4.2 Article

Evaluation of compost amendments for control of vascular wilt diseases

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHYTOPATHOLOGY
Volume 156, Issue 10, Pages 622-627

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0434.2008.01422.x

Keywords

biological control; Verticillium dahliae; Fusarium oxysporum f. sp melonis; Paenibacillus alvei K165

Categories

Funding

  1. European Union - European Social Fund
  2. National Resources - EPEAEK II.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Vascular wilt fungal pathogens cause heavy economic losses to a wide range of crops; amongst them are Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. melonis (FOM) and Verticillium dahliae Kleb. Several strategies for controlling these pathogens have been introduced, such as soil solarization, resistant rootstocks and biological control. In this study, the suppressive ability of seven different compost amendments and the plant growth-promoting rhizobacterium Paenibacillus alvei K165 (with proven activity against V. dahliae) were tested against FOM in melon and V. dahliae in eggplant. It was shown that K165 had a suppressive effect against the pathogens in all experiments. On the contrary, the composts exhibited a narrow spectrum of effectiveness against the pathogens. Two composts were effective against V. dahliae and one against FOM. Moreover, we investigated the potential of the various compost samples and K165 to induce resistance in an Arabidopsis thaliana-V. dahliae or FOM model system. It was demonstrated that three composts and K165 were effective against V. dahliae; whereas, one compost and K165 were effective against FOM. In a naturally V.dahliae infested field, the ability of K165 to enhance the suppressive effect of one of the compost amendments, was evaluated. It was demonstrated that fortification of the compost with strain K165 significantly reduced disease severity, whereas the single application of the compost was not sufficient to significantly protect the plants.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available