Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 12 No. 1 (2025)

Unshackle Pseudomonas putida GN1 and organic amendments against root rot (Macrophomina phaseolina) and stem rot (Sclerotium rolfsii) control by plant growth promotion in groundnut

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.6499
Submitted
3 December 2024
Published
23-02-2025 — Updated on 28-02-2025
Versions

Abstract

The efficacy of Pseudomonas putida (GN1) and Burholderia cepacia (KKM1) as seed treatment and soil application along with neem cake against groundnut root rot and stem rot disease was evaluated under rainfed conditions during the years 2021, 2022 and 2023. The present study is to evaluate biocontrol agents and organic amendments against Macrophomina phaseolina and Sclerotium rolfsii in peanut. The result showed that neem cake (10 %) recorded the maximum inhibition of Macrophomona phaseolina (40.91 %) and S. rolfsii (45.45 %) under in vitro whereas neem cake combined with P. putida and B. cepacia as seed treatment 10 g/kg of seed and soil Application of P. putida @ 2.5 kg + Neem cake 150 kg/ha decreases the soil-borne diseases of root rot (71.70 %) and stem rot (64.88 %) and also increased the yield 2130.48 kg/ha with the cost-benefit ratio of 2.74 under rainfed field conditions comparing to other treatments. In addition, the same treatment increased the total root length (2110.41 mm), Root tips (573 Nos), forks (501 Nos), Maximum diameter (18.11 mm) and estimated volume (27170 cm3 ) when using BioVis PSM Root -Rhizoscanner.

References

  1. FAOSTAT. Food and agricultural organization statistics database. [Internet]; 2019:7. Available from: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home
  2. INDIASTAT. Socio-economic statistical information about India. [Internet]; 2019:28. Available from: https://www.INDIASTAT.com
  3. Choudhary A, Ashraf S. Utilizing the combined antifungal potential of Trichoderma spp. and organic amendments against dry root rot of mungbean. Egypt J Biol Pest Control. 2019;29(83). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41938-019-0187-8
  4. Meena CM, Ashok KM, Prabhu NM, Raja RM. Management of stem rot of groundnut incited by S. Rolfsii through important bioagents. Chem Sci Rev Lett. 2018;7(28):1012-17.
  5. Kumar V, Kumar A, Kharwar RN. Antagonistic potential of fluorescent pseudomonads and control of charcoal rot of chickpea caused by Macrophomina phaseolina. J Environ Biol. 2007;28(1):15–20. PMID: 17717979.
  6. Paramasivan M, Kannan P, Rajendran L, Muthuramu S, Mytrle G. Management of root rot (Macrophomina phaseolina) in peanut with biocontrol agents and studying its root physiology. Arch Phytopathol Plant Prot. 2022;55(10):1169-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/03235408.2021.19688286
  7. Zaman NR, Kumar B, Nasrin Z, Islam MR, Maiti TK, Khan H. Proteome analyses reveal Macrophomina phaseolina’s survival tools when challenged by Burkholderia contaminans NZ. ACS Omega. 2020;5(3):1352-62. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.9b01870
  8. Dhawan A, Kumar S, Sharma PK, Chugh RK. Effect of different fungicides, organics amendments and bio-control agents on dry root rot of cluster bean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.) Taub) caused by Rhizoctonia bataticola (Taub.) Butler. Forage Res. 2019;44(4):276-81.
  9. Vijayasanthi S, Akila R, Kannan R, Gomathy M. Evaluation of fungicides and oil cakes for the management of Panama wilt caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense (FOC) in banana. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2019;8(6):1258-63.
  10. Rakholiya KB, Jadeja KB. Effect of soil amendments and bio-control agents for management of stem and pod rot of groundnut. Int J Plant Prot. 2010:3(2):348-49. UPENG/2008/24354.
  11. Tayyab M, Islam W, Lee CG, Pang Z, Khalil F, Lin S. Short-term effects of different organic amendments on soil fungal composite. Sustainability. 2019;11(1):198. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010198
  12. Archana T, Rajendran L, Manoranjitham SK, Santhana Krishnan VP, Paramasivan M, Karthikeyan G. Culture-dependent analysis of seed bacterial endophyte, Pseudomonas spp. EGN 1 against the stem rot disease (Sclerotium rolfsii Sacc.) in groundnut. Egypt J Biol Pest Control. 2020;30:119. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41938-020-00317-x
  13. Bonanomi G, Lorito M, Vinale F, Woo SL. Organic amendments, beneficial microbes and soil microbiota: Towards a unified framework for disease suppression. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2018;56:1-20. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-phyto-080615-100046
  14. Jangir M, Sharma S, Satyawati S. Synergistic effect of oilseed cake and biocontrol agent in the suppression of Fusarium wilt in Solanum lycopersicum. Braz J Microbiol. 2020;51:1929-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42770-020-00344-8
  15. Vasebi Y, Safaie N, Alizadeh A. Biological control of soybean charcoal root rot disease using bacterial and fungal antagonists In vitro and greenhouse condition. J Crop Prot. 2013;2(2):139-50. http://jcp.modares.ac.ir/article-3-9001-en.html
  16. Costa-Gutierrez SB, Adler C, Espinosa-Urgel M. Pseudomonas putida and its close relatives: mixing and mastering the perfect tune for plants. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2022;106:3351–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-022-11881-7
  17. Planchamp C, Glauser G, Mauch-Mani B. Root inoculation with Pseudomonas putida KT2440 induces transcriptional and metabolic changes and systemic resistance in maize plants. Front Plant Sci. 2015;5:719. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpls.2014.00719
  18. Saritha B, Panneerselvam P, Ganeshamurthy AN. Antagonistic potential of mycorrhiza associated Pseudomonas putida against soil borne fungal pathogens. Plant Arch. 2015;15:763–68.
  19. Lurthy T, Cantat C, Jeudy C, Declerck P, Gallardo K, Barraud C, et al. Impact of bacterial siderophores on iron status and ionome in pea. Front Plant Sci. 2020;11:730. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls. 2020.00730
  20. Daura-Pich O, Hernández I, Pinyol-Escala L, Lara JM, Martínez-Servat S, Fernández C, López-García B. No antibiotic and toxic metabolites produced by the biocontrol agent Pseudomonas putida strain B2017. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2020;367(9). https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnaa075
  21. Oliver C, Hernández I, Caminal M, Lara JM, Fernàndez C. Pseudomonas putida strain B2017 produced as technical grade active ingredient controls fungal and bacterial crop diseases. Biocontrol Sci Technol. 2019;29:1053–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/09583157.2019.1645304
  22. Wang R, Wang HL, Tang RP, Sun MY, Chen TM, Duan XC, et al. Pseudomonas putida represses JA- and SA-mediated defense pathways in rice and promotes an alternative defense mechanism possibly through ABA signaling. Plants. 2020;9(12):1641. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9121641
  23. Patricia B, Luke PA, Alain F, María AL. The Pseudomonas putida T6SS is a plant warden against phytopathogens. ISME J. 2017;11(4):972-87. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2016.169
  24. Castaldi S, Masi M, Sautua F, Cimmino A, Isticato R, Carmona M. Pseudomonas fluorescens showing antifungal activity against Macrophomina phaseolina, a severe pathogenic fungus of soybean, produces phenazine as the main active metabolite. Biomolecules. 2021;11(11):1728. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom11111728
  25. Babu GN, Deepika DS. Integrated management of stem rot of groundnut caused by Sclerotiumrolfsii. sacc. Indian J Agric Res. 2023;57(2):235-41. https://doi.org/10.18805/IJARe.A-6043

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.