European Journal of Plant Pathology

, Volume 120, Issue 3, pp 311–316 | Cite as

Efficacy and dose–response relationship in biocontrol of Fusarium disease in maize by Streptomyces spp.

  • Wellington Bressan
  • Jose Edson Fontes Figueiredo
Short Communication


Two isolates of Streptomyces spp. DAUFPE 11470 and DAUFPE 14632 were evaluated to determine the antagonist–pathogen inoculum concentration relationship under greenhouse conditions. Pathogen and antagonist concentration, significantly (P < 0.05) affected development of Fusarium disease in maize with a significant interaction between pathogen and antagonist concentration. Dose–response relationship also differed significantly (P < 0.05) between the two isolates, but both isolates demonstrated effective control of Fusarium disease, regardless of pathogen concentration. The isolate DAUFPE 11470 provided the most effective control. The lowest value for disease incidence occurred at low pathogen (103 chlamydospore g−1 soil) and high antagonist concentration (106 cfu ml−1) for both isolates. The disease incidence for control plants ranged from 19% to 76%. However, in relation to control the lowest disease reduction occurred at low pathogen (103 chlamydospore g−1 soil) and high antagonist concentrations (106 cfu ml−1). These reductions were 10.6% and 13% for DAUFPE 14632 and DAUFPE 11470, respectively. The highest disease reductions, in relation to control plants, occurred at high pathogen (106 chlamydospore g−1 soil) and antagonist (106 cfu ml−1) concentrations for both isolates. These values were 55% and 62.2% for DAUFPE 14632 and DAUFPE 11470, respectively. The chlamydospore germination of Fusarium moniliforme was affected by glucose addition, antagonist isolates and type of inoculum. The lowest chlamydospore germination was observed with bacterial suspensions of the isolates, for all glucose additions. The results suggested that both Streptomyces spp. isolates were effective at different doses as biocontrol agents against F. moniliforme. Also, there was evidence for at least two mechanisms of biocontrol and that apparently, both isolates showed the same mechanisms of biocontrol action related to production of bioactive compounds and competition for carbon. Further studies will be developed to improve the level and effectiveness of control by these isolates.


Biocontrol Fusarium moniliforme Maize Seedborne diseases Streptomyces 


  1. Ahmad, J. S., & Baker, R. (1987). Rhizosphere competence of Trichoderma harzianum. Phytopathology, 77, 182–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bressan, W. (2003). Biological control of maize seed pathogenic fungi by use of actinomycetes. Biocontrol, 48, 233–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gauperin, M., Graf, S., & Kenigsbuch, D. (2003). Seed treatment prevents vertical transmission of Fusarium moniliforme making a significant contribution to disease control. Phytoparasitica, 31, 344–352.Google Scholar
  4. Gesheva, V. (2002). Rhizosphere microflora of some citrus as a source of antagonistic actinomycetes. European Journal of Soil Biology, 38(1), 85–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Huddleston, A. S., Cresswell, N., Neves, M. C., Beringer, J. E., Baumberg, S., Thomas, D. I., et al. (1997). Molecular detection of streptomycin-producing streptomycetes in Brasilian soils. Applied Environmental Microbiology, 63(4), 1288–1297.Google Scholar
  6. Kawamura, T., Tago, K., Beppe, T., & Arima, C. (1976). Taxonomy of the producing strain and study conditions for production of the antibiotic. Journal of Antibiotics, 29, 242–247.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Kim, B. S., Moon, S., & Hwang, B. K. (2000). Structure elucidation and fungal activity of an anthracycline antibiotic, daunomycin, isolated from Actinomadura roseola. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 48, 1875–1881.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Komada, H. (1975). Development of a selective medium for quantitative isolation of Fusarium oxysporum from natural soil. Review Plant Protection Research, 8, 114–125.Google Scholar
  9. Larkin, R. P., & Fravel, D. R. (1999). Mechanism of action and dose–response relationships governing biological control of Fusarium wilt of tomato by non-pathogenic Fusarium spp. Phytopathology, 89, 1152–1161.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Locke, T., & Coulhoun, J. (1974). Contribution to a method of testing oil palm seedlings for resistance to Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. elaeidis Toovey. Phytopathologische Zeitschrift, 79, 77–92.Google Scholar
  11. Montesinos, E., & Bonaterra, A. (1996). Dose–response models in biological control of plant pathogens: An empirical verification. Phytopathology, 86, 464–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mukhopadhyay, T., Nadkarni, S. R., Gupte, R. G., Ganguli, B. N., Petry, S., & Koegler H. (1999). Mathemycin B, a new antifungal macrolactone from actinomycete species HIL Y-8620959. Journal of Natural Products, 62(6), 889–890.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nyvall, R. F., & Kommedahl, T. (1970). Saprophytism and survival of Fusarium moniliforme in corn stalks. Phytopathology, 60, 1233–1235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ouhdouch, Y., Barakate, M., & Finance, C. (2001). Actinomycetes of Moroccan habitats: Isolation and screening for antifungal activities. European Journal of Soil Biology, 39, 69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pridham, T. G., Anderson, P., Fole, C., Lindenfelser, L. A., Hesseltinen, C. W., & Benedict, R. G. (1956). A selection of media for maintenance and taxonomic study of streptomyces. Antibiotics Annual, 1, 947–953.Google Scholar
  16. Raaijmakers, J. M., Leeman, M., van Oorschot, M. M. P, van der Sluis, I., Schippers, B., & Bakker, P. A. H. M. (1995). Dose–response relationships in biological control of Fusarium wilt of radish by Pseudomonas spp. Phytopathology, 85, 1075–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. SAS Institute Inc. (1990) SAS user’s guide: Statistics. Cary, NC: SAS.Google Scholar
  18. Smith, K. P., Handelsman, R. J., & Goodman, M. (1997). Modeling dose–response relationship in biological control: Partioning host responses to the pathogen and biocontrol agent. Phytopathology, 87, 720–729.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Velluti, A., Marin, S., Bettucci, L., Ramos, A. J., & Sanchis, V. (2000). The effect of fungal competition on colonization of maize grain by Fusarium moniliforme, F. proliferatum and F. graminearum and on fumonisin B-1 and zearaleone formation. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 59, 59–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© KNPV 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wellington Bressan
    • 1
  • Jose Edson Fontes Figueiredo
    • 1
  1. 1.Microbiology DepartmentEmbrapa Milho e SorgoSete LagoasBrazil

Personalised recommendations