Control of Bacterial Spot on Tomato in the Greenhouse and Field with H-mutant Bacteriophages

Abstract

<jats:p>A mixture of host-range mutant (h-mutant) bacteriophages specific for tomato race 1 (T1) and race 3 (T3) of the bacterial spot pathogen, <jats:italic>Xanthomonas campestris</jats:italic> pv. <jats:italic>vesicatoria</jats:italic> (Doidge) Dye was evaluated for biological control of bacterial spot on `Sunbeam' tomato (<jats:italic>Lycopersicon esculentum</jats:italic> Mill.) transplants and field-grown plants for two seasons (Fall 1997 and Fall 1998). Foliar applications of bacteriophages were compared with similar applications of water (control) and of copper/mancozeb bactericides, the commonly used chemical control strategy for tomato seedling and field production. In 1997, the incidence of bacterial spot on greenhouse-grown seedlings was reduced from 40.5% (control) to 5.5% or 0.9% for bactericide- or bacteriophage-treated plants, respectively. In 1998, the incidence of bacterial spot was 17.4% on control plants vs. 5.5% and 2.7% for bactericide- and bacteriophage-treated plants, respectively, although these differences were not statistically significant at <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> ≤ 0.05. Applications of bacteriophages to field-grown tomatoes decreased disease severity as measured by the area under the disease progress curve (AUDPC) by 17.5% (1997) and 16.8% (1998) compared with untreated control plants. Preharvest plant vigor ratings, taken twice during each field season, were higher in the bacteriophage-treated plants than in either bactericide-treated plants or nontreated controls except for the early vigor rating in 1998. Use of bacteriophages increased total weight of extra-large fruit 14.9% (1997) and 24.2% (1998) relative to that of nontreated control plants, and 37.8% (1997) and 23.9% (1998) relative to that of plants treated with the chemical bactericides. Chemical names used: manganese, zinc, carboxyethylene bis dithiocarbamate (mancozeb).</jats:p>

Induction of defence-related enzymes in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) plants treated with Bacillus subtilis CBR05 against Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria

“…Recently, some biological methods were used successfully to control tomato bacterial diseases (Flaherty et al, 2000;Louws et al, 2001;Balogh et al, 2003;Obradovic et al, 2005;Ji et al, 2006). Among biological control methods, endophytic bacteria are also one of the most reliable and ecologically as well as economically sustainable alternatives to chemical pesticides (Klopper et al, 1999;Rajendran et al, 2006Rajendran et al, , 2007Ryan et al, 2008;Nagendran et al, 2013).…”

Insights into epidemiology and control of diseases of annual plants caused by the Pseudomonas syringae species complex

“…Finally, the use of bacteriophages is another form of biological control and has been successful for managing several annual plant diseases (Jones et al 2007(Jones et al , 2012. Phages were reported to have a high degree of specificity against P. syringae disease on tomato (Cupples 1983;Flaherty et al 2000). The authors indicated that these phages lysed 90 % of the virulent tomato strains tested.…”

Comparative analysis of two bacteriophages of Xanthomonas arboricola pv. juglandis

“…vesicatoria which is responsible for leaf spot disease on peppers and tomatoes (Flaherty et al, 2000;Obradovic et al, 2004), Xanthomonas campestris pv. pelargonii causing bacterial blight in geraniums (Flaherty et al, 2001), Xanthomonas axonopodis pv.…”