Advertisement

Role of Fungi As Biocontrol Agents for the Control of Plant Diseases in Sustainable Agriculture

  • D. U. Gawai
Chapter

Abstract

Biological control is the process which decreases the inoculum density of the pathogenic microbes, present in dormant state by the other microbes. Generally, it involves either the naïve or genetically modified microbes which reduce the effect of pests, pathogen, and diseases. The plant disease is controlled by the pesticides, which are now extensively used. Due to excessive use of pesticides, socioeconomic and environmental pollution issues have been resulted, which demand the alternative method to reduce content of chemical pesticides. Biological control is an eco-friendly method employed to control the plant diseases, with the aim of developing a sustainable system in agriculture. Biological control mechanism involves the interaction among the antagonists and pathogens, which aid in selection and manipulation to develop an effective control system. Currently, this approach is employed when no other alternative is available. Emergent of fungal antagonistic has made it a promising biological control strategy to control the plant diseases. The major factors which hinder the efficiency of the biocontrol agents to control the plant diseases need to be considered during the formulation of biocontrol procedure, biocontrol agent, and its application time.

Keywords

Biocontrol Fungal antagonists Sustainable agriculture Disease control 

References

  1. Atehnkeng J, Ojiambo PS, Ikotum T, Sikora RA, Cotty PJ, Bandyopadhyay R (2008) Evaluation of atoxigenic isolates of Aspergillus flavus as potential biocontrol agents for aflatoxin in maize. Food Addit Contam Part A 25:1266–1273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker KF (1987) Evolving concepts of biological control of plant pathogens. Annu Rev Phytopathol 25:67–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker KF, Cook RJ (1974) Biological control of plant pathogens. W. H. Freeman and Co, San Francisco 433 pp. (Book, reprinted in 1982, Amer. Phytopathol. Soc., St. Paul, Minnesota)Google Scholar
  4. Beirner BP (1967) Biological control and its potential. World Rev Pest Control 6(1):7–20Google Scholar
  5. Chet I (1987) Trichoderma – application, mode of action and potential as a biocontrol agent of soil borne plant pathogenic fungi. In: Chet I (ed) Innovative approaches to plant disease control. Wiley, New York, pp 137–160Google Scholar
  6. Chet I (1993) Biological control of soil-borne plant pathogens with fungal antagonists in combination with soil treatments. In: Hornby D (ed) Biological control of soil borne plant pathogens. CABI Publishers, London, p 15Google Scholar
  7. Chet I, Harman GE, Baker R (1981) Trichoderma hamatum: its hyphal interaction with Rhizoctonia solani and Pythium spp. Microbial Biol 7:29–38Google Scholar
  8. Cook RJ (1993) Making greater use of introduced microorganisms for biological control of plant pathogens. Annu Rev Phytopathol 31:53–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cook RJ, Baker KF (1983) The nature and practice of biological control of plant pathogens. American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul 539 ppGoogle Scholar
  10. DeBach P (1964) Biological control of insect pests and weeds. Reinhold, New York, p 844Google Scholar
  11. Fravel DR (2005) Commercialization and implementation of bio control. Annu Rev Phytopathol 43:337–359CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gilardi G, Manker DC, Garibaddi A, Gullino ML (2008) Efficacy of the biocontrol agents Bacillus subtilis and Ampelomyces quisqualis applied in combination with fungicides against powdery mildew of Zucchini. J Plant Dis Prot 115:208–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harman GE, Howell CR, Viterbo A, Chet I, Lorito M (2004) Trichoderma species-opportunistic, avirulent plant symbionts. Nat Rev Microbiol 2:43–56CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Koumoutsi A, Chen XH, Henne A, Liesegang H, Hitzeroth G, Franhe P, Vater J, Borris R (2004) Structural and functional characterization of gene clusters directing nonribosomal synthesis of bioactive cyclic lipopeptides in Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain FZB42. J Bactriol 186:1084–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mavrodi DV, Mavrodi OV, McSpaddenss-Gardener BB, Landa BB, Weller DM, Thomashow LS (2002) Identification of differences in genome content among phID-positive Pseudomonas fluorescens strains by using PCR based substractive hybridization. Appl Environ Microbiol 68:5170–5776Google Scholar
  16. Papavizas GC (1985) Trichoderma and gliocladium: biology, ecology, and potential for biocontrol. Ann Rev Phytopathol 23:923Google Scholar
  17. Vinale FK, Sivasithamparam LE, Ghisalberti R, Marra LS, Lorito M (2008) Trichoderma-plant-pathogen interactions. Soil Biol Biochem 40:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Waage JK, Greathead DJ (1988) Biological control: challenges and opportunities. Philos Transac Royal Soc B Biol Sci 318:1189Google Scholar
  19. Weindling R (1934) Studies on lethal principle effective in the parasitic action of Trichoderma lignorum on Rhizoctonia solani and other soil fungi. Phytopathology 24:1153–1179Google Scholar
  20. Wells DH (1988) Trichoderma as a biocontrol agent. In: Mukerji KG, Garg KL (eds) Biocontrol and plant diseases. CRC Press, Florida, p 73Google Scholar
  21. Yaqub F, Shahzad S (2008) Effect of seed pelleting with Trichoderma spp., and Gliocladium virens on growth and colonization of roots of sunflower and mung bean by Sclerotium rolfsii. Pak J Bot 40:947–963Google Scholar
  22. Zaid WN, Singh US (2004) Development of improved technology for the mass multiplication and delivery of fungal (Trichoderma) and bacterial (Pseudomonas) bio agents. J Mycol Plant Pathol 34:732–745Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. U. Gawai
    • 1
  1. 1.Botany Research Laboratory and Plant disease Clinic, PG Department of BotanyScience College NandedNandedIndia

Personalised recommendations