Paper · 2022 · Egyptian Journal of Biological Pest Control

In vitro and in planta potential effect of some indigenous antagonists against Fusarium and pythiaceous species associated with peach seedlings decline

Sabrine Mannai; Naima Boughalleb-M’Hamdi

16
claims
32
verbatim quotes
6
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Abstract Background The effect of Aspergillus spp. and Trichoderma harzianum isolates was evaluated against the growth of Fusarium oxysporum , F. solani , Pythium ultimum and Phytophthora citrophthora affecting peach seedlings. Results The in vitro results revealed the ability of these antagonistic in reducing the radial growth of these pathogens. The most important mycelial growth reduction was of 85.82%, recorded for F. oxysporum in confrontation with A5 of Aspergillus candidus . Aspergillus flavus A4 and A. niger A10 were the most effective against F. solani with an inhibition percent more than 60%. For P. citrophthora , A. flavus A4, A. candidus A5, A. terreus A9 and A. niger A10 inhibited the mycelia growth by more than 60%. Aspergillus nidulans A1 was the most effective against Pythium ultimum (72.07%). Trichoderma harzianum isolates T9 and T10, are the most effective with a high inhibition percent of mycelial growth. The inhibition induced after 4 days of incubation, against F. oxysporum , F. solani , P. citrophthora and Pythium ultimum by these 2 antagonists exceeded 70, 60, 70 and 80%, respectively. The in planta test showed the efficacy of antagonists tested solo against some pathogens. In fact, Bacillus subtilis improved the health status by 62.55% compared to the control inoculated with P. ultimum . Trichoderma harzianum T9 significantly reduced the root rot index by 87.5% than the control inoculated with F. solani . In the same sense, B. subtilis significantly reduced this parameter by 62.55 and 88.89% than the control inoculated with P. ultimum and P. citrophthora , respectively. Furthermore, B. subtilis (B) and Aspergillus niger A10 improved plants height than the control inoculated with Pythium ultimum by 31.52 and 40.49%, respectively. However, the combinations of antagonists (T9 + T10; A5 + A10 and B + T10) did not improve their efficacy. Conclusions The isolates T. harzianum (T9 and T10), A. candidus A5 and A. niger A10 were the most effective in vitro against Fusarium , Pythium and Phytophthora species associated with peach seedling decline. The in vivo assay showed the effectiveness of B. subtilis against P. ultimum and P. citrophthora and the potential effect of T. harzianum T9 against F. solani. Their combinations revealed to be ineffective.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 16

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Aspergillus candidus A5 reduced F. oxysporum mycelial growth by 85.82%.

Treatment
A5 of Aspergillus candiduse0
Interactor
F. oxysporumFusarium oxysporume0pathogen
Second interactor
Aspergillus candidusAspergillus candiduse0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
mycelial growth reductione0
Direction
reductione0
Value
85.82%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium oxysporum
Fusarium oxysporum · InteractorClemson University - USDA Cooperative Extension Slide Series · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Aspergillus candidus
Aspergillus candidus · Second interactorMedmyco · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“peach seedlings”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 128–143 · show in text ↑
e0

“The most important mycelial growth reduction was of 85.82%, recorded for F. oxysporum in confrontation with A5 of Aspergillus candidus .”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 350–486 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Aspergillus flavus A4 inhibited F. solani growth by more than 60%.

Treatment
Aspergillus flavus A4e0
Interactor
F. solaniFusarium solanie0pathogen
Second interactor
Aspergillus flavus A4Aspergillus flavuse0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
inhibition percente0
Direction
inhibitione0
Value
more than 60%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium solani
Fusarium solani · InteractorFred Brooks from United States University of Hawaii at Manoa · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Aspergillus flavus
Aspergillus flavus · Second interactorUS gov · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“peach seedlings”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 128–143 · show in text ↑
e0

“Aspergillus flavus A4 and A. niger A10 were the most effective against F. solani with an inhibition percent more than 60%.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 487–609 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Aspergillus niger A10 inhibited F. solani growth by more than 60%.

Treatment
A. niger A10e0
Interactor
F. solaniFusarium solanie0pathogen
Second interactor
A. niger A10Aspergillus nigere0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
inhibition percente0
Direction
inhibitione0
Value
more than 60%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium solani
Fusarium solani · InteractorFred Brooks from United States University of Hawaii at Manoa · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Aspergillus niger
Aspergillus niger · Second interactorNo machine-readable author provided. Y tambe assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“peach seedlings”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 128–143 · show in text ↑
e0

“Aspergillus flavus A4 and A. niger A10 were the most effective against F. solani with an inhibition percent more than 60%.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 487–609 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Four Aspergillus isolates each inhibited P. citrophthora growth by more than 60%.

Treatment
A. flavus A4, A. candidus A5, A. terreus A9 and A. niger A10e0
Interactor
P. citrophthoraPhytophthora citrophthorae0pathogen
Outcome
mycelia growthe0
Direction
inhibitede0
Value
more than 60%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“peach seedlings”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 128–143 · show in text ↑
e0

“For P. citrophthora , A. flavus A4, A. candidus A5, A. terreus A9 and A. niger A10 inhibited the mycelia growth by more than 60%.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 610–739 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Aspergillus nidulans A1 inhibited Pythium ultimum by 72.07%.

Treatment
Aspergillus nidulans A1e0
Interactor
Pythium ultimumGlobisporangium ultimume0pathogen
Second interactor
Aspergillus nidulans A1Aspergillus nidulanse0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
Pythium ultimume0
Direction
most effectivee0
Value
72.07%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Aspergillus nidulans
Aspergillus nidulans · Second interactorPlasmidmap · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“peach seedlings”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 128–143 · show in text ↑
e0

“Aspergillus nidulans A1 was the most effective against Pythium ultimum (72.07%).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 740–820 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

T. harzianum T9 and T10 inhibited F. oxysporum mycelial growth by over 70%.

Treatment
these 2 antagonistse0
Interactor
F. oxysporumFusarium oxysporume0pathogen
Outcome
inhibitione0
Direction
inhibitione0
Value
70e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium oxysporum
Fusarium oxysporum · InteractorClemson University - USDA Cooperative Extension Slide Series · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“peach seedlings”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 128–143 · show in text ↑
e0

“The inhibition induced after 4 days of incubation, against F. oxysporum , F. solani , P. citrophthora and Pythium ultimum by these 2 antagonists exceeded 70, 60, 70 and 80%, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 938–1125 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

T. harzianum T9 and T10 inhibited F. solani mycelial growth by over 60%.

Treatment
these 2 antagonistse0
Interactor
F. solaniFusarium solanie0pathogen
Outcome
inhibitione0
Direction
inhibitione0
Value
60e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium solani
Fusarium solani · InteractorFred Brooks from United States University of Hawaii at Manoa · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“peach seedlings”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 128–143 · show in text ↑
e0

“The inhibition induced after 4 days of incubation, against F. oxysporum , F. solani , P. citrophthora and Pythium ultimum by these 2 antagonists exceeded 70, 60, 70 and 80%, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 938–1125 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

T. harzianum T9 and T10 inhibited P. citrophthora mycelial growth by over 70%.

Treatment
these 2 antagonistse0
Interactor
P. citrophthoraPhytophthora citrophthorae0pathogen
Outcome
inhibitione0
Direction
inhibitione0
Value
70e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“peach seedlings”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 128–143 · show in text ↑
e0

“The inhibition induced after 4 days of incubation, against F. oxysporum , F. solani , P. citrophthora and Pythium ultimum by these 2 antagonists exceeded 70, 60, 70 and 80%, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 938–1125 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

T. harzianum T9 and T10 inhibited Pythium ultimum mycelial growth by over 80%.

Treatment
these 2 antagonistse0
Interactor
Pythium ultimumGlobisporangium ultimume0pathogen
Outcome
inhibitione0
Direction
inhibitione0
Value
80%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“peach seedlings”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 128–143 · show in text ↑
e0

“The inhibition induced after 4 days of incubation, against F. oxysporum , F. solani , P. citrophthora and Pythium ultimum by these 2 antagonists exceeded 70, 60, 70 and 80%, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 938–1125 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacillus subtilis improved peach seedling health by 62.55% versus P. ultimum control.

Treatment
Bacillus subtilise0
Interactor
P. ultimumGlobisporangium ultimume0pathogen
Second interactor
Bacillus subtilisBacillus subtilise0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
health statuse0
Direction
improvede0
Value
62.55%e0
Comparator
control inoculated with P. ultimume0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bacillus subtilis
Bacillus subtilis · Second interactorY tambe (original uploader) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“peach seedlings”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 128–143 · show in text ↑
e0

“Bacillus subtilis improved the health status by 62.55% compared to the control inoculated with P. ultimum .”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1225–1332 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

T. harzianum T9 reduced root rot index by 87.5% versus F. solani control.

Treatment
Trichoderma harzianum T9e0
Interactor
F. solaniFusarium solanie0pathogen
Second interactor
Trichoderma harzianum T9Trichoderma harzianume0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
root rot indexe0
Direction
reducede0
Value
87.5%e0
Comparator
control inoculated with F. solanie0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium solani
Fusarium solani · InteractorFred Brooks from United States University of Hawaii at Manoa · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Trichoderma harzianum
Trichoderma harzianum · Second interactorUS Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Systematic Botany and Mycology Laboratory, [1] · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“peach seedlings”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 128–143 · show in text ↑
e0

“Trichoderma harzianum T9 significantly reduced the root rot index by 87.5% than the control inoculated with F. solani .”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1333–1452 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

B. subtilis reduced root rot index by 62.55% versus P. ultimum control.

Treatment
B. subtilise0
Interactor
P. ultimumGlobisporangium ultimume0pathogen
Second interactor
B. subtilisBacillus subtilise0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
this parametere0
Direction
reducede0
Value
62.55e0
Comparator
control inoculated with P. ultimume0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bacillus subtilis
Bacillus subtilis · Second interactorY tambe (original uploader) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“peach seedlings”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 128–143 · show in text ↑
e0

“B. subtilis significantly reduced this parameter by 62.55 and 88.89% than the control inoculated with P. ultimum and P. citrophthora , respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1472–1620 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

B. subtilis reduced root rot index by 88.89% versus P. citrophthora control.

Treatment
B. subtilise0
Interactor
P. citrophthoraPhytophthora citrophthorae0pathogen
Second interactor
B. subtilisBacillus subtilise0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
this parametere0
Direction
reducede0
Value
88.89%e0
Comparator
controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bacillus subtilis
Bacillus subtilis · Second interactorY tambe (original uploader) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“peach seedlings”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 128–143 · show in text ↑
e0

“B. subtilis significantly reduced this parameter by 62.55 and 88.89% than the control inoculated with P. ultimum and P. citrophthora , respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1472–1620 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

B. subtilis increased plant height by 31.52% versus Pythium ultimum control.

Treatment
B. subtilis (B)e0
Interactor
Pythium ultimumGlobisporangium ultimume0pathogen
Second interactor
B. subtilisBacillus subtilise0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
plants heighte0
Direction
improvede0
Value
31.52e0
Comparator
control inoculated with Pythium ultimume0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bacillus subtilis
Bacillus subtilis · Second interactorY tambe (original uploader) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“peach seedlings”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 128–143 · show in text ↑
e0

“B. subtilis (B) and Aspergillus niger A10 improved plants height than the control inoculated with Pythium ultimum by 31.52 and 40.49%, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1634–1782 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Aspergillus niger A10 increased plant height by 40.49% versus Pythium ultimum control.

Treatment
Aspergillus niger A10e0
Interactor
Pythium ultimumGlobisporangium ultimume0pathogen
Second interactor
Aspergillus niger A10Aspergillus nigere0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
plants heighte0
Direction
improvede0
Value
40.49%e0
Comparator
control inoculated with Pythium ultimume0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Aspergillus niger
Aspergillus niger · Second interactorNo machine-readable author provided. Y tambe assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“peach seedlings”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 128–143 · show in text ↑
e0

“B. subtilis (B) and Aspergillus niger A10 improved plants height than the control inoculated with Pythium ultimum by 31.52 and 40.49%, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1634–1782 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combinations of antagonists did not improve efficacy.

Treatment
combinations of antagonistse0
Outcome
efficacye0
Direction
did not improvee0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“peach seedlings”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 128–143 · show in text ↑
e0

“the combinations of antagonists (T9 + T10; A5 + A10 and B + T10) did not improve their efficacy.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1792–1888 · show in text ↑

biocontrol · control · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 1 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. no effect
See all 3 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.