In vitro inhibition of mycelial growth of Phytophthora nicotianae Breda de Haan from different hosts by Brassicaceae species. Effect of the developmental stage of the biofumigant plants

Abstract

The developmental stage of plants has an influence on the biofumigant potential of Brassicaceae species against P. nicotianae. The isolates differ in susceptibility to compounds released, depending on their host of origin, suggesting the differentiation of populations of P. nicotianae in relation to the host of origin.

Volatile Organic Compounds from Native Potato-associated Pseudomonas as Potential Anti-oomycete Agents

“…The mucilage surrounding the root cap, the porous nature of soil and the stomatal chamber space offer space-restricted niches where accumulation of VOCs can happen and where both bacteria and the pathogen can interact. The nascent concept of biofumigation ( Matthiessen and Shackleton, 2005 ; Goates and Mercier, 2009 ; Morales-Rodriguez et al, 2012 ) envisages the application of natural bioactive compounds such as the plant-growth promoting, sulfur-containing DMDS ( Meldau et al, 2013 ), already in use as suppressive soil fumigant in agriculture ( Auger et al, 1989 ; Van Wambeke et al, 2009 ), via the enrichment of VOC-producing microorganisms to target pathogens. Therefore, the isolation, characterization, selection and stable reintroduction of native plant-associated bacteria into potato crops promises an efficient and sustainable strategy to manage late blight at low costs.…”

Efficacy of Biofumigation with Brassica carinata Commercial Pellets (BioFence) to Control Vegetative and Reproductive Structures of Phytophthora cinnamomi

“…For example, the inhibition of P. erythroseptica colony growth of at 100 and 26% was demonstrated by Larkin and Griffin (2007) using biofumigation with B. juncea and S. alba plant material, respectively. Morales-Rodríguez et al (2012) also demonstrated mycelial growth inhibition of P. nicotianae by biofumigation with plant tissues of different Brassicaceae spp. The impact of biofumigation on mycelial growth and survival is not sufficient to demonstrate its efficacy to control soilborne pathogens such us Phytophthora spp.…”

“…Thus far, few studies concerning biofumigation have focused on its efficacy against soilborne Phytophthora spp. Morales-Rodríguez et al (2012) reported that fresh tissues of Sinapis alba, B. carinata, B. nigra, and B. oleracea were effective in inhibiting the mycelial growth of P. nicotianae. Dunne et al (2003) reported the suppressed growth of P. cinnamomi, P. cactorum, P. citricola, P. cryptogea, and P. megasperma with B. juncea and a mixture of two varieties of B. napus tissues.…”

Uncovering the biofumigant capacity of allyl isothiocyanate from several Brassicaceae crops against Fusarium pathogens in maize

“…In past and recent literature, cruciferous plants releasing ITCs upon tissue damage have proven to be toxic against nematodes, [25][26][27][28] insects, 23,29 weeds 23,30 and fungi, including Gaeumannomyces graminis, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, Bipolaris sorokiniana, Rhizoctonia solani, Phytophthora spp., Pythium spp. and Fusarium spp., [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] with an overall correlation between the maximum potential ITC release of each crop and its toxicity. However, no assessment has been made about the actual release of volatile ITCs after fresh plant tissue maceration in realistic conditions, without exogenously adding water or myrosinase.…”

“…32,33,37,47,50 The GSL and ITC profile of the selected crop is not the only factor influencing biofumigation efficiency in practice. The crop needs to be in the right developmental stage, preferably at the flowering stage when the highest accumulation of glucosinolates takes place, 36,51 and also needs to be macerated and incorporated thoroughly. 52,53 Irrigation can improve hydrolysis if the soil was rather dry during incorporation.…”