Advertisement

European Journal of Plant Pathology

, Volume 110, Issue 10, pp 1025–1046 | Cite as

Influence of soil type and pH on the colonisation of sugar beet seedlings by antagonistic Pseudomonas and Bacillus strains, and on their control of Pythium damping-off

  • Christoph Stephan Schmidt
  • Francesco Agostini
  • Ana-maria Simon
  • Jennifer Whyte
  • John Townend
  • Carlo Leifert
  • Ken Killham
  • Chris Mullins
Article

Abstract

In five different soils originating from Scotland (Craibstone and Cruden Bay), Germany (Magdeburg and Uelzen) and Greece (Tymbaki), Pseudomonas fluorescens B5 reached higher population sizes (4.7–5.7logCFU/plant) on 12-day-old sugar beet seedlings than Bacillus subtilis MBI 600 (4.1–4.8logCFU/plant). Total population size per plant was not affected by soil type. In all five soils, the antagonists reached highest population densities in the hypocotyl and the upper 2cm root section (P. fluorescensB5: 5.2–6.8log10CFU/g plant fresh weight, Bacillus subtilisMBI 600: 5.2–6.1log10CFU/g plant fresh weight) and declined to 0–3log10CFU below 4cm root depth. Colonisation by P.fluorescens B5 down the root was slightly increased in the soils from Craibstone, Magdeburg, and Uelzen compared to the sandy clay loam from Tymbaki. In lux-marked P.fluorescens B5, population density was positively correlated with light emission in all soils; the light emission indicated physiological activity of the strains. However, P.fluorescens B5 reduced Pythium damping-off (measurement after 14 days plant growth) only in three of the five soils (Craibstone, Cruden Bay and Magdeburg). Co-inoculation of B.subtilis MBI 600 increased downward colonisation of the root by P.fluorescens B5, but not the total population ofP.fluorescens B5 per plant. BacillussubtilisMBI 600 did not reduce Pythium damping-off in any of the soils nor did it influence the efficiency of co-inoculated P.fluorescens B5; its population consisted mainly of physiologically inactive spores. In Craibstone soil, pH did not affect population density, distribution along the root or biocontrol activity against P. ultimum of P.fluorescens B5 or B.subtilis MBI 600.

biological control bioluminescence lux-marking rhizosphere root colonisation soil-borne diseases 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bahme JB and Schroth MN (1987)Spatial-temporal colonisation pattern of a rhizobacterium on underground organs of potato. Phytopathology 77:1093-1100Google Scholar
  2. Ball DF (1964)Loss-on-ignition as an estimate of organic matter and organic carbon in non-calcareous soils. Journal of Soil Science 15:84Google Scholar
  3. Barber DA and Martin DA (1976)The release of organic substances by cereal roots in soil. New Phytologist 76:69-80Google Scholar
  4. Berger F, Hong L, White D, Frazer R and Leifert C (1996) Effect of pathogen inoculum, antagonist density and plant species on biological control of Phytophtora and Pythium damping-off by Bacillus subtilis in high humidity fogging glashouses. Phytopathology 86:428-433Google Scholar
  5. Bonsall RF, Weller DM and Thomashow LS (1997)Quantification of 2, 4-diacetyl-phloroglucinol produced by fluorescent Pseudomonas spp. in vitro and in the rhizosphere of wheat. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 63:951-955Google Scholar
  6. Bull CT, Weller DM and Thomashow LS (1991)Relationship between root colonization and suppression of Gaeumannomyces graminis var. triticii by Pseudomonas fluorescens strain 2-79. Phytopathology 81:954-958Google Scholar
  7. Chapon A, Boutin M, Rime ¨ D, Deladande L, Guillerm A-M and Sarniguet A (2003)Direct and specific assessment of colonization of wheat rhizoplane by Pseudomonas fluorescens Pf29A. European Journal of Plant Pathology 109:61-70Google Scholar
  8. De Lorenzo V, Herrero M, Jakubzik U and Timmis KN (1990) Mini-Tn5 transposon derivatives for insertion mutagenesis, promoter probing, and chromosomal insertion of cloned DNA in gram-negative eubacteria. Journal of Bacteriology 172:6568-6572Google Scholar
  9. de Weger LA, van der Bij AJ, Dekkers LC, Simons M, Wijffelman CA and Lugtenberg BJ (1995)Colonization of the rhizosphere of crop plants by plant bene cial pseudomonads. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 17:221-228Google Scholar
  10. Dick MW and Ali-Shtayeh MS (1986)Distribution and frequency of Pythium species in parklands and farmland soils Transactions of the British Mycological Society 86:45-62Google Scholar
  11. Dowling DN and O'Gara F (1994)Metabolites of Pseudomonas fluorescens involved in the biocontrol of plant disease. Trends in Biotechnology 12:133-141Google Scholar
  12. Duffy BK and Weller D (1995)Use of Gaeumannomyces graminis var. graminis alone and in the combination with. uorescent Pseudomonas spp. to suppress take-all of wheat. Plant Disease 79:907-911Google Scholar
  13. Duijff BJ, Erkelens A, Bakker PM and Schippers B (1995) Influence of pH on suppression of fusarium-wilt of carnation by Pseudomonas fluorescens wcs417. Journal of Phytopathology 143:217-222Google Scholar
  14. Dunne C, Moe ¨nne-Loccoz Y, McCarthy J, Higgins P, Powell J, Dowling DN and O'Gara F (1998)Combining proteolytic and phloroglucinol-producing bacteria for improved control of Pythium-mediated damping-off of sugar beet. Plant Pathology 47:299-307Google Scholar
  15. Elad Y (1990)Reasons for the delay in biological control in development of biological control of foliar pathogens. Phytoparasitica 18:99-105Google Scholar
  16. FAO (1998)World Reference Base for Soil Resources. No. 84. World Soil Resource Reports. FAO, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  17. Fiddaman PJ and Rossall S (1994)The production of antifungal volatiles by Bacillus subtilis. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 74:119-126Google Scholar
  18. Fiddaman PJ and Rossal S (1995)Selection of bacterial antagonists for the biological control of Rhizoctonia solani in oilseed rape (Brassica napus ). Plant Pathology 44:695-703Google Scholar
  19. Fukui R, Campbell GS and Cook J (1994a)Factors influencing the incidence of embryo infection by Pythium spp. during germination of wheat seeds in soils. Phytopathology 84:695-702Google Scholar
  20. Fukui R, Poinar EI, Bauer PH, Schroth MN, Hendson M, Wang X-L and Hancock JG (1994b)Spatial colonisation patterns and interactions of bacteria on inoculated sugar beet seed. Phytopathology 84:1338-1345Google Scholar
  21. Georgakopoulos DG, Fiddaman P, Leifert C and Malathracis NE (2002)Biological control of cucumber and sugar beet damping-off caused by Pythium ultimum with bacterial and fungal antagonists. Journal of Applied Microbiology 92: 1078-1086Google Scholar
  22. Hartel PG, Fuhrmann JJ, Johnson WF, Lawrence EG, Lopez CS, Mullen MD, Skipper HD, Staley TE, Wolf DC, Wollum AG and Zuberer DA (1994)Survival of a lac ZY-containing Pseudomonas putida strain under stressful abiotic soil conditions. Soil Science Society of America Journal 58:770-776Google Scholar
  23. Heijnen CE, Hok-A-Hin CH and van Elsas JD (1993)Root colonization by Pseudomonas fluorescens introduced into soil amended with bentonite. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 25: 239-246Google Scholar
  24. Heupel M (1992)Biologische Beka ¨mpfung bodenbu ¨rtiger Wurzelbranderreger der Zuckerru ¨be (Beta vulgaris L. ssp. vulgaris var. altissima DOELL)durch den Einsatz mikrobieller Antagonisten. Ph. D. thesis, University of Go ¨ttingen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  25. Howell DC (1997)Statistical Methods for Psychology, 4th edn. Belmont CA, DuxburyGoogle Scholar
  26. Howie WJ, Cook RJ and Weller DM (1987)Effects of soil matric potential and cell motility on wheat root colonisation by. uorescent Pseudomonas suppressive on take all. Phytopathology 77:286-292Google Scholar
  27. Hoitink HAJ and Boehm MJ (1999)Bio-control within the context of soil microbial communities:A substrate dependent problem. Annual Review of Phytopathology 37:427-446Google Scholar
  28. Killham KS and Yeomans CV (2001)Rhizosphere carbon flow measurement and implications:from isotopes to reporter genes. Plant and Soil 232:91-96Google Scholar
  29. Knox OGG (2000)Exploiting nitrate respiration to optimise antagonistic control of root disease in soil. Ph. D. thesis, University of Aberdeen, UKGoogle Scholar
  30. Knox OGG, Killham K and Leifert C (2002)The reliability of marker/reporter genes in bio-control studies with Bacillus subtilis. Biocontrol Science and Technology 12:637-641Google Scholar
  31. Latour X, Philippot L, Corberand T and Lemanceau P (1999) The establishment of an introduced community of fluorescent pseudomonads in the soil and in the rhizosphere is affected by the soil type. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 30:163-170Google Scholar
  32. Lee G-H and Stozky G (1999)Transformation and survival of donor, recipient and transformants of Bacillus subtilis in vitro and in soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 31:1499-1508Google Scholar
  33. Leifert C, Li H, Chidburee S, Hampson S, Workman S, Sigee D, Epton HAS and Harbour A (1995)Antibiotic production and biocontrol activity by Bacillus subtilis CL27 and Bacillus pumilus CL45. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 78:97-108Google Scholar
  34. Liddell CM and Parke JL (1989)Enhanced colonization of pea taproots by a fluorescent pseudomonad biocontrol agent by water in ltration into soil. Phytopathology 79:1327-1332Google Scholar
  35. Lindemann RG, Moore LW, Baker FB and Cooksey DA (1983)Strategies for detecting and characterizing systems for biological control of soilborne plant pathogens. Plant Disease 67:1058-1064Google Scholar
  36. Loper JE, Suslow TV and Schroth MN (1984)Lognormal distributions of bacterial populations in the rhizosphere. Phytopathology 74:1454-1460Google Scholar
  37. Mahaffee WF and Backman PA (1993)Effects of seed factors on spermosphere and rhizosphere colonization by Bacillus subtilis GB03. Phytopathology 83:1120-1125Google Scholar
  38. Martin FN and Loper JE (1999)Soilborne diseases caused by Pythium spp. Ecology, epidemiology and prospects for biological control. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 18: 111-181Google Scholar
  39. Meikle A, Killham K, Prosser JI and Glover LA (1992) Luminescence measurement of population activity of genetically modified Pseudomonas fluorescens in the soil. FEMS Microbiology Letters 99:217-220Google Scholar
  40. Meikle A, Glover LA, Killham K and Prosser JI (1994) Potential luminescence as an indicator of activation of genetically-modified Pseudomonas. uorescens in liquid cul-ture and in soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 26:747-755Google Scholar
  41. Minitab (2000)Minitab, Minitab Statistical Software. Release 13 for Windows, State College, PAGoogle Scholar
  42. Naseby DC and Lynch JM (1999)Effects of Pseudomonas fluorescens F113 on ecological functions in the pea rhizosphere are dependent on pH. Microbial Ecology 37:248-256Google Scholar
  43. Ownley BH, Weller DM and Alldredge JR (1990)Influence of soil edaphic factors on suppression of take-all by Pseudomonas fluorescens 2-79 (abstract). Phytopathology 80:995Google Scholar
  44. Ownley BH, Weller DM and Alldredge JR (1991)Relation of soil chemical and physical factors with suppression of take all by Pseudomonas fluorescens 2-79. In:Keel C, Koller B and Defago G (eds)Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria-Progress and Prospects (pp 299-301)WPRS Bulletin 1991/ XIV/8, Darmstadt, GhentGoogle Scholar
  45. Ownley BH, Weller DM and Thomashow LS (1992)Influence of in vitro and in situ pH on suppression of Gaeumannomyces graminis var. triticii by Pseudomonas fluorescens 2-79. Phytopathology 82:178-184Google Scholar
  46. Persson L and Olsson S (2000)Abiotic characteristics of soils suppressive to Aphanomyces root rot. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 32:1141-1150Google Scholar
  47. Pierson, EA and Weller DM (1994):Use of mixtures of fluorescent pseudomonads to suppress take all and improve the growth of wheat. Phytopathology 84:940-947Google Scholar
  48. Raaijmakers JM, Leeman M, van Oerschot MMP, van der Sluis I, Schippers B and Bakker PAHM (1995)Dose response relationships in biological control of Fusarium wilt of radish by Pseudomonas ssp. Phytopathology 85:1075-1081Google Scholar
  49. Ramos C, Molina L, Mølbak L, Ramos JL and Molin S (2000) A bioluminescent derivative of Pseudomonas putida KT2440 for deliberate release into the environment. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 34:91-102Google Scholar
  50. Rattray EAS, Prosser JI, Killham K and Glover LA (1990) Luminescence based nonextracive technique for in-situ detection of Escherichia coli in soil. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 56:3368-3374Google Scholar
  51. Ross IL, Alami Y, Harvey PR, Achouak W and Ryder M (2000)Genetic Diversity and biological control activity of novel species of closely related pseudomonads isolated from wheat eld soils in South Australia. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 66:1609-1616Google Scholar
  52. Russell CN (1996)Lux gene reporting of the interaction between Gaeumannomyces graminis and an antagonistic pseudomonad in the wheat rhizosphere. Ph. D. thesis, University of Aberdeen, UKGoogle Scholar
  53. Russo A, Moenne-Loccoz Y, Fedi S, Higgins P, Fenton A, Dowling DN, O 'Regan M and O 'Gara F (1996)Improved delivery of biocontrol Pseudomonas and their antifungal metabolites using alginate polymers. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 44:140-145Google Scholar
  54. Ryder MH and Rovira AD (1993)Biological control of take-all of glasshouse-grown wheat using strains of Pseudomonas corrugata isolated from wheat eld soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 25:311-320Google Scholar
  55. Scher FM and Baker R (1980)Mechanism of biological control in a Fusarium-suppressive soil. Phytopathology 70:412-417Google Scholar
  56. Schippers B, Bakker AW and Baker PAHM (1987)Interactions of deleterious and bene cial rhizosphere organisms and the effect of cropping practices. Annual Review of Phytopathology 25:339-358Google Scholar
  57. Schmidt CS, Agostini F, Leifert C and Mullins CE (2004a) Influence of soil temperature and matric potential on sugar beet seedling colonization and suppression of Pythium damping-off by the antagonistic bacteria Pseudomonas fluorescens and Bacillus subtilis. Phytopathology, 94:351-363Google Scholar
  58. Schmidt CS, Agostini F, Leifert C, Killham K and Mullins CE (2004b)Influence of inoculum density of the antagonistic bacteria Pseudomonas. uorescens and Pseudomonas corrugata on sugar beet seedling colonisation and suppression of Pythium damping-off. Plant and Soil, in pressGoogle Scholar
  59. Schulz D and Wolf GA (2002)Influence of motility, adhesion and the production of siderophores and antibiotics of Ps. fluorescens B5 and Ps. corrugata R117 on rhizosphere colonization and bio-control in microcosm. Mitteilungen an der Biologischen Bundesanstalt 390:394-395Google Scholar
  60. Slininger PJ and Shea-Wilbur MA (1995)Liquid-culture pH, temperature and carbon (not nitrogen)source regulate phenazine productivity of the take-all bio-control agent Pseudomonas fluorescens 2-79. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 43:794-800Google Scholar
  61. Sørensen J, Jensen LE and Nybroe O (2001)Soil and rhizosphere as habitats for Pseudomonas inoculants:new knowledge on distribution, activity and physiological state derived from micro-scale and single-cell studies. Plant and Soil 232:97-108Google Scholar
  62. Stutz E, Kahr G and De ´fago G (1989)Clays involved in suppression of tobacco black root rot by strains of antagonistic Pseudomonas fluorescens. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 21:361-366Google Scholar
  63. Suslow TV and Schroth MN (1982)Rhizobacteria in sugar beets:Effects of seed application and root colonisation on yield. Phytopathology 72:199-206Google Scholar
  64. Thirup L, Ekelund F, Johnson K and Jacobsen CS (2000) Population dynamics of the fast-growing sub-population of Pseudomonas and total bacteria and their protozoan grazers, revealed by fenpropimorph treatment. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 32:1615-1623Google Scholar
  65. Thomashow LS, Weller DM, Bonsall RF and Pierson LS (1990)Production of the antibiotic phenazine-1-carboxylic acid by fluorescent Pseudomonas species in the rhizosphere of wheat. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 56:908-912Google Scholar
  66. Trevors JT, van Elsas JD, van Overbeek LS and Starodub ME (1990)Transport of a genetically engineered Pseudomonas fluorescens strain through a soil microcosm. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 56:401-408Google Scholar
  67. Townend J, Reeve MJ and Carter A (2001)Water release characteristic. In:Smith KA and Mullins CE (eds)Soil and Environmental Analysis, Physical Methods, Chapter 3 (pp. 95-140)Marcel Dekker, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  68. Van Elsas JD, Dijkstra AF, Govaert JM and Van Veen JA (1986)Survival of Pseudomonas fluorescens and Bacillus subtilis introduced into two soils of different texture in eld microplots. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 38:151-160Google Scholar
  69. Weller DM (1988)Biological control of soilborne pathogens in the rhizosphere with bacteria. Annual Review of Phytopathology 73:1548-1553Google Scholar
  70. Weller DW and Thomashow LS (1990)Antibiotics:evidence for their production and sites where they are produced. In: Baker RR and Dunn PE (eds)New directions in biological control:Alternatives for Suppression of Agricultural Pests and Diseases (pp 701-711)Alan R Liss, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  71. White CC and Cresser MS (1998)Sensitivity of Scottish upland moorland podzols derived from sandstones and quartzites to acidi cation:the potential importance of the mobile anion effect. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 103:229-244Google Scholar
  72. White D, Leifert C, Ryder MH and Killham K (1996)Lux gene technology-a strategy to optimize biological control of soil borne diseases. New Phytologist 133:173-181Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Stephan Schmidt
    • 1
  • Francesco Agostini
    • 2
  • Ana-maria Simon
    • 3
  • Jennifer Whyte
    • 3
  • John Townend
    • 3
  • Carlo Leifert
    • 1
  • Ken Killham
    • 3
  • Chris Mullins
    • 3
  1. 1.Nafferton Ecological Farming GroupNorthumberlandUK
  2. 2.ADAS WolverhamptonWolverhamptonUK
  3. 3.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations