Biological Control of Plant Diseases 1992
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4757-9468-7_20
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Biological Control of Damping-Off Diseases with Seed Treatments

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

1996
1996
2008
2008

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, more insights into the mechanisms that govern the interactions between bacteria, plant, and pathogen are needed. Biocontrol bacteria can mediate their role in disease suppression through various mechanisms including competition for nutrients and niches (Paulitz 1990), production of antimicrobial metabolites (Lugtenberg et al 1991;Dunne et al 1996;Keel and Defago 1997;O'Sullivan and O'Gara 1992;Thomashow and Weller 1995), and induced systemic resistance (ISR) in the host plant (van Peer et al 1991;Leeman et al 1995a;Pieterse et al 1996).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, more insights into the mechanisms that govern the interactions between bacteria, plant, and pathogen are needed. Biocontrol bacteria can mediate their role in disease suppression through various mechanisms including competition for nutrients and niches (Paulitz 1990), production of antimicrobial metabolites (Lugtenberg et al 1991;Dunne et al 1996;Keel and Defago 1997;O'Sullivan and O'Gara 1992;Thomashow and Weller 1995), and induced systemic resistance (ISR) in the host plant (van Peer et al 1991;Leeman et al 1995a;Pieterse et al 1996).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Seed treatment is ideal for introducing antagonists to control specific pathogens because it allows the antagonist to be placed where it is most needed, and, the antagonist's growth can be supported by the plant it protects. It has long been viewed as one of the most practical delivery systems for biological control agents (Paulitz, 1992), and offers a number of advantages over in‐furrow or other bulk soil applications. Previous studies showed that biological seed treatment was effective against damping‐off pathogens on a variety of legumes, such as soybean (Osburn et al., 1995), chickpea (Trapero‐Casas et al., 1990), pea (Harman et al., 1989) and snap bean (Harman et al., 1989).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Interestingly, no major changes in gene expression in the plant have been related to the ISR state. Several lines of experimental evidence have shown that seed treatments with bacterial or fungal antagonists were effective in protecting germinating embryos and seedlings from the damaging action of root pathogens (Paulitz 1992). Besides, several soilborne rhizosphere bacteria and fungi have been shown to induce systemic resistance in plants against pathogens (Demeyer et al 1998;van Loon et al 1998).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, colonization of tomato roots by Glomus mosseae reduce disease development in plants infected with Phytophthora parasitica, and the involvement of plant defense mechanisms has been pointed out (Pozo et al 1996;Cordier et al 1998;Pozo et al 1998;Pozo et al 1999;Pozo et al 2002b). Although the basic mechanisms behind pathogen inhibition are not clearly defined, the possibility that antibiosis, mycoparasitism and competition may operate synergistically has been suggested (Paulitz, 1992).Alterations in the isoenzymatic patterns and biochemical properties of some defenserelated enzymes such as chitinases (Pozo et al 1996), chitosanases (Pozo et al 1998) and β-1,3-glucanases (Pozo et al 1999) have previously been show during mycorrhizal colonization of tomato roots, with the induction of new isoforms. These hydrolytic enzymes are believed to have a role in defense against invading fungal pathogens because of their potential to hydrolyse fungal cell wall polysaccharides (Simmons, 1994).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%