Biological Interactions to Select Biocontrol Agents Against Toxigenic Strains of Aspergillus flavus and Fusarium verticillioides from Maize
- 325 Downloads
Biological control represent an alternative to the use of pesticides in crop protection. A key to progress in biological control to protect maize against Fusarium verticillioides and Aspergillus flavus maize pathogens are, to select in vitro, the best agent to be applied in the field. The aim of this study was to examine the antagonistic activity of bacterial and yeast isolates against F.verticillioides and A. flavus toxigenic strains. The first study showed the impact of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens BA-S13, Microbacterium oleovorans DMS 16091, Enterobacter hormomaechei EM-562T, and Kluyveromyces spp. L14 and L16 isolates on mycelial growth of two strains of A. flavus MPVPA 2092, 2094 and three strains of F. verticillioides MPVPA 285, 289, and 294 on 3% maize meal extract agar at different water activities (0.99, 0.97, 0.95, and 0.93). From this first assay antagonistics isolates M. oleovorans, B. amyloliquefaciens and Kluyveromyces sp. (L16) produced an increase of lag phase of growth and decreased a growth rate of all fungal strains. These isolates were selected for futher studies. In vitro non-rhizospheric maize soil (centrally and sprayed inoculated) and in vitro maize (ears apex and base inoculated) were treated with antagonistics and pathogenic strains alone in co-inoculated cultures. Bacillus amyloliquefaciens significantly reduced F. verticillioides and A. flavus count in maize soil inoculated centrally. Kluyveromyces sp. L16 reduced F. verticillioides and A. flavus count in maize soil inoculated by spray. Kluyveromyces sp. L16 was the most effective treatment limiting percent infections by F. verticillioides on the maize ears.
KeywordsBiological interactions Fusarium verticillioides Aspergillus flavus Maize Bacteria Yeast
This work was carried out through grants from SECYT-MAE Argentina–Italy IT/PA 05-AIX/7086-2006-2007.
- 14.Pitt J, Hocking AD. Fungi and food spoilage. London: Blackie Academic and Professional; 1997.Google Scholar
- 15.Klich MA, Pitt JI (eds). A laboratory guide to common Aspergillus species and their teleomorphs. North Ryde/Sydney: CSIRO Division of Food Research/Academic Press; 1994.Google Scholar
- 16.Nelson PE, Toussoun TA, Marasas WFO. Fusarium species. An illustrated manual for identification. University Park and London: The Pennsylvania State University Press; 1983.Google Scholar
- 17.Dallyl H, Fox A. Spoilage of material of reduced water activity by xerophilic fungi. In: Gould GH, Corry EL, editors. Society of applied bacteriology technical series 15. London, UK: Academic Press; 1980. p. 129–39.Google Scholar
- 18.Lacey J, Magan N. Fungi in cereal grains: their occurrence and water and temperature relationships. In: Chelkowski J, editor. Cereal grain, mycotoxins, fungi and quality in drying and storage. Developments in Food Science. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1991. p. 77–118.Google Scholar
- 20.Fandohan P, Hell K, Marasas WFO, Wingfield MJ. Infection of maize by Fusarium species and contamination with fumonisin in Africa. Afr J Biotechnol. 2003;2:570–9.Google Scholar
- 21.Picco M, Nesci A, Barros G, Cavaglieri L, Etcheverry M. Aflatoxin B1 and fumonisin B1 in mixed cultures of Aspergillus flavus and Fusarium proliferatum on maize. Nat Toxins. 2000;7:331–6. doi: 10.1002/1522-7189(199911/12)7:6<331::AID-NT89>3.0.CO;2-3.