4.5 Article

Pathogen Variation and Urea Influence Selection and Success of Streptomyces Mixtures in Biological Control

期刊

PHYTOPATHOLOGY
卷 103, 期 1, 页码 34-42

出版社

AMER PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1094/PHYTO-06-12-0129-R

关键词

-

资金

  1. Healthy Foods, Healthy Lives Initiative
  2. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station [MIN-22-018]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Otto-Hanson, L. K., Grabau, Z., Rosen, C., Salomon, C. E., and Kinkel, L. L. 2013. Pathogen variation and urea influence selection and success of Streptomyces mixtures in biological control. Phytopathology 103:34-42. Success in biological control of plant diseases remains inconsistent in the field. A collection of well-characterized Streptomyces antagonists (ii = 19 isolates) was tested for their capacities to inhibit pathogenic Streptomyces scabies (n = 15 isolates). There was significant variation among antagonists in ability to inhibit pathogen isolates and among pathogens in their susceptibility to inhibition. Only one antagonist could inhibit all pathogens, and antagonist pathogen interactions were highly specific, highlighting the limitations of single-strain inoculum in biological control. However, the collection of pathogens could be inhibited by several combinations of antagonists, suggesting the potential for successful antagonist mixtures. Urea generally increased effectiveness of antagonists at inhibiting pathogens in vitro (increased mean inhibition zones) but its specific effects varied among antagonist-pathogen combinations. In greenhouse trials, urea enhanced the effectiveness of antagonist mixtures relative to individual antagonists in controlling potato scab. Although antagonist mixtures were frequently antagonistic in the absence of urea, all n = 2 and ii = 3 antagonist isolate combinations were synergistic in the presence of urea. This work provides insights into the efficacy of single- versus multiple-strain inocula in biological control and on the potential for nutrients to influence mixture success.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据