4.6 Article

Activity and efficacy of Bacillus subtilis strain NJ-18 against rice sheath blight and Sclerotinia stem rot of rape

期刊

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
卷 51, 期 1, 页码 61-65

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2009.05.021

关键词

Antifungal bacterium; Bacterial antagonist; Biological control; In vitro inhibition

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2009CB118906, 2006CB101907]
  2. [2006AA10A211]
  3. [BE2006304]
  4. [nyhyzx 3-21]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A strain of Bacillus subtilis (NJ-18) with broad antimicrobial activity was screened in the laboratory and in the field. NJ-18 inhibited the in vitro radial extension of hyphae of the phytopathogenic fungi Rhizoctonia solani and Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. The bacterium apparently produced antifungal metabolites that diffused through the agar and caused abnormal swelling of hyphae. The in vitro data and observations indicated that one of the mechanisms of inhibition by NJ-18 is antibiosis. In field experiments for control of sheath blight of rice, fermentation of NJ-18 at 5.0 x 10(7) cfu ml(-1) significantly reduced disease incidence and severity; NJ-18 alone or combined with 50% kresoxim-methyl treatment at 225 g ai ha(-1) provided better control than 50% kresoxim-methyl at 225 g ai ha(-1) or Jinggangmycin at 120 g ai ha(-1), and control by NJ-18 alone was as high as 100.0%. In field experiments for control of Sclerotinia stem rot of rape, fermentation of NJ-18 at 1.0 x 10(7) cfu ml(-1) again significantly reduced disease incidence and severity; control by NJ-18 was as high as 77.1% and was comparable with control by 46% dimethachlon and better than control by 50% carbendazim at 750 g ai ha(-1). We conclude that strain NJ-18 of B. subtilis is a promising biological control agent and should be further studied and tested for control of sheath blight of rice, Sclerotinia stem rot of rape, and other diseases. Crown Copyright (C) 2009 Published by Elsevier Inc. 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

4.6
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