تأثیر Bacillus cereus و Bacillus subtilis بر بیماری‌زایی Meloidogyne javanica در سه رقم هلو در شرایط گلخانه

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 بیماری‌شناسی گیاهی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه زابل

2 گروه بیماری‌شناسی گیاهی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه شهرکرد

3 گروه بیماری‌شناسی گیاهی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه زابل

4 مرکز هیات‌های امنا و هیات‌های ممیزه وزارت علوم، تحقیقات و فناوری

چکیده

تعدادی از باکتری­های غیربیماری­زای گیاهی می­توانند فعالیت‌های مختلف میکروارگانیسم‌هایی همچون نماتدهای بیماری­زای گیاهی را تحت تأثیر قرار دهند. در این تحقیق، جهت بررسی اثر این باکتری‌ها بر بیماریزایی و خسارت نماتد Meloidogyne javanica روی هلو، از دو گونه باکتری Bacillus cereus IPRI95 و subtilis VUPF52 .B و سه نوع پایه هلو استفاده شد. آزمایش به صورت فاکتوریل در قالب طرح کاملاً تصادفی با پنج تکرار در شرایط گلخانه انجام پذیرفت. ارزیابی نتایج سه ماه بعد از مایه‌زنی گیاهان با نماتد با استفاده از شاخص‌های رشدی گیاهان سالم و آلوده به نماتد و پارامترهای رشدی نماتد در گیاهان آلوده انجام شد. تجزیه و تحلیل نتایج بیانگر اثر مثبت باکتری‌های مورد استفاده در افزایش شاخص‌های رشدی ارقام مختلف هلو و کاهش پارامترهای رشد و نموی نماتد ریشه‌گرهی بود. با اینحال میزان افزایش در تیمارهای مختلف متفاوت بود. برای مثال بیشترین و کمترین میزان رشد شاخه به ترتیب در رقم هلندری غیرآلوده در حضور B. subtillis (5/43) و رقم  GF677آلوده به نماتد و بدون باکتری (3/8) مشاهده شد. همچنین حضور باکتری B. subtillis باعث کاهش 4/48 و 8/46 درصدی به ترتیب در میانگین تعداد گال و تعداد کیسه تخم نماتد در گرم ریشه رقم GF677 نسبت به شاهد (بدون باکتری) کاهش گردید.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Effect of Bacillus cereus and Bacillus subtilis on Pathogenicity of Meloidogyne javanica in Three Rootstocks of Peach under Greenhouse Condition

نویسندگان [English]

  • akram abdolahi arjenaki 1
  • N. Panjehkeh 1
  • A.A. Fadaei Tehrani 2
  • M. Salari 3
  • Abdolhosein Taheri 4
2 Plant Protection Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Shahrekord University, Shahrekord, Iran
3 Plant Protection Department, Faculty of Science and Agricultural Engineering, University of Zabol, Zabol,
4 the Center for Board of Trustees and Audit Boards of the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology
چکیده [English]

Introduction: Plant-parasitic nematodes, especially root-knot nematodes, cause a lot of damage to most agricultural products and a lot of efforts are made to control them. Biological control is one of the most widely studied methods to reduce nematode damage. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of two bacteria including Bacillus cereusIPRI95 and B. subtilisVUPF52 on the infection of Meloidogyne javanica on three rootstocks under greenhouse conditions.
Materials and Methods: This study was performed as a factorial experiment in a completely randomized design with five replications. In this way, the soil of the pots was disinfected before planting the seedlings, and then the seedlings were planted. After the establishment of the rootstocks, a three-day liquid culture peach for each bacterial isolate was prepared with a concentration of 107 colony-forming units in milliliters (CFU / ml) and 15 ml of suspension from each bacterium to the soil around the seedlings were added in each treatment. Two days after treating the plants with bacteria in the pots, inoculation with 2000 eggs with larvae of nematodes per kilogram of soil, entered into 3 holes created around the seedlings and then covered with soil these holes. Experimental plants to pass at least three generations of nematodes, three months in suitable greenhouse conditions with a temperature of 20 to 25 degrees, relative humidity 60-80% and optical period (13 hours of light, 11 hours of darkness) maintenance and regular watering twice in the week was over. At the end of the experiment, plant growth indices include (length, fresh and dry weight of shoots, length, fresh and dry weight of roots) and nematode growth parameters including (number of galls, number of second larvae (j2), number of egg mass in plant roots and number Eggs per egg mass, as well as a reproductive factor (RF), were measured an statistically analyzed using SAS 9.4 software. A comparison of mean treatments in all cases was performed by LSD-protected test at 5%.
Results and Discussion: Nematode contamination in the absence of biocontrol agents significantly reduced the growth index at all levels compared to other treatments. So the peeling of peach bases with nematode reduces the stem length by 34% and 30% in GF677 and Shorabi local cultivars, respectively, compared to the control treatment. The results of comparing the means between treatments in GF677 showed that stem length in these plants treated with two bacterial strains increased significantly compared to the control. Root length also decreased by 14 and 50 percent in Helendri and GF677 cultivars, respectively, following infection with nematode compared to control treatment. However, following the treatment of peach roots with bacterial strains, we saw a significant increase in root length, so that the maximum root length in Helendri cultivar in treatment with B. subtillis strain and GF677 cultivar followed by treatment with B. cereus was obtained. Statistical analysis showed that the two bacterial isolates mentioned, in addition to affecting the growth factors of vegetative bases, also had a significant effect on nematode growth and development indicators and disease reduction. So that the number of eggs and egg mass decreased in all three cultivars. The mean number of galls per gram of root in GF677 treated with B. subtilis and B. cereus bacteria decreased by 48.4% and 40.68%, respectively, compared to the non-bacterial control. The results of this study also showed that the J2 population in treatments with nematodes alone compared with treatments with bacteria have a significant difference. The number of J2 larvae in the presence of B. subtilis bacteria decreased by 67.73, 52.52 and 12.6% in Helendri cultivars, GF677 and local cultivar Shorabi compared to the control. The use of biological bacteria affected all stages of nematode growth and development. However, the ability of bacteria to reduce nematode reproductive factors was significant in the nematode-sensitive cultivar (Gf). The findings of this study showed the controlling effect of biocontrol bacteria used on the propagation and damage of root-knot nematodes. So that by increasing plant growth indices, nematode damage was reduced. Although the bacteria used were effective on all three rootstocks, due to GF677 being more sensitive to root-knot nematodes than Helendri cultivars and the local cultivar Shorabi, the effect of bacterial agents on the rootstock was less than the other two rootstocks.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Bacillus
  • Biocontrol
  • Root-knot nematode
  • Peach rootstocks
- Aballay E., Ordenes P., Martensson A., Persson P. 2013. Effects of rhizobacteria on parasitism by Meloidogyne ethiopica on grapevines. European Journal of Plant Pathology 135(1): 137-145.
2- Agrawal D.P.K. and Agrawal Sh. 2013. Characterization of Bacillus sp. strains isolated from rhizosphere of tomato plants (Lycopersicon esculentum) for their use as potential plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. International Journal of Current Microbiology Applied Science 2(10): 406-417.
3- Chin Ann Y. 2013. Screening for Nematicidal Activities of Bacillus Species Against Root Knot Nematode (Meloidogyne incognita). American Journal of Experimental Agriculture 3(4): 794-805.
4- Custódio C.C., de Araújo F.F., Ribeiro A.M., Filho N.V., and Machado-Neto N.B. 2013. Seed treatment with Bacillus subtilis or indol butyric acid: germination and early development of bean seedlings. Interciencia 38(4): 273-279.
5- Dawar S., Tariq M., and Zaki M.J. 2008. Application of Bacillus species in control of Meloidogyne javanica (Treub) chitwood on cowpea and mash bean. Pakistan Journal of Botany 40: 439-444.
6- Gardener BBM. 2004. Ecology of Bacillus and Paenibacillus spp. In agricultural systems. Phytopathplogy 94: 1252-125.
7- Huang X., Niu Q., Yang J., and Zhang K. 2005. Bacillus nematocida sp. Nov., a novel bacterial strain with nematotoxic activity isolated from soil in Yunnan, Chain. Systematic and Applied Microbiology 28: 323-327.      
8- Huang Y., Xu C., Ma L., Zhang K., Duan C., and Mo M. 2009. Characterization of volaties produced from Bacillus megaterium YFM 3.25 and their nematicidal activity against Meloidogyne incognita European Journal of Plant Pathology 26: 417-422.
9- Huang Y., Xu C.K., Ma L., Zhang K.Q., Duan C.Q., and Mo M.H. 2010. Characterization of volatiles produced from Bacillus megateriumYFM 3.25 and their nematicidal activity against Meloidogyne incognit. European Journal of Plant Pathology 126: 417–422.                                   
10- Hussey R.S., and Barker K.R. 1973. Comparison of methods for collecting inocula of Meloidogyne spp. including a new technique. Plant Disease Reporter 57: 1025–1028.                
11- Hashema M., and Abo-Elyousr K.M. 2011. Management of the root-knot nematode Meloidogyne incognita on tomato with combinations of different biocontrol organisms, Crop Protection 30: 285-292.
12- Jepson S.B. 1987. Identification of root Knot nematode (Meloidogyne species). CAB. International, Wallingford, Oxon, United kingdom, 265 pp.
13- Jones J.T., Haegeman A.D., Danchin E.G., Gaur H.S., Helder M.G., Jones T., Kikuchi R., Manzanillia R., Lopez J.E., Palomares-Rius W.I.M.M.L., Wesemael R.N., and Perry O. 2013. Top 10 plant-parasitic nematodes in molecular plant pathology Mol. Plant Pathology 14: 946-961.
14- Faostat. 2012. Available in http://faostat.fao.org/
15- Khalil M.S., Kenawy A., Gohrab M.A., and Mohammed E.E. 2012. Impact of microbial agents on Meloidogyne incognita management and morphogenesis of tomato. Journal Biopest 5(1): 28-35.
16- Kilian M., Steiner U., Krebs B., Junge H., Schmiedeknecht G., and Hain R. 2000. Mode of action of a microbial agent enhancing plant vitality. Pflanzenschutz-Nachrichten Bayer 1: 72-93.
17- Kokalis-Burelle N., and Samac D.A. 2003. Use of gram–positive bacteria as biological control agents for plant parasitic nematodes. Journal of Nematology 35: 347-348. (Abst.)
18- Korayem A.M., El-Bassiouny HMS., El-Monem AAA., and Mohamed MMM. 2012. Physiological and biochemical changes in different sugar beet genotypes infected with root-knot nematode. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum 34(5): 1847-1861.
19- Nagesh M., Asokan R., and Mohan K. 2005. Partial characterization of novel nematicidal toxins from Bacillus cereus Frankland 1887 and their effect on root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid & White) Chitwood Journal of Biological Control 19:65-69.
20- Nyczepir A.P., Riley M.B., and Sharpe R.R. 1993. Dynamics of concomitant populations of Meloidogyne incognitaand Cticonemella xenaplax on peach. Journal of Nematology 25: 659-665.
21- Oka Y., Chet I., and Spiegel Y. 1993. Control of the root knot nematode Meloidogyne javanica by Bacillus cereus. Biocontrol Science and Technology 3(2): 115-126.
22- Oostenbrink M. 1966. Major characteristics of the relation between nematodes and plants. Mededelingen Landbouwhogeschool Wageningen 66(4): 1-46.
23- Oyekanmi E.O., Coyneb D.L., Fagadea O.E., and Osonubia O. 2007. Improving root-knot nematode management on two soybean genotypes through the application of Bradyrhizobium japonicum, Trichoderma pseudokoningii and Glomus mosseae in full factorial combinations. Crop Protection 26: 1006–1012.
24- Poi SC., and Kabi MC. 1979. Effect of Azotobacter inoculation on the growth and yield of jute and wheat. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 49(6): 478-480.
25- Pegard A., Brrizzard G., Fazari A., Soucaze O., Abad P., and Djian- Caporalino C. 2004. Histological characterization of resistance to different root-knot nematode species related phenolics accumulation in Capsium annuum. Phytopathology 95: 158-165.
26 -Sasser JN., and Freckman DW. 1987. Aword perspective on nematology: the role of the society. In: Veech, J A, Dickson DW (ed.), Vistas on Nematology, Society of Nematologists, Hyatsville.7-14 pp.
27 -Siddiqui ZA., and Mahmood I. 1999. Role of bacteria in the management of plant parasitic nematodes: a review. Bioresource Technology 69: 167-179.                                                            
28- Siddiqui ZA., and Akhtar MS. 2009. Effects of antagonistic fungi, plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria, and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi alone and in combination on the reproduction of Meloidogyne incognita and growth of tomato. Journal of General Plant Pathology 75(2): 144-153.
29- Siddiqui Z.A., Qureshi A., and Akhtar M.S. 2009. Biocontrol of root-knot nematode Meloidogyne incognita by Pseudomonas and Bacillus isolates on Pisum sativum, Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Protection 42: 1154-1164.
30- Singh P., and Siddiqui Z.A. 2010. Biocontrol of root-knot nematode Meloidogyne incognita by the isolates of Bacillus on tomato. Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection 43(6): 552-561.
31-Taylor D.P., and Netscher C. 1974. An improved technique for preparing perineal patterns of Meloidogyne spp. Nematologica 20: 268-269.
32- Tian B., Li N., Lian L., Liu J., Yang J., and Zhang K.Q. 2006. Cloning, expression and deletion of the cuticle degrading protease BLG4 from nematophagous bacterium Brevibacillus laterosporus G4. Arch. Microbiology 186: 297–305.
33- Reva O.N., Dixelius C., Meijer J., and Priest F.J. 2004. Taxonomic characterization and plant colonizing abilities of some bacteria elated to Bacillus amyloliquefaciens and Bacillus subtilis, FEMS Microbiol. Ecology 48: 249–259.
34- Ruiz SE., Cristόbal AJ., Reyes RA., Tun SJ., García RA., and Pacheco AJ. 2014. In vitro antagonistic activity of Bacillus subtilis strains isolated from soils of the Yucatan Peninsula against Macrophomina phaseolina and Meloidogyne incognita . FYTON ISSN, 83: 45-47.
35- Walters DR., Ratsep J., and Havis ND.2013. Controlling crop diseases using induced resistance: challenges for the future. Journal of Experimental Botany 64(5): 1263-1280.