| تعداد نشریات | 286 |
| تعداد نشریات سازمان | 84 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 3,029 |
| تعداد مقالات | 33,888 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 45,263,962 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 60,902,447 |
مهار زیستی نماتد ریشه گرهی کیوی (Meloidogyne incognita) با استفاده از باکتریهای پروبیوتیک | ||
| مهار زیستی در گیاه‌پزشکی | ||
| دوره 11، شماره 1، شهریور 1402، صفحه 35-47 اصل مقاله (585.75 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22092/bcpp.2024.364564.358 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| سالار جمالی* 1؛ سیده نگین میرقاسمی2؛ اعظم طاهری3؛ پژمان خدایگان4 | ||
| 1دانشیار، گروه گیاه‌پزشکی، دانشکده علوم کشاورزی، دانشگاه گیلان، رشت، گیلان، ایران. | ||
| 2دانشجوی دکتری تخصصی بیماری‌شناسی گیاهی، گروه گیاه‌پزشکی دانشکده کشاورزی دانشگاه گیلان، رشت، گیلان، ایران. | ||
| 3مربی، گروه گیاه‌پزشکی، دانشکده علوم کشاورزی، دانشگاه گیلان، رشت، گیلان، ایران. | ||
| 4دانشیار، گروه گیاه‌پزشکی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه ولی عصر رفسنجان، رفسنجان، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| نماتدهای ریشه گرهی (.Meloidogyne spp) از مهمترین نماتدهای خسارتزا در بین نماتدهای انگل گیاهی بوده و خسارت قابل توجهی به محصولات کشاورزی وارد مینمایند. باکتریهای پروبیوتیک، با اثرگذاری مستقیم بر بیمارگرها و القای مقاومت و تحریک رشد گیاهان، ازکارایی بالایی جهت کنترل بیماریهای گیاهی برخوردارند. در این تحقیق، از سه گونه پروبیوتیک Pseudomonas chlororaphis RO1، Bacillus subtilis RO9 وBacillus subtilis RO8 جهت کنترل نماتد ریشه گرهی کیوی در شرایط آزمایشگاه،گلخانه و باغ استفاده گردید. شاخصهای آلودگی به نماتد شامل تعداد گال، توده تخم، جمعیت لارو و تخم در هر گرم ریشه، تعداد لاروهای سن دوم در صد گرم خاک و فاکتور تولیدمثل مورد ارزیابی قرار گرفتند. بررسی گلخانهای در قالب طرح کاملاً تصادفی با 11 تیمار و سه تکرار برای هر مرحله و آزمایش باغی در قالب بلوکهای کامل تصادفی با چهار تیمار و سه تکرار در باغ کیوی واقع در منطقه پاشاکی از توابع شهرستان سیاهکل اجرا شد. جمعیت نماتدها در خاک و ریشه قبل از اعمال تیمارها و در پایان تحقیق مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. نتایج نشان داد که تمامی تیمارها در کنترل شاخصهای آلودگی به نماتد موفق عمل نموده و با تیمار شاهد دارای اختلاف معنیدار بودند. در شرایط آزمایشگاهی، باکتریB. subtilis RO9 با ایجاد 8/48 درصد مرگ و میر در لاروها ، بیشترین تأثیر را از خود نشان داد. همچنین در شرایط گلخانه، کاربرد مجدد باکتریهای RO9 B. subtilis و RO1 P. chlororaphis منجر به کاهش چشمگیری در تعداد گال، توده تخم و جمعیت لارو سن دوم نماتد در خاک و همچنین جمعیت تخم و لارو نماتد در ریشه گردید. نتایج آزمایش باغی نشان داد که بعد از نماتدکش راگبی، باکتری RO9 B. subtilis (2/41%) در کاهش جمعیت تخم و لارو در ریشه موثرتر از باکتری RO1 P. chlororaphis (1/%31) بوده است. باکتری RO1 P. chlororaphis در کاهش جمعیت لاروهای سن دوم در خاک و تعداد گال در ریشه (3/32%، 3/47 %)، بعد از نماتدکش راگبی، بهترین اثر را داشت. در کاهش فاکتور تولید مثل، هر دو جدایه باکتری (64/0 و 7/0) با تفاوت کمی نسبت به نماتدکش راگبی (41/0)، عملکرد مطلوبی از خود نشان دادند. در مراحل آزمایشگاهی و گلخانهای، اثر تیمار تلفیقی (کاربرد توأم دو باکتریRO1 و RO9) نسبت به کاربرد هر یک از آنها به تنهایی، روی شاخصهای بیماریزایی نماتد قابل توجه نبود. نتایج این پژوهش نشان داد که استفاده از باکتریهای پروبیوتیک P. chlororaphis RO1 و B .s subtilis RO9در دو نوبت کاربرد می‌تواند در کنترل نماتد مورد توجه قرار گرفته و جا دارد که اثر باکتری روی خسارت نماتد و شاخصهای عملکرد گیاه بررسی شود. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| پروبیوتیک؛ Pseudomonas chlororaphis؛ Bacillus subtilis؛ شاخصهای زیستی؛ نماتد ریشه گرهی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Biological control of the root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne incognita) in kiwifruit using probiotic bacteria | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Salar Jamali1؛ seyyede negin mirghasemi2؛ Azam Taheri3؛ Pezhman Khodaygan4 | ||
| 1Associate Professor, Department of Plant Protection, School of Agriculture. University of Guilan, Rasht, Guilan, Iran. | ||
| 2Ph.D. Student, , Department of Plant Protection, School of Agriculture. University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran. | ||
| 3Instructor, Department of Plant Protection, School of Agriculture. University of Guilan, Rasht, Guilan, Iran. | ||
| 4. Associate Professor, Department of Plant Protection. Vali–E–Asr University of Rafsanjan, Rafsanjan, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Root knot nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.) are one of the most damaging nematodes among plant parasitic nematodes and cause significant damage to agricultural products. Probiotic bacteria, by having a direct effect on the pathogen, inducing plant resistance and stimulating plant growth, have shown high efficiency in controlling plant diseases. In this study, three species probiotic bacteria Pseudomonas chlororaphis RO1, Bacillus subtilis RO9, and Bacillus subtilis RO8 were used to control root–knot nematodes under laboratory, greenhouse, and kiwifruit orchard conditions. The nematode infection indices including gall number, egg mass number per gram of root, population of juveniles and eggs per gram of root, number of second–stage juveniles per 100 grams of soil, and the reproduction factor were evaluated. In the laboratory conditions, this investigation was carried out in a completely randomized design with 11 treatments and three replicates for each stage, while the field experiment was conducted in complete randomized blocks with four treatments and three replicates in a kiwifruit orchard located in the Pashaki region of Siahkal and the population of nematodes in the soil and roots was investigated before applying the treatments and also at the end of the research. The results showed that all treatments were successful in controlling nematode infection indices and significantly differed from the control treatment. So, they caused the reduction of nematode infection indices in all the investigated indicators. In the laboratory conditions, bacteria Bacillus subtilis RO9 showed the highest impact, with an increase in larval mortality rate (48.8%) compared to the control. Additionally, in the greenhouse conditions, the reapplication of, B. subtilis RO9 and P. chlororaphis RO1 bacteria led to a significant decrease in the number of galls, egg mass, and population of second–stage juveniles in the soil, as well as the population of eggs and juveniles in the roots. The field experiment results indicated that after Rugby nematicide, the B. subtilis RO9 bacteria (41.2%) was more effective than the P. chlororaphis RO1 bacteria (31.1%) in reducing ‘eggs and juveniles’ population in the roots. P. chlororaphis RO1 bacteria had the best effect in reducing the population of second–stage juveniles in the soil and the number of galls in the root (32.3%, 47.3%), after Rugby nematicide. Both bacterial strains showed very favorable performance in reducing the reproduction factor with (0.64 and 0.7), with little difference compared to the chemical nematicide Rugby (0.41). In different stages of the experiment (laboratory and greenhouse), the combined treatment (simultaneous application of both bacteria RO1 and RO9) was not significantly effective in nematode disease indices compared to the individual application of these bacteria. Therefore, the results indicated that the use of probiotic bacteria P. chlororaphis RO1 and B. subtilis RO9 at two times can control the nematode and it is worthwhile to investigate the effect of bacteria on nematode damage and plant performance indicators. . | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| probiotic, Bacillus subtilis, Pseudomonas chlororaphis, biological indices, root–knot nematode | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Anonymous. 2011. Agriculture data collection, Ministry of Agriculture. Planning and Economic Assistance, Office of Statistics and Information Technology, Tehran, Iran.
Abd–El–Khair, H., El–Nagdi, W.M.A., Youssef, M.M.A., A. Abd–Elgawad, M.M.M. & Dawood, M.G. 2019. Protective effect of Bacillus subtilis, B. pumilus, and Pseudomonas fluorescens isolates against root knot nematode Meloidogyne incognita on cowpea. Bulletin of the National Research Centre. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42269–019–0108–8.
Alizadeh, M., Vasebi, Y. & Safaie, N. 2020. Microbial antagonists against plant pathogens in Iran: A review. Open Agriculture 5(1): 404–440.
Ashoub, A. & Amara, H. 2010. Biocontrol activity of some bacterial genera against root–knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita. Journal of American Science, 6(10): 321–328.
Bashiri, S., Jamali, S., Golmohammadi, M. & Tanhamaafi, Z. 2012. Effect of antagonistic bacteria on kiwifruit rhizosphere in control of root knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.). University of Guilan. The thesis of master. (In Persian with English Summary).
Bent, E., Loffredo, A., McKenry, M.V. Becker, J.O. & Borneman, J. 2008. Detection and investigation of soil biological activity against Meloidogyne incognita. Journal of Nematology, 40(2): 109–118.
Bybd, D.W., Kirkpatrick, T. & Barker, K.R. 1983. An improved technique forclearing and staining plant tissues for detection of nematodes. Nematology, 15(1): 142–143.
Chen, J., Abawi G.S. & Zuckerman, B.M. 2000. Efficacy of Bacillus thurigensis, Paecilomyces marquandii, and Streptomyces costaricanus with and without organic amendments against Meloidogyne hapla infecting lettuce. Nematology, 32: 70–77
Chinheya, C.C., Yobo, K. S. & Laing, M.D. 2017. Biological control of the root knot nematode, Meloidogyne javanica (Chitwood) using Bacillus isolates, on soybean. Biological Control, 109: 37–41.
Compant, S., Duffy, B., Nowak, J., Clément, C. & Barka E.A. 2005. Use of Plant Growth–Promoting Bacteria for Biocontrol of Plant Diseases: Principles, Mechanisms of Action, and Future Prospects. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 71: 4951–4959. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.9.4951–4959.
Eisenback, J.D., Hirschmann, H., Sasser, J.N. & Triantaphyllou, A.C. 1981. A guide to the four most common species of root–knot nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.), with a pictorial key, p. 52.
Engelbrecht, G., Horak, I., Peet, J., van Rensburg, J. & Claassens, S. 2018. Bacillus–based bionematicides: Development, modes of action and commercialization. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 28(7): 629–653.
Forghani, F. & Hajihassani, A. 2020. Recent advances in the development of environmentally benign treatments to control root–knot nematodes. Frontiers in Plant Science, 11: 1125. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.01125.
Hartman, K.M. & Sasser, J.N. 1985. Identification of Meloidogyne species on the basis of differential host test and perineal–pattern morphology. pp. 69–77. In: K. R. Barker, C.C. Carter and J.N. Sasser (eds.), An Advanced Treatise on Meloidogyne. Vol. 2, Methodology. North Carolina State University, Graphics.
Hojjat Jalali, A.A. & Ghasempour, H. 2006. Biological control of plant parasitic nematodes, progress, problems and perspectives (Compilation: Graham, R Stirlling). Razi University of Kermanshah Publication, First Edition, 350p. (In Persian with English Summary).
Hussey, R.S. & Barker, K.R. 1973. A comparison of methods of collecting inocula of Meloidogyne spp. including a new technique. Plant Disease Reporter, 57: 1025–1028.
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.
Kavitha, P.G., Jonathan, E.I. & Nakkeeran, S. 2012. Effects of crude antibiotic of Bacillus subtilis on hatching of eggs and mortality of juveniles of Meloidogyne incognita. Nematologia Mediterranea, 40: 203–206.
Khan, M.R. & Tarannum, Z.1999. Effects of field application of various microorganisms on Meloidogyne incognita on tomato. Nematologia Mediterranea, 2: 7233–238.
Kim, H. &. Misaghi, I.J. 1996. Biocontrol Performance of Two Isolates of Pseudomonas fluorescens in Modified Soil Atmospheres. Phytopathology, 86: 1238–1241. DOI: 10.1094/Phyto–86–1238.
Kokalis–Burelle, N. & Samac, D.A. 2003. Use of gram–positive bacteria as biological control agents for plant parasitic nematodes. J. Nematol, 35: 347–348 (Abstr.).
Kokalis–Burelle, N. & Dickson, D.W. 2003. Effect of soil fumigants and BioYeildTM on root–knot nematode incidence and yield of tomato. In Proceedings of international research conference on methyl bromide: alternatives and emissions reductions. SaN Diego. pp 50.51– 50–53.
Lee, J.H., Ma, K.C., Juko, S., Kang, B.R., Kim, S. & Kim, Y.C. 2011. Nematicidal activity of a nonpathogenic biocontrol bacterium Pseudomonas chlororaphis 06. Current Microbiology, 62(3): 746–751.
Liao, C.H. & Shollenberger, L.M. 2003. Survivability and long–term preservation of bacteria in water and in phosphate–buffered saline. Letters in Applied Microbiology, 37(1): 47–50.
Maciag, T., Kozieł, E., Rusin, P., Otulak–Kozieł, K., Jafra, S. & Czajkowski, R. 2023. Microbial Consortia for Plant Protection against Diseases: More than the Sum of Its Parts.International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 24: 12227. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms241512227
Majzoob, S.H., Karegar Bideh, A. Taghavi, M. & Hamzeh Zarghani, H.A. 2012. Evaluation of rhizobacteria for antagonistic activity against root–knot nematode, Meloidogyne javanica on cucumber, under greenhouse condition. Iranian Journal of Plant Pathology, 48:69–84.
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. Biological control, 54: 83–89.
Meyer, S.L.F. 2003. Management of plant parasitic nematodes. Pest Management science, 59: 665–670.
Mhatre, P.H., Karthik, C., Kadirvelu, K., Divya, K.L., Venkatasalam, E.P., Srinivasan, S., Shanmuganathan, R. 2019. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): a potential alternative tool for nematodes bio–control. Biocatal Agri Biotechnol, 17: 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcab.2018.11.009.
Migunova, V.D. & Sasanelli, N. 2021. Bacteria as biocontrol tool against phytoparasitic nematodes. Plants, 10(2): 389. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants1002.0389.
Monazam, K. Jamali, S. & Alimi, M. 2022. Efficacy of Pseudomonas and Streptomyces strains on control of root knot nematode (Meloidogyne incognita) in tomato under greenhouse conditions. Iranian Journal of Nematology / Vol. 1 / No. 1 / 2022 / 118–127. (In Persian with English Summary).
Nam, H.S., Anderson, A.J. & Kim, Y.C. 2018. Biocontrol Efficacy of Formulated Pseudomonas chlororaphis O6 against Plant Diseases and Root–Knot Nematodes. The Plant Pathology Journal, 34(3): 241–249. https://doi.org/10.5423/PPJ.NT.12.2017.0264.
Padgham, J. & Sikora, R.A. 2007. Biological control potential and modes of action of Bacillus megaterium against Meloidogyne graminicola on rice. Crop Protection, 26: 971–977.
Sattar, Q.A. & Umar, D.M. 2011. Optimization of cultural conditions for protease production by Bacillus subtilis EFRL 01. African Journal of Biotechnology, 10(26): 5173–5181.
Schaad, N.W., Jones, J.B. & Chun, W. 2001. Laboratory guid for identification of plant pathogenic bacteria (Third edition). APS Press. 373 pp.
Sikora, R.A., Schafer, K. & Dababat, A.A. 2007. Modes of action associated with microbial Induced in planta suppression of plant–parasitic nematodes. Australasian Plant Pathology, 36: 124–134.
Soliman, G.M., Ameen, H.H., Abdel–Aziz, S.M. & El–Sayed, G.M. 2019. In vitro evaluation of some isolated bacteria against the plant parasite nematode Meloidogyne incognita. Bulletin of the National Research Centre, 43: 171.
Southey, J.F. 1970. Laboratory methods for work with plant and soil nematodes. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. London, 72pp.
Tanhamaafi, Z. & Mahdavian, S.I. 1997. Identification of species and races of Root–knot Nematode (Meloidogyne spp.) on kiwi and effect of M. incognita on kiwi seedling. Pests and Plant Diseases of Iran, 65: 1–11. (In Persian with English Summary).
Terefe, M., Tefera, T. & Sakhuja, P.K. 2009. Effect of a formulation of Bacillus firmus on root knot nematode Meloidogyne incognita infestation and the growth of tomato plants in the greenhouse and nursery. Journal Invertebrate Pathology, 100: 94–99.
Weller, D.M. 1988. Biological control of soilborne plant pathogens in the rhizosphere with bacteria. Annual Review Phytopathology, 26: 279–407.
Whitehead, A.G. & Hemming, J.R. 1965. A comparison of some quantitative methods of extracting small vermiform nematodes from soil. Annual Applied Biology, 55: 25–38.
Yahyavi Azad, A., Hosseinikhah Choshali, A. & Seyyed Ghasemi, S.S. 2023. Effect of Bacillus subtilis and chitosan in Biological Control of Root–knot Nematode, Meloidogyne incognita on Tomato. Biocontrol in Plant 163 Protection, 10(2): 153-163. (In Persian with English Summary). | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 566 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 276 |
||