Compatibility Potential of Brassica Species and Mustard Seed Meal with Pseudomonas fluorescens for Biological Control of Soilborne Plant Diseases
The biofumigant potential of different Brassica sp. and onion for compatibility with PGPR strain of Pseudomonas fluorescens under in vitro conditions was studied. The local varieties of biofumigant crops, viz., cabbage, cauliflower, mustard, and onion, were grown in pots under greenhouse conditions. Treatments included were macerated tissue containing shoots, roots, and leaves alone and in combination with one another. Actively growing P. fluorescens cultures were streaked onto the inverted bottom of the Petri plate filled with nutrient agar and kept above the Petri plate containing macerated plant tissue in different treatments at room temperature for 48–72 h. Results showed that there was no reduction of CFU per plate compared with untreated control. No statistically significant effect was recorded for any of the amended plant material tested against P. fluorescens growth. In another study, the growth of P. fluorescens was observed for 72 h after continuous exposure to volatiles produced by hydrated mustard seed meal (different quantities) under in vitro conditions. Fungistatic effect was not observed for P. fluorescens growth against different concentrations of seed meal, and this attributed tolerance of P. fluorescent toxic volatiles produced by seed meal. This work could be important in the future for the integrated use of biofumigants/mustard seed meal along with P. fluorescens for the management of plant diseases.
KeywordsCompatibility Biofumigation Brassica species Mustard seed meal Pseudomonas fluorescens
The authors are grateful to Vice Chancellor, Acharya N G Ranga Agricultural University, Lam, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India, for their support.
- Challenger F (1959) Aspects of the organic chemistry of sulphur. Butterworths, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Duniway J (2002) Chemical alternatives to methyl bromide for soil treatment particularly in strawberry production. In: Proceedings of international conference on alternatives to methyl bromide, Seville, Spain, p 432Google Scholar
- Kirkegaard AJ, Gardener AP, Desmarchelier MJ, Angus FJ (1993) Biofumigation -using Brassica species to control pests and diseases in horticulture and agriculture. In: 9th Austrailian Research Assembly on Brassicas, pp 77–82Google Scholar
- Madhavi GB, Umadevi G, Kumar KVK, Babu TR, Naidu TCM (2015) Evaluation of different Brassica species and onion for their biofumigation effect against Rhizoctonia solani f. sp. sasakii in vitro. J Res ANGRAU 43(3&4):22–28Google Scholar
- Madhavi GB, Umadevi G, Kumar KVK, Babu TR, Naidu TCM (2016) Effect of volatiles produced by hydrolysis of mustard seed powder against Rhizoctonia solani f. sp. sasakii, Trichoderma harzianum, and Pseudomonas fluorescens. Prog Res 11(Special- VII):4821–4823Google Scholar
- Matthiessen JN, Kirkegaard JA (2002) Potato grower’s positive experiences with biofumigant green manure. Horti Biofumi Update 2Google Scholar
- Perez C, Dill-Macky R, Kinkel LL (2007) Management of soil microbial communities to enhance populations of Fusarium graminearum- antagonists in the soil. Plant Soil 302(1–2):53–69Google Scholar
- Porter IJ, Mattner S (2002) Non-chemical alternatives to methyl bromide for soil treatment in strawberry production. In: Proceedings of international conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide, March 5–8, Spain, 432, pp 39–48Google Scholar
- Steffek R, Spornberger A, Altenburger J (2006) Detection of microsclerotia of Verticillium dahlia in soil samples and prospects to reduce the inoculum potential of the fungus in the soil. Agric Conspec Sci 71(4):145–148Google Scholar
- Walker CJ, Morell S, Foster HH (1937) Toxicity of mustard oils and related Sulphur compounds to certain fungi. Am J Bot 24:241–536Google Scholar
- Wathelet J, Lori R, Leoni O, Rollin P, Quinsac A, Palmieri S (2004) Guidelines for glucosinolate analysis in green tissues used for biofumigation. Agroindustria 3:257–266Google Scholar