Advertisement

Application of maximum quantum yield, a parameter of chlorophyll fluorescence, for early determination of bacterial wilt in tomato seedlings

  • Ji Hyeon Kim
  • Shiva Ram Bhandari
  • Soo Young Chae
  • Myeong Cheoul Cho
  • Jun Gu LeeEmail author
Research Report
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

Bacterial wilt caused by Ralstonia solanacearum is a devastating disease that limits tomato seedling and fruit production. Monitoring and early detection are required to effectively manage and reduce the spread of this disease. Seedlings of 30 tomato accessions from three Solanum spp. that came from different countries were grown under greenhouse conditions. Seedlings at the 4-leaf stage were inoculated with R. solanacearum. Disease severity was monitored using the chlorophyll fluorescence parameter (maximum quantum yield; Fv/Fm) until 5 days post inoculation (dpi). Visual symptoms were recorded daily until 16 dpi, and compared with non-infected control seedlings. Fv/Fm started to decrease at 2 dpi in most of the accessions and reached the lowest values at 5 dpi. Visual symptoms started to appear at 3 dpi for 16 accessions, and all of the moderately resistant and susceptible accessions showed visual symptoms at 5 dpi excluding four highly resistant accessions showing non visual disease index at 5 dpi. Finally, 17 accessions were susceptible to R. solanacearum, resulting in visual disease indices (DI) at 3–4 dpi and Fv/Fm values between 0.00 and 0.55. These plants died at the end of the experiment. Nine accessions were moderately resistant to R. solanacearum, showing visual DI values of 1–2 and Fv/Fm values between 0.55 and 0.65. However, four accessions were highly resistant to bacterial wilt and had visual DI values of 0 and Fv/Fm values between 0.65 and 0.83. Furthermore, the resistant genotypes did not show any changes in their visual DI until 16 dpi. Collectively, these results indicate that, depending on the genotype, R. solanacearum infection can be precisely predicted 1–2 days before visual symptoms appear in tomato seedlings. The chlorophyll fluorescence parameter can also be used to accurately screen for moderately resistant accessions.

Keywords

Biotic stress Maximum quantum yield Ralstonia solanacearum Tomato seedlings Visual symptoms 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Institute of Horticultural & Herbal Science, Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea (PJ013561022019).

Author contributions

KJH grew seedlings and performed the experiment. BSR analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. CSY and CMC revised the manuscript. LJG designed the experiment, analyzed the data, and revised the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

References

  1. Anith KN, Momol MT, Kloepper JW, Marois JJ, Olson SM, Jones JB (2004) Efficacy of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria, acibenzolar-S-methyl, and soil amendment for integrated management of bacterial wilt on tomato. Plant Dis 88:669–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker NR, Rosenqvist E (2004) Applications of chlorophyll fluorescence can improve crop production strategies: an examination of future possibilities. J Exp Bot 55:1607–1621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbagallo RP, Oxborough K, Pallett KE, Baker NR (2003) Rapid noninvasive screening for perturbations of metabolism and plant growth using chlorophyll fluorescence imaging. Plant Phys 132:485–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baron M, Pineda M, Perez-Bueno ML (2016) Picturing pathogen infection in plants. Z Naturforsch C 71:355–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhandari SR, Kim YH, Lee JG (2018) Detection of temperature stress using chlorophyll fluorescence parameters and stress-related chlorophyll and proline content in paprika (Capsicum annuum L.) seedlings. Hortic Sci Technol 36:619–629Google Scholar
  6. Bonfig KB, Schreiber U, Gabler A, Roitsch T, Berger S (2006) Infection with virulent and avirulent P. syringae strains differentially affects photosynthesis and sink metabolism in Arabidopsis leaves. Planta 225:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cruz APZ, Ferreira V, Pianzzola MJ, Siri MI, Coll NS, Valls M (2014) A novel, sensitive method to evaluate potato germplasm for bacterial wilt resistance using luminescent Ralstonia solanacearum reporter strain. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 27:277–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Csefalvay L, Di Gaspero G, Matous K, Bellin D, Ruperti B, Olejnickova J (2009) Pre-symptomatic detection of Plasmopara viticola infection in grapevine leaves using chlorophyll fluorescence imaging. Eur J Plant Pathol 125:291–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elphinstone JG (2005) The current bacterial wilt situation: a global overview. In: Allen C, Prior P, Hayward AC (eds) Bacterial wilt disease and the Ralstonia solanacearum species complex. American Phytopathological Society Press, St. Paul, pp 9–28Google Scholar
  10. Genin S, Boucher C (2004) Lessons learned from the genome analysis of Ralstonia solanacearum. Annu Rev Phytopathol 42:107–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gorbe E, Calatayud A (2012) Application of chlorophyll fluorescence imaging technique in horticultural research. Sci Hortic 138:24–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harbinson J, Prinzenberg AE, Kruijer W, Aarts MGM (2012) High throughput screening with chlorophyll fluorescence imaging and its use in crop improvement. Curr Opin Biotech 23:221–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hayward AC (1991) Biology and epidemiology of bacterial wilt caused by Pseudomonas solanacearum. Ann Rev Phytopathol 29:65–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kim SG, Hur O-S, Ro N-Y, Ko H-C, Rhee J-H, Sung JS, Ryu K-Y, Lee S-Y, Baek HJ (2016) Evaluation of resistance to Ralstonia solanacearum in tomato genetic resources at seedling stage. Plant Pathol J 32:58–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kuckenberg J, Tartachnyk I, Schmitz-Eiberger M, Noga G (2007) Early detection of leaf rust and powdery mildew infections on wheat leaves by PAM fluorescence imaging. Precis Agric 8:515–521Google Scholar
  16. Lee JH, Lee J, Oh D-G (2018) Resistance of pepper cultivars to Ralstonia solanacearum isolates from major cultivated areas of chille peppers in Korea. Hortic Sci Technol 36:569–576Google Scholar
  17. Mahlein A-K (2016) Plant disease detection by imaging sensors-parallels and specific demands for precision agriculture and plant phenotyping. Plant Dis 100:240–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Martinelli F, Scalenghe R, Davino S, Panno S, Scuderi G, Ruisi P, Villa P, Stroppiana D, Boschetti M, Goulart LR, Davis CE, Dandekar AM (2015) Advanced methods of plant disease detection. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 35:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Maxwell K, Johnson GN (2000) Chlorophyll fluorescence-a practical guide. J Exp Bot 51:659–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Muthoni J, Shimelis H, Melis R (2012) Management of bacterial wilt of potatoes: opportunities for host resistance in Kenya. J Agric Sci 4:64–78Google Scholar
  21. Nedbal L, Whitmarsh J (2004) Chlorophyll fluorescence imaging of leaves and fruits. In: Papageorgiou CG, Govindjee CG (eds) Chlorophyll a fluorescence: a signature photosynthesis. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 389–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Peeters N, Guidot A, Vailleau F, Valls M (2013) Ralstonia solanacearum, a widespread bacterial plant pathogen in the post-genomic era. Mol Plant Pathol 14:651–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pineda M, Perez-Bueno ML, Baron M (2018) Detection of bacterial infection in melon plants by classification methods based on imaging data. Front Plant Sci 9:164.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00164 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Ribeiro RV, Machado EC, Oliveira RF (2003) Early photosynthetic responses of sweet orange plants infected with Xylella fastidiosa. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 62:167–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Roberts DP, Denny TP, Schell MA (1988) Cloning of the egl gene of Pseudomonas solanacearum and analysis of its role in phytopathogenicity. J Bacteriol 170:1445–1451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rolfe SA, Scholes JD (2010) Chlorophyll fluorescence imaging of plant–pathogen interactions. Protoplasma 247:163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rousseau C, Belin E, Bove E, Rousseau D, Fabre F, Berruyer R, Guillaumes J, Manceau C, Jacques M-A, Boureau T (2013) High throughput quantitative phenotyping of plant resistance using chlorophyll fluorescence image analysis. Plant Meth 9:17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Singh D, Yadav DK, Sinha S, Choudhary G (2014) Effect of temperature, cultivars, injury of root and inoculums load of Ralstonia solanacerum to cause bacterial wilt of tomato. Arch Phytopathol Plant Protect 47:1574–1583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yuliar, Nion YA, Toyota K (2015) Recent trends in control methods for bacterial wilt disease caused by Ralstonia solanacearum. Microbes Environ 30:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zou JJ, Rodriguez-Zas S, Aldea M, Li M, Zhu J, Gonzalez DO, Vodkin LO, DeLucia E, Clough SJ (2005) Expression profiling soybean response to Pseudomonas syringae reveals new defense related genes and rapid HR-specific down regulation of photosynthesis. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact 18:1161–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society for Horticultural Science 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Horticulture, College of Agriculture and Life SciencesChonbuk National UniversityJeonjuRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Vegetable Research DivisionNational Institute of Horticultural and Herbal Science, RDAWanjuRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Institute of Agricultural Science and TechnologyChonbuk National UniversityJeonjuRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations