Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Effect of Phytobiocides in Controlling Soft Rot of Tomato

Effect of Phytobiocides in Controlling Soft Rot of Tomato

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2 |Likes:
Published by Alexander Decker
The International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE). All Rights Reserved. Call for Academic Research Manuscripts: www.iiste.org
The International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE). All Rights Reserved. Call for Academic Research Manuscripts: www.iiste.org

More info:

Categories:Types, Presentations
Published by: Alexander Decker on Jul 18, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/18/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Journal of Natural Sciences Research www.iiste.org ISSN 2224-3186 (Paer! ISSN 222"-#$21 (%nline! &ol.4' No.11' 2#14
$$
Effect of Phytobiocides in Controlling Soft Rot of Tomato
s)a *+ar 
1
' Su+han u, in
2
' ushraf h)a,
1
' /ul ,ara0 han
 3
' Sarta la)
1
 1. eart)ent of Plant Patholog acult of 5ro Protection Sciences he 7niersit of griculture Peshawar 2. eart)ent of gricultural echani0ation acult of cro Pro,uction Sciences he 7niersit of griculture Peshawar 3.eart)ent of 9ater anage)ent acult of cro Pro,uction Sciences he 7niersit of griculture Peshawar
:
;)ail< engr=su+han1$>ahoo.co)
ABSTRACT:
he effect of arious hto+ici,es such as %lean,er' 5hili' int' /arlic' ur)eric' an, Nee) on the control of soft rot of to)ato was )a,e +oth in la+orator an, screen house con,itions. Significant (P ? #.#"! ,ifferences were foun, a)ong ,ifferent hto+ioci,es which were use, to ro,uce 0one of inhi+ition (in ))! of
 Erwinia carotovora carotovora
 (on culture )e,iu) @A!. aBi)u) 0one of +acterial growth inhi+ition was achiee, + tur)eric ($.33 ))! followe, + nee) (C.33))! an, garlic (6.33))!. he screen house stu,ies in,icate, that tur)eric treate, lants gae )aBi)u) height (61.6C c)!' fresh shoot weight (3".68 g!' fresh root weight ($.88 g!' ,r shoot weight (8.## g!' an, ,r root weight (3.2" g! followe, + Nee) an, /arlic. hese hto+ioci,es eseciall tur)eric coul, sere as noel anti+acterial agents.
Key words:
 Phto+ioci,es'
 Erwinia
' ur)eric' Done of inhi+ition
INTR!"CTIN
o)ato (
 Lycopersicum esculentum
ill! is a re, e,i+le fruit haing )an arieties which are wi,el grown' often in greenhouses in cooler cli)ates an, oen fiel,s. It is consu)e, in ,ierse was' inclu,ing raw' as an ingre,ient in )an ,ishes an, sauces' in ,rin*s an, as a egeta+le for culinar uroses. o)atoes are attac*e,  + )an *in,s of athogens such as fungi' ne)ato,es' +acteria' iruses an, iroi,s. )ong +acterial ,iseases'
 
 +acterial soft rot ,eastates )an significant cros articularl to)atoes an, cause a huge ,ecrease in iel,. Aacterial soft rots cause a greater loss of ro,uce than an other +acterial ,isease *nown. Eiel, losses )a reach uto 1##F ,ue to insufficient con,itions in a storage facilit (rsenieic an, %+ra,oic 1$$6!. In turn this i)acts custo)ers with re,uce, Guantities of ro,uce for sale' a re,uction in Gualit' an, an increase in eBense. he soft rottening +acteria of genus
 Erwinia
are er i)ortant' )ong the
 Erwinia
 secies
 Erwinia
 
carotovora
su+s
carotovora
(;cc! is of econo)ic i)ortance +ecause of its a+ilit to cause seere soft rots on to)atoes (Per)+elon an, el)an 1$8#!. ;cc' a ro, shae, +acteriu)' was na)e, after the cro of 5arrots fro) which it was first isolate,. he +acteriu) infects a ariet of egeta+les an, lants inclu,ing carrots' otatoes' cucu)+ers' onions' to)atoes' lettuce an, orna)ental lants li*e Iris (9oo,' 1$$8!.
 
9hereas'
 E. carotovora subsp. atrosepticum’ 
s athogencit is restricte, to otatoes in te)erate regions'
 E.
 
carotovora subsp carotovora
 infects a )uch +roa,er host of lants' inclu,ing otatoes' in war)er cli)ates (Aell' 2##4!. Rottening ,isease of to)ato' cause, +
 Erwinia carotovora
 su+s
carotovora
 is a serious ro+le) of to)ato in the worl,. he athogen causes wilting of the whole to)ato  lants' water-soa*ing areas on ste)' +rowning of ascular tissue' hollowing of ith' an, soft rotting ste) an, fruits. he s)to) ,eelo)ent starts fro) root or crown region of see,lings in greenhouses. his research wor* was con,ucte, to chec* the effect of ,ifferent Phto+ioci,es on the control of soft rot  +acterial ,isease.
 #ATERIA$S AN! #ET%!S a&
 
 In vitro
 effect of 'hytobiocides and its o'tim(m concentration selection (sing bacterial )one of inhibition and disc diff(sion method
Gueous eBtract of easil aaila+le lants such as /arlic' Nee)' int' ur)eric' %lean,er' were screene,
in vitro
. rie, lants tissues ("# g liter 
-1
! were groun,e, soa*e, for 24 hrs an, then filtere, through what)an (1# )) ,ia)eter! filter aer. Paer ,iscs (6 ))! were soa*e, in each lant eBtract for 24 hrs an, then ,rie,. Aacterial culture lawn was reare, + srea,ing +acterial culture (1## Hl! on growth )e,iu) with the hel of srea,er. he ,iscs were lace, in the )i,,le of the +acterial lawn' an, incu+ate, at 2C5 for 48 to C2 hours. fter incu+ation' the ,ata was ta*en as inhi+ition 0ones in )) aroun, the ,iscs. he effectie +ioci,e an, concentration were selecte, for further eBeri)ent.
b&
 
 In vivo
 effect of 'hytobiocides on management of bacterial soft rot
In or,er to chec* out efficienc of arious hto+ioci,es in controlling to)ato soft rot un,er screen house con,itions' a ,etaile, eBeri)ent in 5o)letel Ran,o)i0e, esign (5R! with two factors an, three
 
Journal of Natural Sciences Research www.iiste.org ISSN 2224-3186 (Paer! ISSN 222"-#$21 (%nline! &ol.4' No.11' 2#14
1## relications was con,ucte, in screen house using original ("# gra) of hto+ioci,e er liter of ,istille, water! an, 12 fol, (+ ta*ing 11)l of sterile ,istille, water1)l of original solution! ,ilution of the original concentration. o)ato nurser was raise, in sterili0e, soil (san,< claK 1<2!. +out fie inch tall lants (two wee*s ol,! were translante, to ots (one lant er otK C B C inch each! haing sterili0e, soil. en ,as after translantation' lants were inoculate, with ;cc
 
(chilies isolate! + a,,ing 2## )lLot of freshl reare, clou,  +acterial susension (a+out 1#
$
cfuL)l!. went four hours after inoculation' each lant was treate, with 2## )l of original an, 12 fol, solution of hto+ioci,es as a soil ,rench. Plants ,renche, with 2## )l of #.8"F saline solution sere, as negatie control. ata was recor,e, an, the results were statisticall anal0e, using @atin SGuare esign. he following ara)eters were assesse,K lant height (c)!' fresh shoot an, root weight (g!' ,r shoot weight an, root weight (g!.
!isease rating scale (sed for diseased *soft rot of tomato& 'lants
 
Scale !escri'tion
# No soft rot s)to)s 1 @ess than "#F of the lant ha, s)to)s 2 ore than "#F of the lant ha, s)to)s 3 Plants co)letel ,ea,
RES"$TS AN! !ISC"SSIN a&
 
$aboratory St(dies
ata resente, in the a+le-1 in,icate, significant (P?#.#"! ,ifferences a)ong ,ifferent hto+ioci,es which were use, to ro,uce 0one of inhi+ition (in ))! of
 Ecc
 (on culture )e,iu) @A!. aBi)u) 0one of inhi+ition ()ini)u) +acterial growth! was achiee, + tur)eric ($.333 ))! followe, + nee) (C.333 ))! an, garlic (6.333 ))!' while )int was the least effectie a)ong all the hto+ioci,es (#.446C )) inhi+ition 0one! followe, + olean,er which was the 2
n,
 least effectie hto+ioci,e. Significant ,ifference (P?#.#"! was also foun, a)ong ,ifferent concentration' use, to re,uce the +acterial growth (inhi+ition 0one!. aBi)u) inhi+ition 0one was achiee, + using original concentration (un,ilute,! followe, + 12 fol, ,ilution. 9hile the 3
r,
 concentrations i.e. 16 fol, ,ilution of the hto+ioci,es was not as )uch as effectie as original an, 12 fol, in inhi+iting +acterial growth. he interaction +etween hto+ioci,es an, concentration was also significant (PM #.#"!. he 0one of inhi+ition (13.33))! cause, + tur)eric was ,ifferent fro) that of 
6
 (chilies! i.e. ".66)) when original concentration of hto+ioci,e was use, for inhi+ition of +acterial growth. Si)ilarl' 16 fol, ,ilution of the original garlic concentration ro,uce, 4)) 0one of inhi+ition' whereas the sa)e ,ilution of nee) gae 6 )) 0one of inhi+ition. @i*e-wise' the ,ifference +etween so)e hto+ioci,es was again significant (P?#.#"! when 12 fol, ,ilutions were use,.  well-*nown fungici,e 5oer oBchlori,e (5%5! was use, for co)arisonK howeer' the inhi+ition 0one (".C2 ))! was s)aller than that of tur)eric an, nee).
Table +: Effect of different concentrations of 'hytobiocides on bacterial growth *as meas(red by )one of inhibition in mm& Concentrations
 
Treatments
 
#int leander Neem T(rmeric ,arlic Chilies CC
-
 Control #ean
%riginal "#gLliter 1.3hi " efg 8 +c, 13.3 a $.C + ".C ,ef $.2 +c #.## 6." a 12fol, #.##C 2.C ghi 8 +c, 8 +c, ".3 ,efg 3.3 fghi 6.6 c,e 6.## 4.2 + 16fol, #.## 1.# i 6 ,ef 6.C c,e 4 efgh 1.C hi 1.3 hi #.## 2.6 c ean #." , 2.$ c C.3 + $.3 a 6.3 + 3.6 c ".C + #.## , @S (PM#.#"! for hto+ioci,es  1.6""K
 
:
5%5  5oer oBchlori,e eans followe, + sa)e letter (s! ,o not ,iffer significantl (P M #.#"! fro) each other  +!
 
Screen %o(se st(dies
 5ontrol of lant ,isease is )ore successful an, econo)ical when integrate, ,isease )anage)ent (I! is followe,. Phto+ioci,e )anage)ent is one of the co)onents of I' although it is not eBtensiel use, et it is the safest an, easil aaila+le aroach (Easun*a
et al.,
 2##"!. 5o)lete control of eer ,isease is er ,ifficult an, +acterial ,iseases are )ore ,ifficult than controlling fungal an, ne)ato,al ,iseases. an such ,iseases can +e controlle, with 5uer-+ase, che)icals an, anti+iotics. Ooweer' che)ical control causes eniron)ental ha0ar,s' whereas anti+iotics are eBensie an, lea, to e)ergence of resistance in +acteria (Easun*a
et al.,
 2##"!.  ,etaile, eBeri)ent was carrie, out in or,er to test the effect of ,ifferent hto+ioci,es in controlling soft rot of to)ato un,er screen house con,itions. Results in,icate, that tur)eric treate, lant showe, highest ,isease resistance oer control an, showe, resistance to soft rot (at +oth concentration! followe, + nee) an, /arlic (a+le 2!. )ong all hto+ioci,es' tur)eric showe, the +est results i.e. lants treate, with tur)eric gae )aBi)u)
 
Journal of Natural Sciences Research www.iiste.org ISSN 2224-3186 (Paer! ISSN 222"-#$21 (%nline! &ol.4' No.11' 2#14
1#1 height 61.6C c)' followe, + nee) ("C.$3c)! an, garlic ("#."8c)!.
 
5hilies treate, lants were onl 44.88c) tall. In case of fresh shoot weight (a+le 2! again tur)eric showe, the +est results + giing 3".68 g shoot weight as co)are, with nee) treate, lants giing 3#.33 g shoot weight. Significant ,ifference (PM#.#"! was foun, a)ong hto+ioci,es using lants fresh root weight as a ara)eter. In this case too tur)eric treate, lants gae +est results. s o+ious fro) a+le 2' tur)eric gae the +est result i.e. lants treate, with tur)eric ha, )aBi)u) ,r shoot weight (8.6#Cg!. Nee) ran*e, as the secon, +est hto+ioci,e. Nee) treate, lants ha, C.C2g ,rie, shoot weight. he results were also significant (PM#.#"! in case of ,r root weight. Nee) an, garlic ran*e, secon, an, thir, while tur)eric re)aine, on to + giing )aBi)u) root weight 3.""g In case of ,r root weight the interaction a)ong concentration is significant (PM#.#"!. 9hen 12 fol, ,ilutions of tur)eric an, chilies were use, 3.61Cg' an, 2."33g weights of roots were recor,e,. Si)ilarl when original concentration ("#gLliter! of hto+ioci,es was use, the results were ,ifferent in case of nee) an, garlic. (a+le 2! @a+orator stu,ies in,icate, that a nu)+er of hto+ioci,es were effectie in controlling soft rot of to)ato. )ong these hto+ioci,es' tur)eric cause, )aBi)u) 0one of inhi+ition followe, + nee)' garlic an, chilies. hese results were in line with those of
A'isariya.(l
(1$$"! who reorte, that tur)eric coul, +e use, as anti-oBi,ant' anti)icro+ial' anti-roto0oal an, anti-allergic. It was foun, that tur)eric treate, lants were of )aBi)u) height an, ha, the )aBi)u) root an, shoot weight followe, + nee) treate, lants. Results of nee) were in line with those of A,lia (2##6! who showe, that aGueous eBtract of nee) leaf an, see, aGueous eBtract significantl re,uce, the inci,ence an, seerit of tu+er soft rot. nee) has a +len, of 3 to 4 relate, co)oun,s along with oer 2# lesser ones' which are eGuall actie. he general class of these co)oun,s is triterenes an, within this categor' the )ost effectie are the li)onoi,s' which are a+un,ant in nee). %f these li)onoi,s' a0a,irachitin has +een foun, to +e the )ain anti-)icro+ial' +eing u to $#F effectie in )ost instances. It reels an, ,isruts the life ccles' howeer it ,oes not *ill i))e,iatel' +ut is nonetheless one of the )ost effectie growth an, fee,ing ,eterrents eer eBa)ine,. Ni)+in an, ni)+i,in' also foun, in nee)' hae anti-iral  roerties an, these hae +een shown to +e effectie in inhi+iting fungal growth as well (oul
et al.,
1$8$!. /arlic eBtract can +e use, against a range of )icroorganis)s as llicin in garlic is an anti)icro+ial su+stance. (lan
et al 
.' 2##C!. Selection of chilies with other control )easure is also a goo, choice for control of soft rot' as chilies gie co)aratiel goo, result +oth
in vivo
 an,
in-vitro
. 5hilies are also easil aaila+le an, econo)ical as reorte, + 5lau,io
et al.,
 (2##3!.
Table /: Effect of 'hytobiocides on the control of soft rot of tomato (sing 'lant height0 fresh and dry shoot weight0 fresh and dry root weight as a 'arameter1 Treatments Plant height *cm& 2resh shoot weight *g& 2resh root weight *g& !ry shoot weight *g& !ry root weight *g&
1 ur)eric 61.C a 3" .C a $.$ a 8.# a 3.1 a 2 Nee) "C.$ + 3#.C + 8." + C.C + 2.4 + 3 5hilies 44.$ , 2C.1 c 6." , 6.C c 1.$ e 4 /arlic "#.6 c 28.C +c C.2 c C.# c 2.3 c " lant inoculate, with +acteria onl 34." f 1$.3 e ".1 f 4.3 e 1.8 e 6 No +acteria no hto+oci,es 41.8 e 22.2 , 6.1 e 6.1 , 2.1 c, @S 2.2 2.2 #.4 #.3 #.3 eans followe, + sa)e letter (s! ,o not ,iffer significantl (P M #.#"! fro) each other
Concl(sion
urther research is nee,e, to inestigate )ore hto+ioci,es for the control of ,ifferent ,iseases to safe guar, our eniron)ent' an, to roi,e health foo, to the growing oulation of the worl,.
$ITERAT"RE CITE!:
lan' J.' P. nant an, P. aniela. 2##C. 5ontrol of lant ,iseases + natural ro,ucts' llicin fro) garlic as a case stu,. rsenieic' .' . %+ra,oic. 1$$6. %ccurrence of Aacterial wilt an, soft rot of see, ca++age lants (
 Brassica oleracea var. Capitata L
.! in Eugoslaia. J. Phtoathol. 144'31"-31$. isaria*ul' .' N. &anittana*o) an, . Au,,hasu*h. 1$$". ntifungal actiit of tur)eric oil eBtracte, fro) 5urcu)a longa .
 Journal of Ethnopharmacol.
 4$<163-16$. A,lia' A. S. an, ahiru A. 2##6. ;fficienc of so) e lant eBtracts on the control of otato tu+er soft rot cause, +
 Erwinia carovotora
 ss.
Carovotora
.
 Journal of Plant Protection Research
. 46< 28"-2$4. Aell' .' S. Se+aihia an, . Pritchar,. 2##4. /eno)e seGuence of the entero+acterial htoathogen
 Erwinia carotovora
 su+s.
atroseptica
 an, characteri0ation of irulence factors.
 Proceein!s of the "ational #caemy of $ciences of the %nite $tates of #merica
. 2C<#"-1#.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->