4.6 Article

Biological control of hairy root (Rhizobium rhizogenes) in apple nurseries through Rhizobium radiobacter antagonists (strain K-84 and native strain UHFBA-218)

期刊

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
卷 164, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2021.104762

关键词

Hairy root; Rhizobium rhizogenes; Biological control; R; radiobacter; Rhizosphere

资金

  1. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hairy root caused by Rhizobium rhizogenes is a major issue in apple nurseries, but can be effectively controlled through seed and root dip treatments with Rhizobium radiobacter and their antibiotic-resistant counterparts, promoting apple plant growth.
Hairy root caused by Rhizobium rhizogenes is one of the major hindrances in raising quality nursery apple plants. Based on the survey analysis, carried out in the present study, disease incidence ranging from 3.00 to 21.05% was recorded in different apple nurseries of Himachal Pradesh. The plant pathogen isolated from rhizosphere soil of hairy root-infested apple seedling rootstock, in the present study, identified as Rhizobium rhizogenes strain UHF P10 (NCBI Gen Bank accession no: MG745303.1) shared 100% homology with R. rhizogenes and belonged to biovar 2. Application of Rhizobium radiobacter antagonists (Strain K-84; native strain UHFBA-218 and their streptomycin and rifampicin-resistant mutants) as seed treatment completely inhibited hairy root disease. The application of strain UHFBA-218 as root dip reduced hairy root incidence to 3.33% whereas, application of K-84 as root dip minimized incidence to 4.99 %. The hairy root incidence in untreated plants during the first and second year of field trials was 18.57% and 20.23%, respectively. Seed and root dip application of both strains of R. radiobacter (K-84; native strain UHFBA-218) along with their antibiotic-resistant counterparts also promoted the growth of apple plants and increased population of antagonists.

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

4.6
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