4.4 Article

An aqueous extract of the dry mycelium of Penicillium chrysogenum induces resistance in several crops under controlled and field conditions

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PLANT PATHOLOGY
卷 114, 期 2, 页码 185-197

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10658-005-4512-6

关键词

apple tree; grapevine; induced resistance; Phytophthora infestans; Plasmopara viticola; tomato

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have examined the effect of Pen, an aqueous extract of the dry mycelium of Penicillium chrysogenum, on plant-pathogen interactions. Pen controlled a broad range of pathogens on several crop plants under greenhouse and field conditions. Pen protected grapevine from downy and powdery mildew (caused by Plasmopara viticola and Uncinula necator), tomato from early blight (caused by Phytophthora infestans), onion from downy mildew (Peronospora destructor) and apple trees from apple scab (caused by Venturia inaequalis) to a similar extent as fungicides such as copper and sulphur or well-known inducers such as benzothiadiazole or beta-aminobutyric acid. Pen had no major direct fungicidal effect and is thus supposed to protect plants by activating their defense mechanisms. The raw material for extraction of Pen was available in constant quality, a prerequisite for commercial application. Under certain conditions, Pen caused phytotoxic side effects. The symptoms mostly consisted of small necrotic spots or, more rarely, of larger necrotic areas. The development of the symptoms was dependent on several parameters, including concentration of Pen, the number of applications, the persistence on the plant tissue, the plant species and variety and environmental conditions. In grapevine, a partially purified fraction of Pen was much less toxic than the crude Pen extract, but protected the plants to a similar extent against P. viticola. Our data show that Pen has interesting and unique properties as a plant protection agent, but more research is needed to further reduce its phytotoxic side effects.

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

4.4
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