ENVIRONMENT MANIPULATION TO BRING ABOUT

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF PLANT PATHOGENS

It is sometimes stated that plant pathologists have
used the biological controls for plant pathogens.

This statement can be made with reference to the

narrowest possible definition of biological control,
namely the introduction or application of an
antagonist, probably a single antagonist, to control
the pathogen.
Baker (I987) refers to this approach as the 'one-on-
one' syndrome that seems to dominate the thinking in
biological control and to parallel our use of single
genes and single chemicals for pathogen control.
some successes can be cited for the single-agent
approach to pathogen control:

The use of Agrobacterium radiobacter var.

radiobacter strain K84 to control crown gall (Kerr I980)
and Phlebia gigantea to control Heterobasidion root
rot of pine (Rishbeth I979) are excellent examples of
single, introduced antagonists effective in the field.
However, most of the biological controls in plant
pathology have involved manipulations of the
environment to manage host- plant susceptibility
together with many of resident, nonpathogenic and
potentially antagonistic microorganisms on the host
and in host residues to make the pathogen to a
lesser position in its ecological niche
Biological control achieved through management of
the environment brings to bear the combined effects
of many antagonists or potential antagonists, all
adapted to the niche or replaced by those that are
adapted.
Suppressive soils, defined as those soils where the
pathogen does not establish, establishes but causes
little or no disease, or causes disease at first but then
declines (Baker & Cook I 974),

Suppressive soils are mostly examples of environments

relatively more favourable to a community of resident
antagonists than to some pathogen that otherwise
would cause severe disease
The phenomena of disease suppressive soils have been documented
for numerous plant-pathogen systems around the world
Detailed studies of a suppressive soil may produce a single
antagonist or group of related antagonists responsible for the
effect.

This antagonist can then be isolated and reintroduced to

enhance the effect.
One example is Trichoderma harzianum obtained from
a Colombian soil suppressive to Rhizoctonia solani (Chet
& Baker i98I), and another is the fluorescent
Pseudomonas species obtained from wheat-field soils
that have undergone take-all decline, and used to
control take- all (Weller & Cook I983).
In some cases, the quality of the microbial community is
the key, in other cases the quantity (total numbers or
mass of microorganisms active at a time critical to the
pathogen) is more important

Generally, however, the quality and quantity of

nonpathogenic microorganisms are both important.
'The greater the complexity of the biological
community, the greater is its stability.
At the very least, cultural practices should be selected
that do not environmentally upset the suppressive
communities of microorganisms that help defend plants
against pathogens.
The concept of disease suppressive soil has been
described in terms of general suppression and
specific suppression.
1. General suppression of a pathogen is directly related
to the total amount of microbial activity in the soil
or plant at a critical time in the life cycle of the
pathogen.

The general suppression is non-specific, operates

against most, if not all pathogens and involves the
activities of many resident soil organisms.
2. Specific suppression operates against only certain
types of pathogens.

Specific suppressiveness has been described for

Fusarium wilts, Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici,
Phytophthora spp., Pythium spp., Rhizoctonia solani and
Thielaviopsis basicola.

In all cases, a particular pathogen causes significantly

less disease in suppressive soils than in other soils
(conducive soils); the effect is lost when soil is treated
with biocides, indicating the involvement of
microorganisms.
Although general suppression is a component
of disease suppressive soils, the understanding and
potential exploitation of the phenomenon termed
specific suppression is more commonly the subject of
interest (Cook & Baker, 1983).
Suppression develops over a period of time. The
duration will depend on the conditions and the
return of organic residues.

We can also define pathogen-suppressive soils into two

different broad types of diseases suppressiveness:
natural and induced.
Natural suppressiveness is frequently associated with the
physical properties of soils and is relatively independent
of crop history.

On the contrary, induced suppressiveness is wholly

dependent on agricultural practices.
The isolation, identification, and culture of the
antagonistic microorganisms responsible for
suppressiveness in soils opens up the possibility for
controlling plant diseases by adding these antagonists
to previously conducive soils.
ROLE OF ABIOTIC FACTORS IN SOIL SUPPRESSIVENESS
Crop rotation:

Rotations will continue to play an important role in root

disease control (Stephen Naete, 1997).

Rotations that include a break crop such as grain

legume or canola greatly reduce root disease in
cereals because these crops do not host the cereal
root disease fungi. Canola has a second beneficial
effect, the release of chemicals into the soil which kill
root disease causing fungi and other soil organisms.
Tillage:

Results from the long term trials in South Australia

indicate that increased root disease does occur
when conservation farming is first introduced, but this
can be significantly reduced over time without the
reintroduction of burning and tillage.

The adoption of conservation farming practices results

in the formation of a whole new soil environment and,
consequently, the balance in the food web is adjusted.
Different elements of the conservation farming system
impact on the soil biota in different ways
Micronutrients in suppressiveness:

When a plant becomes infected by a fungus, its natural

defenses are triggered and it causes increased
production of fungus inhibiting phenolic compounds
and flavonoids both at the site of infection and in other
parts of the plant.

The production and transport of these compounds is

controlled in large part by the nutrition of the plant.
Therefore, shortages of key nutrients (K, Mn, Cu, Zn, and
B) in soil and then in plants reduce the amount of the
plants natural antifungal compounds.
Soil texture and structure:

Soil texture and structure could have effects on plant

diseases because they affect water holding capacity,
nutrient status and gas exchange as well as root
growth.

Poor soil aeration caused by poor soil structure, soil type

or water logging was associated with the development
of cavity spot (Pythium spp.) disease in carrot.
Interaction between soil texture and tillage is important
in many diseases Chang (1994) showed that an
increase in soil bulk density due to compaction
significantly increased root rot incidence and disease
severity and drastically reduced the fresh weight of pea
plants due to the disease.
Soil moisture and temperature:

The severity of the soil borne diseases is proportional to

the amount of soil moisture and is greatest near the
saturation point.

Such an example is Pythium, which causes damping off

of seedlings. The increased moisture seems to affect the
pathogen primarily, which multiplies and moves best in
wet soils (Agrios, 1997).
However, Pathak and Srivastava (2001) reported that
with increasing soil moisture and decreasing soil
temperature, decreases the incidence of Rhizoctonia
bataticola in sunflower
ROLE OF BIOTIC FACTORS IN SOIL SUPPRESSIVENESS
Soil biota in suppressive and non-suppressive
soil

Naturally, all soils have the capacity to suppress

disease. But the microbial activity depends on soil
moisture, temperature and the ratio of carbon to
nitrogen, is the precursor to suppression.
Conditions that change biological activity or
relationships between organisms can effect
suppression.

Warm, moist soils with high levels of carbon to nitrogen

will have higher levels of microbial activity and a
relatively higher level of suppression.
Fig. 2 illustrates that the level of disease inoculum will
vary from season to season.

Consequently, a soil that is able to suppress moderate

levels of disease inoculum may not be able to suppress
disease in a year when large amounts of effective
disease organisms have survived.
Fig. 2: Survival and effectiveness of disease inoculum from one
season to the next
MANAGING SOIL SUPPRESSIVENESS IN AGRO-
ECOSYSTEMS
Soil enrichment with a specific nutrient is one approach
to the study of community evolution in soil
microorganisms and its impact on unfavorable
microorganisms.
Many studies have indicated that soil amendment with
manure or compost is effective in mitigating disease
problems caused by various soilborne fungal pathogens
including Pythium spp., Phytophthora spp., and
Rhizoctonia solani.
Management practices including crop rotation (Huber
& Schneider 1982), input system (organic vs.
conventional) (Workneh et al., 1993), tillage and
fertilization (Smiley, 1978; Huber, 1989), intensification in
cropping, moderate to high levels of nutrients,
management of weeds, pests and other diseases,
stubble retention and limited grazing will influence
ecological processes that impact microbial
communities involved in suppression of soilborne plant
pathogens.
1. Incorporation of root colonizing rhizosphere
microorganisms

These organisms can promote Phytostimulatory and

biofertilising effects plant health by making the plant
‘stronger’.

Many rhizosphere microorganisms can induce a

systemic response in the plant, resulting in the activation
of plant defence mechanisms.

PGPR/F = plant growth promoting rhizobacteri/ fungi

2. Better agronomic practices

Adaptation of cultural practices has been proposed as

a means to decrease the soil inoculum potential or
increase the level of suppressiveness to diseases.

Indeed, disease suppressiveness has been obtained

through crop rotation, biofumigation, intercropping,
residue destruction, organic amendments, tillage
management practices and a combination of those
regimes
a. Biofumigation:

This strategy better adapted to the cooler regions of the

World, it involves fermentation of organic matter under
plastic results in anaerobic conditions in soil and which
leads to production of toxic metabolites.

Both these processes contribute to the inactivation or

destruction of pathogenic fungi (Block et al., 2000).
Many species of Brassicaceae (Cruciferae) produce
glucosinolates, a class of organic molecules that may
represent a source of allelopathic control of various
soilborne plant pathogens.

For example, soil amendment with Brassica napus seed

meal controlled root infection by Rhizoctonia spp. and
the nematode Pratylenchus penetrans.
Similarly degradation of garlic, onion, and leek tissues
releases sulfurous volatiles such as thiosulfinates and
zwiebelanes which are converted into disulfides that
have biocidal activities against fungi, nematodes and
arthropods (Arnault et al., 2004).
b. Soil solarization:

Solarization or solar heating is a method that uses the

solar energy to enhance the soil temperature to levels
at which many plant pathogens will be killed or
sufficiently weakened to obtain significant control of
the diseases (Arnault et al., 2004).
c. Residue management:

Plant residues left on or near the soil surface may

contribute to an increase of disease suppressiveness
through the promotion of the general microbial activity.

In some cases, however, the debris not only promotes

the microbial activity but also helps to preserve the
pathogens, preventing a decrease of the inoculum
density.
d. Organic amendments:

The mechanism of disease mitigation by organic

amendment is due primarily to amplified competition
for available nutrients and suitable ecological niches

This approach to disease control is important in

sustainable agriculture, since it reuses natural resources
in the process of disease control without using
chemicals.

In addition it does not require the mass culturing of

biocontrol agents for applications to large fields.
THANK YOU