South Indian Journal of Biological Sciences

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Microbial Consortia-Mediated Plant Defense against Phytopathogens and Growth Benefits


Affiliations
1 Department of Agricultural Microbiology, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad 580 005, India
 

Microorganisms under natural habitats live in communities and some provide benefits to plants. The concept of development of microbial consortia for bio-control and crop sustainability relies on this fact. Microbes when introduced to soil as consortium interact with a host plant, partially mimic the natural soil conditions. To improve stability of the released microbes in different agricultural fields, use of microbial consortia is advocated. Further, microbes together can also offer multiple mechanisms of mycoparasitism, competition, antibiosis, induced systemic resistance etc., to fight pathogens. Microbes in communities also strengthen the capabilities of the partners in an additive or synergistic manner. Although development of microbial consortia is important for management of plant diseases, it is also equally important to understand how they influence plant metabolism when the consortium is introduced to soil. Various plant physiological parameters that are identified to aid biocontrol by pathogens include activation of phenyl propanoid pathway, activation of antioxidant pathways and various stress enzymes such as phenyl alanine ammonia lyase, peroxidase and polyphenol oxidase etc. The compatible microbial consortia trigger defence responses in an enhanced level in crop plants than the microbes alone, and provides better protection against pathogens. Evaluation of compatibility and synergism of microbial components is essential for the success of microbial consortia. Further rapid evaluation methodologies or kits need to be developed for quicker developments in the field of microbial consortia.

Keywords

Microbial Consortia, Systemic Resistance, Defense Molecules, Antibiosis, Compatibility.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Akanksha S, Sarma BK, Upadhyay RS, Singh HB. (2012). Compatible rhizosphere microbes mediated alleviation of biotic stress in chickpea through enhanced antioxidant and phenylpropanoid activities. Microbiological Research 168, 33-40.

  • Alizadeh H, Behboudi K, Ahmadzadeh M, Nikkhah MJ, Zamioudis C, Pieterse CMJ, Bakker PAHM. (2013). Induced systemic resistance in cucumber and Arabidopsis thaliana by the combination of Trichoderma harzianum Tr6 and Pseudomonas sp. Ps14. Biological Control, 65,14–23.

  • Calvo J, Calvente V, De Orellano ME, Benuzzi D, De Tosetti MIS. (2003). Improvement in the biocontrol of postharvest diseases of apples with the use of yeast mixtures. Biocontrol 48, 579-593.

  • Conway WS, Janisiewicz WJ, Leverentz B, Saftner RA, Camp MJ. (2007). Control of blue mold of apple by combining controlled atmosphere, an antagonist mixture, and sodium bicarbonate. Postharvest Biology and Technology 45, 326-332.

  • Dandurand LM, Knudsen GR. (1993). Influence of Pseudomonas fluorescens on hyphal growth and biocontrol activity of Trichoderma harzianumin in the spermosphere and rhizosphere of pea. Phytopathology 83, 265-270.

  • Domenech J, Reddy MS, Kloepper JW, Ramos B, Gutierrez- Manero J. (2006). Combined application of the biological product LS213 with Bacillus, Pseudomonas or Chryseobacterium for growth promotion and biological control of soil-borne diseases in pepper and tomato. Biocontrol 51,245-258.

  • Duffy BK, Weller DM. (1995). Use of Gaeumannomyces graminis var. graminis alone and in combination with fluorescent Pseudomonas spp. to suppress take-all of wheat. Plant Disease 79, 907-911.

  • Dutta S, Mishra AK, Kumar BSD. (2008). Induction of systemic resistance against fusarial wilt in pigeon pea through interaction of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and rhizobia. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 40,452-61.

  • Fukui R, Fukui H, Alvarez AM. (1999). Comparisons of single versus multiple bacterial species on biological control of Anthurium blight. Phytopathology 89,366-373.

  • Jain A, Singh S, Sarma BK, Singh BH. (2012). Microbial consortium–mediated reprogramming Of defence network in pea to enhance tolerance against Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Journal of Applied Microbiology 1364-5072.

  • Jetiyanon K. (2007). Defensive-related enzyme response in plants treated with a mixture of Bacillus strains (IN937a and IN937b) against different pathogens. Biological Control 42, 178-185.

  • Kloepper JW, Schroth MN. (1980). Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and plant growth under gnotobiotic conditions. American Phytopathological Society 71,6.-10.

  • Lucas JA, Solano BR, Montes F, Ojeda J, Megias M, Manero FJG. (2009). Use of two PGPR strains in the integrated management of blast disease in rice (Oryza sativa) in Southern Spain. Field Crops Research 114, 404-410.

  • Lynch JM. (1990). Introduction: some consequences of microbial rhizosphere competence for plant and soil. In; The Rhizosphere. Lynch, J. M. (ed.). Wiley and Sons, Chichester, pages 1-10.

  • Marimuthu S, Ramamoorthy V, Samiyappan R, Subbian P. (2013). Intercropping system with combined application of Azospirillum and Pseudomonas fluorescens reduces ischolar_main rot incidence caused by Rhizoctonia bataticola and increases seed cotton yield. Journal of Phytopathology 161, 405-411.

  • Moree WJ, Phelan VV, Wu CH, Bandeira N, Cornett DS, Duggan BM, et al. (2012). Inter kingdom metabolic transformations captured by microbial imaging mass spectrometry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 13811–13816.

  • Muthukumar A, Bhaskaran R, Sanjeevkumar K. (2010). Efficacy of endophytic Pseudomonas fluorescens (Trevisan) migula against chilli damping-off. Journal of Biopesticides 3,105-109.

  • Pierson EA, Weller DM. (1994). Use of mixtures of fluorescent pseudomonads to suppress take-all and improve the growth of wheat. Phytopathology 84,940-947.

  • Roberts DP, Lohrke SM, Meyer SLF, Buyer JS, Bowers JH, Baker CJ, Li W, de Souza JT, Lewis JA. Chung S. (2005). Biocontrol agents applied individually and in combination for suppression of soil borne diseases of cucumber. Crop Protection 24, 141-155.

  • Rudresh DLMK, Shivaprakash MK, Prasad RD. (2005). Effect of combined application Of Rhizobium, phosphate solubilizing bacterium and Trichoderma spp. on growth, nutrient uptake and yield of chickpea (Ciceraritenium L.). Applied Soil Ecology 28, 139–146.

  • Singh A, Sarma BK, Upadhyay RS, Singh HB. (2013). Compatible rhizosphere Microbes mediated alleviation of biotic stress in chickpea through enhanced antioxidant and phenylpropanoid activities. Microbiological Research 168, 33-40.

  • Srinivasan K, Mathivanan N. (2009). Biological control of sunflower necrosis virus disease with powder and liquid formulations of plant growth promoting microbial consortia under field conditions. Biological Control 51, 395-402.

  • Stockwell VO, Johnson KB, Sugar D, Loper JE. (2011). Mechanistically compatibl mixtures of bacterial antagonists improve biological control of fire blight of pear. Phytopathology 101, 113-123.

  • Yobo KS, Laing MD, Hunter CH. (2010). Application of selected biological control agents in conjunction with tolclofos-methyl for the control of damping-off caused by Rhizoctonia solani. African Journal of Biotechnology 9, 1789-1796.


Abstract Views: 248

PDF Views: 12




  • Microbial Consortia-Mediated Plant Defense against Phytopathogens and Growth Benefits

Abstract Views: 248  |  PDF Views: 12

Authors

K. Harish Kumar
Department of Agricultural Microbiology, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad 580 005, India
K. S. Jagadeesh
Department of Agricultural Microbiology, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad 580 005, India

Abstract


Microorganisms under natural habitats live in communities and some provide benefits to plants. The concept of development of microbial consortia for bio-control and crop sustainability relies on this fact. Microbes when introduced to soil as consortium interact with a host plant, partially mimic the natural soil conditions. To improve stability of the released microbes in different agricultural fields, use of microbial consortia is advocated. Further, microbes together can also offer multiple mechanisms of mycoparasitism, competition, antibiosis, induced systemic resistance etc., to fight pathogens. Microbes in communities also strengthen the capabilities of the partners in an additive or synergistic manner. Although development of microbial consortia is important for management of plant diseases, it is also equally important to understand how they influence plant metabolism when the consortium is introduced to soil. Various plant physiological parameters that are identified to aid biocontrol by pathogens include activation of phenyl propanoid pathway, activation of antioxidant pathways and various stress enzymes such as phenyl alanine ammonia lyase, peroxidase and polyphenol oxidase etc. The compatible microbial consortia trigger defence responses in an enhanced level in crop plants than the microbes alone, and provides better protection against pathogens. Evaluation of compatibility and synergism of microbial components is essential for the success of microbial consortia. Further rapid evaluation methodologies or kits need to be developed for quicker developments in the field of microbial consortia.

Keywords


Microbial Consortia, Systemic Resistance, Defense Molecules, Antibiosis, Compatibility.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.22205/sijbs%2F2016%2Fv2%2Fi4%2F103445