Identification and origin of plant pathogenic microorganisms in recirculating nutrient solutions

Stanghellini, M. E.; Rasmussen, S. L.

doi:10.1016/0273-1177(94)90321-2

Cited by 14 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Background information on coupled and decoupled aquaponic systems (DAPs), in general, has been provided in the supplementary text. Scanning the available literature, comparative advantages and disadvantages of IPDM between coupled and decoupled aquaponic systems are summarized in Table 1 ( data from Jarvis 1989; Stanghellini 1993; Stanghellini & Rasmussen 1994; Ehret et al . 2001; Song et al .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated pest and disease management in aquaponics: A metadata‐based review

Folorunso

Roy

Gebauer

et al. 2020

Reviews in Aquaculture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aquaponics has the potential to produce sustainable, high‐quality food through integration of hydroponics and aquaculture, but its commercialization is stalled by bottlenecks in pest and disease management. We reviewed integrated pest and disease management steps and techniques in hydroponics to qualify as suitable techniques for different aquaponic designs. Non‐chemical prophylactic measures are highly proficient for pest and disease prevention in all designs. Still, the use of chemical control methods remains highly complicated for all systems. We simulated 10–20% runoff concentrations of 9 pesticides in the common UVI design and compared them with NOEC, LC50 of fish. Endosulfan seems most toxic with runoff AI (20.7 μg L−1) exceeding LC50 (10.2 μg L−1) and NOEC (0.05 μg L−1). At 20% runoff, most chemical pesticides pose risks in aquaponic systems. Natural pesticides were also discussed as potential alternatives with low acute toxicity to fish, but little is known about their effects on water and bacteria. While insecticides and herbicides are replaceable by well‐established commercial biocontrol measures, fungicides and nematicides would still be relevant in aquaponics due to low efficiency of alternatives (e.g. natural enemies, entomopathogenic fungus). Monitoring and cultural control are the first approaches to contain pest population below the action threshold. Biological controls, in general, are adaptable to a larger extent. Further studies are required on how to utilize indigenous microbial community in aquaponics (dominated by Proteobacteria; effective at ~103–109 CFU mL−1) as a frontline defence.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated pest and disease management in aquaponics: A metadata‐based review

Folorunso

Roy

Gebauer

et al. 2020

Reviews in Aquaculture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More than 20 fungal pathogens and a smaller number of viral and bacterial pathogens have been identified as causal agents of root diseases in hydroponically grown crops. Some have been associated with extensive crop losses and there is evidence that the introduction and spread of plant pathogens by irrigation water is a significant epidemiological factor (Stanghellini & Rasmussen, 1994b; Hong & Moorman, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, Olpidium spp. were shown to transmit Mirafiori lettuce big‐vein virus in lettuce, Tobacco necrosis virus in bean and cucumber, and Cucumber necrosis virus , Cucumber leaf spot virus and Melon necrotic spot virus in cucumber (Paludan, 1985; Stanghellini & Rasmussen, 1994b; Campbell, 1996; Navarro et al. , 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spread and interaction of Pepino mosaic virus (PepMV) and Pythium aphanidermatum in a closed nutrient solution recirculation system: effects on tomato growth and yield

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pepino mosaic virus (PepMV) was shown to be efficiently transmitted between tomato plants grown in a closed recirculating hydroponic system. PepMV was detected in all plant parts after transmission via contaminated nutrient solution using ELISA, immunocapture RT-PCR, RT-PCR, electron microscopy, and by inoculation to indicator plants. Detection of Pep-MV in nutrient solution was only possible after concentration by ultracentrifugation followed by RT-PCR. Roots tested positive for PepMV 1-3 weeks after inoculation, and subsequently a rapid spread from the roots into the young leaves and developing fruits was found within 1 week. PepMV was only occasionally detected in the older leaves. None of the infected plants showed any symptoms on fruits, leaves or other organs. Pre-infection of roots of tomato cv. Hildares with Pythium aphanidermatum significantly delayed PepMV root infections. When mechanically inoculated with PepMV at the 2-4 leaf stage, yield loss was observed in all plants. However, only plants of cv. Castle Rock recorded significant yield losses when infected via contaminated nutrient solution. Yield losses induced by infection with PepMV and ⁄ or P. aphanidermatum ranged from 0AE4 up to 40% depending on experimental conditions.

show abstract

“…The phialospores may be airborne in greenhouses (Graham 1994), spreading the pathogen to noncontaminated growing media, but how commonly this happens is not known. The phialospores are probably spread through recirculating irrigation systems, but it was noted in 1994 that transmission through a recirculating system had not been conclusively demonstrated (Stanghellini and Rasmussen 1994), and no subsequent studies have been conducted to our knowledge. The phialospores were initially thought to be short lived, but studies have shown that they may persist in soil for months to over a year, depending upon factors such as soil type (Schippers 1970).…”

Section: Biology and Epidemiologymentioning

confidence: 99%