Advertisement

Multiplication and movement of Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. vignicola and seed contamination in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) genotypes

  • Rachidatou SikirouEmail author
  • Kerstin Wydra
Article
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

The multiplication and systemic distribution of two Xan-thomonas axonopodis pv. vignicola strains from Benin differing in virulence were monitored after inoculation via leaf infiltration until 25 days post inoculation (dpi) in the susceptible cowpea genotype IT84E-124. The virulent strain multiplied fast in leaves to yield a final population density of about 109 colony forming units (cfu) cm−2 of leaf, spread through the whole aerial part of the plant within two weeks (106 cfu g−1 of stem) and caused blight, also on non-inoculated leaves at 15 dpi. In contrast, the less virulent strain multiplied slowly in leaves with a final population of about 102 cfu cm−2 of leaf and did not spread through the whole plant until 25 dpi, colonising only the lower stem portion with 2.4 × 104 cfu g−1 of stem.

Comparing cowpea genotypes IT84E-124 (susceptible), IT86D-715 (moderately resistant) and IT86D-719 (resistant), considerable differences in bacterial numbers were obtained after infection. At 15 dpi, bacteria had spread in high densities through the whole plant in genotype IT84E-124, in leaves and occasionally in stems in genotype IT86D-715, but in genotype IT86D-719 bacteria were limited to the inoculated leaves. In genotypes IT86D-715 and IT86D-719, bacteria moved predominantly upwards through stems from the point of onset of the inoculated leaf.

Contamination of seeds derived from infected plants, varied with the resistance level of cowpea genotypes. There was no relationship between contamination and disease severity. Lower bacteria densities were found in seeds from plants with low disease severity, and no bacteria were detected in seeds of genotypes with high or low disease severity. Most bacteria were concentrated on the seed surface, and only few were found inside the seed under the seed coat. Typical ‘water soaked spots’ appeared on 17% of seedlings emerging from contaminated seeds of genotype IT86D-472. In conclusion, movement of bacteria on or into seeds depended on genotypes, and seed contamination did not always result in seedling infection. In breeding for resistance, the contamination of seeds and infection of seeds in symptomless plants in apparently resistant genotypes should be determined and considered.

Keywords

bacteria detection genotypes seed infection systemic distribution 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allington WB & Chamberlain DW, 1949. Trends in the populations of pathogenic bacteria within leaf tissue of susceptible and immune plant species. Phytopathology 39, 656–660.Google Scholar
  2. Bochner BR, 1989. Product review: Sleuthing out bacterial identities. Nature 339, 157–158.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Cafati, CR & Saettler AW, 1980a. Role of nonhost species as alternate inoculum sources of Xanthomona sphaseoli. Plant Dis 64, 194–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cafati, CR & Saettler AW, 1980b. Effect of host on multiplication and distribution of bean common blight bacteria. Phytopathology 70, 675–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Daniel JF, 1991. Contribution à l’Etude de la Biologie de Xanthomonas campestris pathovar manihotis (ARTHAUD-BERTHET et BONDAR) STARR Agent Responsable de la BacterioseVasculaire du Manioc, Manihot esculenta CRANTZ. Dissertation, Université de Paris-Sud Centre d’Orsay.Google Scholar
  6. Darrasse A, Bureau C, Samson R, Morris CE & Jacques MA, 2007. Contamination of bean seeds by Xanthomonas axo-nopodis pv. phaseoli associated with low bacterial densities in the phyllosphere under field and greenhouse conditions. Eur J Plant Pathol 119, 203–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Darrasse A, Darsonval A, Durand K, Boureau T, Jacques M-A & Brisset M-N, 2010. Transmission of Plant-Pathogenic Bacteria by Nonhost Seeds without Induction of an Associated Defense Reaction at Emergence. Appl Environ Microbiol 76, 6787–6796.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Darsonval A, Darrasse A, Meyer D, Demarty M, Durand K, Bureau C, Manceau C & Jacques M-A, 2008. Type III secretion system of Xanthomonas fuscans subsp. fuscans is involved in phyllosphere colonization process and in transmission to seeds of susceptible bean. Appl Environ Microbiol 74, 2669–2678.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Gitatis RD, 1982. Resistance in cowpea to bacterial blight and canker. Phytopathology 72, 999.Google Scholar
  10. Hokawat S & Rudolph K, 1991. Variation in pathogenicity and virulence of strains of Xanthomonas campestris pv. glycines, the incitant of bacteria pustule of soybean. J Phytopathol 131, 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hopkins DL, Thompson CM, Hilgren J & Lovic B, 2003. Wet seed treatment with peroxyacetic acid for the control of bacterial fruit blotch and other seedborne diseases of watermelon. Plant Dis 87, 1495–1499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jindal JK, Patel PN & Khan AM, 1981. Variability in xantho-monads of grain legumes. Phythopath Z 100, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jindal JK & Patel PN, 1984. Variability in xanthomonads of grain legumes. IV. Variations in bacteriological properties of 83 isolates and pathogenic behavior of cultural variants. Phytopath Z 110, 63–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaiser W J & Ramos AH, 1979. Two bacterial diseases of cowpea in East Africa. Plant Dis Reptr 63, 304–308.Google Scholar
  15. Khatri-Chhetri G, Wydra K & Rudolph K, 1998. Variability of strains of Xanthomonas campestris pv. vignicola, incitant of cowpea bacterial blight and bacterial pustule, collected in several African and other countries. In: Mahadevan, A (Ed.) 1998: Plant Pathogenic Bacteria. Centre Adv. Study Botany, Univ. Madras, India. 296–302.Google Scholar
  16. Khatri-Chhetri G, 1999. Detection and characterization of Xanthomonas campestris pv. vignicola strains, incitant of Cowpea Bacterial Blight and Pustule, and studies on Genotype/Strain-interactions. PhD thesis-University of Göttingen, Germany.Google Scholar
  17. Kishun R, 1989. Appraisal of loss in yield of cowpea due to Xanthomonas campestris pv. vignicola. Indian Phytopathology 42, 241–246.Google Scholar
  18. Kotchoni OS, Torimiro N & Gachomo EW, 2007. Control of Xanthomonas campestris pv. vignicola in cowpea following seed and seedling treatment with hydrogen peroxide and N-Heterocyclic pyridinium chlorochromate. J Plant Pathol 89, 361–367.Google Scholar
  19. Okechukwu RU, Ekpo EJA & Okechukwu OC, 2010. Seed to plant transmission of Xanthomonas campestris pv. vignicola isolates in cowpea. Afr J Agric Res 5, 431–435.Google Scholar
  20. Omer MEH & Wood RKS, 1969. Growth of Pseudomonas phaseolicola in susceptible and resistant bean plants. Ann Appl Biol 63, 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Patel PN, 1981. Pathogen variability and host resistance in bacterial pustule disease of cowpea in Africa. Trop Agric 58, 275–280.Google Scholar
  22. Patel PN, 1982. Genetics of host reactions to three races of the bacterial pustule pathogen in cowpea. Euphytica 31, 805–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rudolph K, 1980. Multiplication of bacteria in leaf tissue. Angew Botanik 54, 1–9.Google Scholar
  24. Saettler AW, 1989. Common bacterial blight. In: Schwartz, HF, Pasto-Corrales MA (Eds.) 1989: Bean Production Problems in the Tropics, 2nd edn. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, Cali, Colombia. 261–283.Google Scholar
  25. Shekhawat GS & Patel PN, 1977. Seed transmission and spread of bacterial blight of cowpea and bacterial leaf spot of green gram in summer and monsoon seasons. Plant Dis Reptr 61, 390–392.Google Scholar
  26. Sikirou R, 1999. Epidemiological investigations and development of integrated control methods of bacterial blight of cowpea caused by Xanthomonas campestris pv. vignicola. PhD thesis-University of Göttingen, Germany.Google Scholar
  27. Sikirou R, Wydra K & Rudolph K, 2001. Selection of cowpea genotypes resistant to bacterial blight caused by Xanthomonas campestris pv. vignicola. In: Deboer, S (Ed.) 2001: Plant Pathogenic Bacteria. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands. 309–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stadt SJ & Saettler AW, 1981. Effect of host genotype on multiplication of Pseudomonas phaseolicola. Phytopathology 71, 1307–1310.Google Scholar
  29. Thind BS, Soni PS & Kumar K, 1984. Seed transmission of Xanthomonas campestris pv. vignaeradiatae in mungbean and X. campestris pv. vignicola in cowpea. Indian Phytopathol 37, 414 (abstr.).Google Scholar
  30. Vakili NG, Kaiser WJ, Perez JA & Cortes-Monllor A, 1975. Bacterial blight of beans caused by two Xanthomonas pathogenic types from puerto Rico. Phytopathology 65, 401–403.Google Scholar
  31. Vauterin L, Hoste B, Kersters K & Swings J, 1995. Reclassification of Xanthomonas. Int J System Bacteriol 45, 472–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wydra K, 1991. Interaktionen zwischen Zellwandpolymeren von Bohnenpflanzen und Zellen von Pseudomonas syringae pv. Phaseolicola sowie deren extrazellulären, polymeren Produkten. PhD thesis. Institute of Plant Pathology and Plant Protection, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Göttingen.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutsche Phythomedizinische Gesellschaft 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Plant Health Management DivisionInternational Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA)CotonouRepublic of Benin

Personalised recommendations