2006
DOI: 10.1080/09583150500532196
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Induction of plant defence compounds by Pseudomonas chlororaphis PA23 and Bacillus subtilis BSCBE4 in controlling damping-off of hot pepper caused by Pythium aphanidermatum

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
27
0
5

Year Published

2010
2010
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 80 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
1
27
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…It was determined that the PGPR applications could be able to increase plant growth, germination rate of seed, improve transplant emergence, response to stress conditions and protect from disease (Elkinci et al 2014), such as Azospirillum, Pseudomonas and Azotobacter have significant impact on seed germination and transplant growth (Shaukat et al 2006a, b, Nezarat andGholami 2009). Application of strains BSCBE4 and PA23 at the rate of 20 g kg -1 of seed significantly increased the growth of hot pepper seedling (Nakkeeran et al 2006). According to Kokalis-Burelle et al (2003) PGPR could be used to obtain standard sized transplant in less time and a more vigorous transplant for transplant production.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It was determined that the PGPR applications could be able to increase plant growth, germination rate of seed, improve transplant emergence, response to stress conditions and protect from disease (Elkinci et al 2014), such as Azospirillum, Pseudomonas and Azotobacter have significant impact on seed germination and transplant growth (Shaukat et al 2006a, b, Nezarat andGholami 2009). Application of strains BSCBE4 and PA23 at the rate of 20 g kg -1 of seed significantly increased the growth of hot pepper seedling (Nakkeeran et al 2006). According to Kokalis-Burelle et al (2003) PGPR could be used to obtain standard sized transplant in less time and a more vigorous transplant for transplant production.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In several studies, the quantification of activity of enzymes involved in the induction of resistance has been used as a parameter to assess the induction mechanism (biotic or abiotic) involved (Knorzera et al 1999;Campos et al 2004;Nakkeeran et al 2006;Silva et al 2004;Halfeld-Vieira et al 2006;Saikia et al 2006). The increase in activity and accumulation of these enzymes depend mainly on the inducing agent but also the genotype of the plant, physiological conditions, and the pathogen (Tuzun 2001).…”
Section: Induced Systemic Resistance As a Mechanism Of Disease Supprementioning
confidence: 99%
“…From earthworm's intestine, new Streptomyces isolate has been reported which showed antimicrobial activity against pathogenic fungi and bacteria (Aruna et al 2008) and also few Actinomycetes isolates with chitinase and proteinase activity (Gopalakrishnan et al 2011), and the presence of these biological factors in liquid products derived from the VC invariably has an important role in enzyme degradation of root-knot nematode cuticle and the egg wall. Azotobacteria as well as Pseudomonases have been reported in these compounds (Nakkeeran et al 2006) and these bacteria producing various metabolites inhibit nematode egg hatching (Sikora and Hoffmann-Hergarten 1993). In total, earthworm products are the very active biological compounds of bacteria and enzymes and can be considered as nematode ovicidal as well as larvicidal factors, and at the same time there are some other unknown factors which need to be explored.…”
Section: Nematode Larvicidal Effects Of Liquid Earthworm Productsmentioning
confidence: 99%