4.5 Article

Mycorrhizae colonizing actinomycetes promote plant growth and control bacterial blight disease of pomegranate (Punica granatum L. cv Bhagwa)

期刊

CROP PROTECTION
卷 53, 期 -, 页码 175-181

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cropro.2013.07.009

关键词

Punica granatum; Glomus mosseae; Streptomyces; NSA; Xanthomonas axonopodis pv punicae; Plant growth hormones

类别

资金

  1. AMAAS (Application of Microbes in Agriculture and Allied Sectors) project

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The bacterial blight of pomegranate (Punica grantum L) caused by Xanthomonas axonopodis pv punicae (Xap) is an important disease in India affecting severely the crop and bringing down domestic and export production drastically. The actinomycetes isolated from Glomus mosseae spores and characterized molecularly were tested on pomegranate seedling growth. All the actinomycetes strains improved shoot and root growth increasing biomass by 68-277% in 3 months period which may be attributed to production of varying levels of growth hormones. Streptomyces canus produced the highest amount of IAA (10.1 mu g ml(-1)) and GA(3) (12.0 mu g ml(-1)). The strains were also tested for antibacterial activity against Xap by agar diffusion method. Streptomyces fradiae recorded the highest zone of inhibition (2.41 cm dia) followed by Streptomyces avermitilis (2.31 cm), Streptomyces cinnamonensis (2.22 cm), S. canus (2.0 cm) and Non-Streptomyces actinomycetes (NSA) Leifsonia poae (1.83 cm). Detached leaf assay revealed that S. fradiae, S. avermitilis, S. cinnamonensis and S. canus effectively reduced the infection caused by Xap in pomegranate leaves under in vitro conditions. In whole plant bioassay also the Xap infection was significantly reduced by actinomycetes treatment. The findings from this study clearly indicated the possibilities of using mycorrhizae associated actinomycetes as bioinoculant for growth promotion and for control of bacterial blight in pomegranate cultivation. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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