2021
DOI: 10.1080/03235408.2021.1895477
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Biological control of bacterial canker of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) by use of non-native strains of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…PGPRs can produce a variety of cell wall degrading enzymes, and hydrolytic enzymes that suppress the pathogen through cell lysis and parasitism [ 58 , 79 ]. As well, recent research by Oloyede et al [ 51 ] reported that the non-indigenous strains Alcaligenes faecalis and Acinetobacter sp. were very effective in decreasing the severity of bacterial canker, as these strains could attack the bacterial cell wall by secreting a variety of enabling enzymes such as cellulase, protease, pectinase, and β-1,3-glucanase.…”
Section: The Use Of Pgprs As An Alternative Biocontrol Strategymentioning
confidence: 80%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…PGPRs can produce a variety of cell wall degrading enzymes, and hydrolytic enzymes that suppress the pathogen through cell lysis and parasitism [ 58 , 79 ]. As well, recent research by Oloyede et al [ 51 ] reported that the non-indigenous strains Alcaligenes faecalis and Acinetobacter sp. were very effective in decreasing the severity of bacterial canker, as these strains could attack the bacterial cell wall by secreting a variety of enabling enzymes such as cellulase, protease, pectinase, and β-1,3-glucanase.…”
Section: The Use Of Pgprs As An Alternative Biocontrol Strategymentioning
confidence: 80%
“…This could be due to the sporadic nature of bacterial canker, which makes its management extremely complicated once it is triggered. [ 14 ] Unfortunately, to date, no control method has proven to be completely effective [ 51 ], as there are no commercially available Cmm -resistant cultivars yet, as well as because of the pathogen’s genetic diversity and genomic heterogeneity [ 36 ]. In addition, research investigating the chemical control of Cmm is scarce and has shown variable results] [ 36 , 52 ].…”
Section: Disease Management Strategiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Several inoculation methods have been used by different research groups. The main methods used are the scalpel or scissors previously dipped in bacterial suspension (Bulk et al, 1991;Poysa 1993;Francis et al, 2001;Kaneishiro et al,2006;Mohd Nadzir et al, 2019), the root-dipping in bacterial suspension (Poysa 1993;Abo-Elyousr et al, 2019), stem injection of the bacterial suspension with a syringe (Milijašević-Marčić et al, 2012;EPPO, 2016;Osdaghi et al, 2018;Takishita et al, 2018), the soil/media drench method (Mohd Nadzir et al, 2019;Oloyede et al, 2021), and the application of a bacterial solution to a wound (Chalupowicz et al 2017;Thapa et al 2020). Some studies have compared more than one method, finding, for example, that plants showed more symptoms when inoculated with scissors dipped in bacterial suspension than the roots-dipping method (Poysa, 1993).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…on two micro-propagated bananas and concluded that bacterial consortium is the best-anticipated method to improve vegetative health and survival rates in commercial nurseries. Four isolates, Bacillus subtilis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Citrobacter youngae were the most effective and consistent PGPR identified ( Tzirita et al, 2018 ; Oloyede et al, 2021 ).…”
Section: Rhizobacterial Consortiummentioning
confidence: 93%