Kinds of Biological Control

Definition Cook and Baker 1984

• Classical – self sustaining

Biological control is the reduction of the
amount of inoculum or disease producing activity
of a pathogen accomplished by or through one
or more organisms other than man. • Augmentative – periodic introduction to
supplement natural reproduction

• Innudative – mass introduction of biocontrol

agent

Currently Registered Biopesticides

Mechanisms of Biological Control
of Plant Pathogens Bacterial antagonists:
Via ‘antagonists’:
Agrobacterium radiobacter Galltrol/Nogall

Substrate or Site Competition Bacillus spp.: Companion

HiStick N/T
Antibiosis
Kodiak
Serenade
YieldShield
Parasitism
Burkholderia cepacia Deny
Intercept

Pseudomonas spp. BioJect Spot-Less

Via weak or attenuated pathogens:
Bio-save
BlightBan
Hypovirulence
Streptomyces spp. Mycostop
Cross Protection

1
 Currently Registered Biopesticides
Fungi antagonists:
Epidemiological concepts
Ampelomyces quisqualis
Candida oleophila
AQ10
Aspire and biological control
Coniothyrium minitans Contans WG
Intercept WG
Myrothecium verrucaria(killed) DiTera

Trichoderma spp.&
Gliocaldium spp. Plantshield
Rootshield
Soilgard
Primastop

Plant Activators:
Bacterial protein Messenger
Synthetic chemicals Actigard

Estes Park, CO November 1992

Oregon State Inoculated Fire Blight Trials 1991-2007

17 years
Festival of Enthusiasms in Biological
Relative Disease Incidence

Control
100
Water control

80

60

40 Antibiotic
Integrated • ‘Effective biocontrol requires massive antagonist introduction’
standards
20 Biological
techologies
• ‘Biocontrol is overwhelmed by high pathogen populations’
No. of orchard trials:
0 26 6 13 20 23 18 9 23 40 8 8
A

d
)

X-

e)

)
A
X-

el
H
6

in

el
6

1
H

50
50

lin
9-

D
pr

hi
hi
yc
pr

D
C

os
A

yc

os
A

om
E
an
eE

us
an

Fe

ac

yc

yc
r

-o
-o

pt
B

pl
B

(F

M
M
tr
+
CP
ht

tre
P
ht

te
1

en
en
P-
8
EC

lig
lig

9-

xy
E
13

• ‘Biocontrol does not perform well in variable environments’

(s
C

th

th
C
B

(o
B

E
6

17
ne

50
50

ce
6

c
re

p
50

el
A

on

on
e
st

us

hi
A

tr

A
ue

is
os

X-
1+
pl

H
gr
eq

pr
yc

D
9-
1

A
9-

ED

A
S

M
C

6
+

en

Fe

50
06

th

A
us
A5

P-

us
pl
an

EC

pl
06
B

1
06

A5
ht

9-
A5
lig

C
an
B

B
ht
1
9-

lig
C

2
 Most common pathogen dose/ disease response relationship Question of the day:
100%

• If disease can be described as a function

Disease incidence
or severity (Y)

of pathogen dose,

Y = 1 – e-ax can biocontrol be defined as a function of

antagonist dose ?

0%
Amount of inoculum (X)

Proportion of pathogen
Efficiency constant Next Step:
inoculum rendered ineffective
Xi/X = 1 – e-cz • Define observed plant disease as a function
Density of biocontrol agent
of the density of the biocontrol agent

Proportion of pathogen
inoculum remaining effective
Y = 1 – e-ax e - cz
1- Xi/X = e - cz

3
 A few published studies
presented data relating
disease suppression to
Does the idea work? antagonist dose,

but the method of

presentation varied by study.

Biocontrol dose-response studies from the literature: Biocontrol dose-response studies from the literature:
50 5 50 5
Adams & Fravel 1991 Adams & Fravel 1991
Sclerotinia minor sclerotia/100 g soil
Sclerotinia minor sclerotia/100 g soil

45 4.5 Bull et al. 1991 45 4.5 Bull et al. 1991

40 40
Take-all lesions/10 cm root

Take-all lesions/10 cm root

4 4
35 3.5 35 3.5
30 3 30 3
25 2.5 25 2.5
20 2 20 2
15 1.5 15 1.5
10 1 10 1
5 0.5 5 0.5
0 0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0.E+00 2.E+07 4.E+07 6.E+07 8.E+07 0 5 10 15 20 0.E+00 2.E+07 4.E+07 6.E+07 8.E+07
Sporodesmium sclerotivorum (kg/ha) Pseudomonas fluorescens (cfu/seed) Sporodesmium sclerotivorum (kg/ha) Pseudomonas fluorescens (cfu/seed)

2 1 2 1
1.8 Mandeel & Baker 1991 1.8 Mandeel & Baker 1991
Incidence of Fusarium Wilt [-ln(1-y)]

Incidence of Fusarium Wilt [-ln(1-y)]

Hadar et al. 1979 Hadar et al. 1979

Incidence of damping-off [-ln(1-y)]
Incidence of damping-off [-ln(1-y)]

0.9 0.9
1.6 0.8 1.6 0.8
1.4 0.7 1.4 0.7
1.2 0.6 1.2 0.6
1 0.5 1 0.5
0.8 0.4 0.8 0.4
0.6 0.3 0.6 0.3
0.4 0.2 0.4 0.2
0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1
0 0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0.E+00 2.E+04 4.E+04 6.E+04 0 1 2 3 4 0.E+00 2.E+04 4.E+04 6.E+04
Trichoderma harzianum (g/kg soil) Non-pathogenic Fusarium oxysporum (cfu/g soil) Trichoderma harzianum (g/kg soil) Non-pathogenic Fusarium oxysporum (cfu/g soil)

Johnson Phytopathology 84:780 Johnson Phytopathology 84:780

4
 Recognition of an asymptotic limit to effectiveness of biocontrol
Biocontrol agent potentially 100% effective A = 1.0
100%
1.0
pathogen propagules
rendered ineffective

A 0.8
High amount of
Proportion of

Proportion diseased (Y)

pathogen inoculum (x)
0.6

Xi/X = A (1 – e-cz )
0.4
Low amount of
pathogen inoculum (x)
0.2

0%
Amount of biocontrol agent (Z) 0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Density of biological control agent (z)

Biocontrol agent is maximally 80% effective A = 0.8 Effective antibiosis is a factor that
influences magnitude of the asymptote
1.0 Control of Crown Gall of Tomato with A. radiobacter K84
High amount of
pathogen inoculum (x) 1.0
Tomato
Proportion diseased (y)

0.8 0.8
Pathogen resistant
0.6 to agrocin 84
Disease incidence

0.6 0.4

Pathogen sensitive
0.2
to agrocin 84

0.4 Low amount of 0.0

1.0
pathogen inoculum (x)
0.8
0.2
0.6 Pathogen
y = 1-exp{-k x[(1-A ) + A exp(-c z)]} 0.4
oversprayed

0.0 0.2
A.r. K84
0 100 200 300 400 500
Cherry 0.0
spotted
Density of biological control agent (z) 0E+0 1E+8 2E+8 3E+8 4E+8 5E+8 6E+8

Dose of biocontrol agent Johnson & DiLeone Phytopathology 89:974

5
 Oregon State Inoculated Fire Blight Trials 1991-2007

17 years

Relative Disease Incidence

100
Water control

80

60
Integrated
40 Antibiotic
standards
20 Biological
No. of orchard trials: techologies
0 26 6 13 20 23 18 9 23 40 8 8

d
)

X-

e)

)
A
-

el
H
6

in

el
6

1
rX

50
50

lin
9-

D
pr

hi
hi
yc
D
Ap

D
C

os
A

yc

os
D

om
E
an
eE

us
an

Fe

ac

yc

yc
r

-o
-o

pt
B

pl
B

(F

M
M
tr
+
CP
ht

tre
P
ht

te
1

en
en
P-
8
EC

lig
lig

9-

xy
E
13

(s
C

th

th
C
B

(o
B

E
6

17
ne

50
50

ce

ce
6

d
re

ep
50

el
A

on

on
st

us

hi
A

tr

A
ue

is
os

X-
1+
pl

H
gr
eq

pr
yc

D
9-
1

A
9-

ED

A
S

M
C

6
+

en

Fe

50
06

th

A
us
A5

P-

us
pl
an

EC

pl
06
B

1
06

A5
ht

9-
A5
lig

C
an
B

B
ht
1
9-

lig
C

Epiphytic yields:
Pear growth chamber Apple growth chamber
1.0E+08 1.6E+07
A B
7.5E+07 1.2E+07
Mixed Inoculum
Wild type :: hrp L-
Population size (CFU per flower)

1 :: 13
5.0E+07 8.0E+06
Mixed Inoculum
Wild type :: hrp L-
2.5E+07 1 :: 11 4.0E+06

0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Pear screen house Apple screen house

2.0E+07 2.0E+07
C D
1.5E+07 1.5E+07
Mixed Inoculum
Wild type :: hrp L-
1 :: 21
Mixed Inoculum
1.0E+07 Wild type :: hrp L-
1.0E+07
1 :: 12

5.0E+06 5.0E+06

0.0E+00 0.0E+00
Ea153N hrpL- Mixed Ea153N hrpL- Combined