Evaluation of selected microbial strains and commercial alternative products as seed treatments for the control of Tilletia tritici, Fusarium culmorum, Drechslera graminea and D. teres

Koch, Eckhard; Weil, Brita; Wächter, Rebecca; Wohlleben, S.; Spieß, Hartmut; Krauthausen, H. J.

doi:10.1007/bf03356172

Cited by 25 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1997; Borgen and Kristensen 2007), organic nutrients (Becker and Weltzien 1993) and elicitors of plant resistance (Buzi et al. 2004; Koch et al. 2006).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1994; Reddy et al. 1999; Tronsmo 2005); and Tillekur (a commercial product) recently shown to provide some activity against seed‐borne diseases in cereals (Koch et al. 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is also pressure to remove pesticide seed treatments from 'low-input' crop production. While there has been progress in developing biological seed treatments for soil-borne diseases (Berger et al 1996;Georgakopoulos et al 2002;Bennett et al and the potential elicitors of plant resistance Chitosan, shown to induce resistance against Fusarium crown and root rot when applied as a seed coating on tomato seeds (Benhamou et al 1994;Reddy et al 1999;Tronsmo 2005); and Tillekur (a commercial product) recently shown to provide some activity against seed-borne diseases in cereals (Koch et al 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effect of alternative treatments on seed-borneDidymella lycopersiciin tomato

Kasselaki

Malathrakis

Goumas

et al. 2008

Journal of Applied Microbiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1997; Borgen and Kristensen 2007), organic nutrients (Becker and Weltzien 1993) and elicitors of plant resistance (Buzi et al. 2004; Koch et al. 2006).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1994; Reddy et al. 1999; Tronsmo 2005); and Tillekur (a commercial product) recently shown to provide some activity against seed‐borne diseases in cereals (Koch et al. 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of alternative treatments on seed-borneDidymella lycopersiciin tomato

Kasselaki

Malathrakis

Goumas

et al. 2008

Journal of Applied Microbiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Numerous experimental and commercialized micro-organisms have been examined as seed treatments on wheat against common bunt (Hökeberg et al 1997;Koch et al 2004;Koch et al 2006;Goates and Mercier 2011). However, so far only the bacterium Pseudomonas chlororaphis MA342 has been commercialised and is marketed in Europe as an oil-based formulation (Cedomon®) for hulled seeds (like barley) and as a water-based formulation (Cerall®) for non-hulled seeds (like wheat).…”

Section: Common Bunt Of Wheatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-chemical Seed Treatment in the Control of Seed-Borne Pathogens

Koch¹,

Roberts²

2014

Global Perspectives on the Health of Seeds and Plant Propagation Material

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-chemical seed treatments include physical treatments, microbial treatments and treatments with other agents of natural origin like plant powders or extracts. Physical treatments with hot water, aerated steam, or dry heat have successfully been applied to a range of crops against a range of target pathogens and are in commercial use primarily for vegetable seeds. They can be very effective but need to be optimised on a per seed lot basis.Microbial seed treatments may control not only seed-borne pathogens but also provide some protection against pathogenic soil-borne inoculum. However, research on the use of micro-organisms as seed treatments has been limited, and there are only a few examples of commercial use. The latter is also true for botanical seed treatments, despite many reports of bactericidal and fungicidal effects of compounds from plants. The reason may be a lack of research on the one hand but mainly commercial constraints like development and registration costs in relation to market size.The current chapter gives an overview of approaches that have been taken to utilize the above-described non-chemical methods for control of important seedborne pathogens of vegetables and small grain cereals. The examples treated include bacterial (black rot of brassicas, pea bacterial blight, bacterial blotch of cucurbits, black chaff of cereals), fungal (Alternaria diseases of carrot, black leg of brassicas, common bunt of wheat, Fusarium seedling diseases of small grain cereals, the loose smuts of barley and wheat, fungal diseases of rice and sorghum) and important viral diseases.

show abstract

“…Liquid manure (Borgen et al 1995), copper sulphate plus lime (Lukanowski 2006), the mustard powder Tellecur (Koch et al 2006;Waldow and Jahn 2007;Winter et al 2001), skim milk powder (Winter et al 2001), acetic acid vapour (Sholberg et al 2006) and strains of Pseudomonas (Hokeberg et al 1997) have all shown some efficacy against common bunt. Koch et al (2006) tested numerous products for common bunt efficacy that included plant-based materials and several strains of both actinomycetes and Trichoderma. They concluded that the mustard powder Tellecur was the only product that provided a practical level of common bunt control.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Control of common bunt of wheat under field conditions with the biofumigant fungus Muscodor albus

Goates

Mercier

2011

Eur J Plant Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field experiments were conducted to evaluate the biological control potential of the fungus Muscodor albus, when applied as a seed treatment or an in furrow soil treatment, for control of common bunt (CB) of wheat caused by Tilletia caries. For seed treatments, dry rye grain culture of M. albus was ground into powder and applied, at a rate of 125 mg/g seed, to wheat seed infested with T. caries teliospores. The culture was also cracked into particles and applied in furrow at the rate of 4 g/m of row, along with teliospore infested seed during planting. Treatments were evaluated during two growing seasons and two planting dates beginning in early spring when soil temperatures were optimal for disease development (5-10°C), and then approximately 3 weeks later. In the first year, treatments in the first seeding date reduced CB from 44% diseased spikes in untreated controls to 12% and 9% in seed and in furrow treatments respectively, and from 6% in controls to 0% in both treatments in the second seeding date. In the second year, CB was reduced from 8% in controls to 0.5% and 0.25% for seed and in furrow treatments respectively in the first seeding date, and from 0.75% in controls to 0% in both the treatments in the second seeding date. M. albus may have potential for CB control in organic wheat production where options for managing the disease are very limited.

show abstract

Evaluation of selected microbial strains and commercial alternative products as seed treatments for the control of Tilletia tritici, Fusarium culmorum, Drechslera graminea and D. teres

Cited by 25 publications

References 7 publications

Effect of alternative treatments on seed-borneDidymella lycopersiciin tomato

Effect of alternative treatments on seed-borneDidymella lycopersiciin tomato

Non-chemical Seed Treatment in the Control of Seed-Borne Pathogens

Control of common bunt of wheat under field conditions with the biofumigant fungus Muscodor albus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About