomonas”, Vol. 1 (J.L. Ramos, ed.). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.Maurhofer M., Keel C., Schnider U., Voisard C., Haas D., Defago G. 1992. Influence of enhanced antibiotic production in Pseudomonas fluorescens strain CHA0 on its disease suppressive capacity. Phytopathology 82: 190–195.
6.
Microbial Type Culture Collection. 2000. Bacteria – 2581: Pseudomonas aeruginosa. p. 37. In: “Catalogue of Strains”. Institute of Microbial Technology, Chandigarh, India.Sateesh M.K. 1998. Microbiological investigations on die-back disease of neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss.). Ph.D. Thesis. University of Mysore, India, 173 pp.
7.
Sateesh M.K., Shankara Bhat S., Devaki N.S. 1997. Phomopsis azadirachtae sp. nov. from India. Mycotaxon 65: 517–520.
8.
Shankara Bhat S., Sateesh M.K., Devaki N.S. 1998. A new destructive disease of neem (Azadirachta indica)incited by Phomopsis azadirachtae. Curr. Sci. 74: 17–19.
9.
Sharifi-Tehrani A., Shakiba M., Okhovat M., Zakeri Z. 2005. Biological control of Tiarosporella phaseolina the causal agent of charcoal rot of soybean. Commun. Agric. Appl. Biol. Sci. 70: 189–192.
10.
Siddiqui I.A., Ehteshamul-Haque S. 2001. Suppression of the root rot-root knot disease complex by Pseudomonas aeruginosa in tomato: The influence of inoculum density, nematode populations, moisture and other plant-associated bacteria. Plant Soil 237: 81–89.
11.
Singh D.P., Maurya S., Prakash O.M., Singh U.P. 2005. Phenolic composition and antifungal activity of culture filtrate of Leptoxyphium axillatum. Indian Phytopath. 58: 143–148.
12.
Sunish Kumar R., Ayyadurai N., Pandiaraja P., Reddy A.V., Venkateswarlu Y., Prakash O., Sakthivel N. 2005. Characterization of antifungal metabolite produced by a new strain Pseudomonas aeruginosa PUPa3 that exhibits broadspectrum antifungal activity and biofertilizing traits. J. Appl. Microbiol. 98: 145–154.
13.
Thinggaard K. 1988. Biological control of root pathogenic fungi by Trichoderma. In: Symposium on Horticultural Substrates and their Analysis (J. Willumsen, ed.). ISHS Acta Horticulturae 221, Gl. Avernaes, Funen, p. 212.
14.
Wani A.H. 2005. Biological control of wilt of brinjal caused by Fusarium oxysporum with some fungal antagonists. Indian Phytopath. 58: 228–231.
15.
Zhang W., Watson A.K. 2000. Isolation and partial characterization of phytotoxins produced by Exserohilum monoceras, a potential bioherbicide for control of Echinochloa species. p. 125–130. In: Proc. of the X International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds (N.R. Spencer, ed.). Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA.
RELATED ARTICLE
