4.6 Article

Isolation of endophytic endospore-forming bacteria from Theobroma cacao as potential biological control agents of cacao diseases

Journal

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
Volume 57, Issue 3, Pages 236-245

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2011.03.005

Keywords

Theobroma cacao; Bacillus; Endophyte; Cacao; Moniliophthora; Phytophthora; ARISA

Funding

  1. USAID

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sixty-nine endospore-forming bacterial endophytes consisting of 15 different species from five genera were isolated from leaves, pods, branches, and flower cushions of Theobroma cacao as potential biological control agents. Sixteen isolates had in vitro chitinase production. In antagonism studies against cacao pathogens, 42% inhibited Moniliophthora roreri, 33% inhibited Moniliophthora perniciosa, and 49% inhibited Phytophthora capsici. Twenty-five percent of isolates inhibited the growth of both Moniliophthora spp., while 22% of isolates inhibited the growth of all three pathogens. Isolates that were chitinolytic and tested negative on Bacillus cereus agar were tested with in planta studies. All 14 isolates colonized the phyllosphere and internal leaf tissue when introduced with Silwet L-77, regardless of the tissue of origin of the isolate. Eight isolates significantly inhibited P. capsici lesion formation (p = 0.05) in detached leaf assays when compared to untreated control leaves. ARISA with bacilli specific primers amplified 21 OTUs in field grown cacao leaves, while eubacteria specific primers amplified 58 OTUs. ARISA analysis of treated leaves demonstrated that inundative application of a single bacterial species did not cause a long-term shift of native bacterial communities. This research illustrates the presence of endospore-forming bacterial endophytes in cacao trees, their potential as antagonists of cacao pathogens, and that cacao harbors a range of bacterial endophytes. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available