Next Article in Journal
Field Robots for Intelligent Farms—Inhering Features from Industry
Next Article in Special Issue
Water Conservation and Plant Survival Strategies of Rhizobacteria under Drought Stress
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluating the Impact of Alternative Cropping Systems on Groundwater Consumption and Nitrate Leaching in the Piedmont Area of the North China Plain
Previous Article in Special Issue
Preharvest Application of Oxalic Acid Improved Pomegranate Fruit Yield, Quality, and Bioactive Compounds at Harvest in a Concentration-Dependent Manner
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Influence of Trichoderma harzianum Rifai T-22 and Other Biostimulants on Rhizosphere Beneficial Microorganisms of Carrot

by
Elżbieta Patkowska
1,*,
Elżbieta Mielniczuk
1,
Agnieszka Jamiołkowska
1,
Barbara Skwaryło-Bednarz
1 and
Marzena Błażewicz-Woźniak
2
1
Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, 20-069 Lublin, Poland
2
Department of Cultivation and Nutrition of Plants, Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, 20-069 Lublin, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2020, 10(11), 1637; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10111637
Submission received: 30 September 2020 / Revised: 20 October 2020 / Accepted: 22 October 2020 / Published: 23 October 2020

Abstract

:
The principles of good agricultural and horticultural practice, which consider both giving environmental protection and high yielding of plants, require modern cultivation methods. Modern cultivation of horticultural plants uses, for example, cover crops, living mulches, plant growth-promoting microorganisms (PGPMs), plant growth regulators (PGRs) and other biostimulants protecting the soil against degradation and plants against phytopathogens and stress. The purpose of field and laboratory studies was to determine the effect of Trianum P (containing Trichoderma harzianum Rifai T-22 spores), Beta-Chikol (a.s.—chitosan), Timorex Gold 24 EC (based on tea tree oil) and fungicide Zaprawa Nasienna T 75 DS/WS (a.s.—tiuram 75%) on the health of carrot (Daucus carota L.) plants and the microorganism population in the rhizosphere of this plant. Moreover, the antagonistic effect of rhizosphere fungi on selected carrot fungal pathogens was determined. Laboratory mycological analysis allowed one to determine the qualitative and quantitative composition of fungi colonizing the underground parts of carrot plants. In addition, the total population of fungi and bacteria was determined (including Bacillus sp. and Pseudomonas sp.) based on the microbiological analysis of the rhizosphere soil. The application of the plant growth-promoting fungus (Trichoderma harzianum T-22), chitosan and tea tree oil positively influenced the growth, development and health status of carrot plants. T. harzianum T-22, chitosan and fungicide most effectively protected carrots against infection by soil-borne fungi from the genus Alternaria, Fusarium, Haematonectria, Sclerotinia and Rhizoctonia. The rhizosphere population of Bacillus sp. and Pseudomonas sp. in the treatments with Trianum P or Zaprawa Nasienna T 75 DS/WS was bigger than in the other experimental treatments. A reverse relationship was observed in the population of rhizosphere fungi. T. harzianum T-22, chitosan and tea tree oil promoted the growth of antagonistic fungi (Albifimbria sp., Clonostachys sp., Penicillium sp., Talaromyces sp. and Trichoderma sp.) in the carrot rhizosphere. Antagonistic activity of these fungi towards Alternaria dauci, Alternaria radicina, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and Rhizoctonia solani was higher after the application of the preparations compared to control. Consequently, Trianum P, Beta-Chikol and Timorex Gold 24 EC can be recommended as plant biostimulants in ecological agricultural production, including Daucus carota cultivation.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Carrot (Daucus carota L.) belongs to the family Apiaceae. It is one of the most popular vegetables, and has great economic importance worldwide. The leading producers of carrots are the United States, China, Uzbekistan and the Russian Federation [1,2]. Carrot roots are rich in beta-carotene (vitamin A precursor), and also contain vitamin K, vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol), vitamin C, calcium, magnesium, potassium, phosphorus, other vitamins and minerals, phenolic compounds, flavonoids and dietary fiber [3,4,5]. This vegetable has many healthy properties: it exerts antioxidation and anticancer effects, strengthens the immune system, lowers cholesterol blood levels, prevents premature ageing and has a positive influence on eyesight, skin, nails and hair [3,6]. It should be one of the basic vegetables in the human diet. Therefore, in carrot cultivation, healthy, high-quality seeds and roots should be obtained, without any residues of pesticides, heavy metals or mycotoxins harmful to human and animal health. Such effects are provided by ecological cultivations based on biological protection [1,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. They reduce the number of chemical protection agents, while limiting plant infection by phytopathogens, including toxigenic fungi (Alternaria sp., Fusarium sp. and Penicillium sp.) [9,15,16,17,18,19].
Daucus carota can be infected by a number of plant pathogens, including viruses, bacteria and fungi [1,20,21,22,23,24,25,26]. Adams et al. [20] have reported that carrot plants can be infected by the following viruses: CMoV (carrot mottle virus), CYLV (carrot yellow leaf virus), PYFV (parsnip yellow fleck virus), CtRLV (carrot red leaf virus) and PYFV (parsnip yellow fleck virus). As reported by Nesha and Siddiqui [21], health of this plant was reduced by Pectobacterium carotovorum pv. carotovorum (Jones) Waldee, causing bacterial soft rot and Xanthomonas campestris pv. carotae (Pammel) Dowson, causing bacterial leaf blight. Lerat et al. [22] informed about Streptomyces scabies Lambert and Loria, causing common scab on carrot, while Rachamallu [3] reported on Agrobacterium rhizogenes Conn (Rhizobium rhizogenes), causing hairy roots.
Fungal diseases are among the key biotic factors responsible for carrot yield. The major fungal diseases affecting carrot that can cause significant crop losses include alternariosis (Alternaria dauci (Kühn)) Groves and Skolko, Alternaria radicina Meier, Drechsler and Eddy), fusariosis (Fusarium spp.), gray mold (Botrytis cinerea Pers.), rhizoctoniosis (Rhizoctonia solani J.G. Kühn), white mold (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.)) de Bary) and cercospora leaf spot (Cercospora carotae (Pass.) Solheim) [24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36]. According to Boiteux et al. [37] and Naqvi [38], powdery mildew (Erysiphe heraclei DC.) and downy mildew (Peronospora crustosa (Fr.) Fr.) can also occur on carrot leaves.
Modern plant protection is based on the sustainable use of pesticides, mainly the application of non-chemical methods of plant protection against pests, diseases and weeds [16]. The organic production system uses biological and physiological plant mechanisms supported by the rational use of conventional, biological and natural preparations [8,10,11,16,39,40]. Moreover, the principles of good agricultural and horticultural practice, taking into account both environmental protection and high yielding of plants, require modern cultivation methods. Modern cultivation of horticultural plants, including carrots, applies cover crops, living mulches, PGPMs (plant growth-promoting microorganisms) and PGRs (plant growth regulators) protecting the soil against degradation and plants from phytopathogens and stress [14,41,42,43,44,45,46,47].
PGPMs are groups of rhizosphere microorganisms capable of colonizing the root environment [47,48,49]. Some of the microbes that inhabit this zone are bacteria and fungi that are able to efficiently colonize the roots and rhizosphere soil [48,49]. The group of PGPFs (plant growth-promoting fungi) also includes Trichoderma sp.; some groups of Trichoderma species are associated with plant roots, where they either form a symbiotic relationship or occur as plant endophytes [50,51]. However, Trichoderma rhizosphere-competent strains have been shown to exert direct effects on plants, by increasing their growth potential and nutrient uptake, fertilizer use efficiency, percentage and rate of seed germination and stimulating plant defenses against biotic and abiotic damage [52]. Trichoderma spp. can improve the health status of plants by inducing systemic resistance (ISR) [53,54]. Plant resistance is associated with the formation of specific PR proteins (pathogenesis-related proteins) toxic to many pathogens such as Botrytis cinerea, Fusarium culmorum, F. oxysporum, Rhizoctonia solani or Phytophthora infestans [55]. These proteins inhibit the formation and germination of fungal spores, strengthen the host’s cell walls and degrade the cell walls of plant pathogens [55].
Trichoderma is the most commonly used biological control agent of plant pathogens and has long been known as an effective antagonist of plant pathogenic fungi [49,56,57,58]. The antagonistic activities of Trichoderma towards plant pathogens are a combination of several mechanisms, including nutrient and/or space competition, antibiosis associated with the secretion of antibiotic and direct mycoparasitism, which involves the production of cell wall-degrading enzymes [49,50,59]. Trichoderma harzianum exhibits specific antagonistic properties [56,58,60,61]. A considerable interest in Trichoderma properties and the possibility of using them in agriculture led to the development of commercial products using various species of Trichoderma [62,63]. One such product is Trianum P, which contains the spores of T. harzianum T-22.
Biostimulants that alleviate the effects associated with the occurrence of abiotic and biotic stresses include, among others, Beta-Chikol (a.s.—chitosan) and Timorex Gold 24 EC (based on tea tree oil) are based on natural components. Chitosan or chitin is a natural polysaccharide consisting of two D-glucosamine molecules and naturally present in the cell walls of fungi, crustaceans and insect exoskeleton [47,64,65]. The organic compound is obtained by chitin distillation through the action of concentrated sodium hydroxide at elevated temperature or using enzymes [66]. It has antiviral, antibacterial and antifungal properties [67,68]. Chitosan, as an elicitor of plant resistance, stimulates the formation of phytoalexins and callose, synthesis of PR proteins and lignin [68]. Natural tea tree oil is obtained from the leaves and small branches of Melaleuca alternifolia L. It contains mainly terpenes (p-cymene, terpinolene, terpinen-4-ol and 1,8-cineole), sesquiterpenes and their respective alcohol (monoterpene alcohol-terpineol) [69,70]. It has a strong antiseptic effect by destroying cell membranes and organelles [71,72,73]. It is used in biological plant protection against bacterial and fungal pathogens [15,72,73,74].
The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of Trichoderma harzianum T-22, chitosan and tea tree oil on the health status of carrot plants and microorganism population in the rhizosphere. Moreover, the antagonistic activity of rhizosphere fungi towards selected fungal pathogens of carrot was determined.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Field Trials

Carrots (Daucus carota L.) were grown for three growing seasons (2014–2016), in South-Eastern Poland (Lublin region; 51°23′ N, 22°56′ E, World Reference Base for Soil Resources (WRB): Haplic Luvisol formed from silty medium loams). The subjects of the research were plants and rhizosphere soil of the carrot cv. ‘Flakkese 2′. The experiment was set up as a completely randomized block design in 4 replicates. The area of each plot was 33 m2. Mineral fertilization was applied in the spring at the following amounts of NPK: 150:50:160 kg/ha. Carrot was sown in the first 10-day period of May in rows (spacing—50 cm); the seeding rate was 2.6 kg/ha.
Before sowing, carrot seeds were dressed with the following preparations (biostimulants): Trianum P (containing Trichoderma harzianum Rifai T-22) produced by Koppert BV, Veilingweg, Netherlands; Beta-Chikol (a.s.—chitosan) produced by Poli-Farm, Łowicz, Poland; Timorex Gold 24 EC (based on essential tea tree oil) produced by Biomor Israel Ltd., Katzerin, Israel. For comparison, the fungicide Zaprawa Nasienna T 75 DS/WS (a.s.—tiuram 75%) produced by Organika-Azot in Jaworzno, Poland was used. Untreated seeds served as a control. The preparations were applied according to the manufacturers’ recommendations: Beta-Chikol—100 mL/kg seeds, Timorex Gold 24 EC—150 mL/kg seeds, Trianum P—50 g/kg seeds and Zaprawa Nasienna T 75 DS/WS—5 g/kg seeds. The second protective treatment was performed at the beginning of the 2-leaf stage (BBCH 12 according to the scale of Biologische Bundesanstalt, Bundessortenamt and Chemical Industry).
In each growing season, the emergence and percentage of diseased carrot seedlings were determined in individual experimental treatments. The health of carrot seedlings was evaluated at the stage of 3-4 leaves (BBCH 13-14) in each year of the study. Fifty seedlings were randomly selected from each plot. The level of infection was determined according to a five-score rating scale for scorzonera (where 0°—no disease symptoms, and 4°—over 50% of the root area infected) [75]. The disease index was calculated according to McKinney’s formula [76]:
d i s e a s e i n d e x = a i × b i n × c × 100
where: ai—score of rating scale (from 0° to 4°), bi—number of roots in a given score of the rating scale; n—total number of roots observed and c—highest score of the rating scale.

2.2. Laboratory Mycological Analysis

In each year of the study, the health of carrot plants was determined. According to the method described by Patkowska [23], 40 seedlings (BBCH 13-14) with disease symptoms were collected from particular experimental treatments for mycological analysis of the infected roots. Additionally, after the harvest (second decade of October), 40 randomly selected carrot roots (BBCH 49) from each experimental treatment with necrotic and etiological signs were subject to mycological analysis. The analysis was conducted according to the method described by Patkowska and Konopiński [77,78] for scorzonera and chicory roots and by Patkowska [23] for carrot. This analysis allowed one to determine the composition of fungi infecting carrot seedlings and roots.
According to the method described by Patkowska [23], the infected parts of plants were rinsed for 30 min under running tap water, subsequently they were disinfected in 1% sodium hypochlorite. Surface-disinfected plant material was rinsed three times in sterile distilled water. Three-millimeter fragments were cut from the thus prepared plant material and placed in 9-cm sterile Petri dishes on a solidified mineral medium with the following composition: 38 g saccharose, 0.7 g NH4NO3, 0.3 g KH2PO4, 0.3 g MgSO4 × 7H2O, 20 g agar and trace quantities of FeCl3 × 6 H2O, ZnSO4 × 7 H2O, CuSO4 × 7 H2O and MnSO4 × 5 H2O [23]. In each of the experimental treatment, 100 fragments of infected roots were examined. After 10–12 days, fungal cultures were transferred to sterile Petri dishes with PDA (potato dextrose agar) medium and incubated at 20–22 °C, with cycles of 12 h light/12 h darkness [23,79]. After 14–24 days, fungal colonies were identified to the genus and species level (morphological structures: mycelium, conidiophores and conidia) under a microscope, based on the available keys and monographs [80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95]. Additionally, the fungi of the genus Fusarium were identified on PDA and SNA (selective nutrient agar) medium [96]. Malt and Czapek-Dox media were used for Penicillium sp. [97]. The number and percentage of occurrence of the recovered fungal species were calculated.

2.3. Laboratory Analysis of Microbial Communities

Nine weeks after sowing carrot seeds, rhizosphere soil samples were collected from each experimental treatment and microbiological laboratory analysis was conducted according to the method described by Czaban et al. [98] for wheat and by Patkowska [13,23] for common bean and carrot; ten carrot plants were dug out as a whole from each plot (i.e., 40 plants from each combination). The soil directly adhering to the carrot roots (i.e., rhizosphere soil) was shaken off into sterile Petri dishes. Under sterile laboratory conditions, soil samples from the same experimental treatment were mixed, then weighed in 10 g quantities and prepared for further analyses (4 replicates for each experimental treatment).
According to the method described by Patkowska [13,23], soil solutions were prepared in laboratory conditions from 10 g weighed amounts with dilutions from 10−1 to 10−7. The total size of bacterial population was determined on nutrient agar (in Petri dishes). Tryptic soy agar was used for bacteria from the genus Bacillus, whereas Pseudomonas agar F was used for Pseudomonas spp. For isolation of Bacillus spp., soil dilutions were heated for 20 min at 80 °C. Martin’s medium was used to determine the number of fungi. After 2–7 days of incubation at 20–22 °C, the number of bacterial and fungal colonies was determined and converted into CFU/g of soil DW (colony forming units/g of soil dry weight) [13,23]. The obtained fungal colonies were transferred to sterile Petri dishes with PDA medium and incubated for the next 14–24 days. After that time, the fungi were microscopically determined to the genus and species, based on the available monographs [80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97]. The number of obtained species of fungi was calculated.

2.4. Antagonistic Activity of Selected Rhizosphere Fungi of Carrot

According to the method described by Patkowska et al. [99] and by Mańka and Mańka [100], the obtained rhizosphere isolates of Albifimbria verrucaria, Clonostachys rosea, Penicillium aurantiogriseum, Penicillium glabrum, Talaromyces flavus and Trichoderma sp. from individual experimental treatments were used to determine their antagonistic effect towards selected fungi pathogenic to carrot (Alternaria dauci, Alternaria radicina, Rhizoctonia solani and Sclerotinia sclerotiorum).
The experiments were conducted on Petri dishes with sterile PDA medium. In the central part of the dish, two 3-mm fungi inocula were grafted 2 cm apart. Colonies of the studied fungi grown from one, 3-mm inoculum grafted in the middle of the dish served as controls. Cultures were grown in an incubator at a temperature of 24 °C. The biotic effect was established after 10 days of growth [101].
The phytopathological function is expressed as the individual biotic effect (IBE), i.e., the effect of one isolate of a given species on pathogens. IBE multiplied by species frequency gives the general biotic effect (GBE), considered as the effect of all isolates on the pathogen. The summary biotic effect (SBE) is obtained after adding all GBEs. The summary biotic effect of saprotrophic fungi on the studied pathogenic fungi from individual experimental treatments allowed us to determine their antagonistic activity in the carrot rhizosphere [99].

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Results concerning the emergence, health status, carrot disease index and the population of rhizosphere microorganisms were statistically analyzed. The significance of differences was determined on the basis of Tukey’s confidence intervals (p < 0.05). Statistical calculations were carried out using Statistica, version 6.0 (StatSoft, Krakow, Poland).

3. Results

The experiments showed that plant density in the experimental plots grown from the seeds dressed with the fungicide Zaprawa Nasienna T 75 DS/WS was similar to the number of plants obtained after the application of biostimulants. The mean number of carrot seedlings in all experimental treatments ranged from 61.4 to 84.1 plants/m2 (Table 1). The best emergence was observed after the application of Trianum P (84.1 seedlings, on average) or the fungicide (82.1). The number of seedlings grown on plots with Beta-Chikol or Timorex Gold 24 EC was smaller and amounted to 74.6 or 72.4, respectively. The worst emergence (61.4) was observed without any protective treatments. Nevertheless, seedlings with disease symptoms grew on each plot. After digging out the seedlings, brown necrotic spots were visible on the roots (Figure 1). Disease symptoms in the form of rot or dry necrosis with mycelium hyphae were also observed on the roots after carrot harvest (Figure 2 and Figure 3). The average percentage of diseased seedlings ranged from 2.3% (Trianum P) to 11.3% (control). The application of Trianum P, Beta-Chikol and Timorex Gold 24 EC considerably reduced plant infection as the proportion of seedlings with disease symptoms was lower than in the control (2.3%, 3.6% and 7%, respectively; Table 1).
The indicator of the protective effect of the applied biostimulants against carrot infection by plant pathogens was the value of the disease index of the seedlings. The disease index of carrot seedling roots was on average 14.5 for all experimental treatments (Figure 4). Trianum P and Zaprawa Nasienna T 75 DS/WS were the most effective in protecting the seedlings against fungal infection, because the disease index was the lowest (10.3 and 11.3, respectively). These values were significantly lower than in the control (21.2). Slightly higher values of the disease index were recorded after the application of Beta-Chikol (14.1) and Timorex Gold 24 EC (15.5). They were not significantly different, but also lower than in the control.
Carrot plants were colonized by both pathogenic and saprotrophic fungi. A total of 1379 colonies of fungi and fungus-like organisms belonging to 11 genera were isolated from diseased carrot seedlings (Table 2). Alternaria sp., Fusarium sp. and Rhizoctonia solani fungi were clearly the dominant pathogens. The genus Alternaria was represented by the species Alternaria alternata, A. consortialis, A. dauci and A. radicina and their total proportion was 3.4%, 1.7%, 7.7% and 8.9%, respectively (in total—21.7%; Figure 5). The genus Fusarium was represented by the species Fusarium culmorum (10.5%) and F. oxysporum (20.2%). In addition, the following microorganisms, considered as potential pathogens, were isolated from the diseased carrot seedlings: Rhizoctonia solani (14.1%), Phytophthora sp. (7.6%), Neocosmospora solani (3.4%) and Globisporangium irregulare (3.1%). The smallest population of these microorganisms colonized the seedlings after Trianum P application. Slightly higher numbers were found in the plots with Beta-Chikol and Timorex Gold 24 EC, and the highest in control.
After harvest, 1162 colonies of microorganisms belonging to 14 genera were obtained from carrot roots (Table 3). Alternaria dauci (6.6%), A. radicina (5.2%), A. consortialis (2.5%), A. alternata (2.1%), A. chartarum (2%), Fusarium oxysporum (16.6%), F. culmorum (3.2%), Neocosmospora solani (2.7%), Rhizoctonia solani (3.6%) and Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (26.4%) were also isolated from carrot roots after harvest (Figure 5). The greatest number of these fungi was obtained from control (without biostimulants and fungicide). Trichoderma harzianum T-22, chitosan and tea tree oil considerably reduced the occurrence of these microorganisms. Within saprotrophic fungi, Clonostachys sp., Epicoccum spp., Gliomastix sp., Mucor sp., Penicillium sp. and Trichoderma sp. were isolated from the diseased carrot seedlings and roots after harvest (Table 2 and Table 3). Biostimulants, especially Trianum P and Beta-Chikol promoted their development.
The number of colonies of carrot rhizosphere microorganisms isolated in vitro on selective media varied (Figure 6). The total population of bacteria ranged on average from 2.05 × 106 to 7.01 × 106 CFU/g of soil DW (Table 4). The smallest population of bacteria was found in the rhizosphere of control plants, while the biggest in the rhizosphere of carrots after the application of Zaprawa Nasienna T 75 DS/WS. The population of bacteria colonizing the rhizosphere of carrot plants treated with Trianum P was statistically higher (6.82 × 106 CFU/g of soil DW) than after Beta-Chikol application (4.51 × 106 CFU/g of soil DW) and Timorex Gold 24 EC (4.36 × 106 CFU/g of soil DW). A similar relationship was observed for the population of Bacillus sp. and Pseudomonas sp. Their population ranged from 0.99 × 106 to 4.81 × 106 CFU/g of soil DW and from 0.23 × 106 to 2.12 × 106 CFU/g of soil DW, respectively. Independently of the applied biostimulants and fungicide, Bacillus sp. was more abundant in carrot roots as compared to Pseudomonas sp. A reverse relationship was found for the fungal population, which ranged on average from 3.05 × 103 to 9.37 × 103 CFU/g of soil DW. The rhizosphere of the control plants was colonized by fungi to the highest degree. Each of the applied preparations limited the development of fungi in the rhizosphere of carrot. Their population was statistically smaller than in the control. Trianum P and Zaprawa Nasienna T 75 DS/WS proved to be particularly effective (Table 4).
In total, 1394 isolates of fungi belonging to 17 genera were obtained from the carrot rhizosphere (Table 5). Their species composition was similar in all experimental treatments. On the other hand, the quantitative composition differed and depended on the applied preparation. The largest fungal population was isolated from the rhizosphere of carrot cultivated without any protective treatments (control)—408 isolates. Trianum P and Beta-Chikol considerably limited the growth of fungi, as 221 and 294 isolates, respectively, were obtained after their application. The effect of Timorex Gold 24 EC on the reduction of the fungal population was slightly smaller (309 isolates). The smallest fungal population was isolated from the rhizosphere of carrot protected with the fungicide Zaprawa Nasienna T 75 DS/WS (162 isolates). Fungi of the genera Alternaria, Fusarium, Mucor, Penicillium, Rhizopus, Rhizoctonia, Sclerotinia, Talaromyces and Trichoderma were most frequently isolated. The dominant species Fusarium oxysporum (16.6%), Rhizoctonia solani (11.1%), Alternaria alternata (5%), Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (4.8%) and Fusarium culmorum (4.6%) (Figure 7) more often colonized the rhizosphere of carrot cultivated without any protective treatments than after the application of biostimulants (Table 5). Trichoderma sp., Albifimbria verrucaria and Clonostachys rosea dominated in the rhizosphere of saprotrophic fungi. They colonized carrot roots in experimental treatments with Trianum P, Beta-Chikol and Timorex Gold 24 EC more abundantly than with Zaprawa Nasienna T 75 DS/WS. Moreover, they were not isolated from the rhizosphere of control plants (Table 5).
On the basis of laboratory tests, the number of antagonistic fungi (Albifimbria verrucaria, Clonostachys rosea, Penicillium spp., Talaromyces flavus and Trichoderma sp.) towards fungi pathogenic to the carrot (Alternaria dauci, Alternaria radicina, Rhizoctonia solani and Sclerotinia sclerotiorum) was determined. Trianum P and Beta-Chikol were most effective in stimulating the development of antagonistic fungi (Albifimbria verrucaria, Clonostachys rosea, Penicillium spp., Talaromyces flavus and Trichoderma sp.) in the rhizosphere of carrots, because 121 and 108 isolates, respectively, were obtained after their application (Figure 8). A smaller population of antagonistic fungi was found when Timorex Gold 24 EC was used for carrot protection (62 isolates). The fungicide Zaprawa Nasienna T 75 DS/WS did not show such a positive effect (27 isolates). Trichoderma sp., Clonostachys rosea and Albifimbria verrucaria dominated among the antagonists.
The antagonistic activity of rhizosphere microorganisms depended on the applied preparation. It was the highest after Trianum P and Beta-Chikol application and slightly lower in combinations with Timorex Gold 24 EC and Zaprawa Nasienna T 75 DS/WS. The antagonistic activity of the tested fungi was the weakest in the control (without biostimulants and fungicide; Table 6).
Regardless of the applied preparation, antagonistic fungi were most effective in inhibiting the growth of Alternaria radicina and A. dauci. The summary biotic effect (SBE) towards those pathogens after Trianum P and Beta-Chikol application amounted to +721, +687 and +685, +657, respectively (Table 6). Timorex Gold 24 EC and Zaprawa Nasienna T 75 DS/WS stimulated antagonists in limiting the growth of Alternaria radicina and A. dauci to a lesser extent (SBE: +408, +397 and +111, +103, respectively). The antagonistic activity of saprotrophic fungi isolated from the carrot rhizosphere against Rhizoctonia solani and Sclerotinia sclerotiorum was slightly weaker. The summary biotic effect (SBE) against these two pathogens was +619 and +593 for Trianum P, +596 and +575 for Beta-Chikol, +366 and +354 for Timorex Gold 24 EC, +94 and +93 for Zaprawa Nasienna T 75 DS/WS and +79 and +71 for control, respectively (Table 6). The highest antagonistic activity among saprotrophic fungi was shown by Trichoderma sp. (Figure 9). Their individual biotic effect (IBE) in relation to all the tested pathogenic fungi was +8 (Table 6).

4. Discussion

Trichoderma harzianum T-22 (Trianum P), chitosan (Beta-Chikol) and tea tree oil (Timorex Gold 24 EC) applied in this study promoted the growth and development of carrot plants and effectively protected them against infection by soil-borne pathogens. T. harzianum T-22, belonging to PGPMs, turned out to be more effective than chitosan and tea tree oil. Nevertheless, all biostimulants and the fungicide Zaprawa Nasienna T 75 DS/WS increased the emergence and plant density in the experimental plots. At the same time, after their application, a lower percentage of plants with disease symptoms was observed than in the control (without biostimulants and fungicide). The disease index of seedling roots after Trianum P and Zaprawa Nasienna T 75 DS/WS application was lower than after Beta-Chikol and Timorex Gold 24 EC application. The positive effect of chitosan on seed germination and emergence of soybean plants and the effect of grapefruit extract (Biosept 33 SL) on common bean and pea was demonstrated by Pastucha [102] and Pięta et al. [103], respectively.
In the current study, carrot seedlings and roots were colonized by saprotrophic and pathogenic fungi. Pathogenic fungi were represented by Alternaria spp., Fusarium spp., Phytophthora sp., Neocosmospora solani, Rhizoctonia solani and Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Globisporangium irregulare was also isolated from diseased seedlings. Biostimulants significantly reduced the colonization of the studied organs by these microorganisms. According to many authors [104,105,106], Alternaria spp. are common pathogenic species that cause diseases of various plants. Species of the genus Alternaria, such as Alternaria radicina, A. dauci, A. petroselini or A. carotiincultae, were reported on carrots in several countries [24,26,27,107,108]. Le Clerc et al. [33] and Ahmad and Siddiqui [109] found that A. radicina, A. alternata and A. dauci were highly harmful to carrot seedlings and roots. As reported by Kathe et al. [110], A. radicina is a fungal pathogen causing black rot disease of the carrot. According to Koutouan et al. [32], Alternaria leaf blight, caused by A. dauci, is the most damaging foliar disease affecting carrots. In a study by Szopińska et al. [1], carrot seedlings and seeds were infected mostly by fungi of the genera Alternaria and Fusarium. Moreover, Baturo-Cieśniewska et al. [35] and Siddiqui et al. [36] reported that carrot cultivation might be threatened by Fusarium solani, Rhizoctonia solani and Sclerotinia sclerotiorum.
The tested Trichoderma harzianum T-22, chitosan and tea tree oil effectively limited the infestation of carrots by the above-mentioned fungi. At the same time, they favored the colonization of underground organs by saprotrophic fungi, especially Clonostachys sp., Epicoccum spp. and Trichoderma sp. A similar effectiveness of biological preparations and biostimulants (especially those based on Trichoderma and chitosan) was demonstrated by other authors in plant protection and growth promotion of various species [13,45,49,68,111,112,113,114,115]. The beneficial effect of chitosan on the emergence, health and yielding of plants from the family Fabaceae was confirmed by Patkowska [13] and Pięta et al. [103]. Biochikol 020 PC (a.s.—chitosan) effectively improved the health and yield of Pisum sativum [9]. Presowing treatment of pea seeds protected older plants against infection by Fusarium culmorum, F. oxysporum, Alternaria alternata, Boeremia exigua, Haematonectria haematococca, Gibberella avenacea, Peyronellaea pinodes and Thanatephorus cucumeris [9]. Chitosan was also used to dress the bulbs of ornamental plants [116] and in the protection of potato tubers against late blight and soft rot [117,118].
Laboratory and field studies have demonstrated the high efficiency of tea tree oil (Timorex Gold 24 EC) in limiting the abundance of Bremia lactucae on lettuce and high effectiveness in protecting this plant against downy mildew [119]. Single spraying of Timorex Gold effectively controlled and suppressed powdery mildew (Sphaerotheca fuliginea) on cucumber [15]. Moreover, tea tree oil showed high efficacy and strong healing effect against black Sigatoka in banana [39,40].
According to numerous authors [49,56,58,115], Trichoderma protects plants against soil and Phyllosphere pathogens. Trichoderma harzianum G 227 post-culture fluids, used for presowing seed dressing, had a positive effect on the number, health and yield of soybean plants [120]. They protected the germinating seeds, seedlings and older plants against infection by Fusarium spp., Phoma exigua var. exigua, R. solani and S. sclerotiorum. A study by Haikal [121] showed that Trichoderma viride spores and post-culture fluids reduced seed decay and soybean root rot caused by Rhizoctonia solani. Similarly, T. harzianum inhibited the development of soybean stem rot caused by Sclerotinia sclerotiorum [122]. As reported by Sánchez-Montesinos et al. [44], direct application of Trichoderma aggressivum f. europaeum to seeds in vitro did not increase the percentage of pepper and tomato seed germination, but demonstrated biostimulant properties under commercial plant nursery and greenhouse conditions.
Trichoderma harzianum T-22, chitosan, tea tree oil and the fungicide modified microorganism communities in the carrot rhizosphere. After their application, the size of rhizobacteria population, including Bacillus sp. and Pseudomonas sp., was greater than in the control. Each of the tested preparations, especially Trianum P and Zaprawa Nasienna T 75 DS/WS, reduced the size of rhizosphere fungal population. Biostimulants, especially Trianum P, reduced the occurrence of pathogenic fungi (Fusarium oxysporum, F. culmorum, Rhizoctonia solani, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and Alternaria spp.) and favored the development of antagonistic fungi (Albifimbria sp., Clonostachys sp., Talaromyces sp. and Trichoderma sp.) in the carrot rhizosphere. Many authors have shown great effectiveness of antagonistic fungi in inhibiting the development of pathogenic fungi and improving the health status of various plants [56,99,123,124]. As reported by Li et al. [125], the growth of soil-borne pathogens can be modified by root exudates. Earlier studies [41] showed the high efficacy of cover crops (buckwheat, white mustard and rye) in limiting the number of soil-borne fungi in carrot cultivation.
Moreover, chitosan used for the biological protection of runner bean [126], soybean [127] and common bean [13] significantly increased the population of Bacillus and Pseudomonas bacteria, while reducing the number of fungi in the rhizosphere of these plants. A similar relationship was observed with grapefruit extract [13,127] and Polyversum (containing Pythium oligandrum oospores) [13,127,128].
The effectiveness of tea tree oil in reducing the population of rhizosphere fungi in carrot cultivation could be due to its antiseptic properties. It is used in the control of phytopathogenic fungi and bacteria [15,72,119,129,130]. As reported by Li et al. [131] and Riccioni et al. [132], tea tree oil controlled a wide spectrum of pathogens of various plants (vegetables, field crops, herbs, fruit trees and grapevines), without causing any phytotoxic effects. Additionally, Carson et al. [69] reported antibacterial and anti-inflammatory properties of tea tree oil used in medicine [69].
Biostimulants used in the present study for the biological protection of carrots had a positive effect on the antagonistic activity of saprotrophic rhizosphere fungi towards the studied polyphages (Alternaria dauci, Alternaria radicina, Rhizoctonia solani and Sclerotinia sclerotiorum). Trichoderma harzianum T-22, as plant growth-promoting fungus, also showed great effectiveness, increasing the degree of colonization of carrot roots and rhizosphere soil by other antagonistic fungi. Such action significantly improved the health of the tested plant species. Błaszczyk et al. [57] reported that Trichoderma spp. positively affected plants by stimulating their growth and protecting against bacterial and fungal pathogens. Mycoparasitism [54,133,134,135], antibiosis [136,137,138,139,140] and competition [141,142,143] are the biocontrol mechanism by which Trichoderma spp. respond to the presence of phytopathogens, thereby preventing or impeding their development. These processes are stimulated by the biosynthesis of target metabolites, such as plant growth regulators, antibiotics, siderophores and lytic enzymes (especially chitinases, β-1,3-glucanases, β-1,6-glucanases), which completely degrade the cell walls of hyphae and spores [133,144,145,146]. The antagonistic activity of Trichoderma spp. against various pathogenic fungi has been described by many authors [56,57,58,63,124,133,147,148,149,150]. Błaszczyk et al. [151] reported the high activity of various Trichoderma strains towards toxigenic species such as Fusarium avenaceum, F. cerealis, F. culmorum, F. graminearum and F. temperatum. Strains of the species Trichoderma longibrachiatum, T. atroviride and T. harzianum, including T. harzianum T-22, showed the ability to reduce the synthesis of Fusarium mycotoxins [60,152]. The antagonistic activity of T. harzianum T-22 was confirmed, among others, against Alternaria alternata [153], Sclerotinia sclerotiorum [154,155] and Rhizoctonia solani [156].

5. Conclusions

In summary, the application of Trichoderma harzianum T-22 (Trianum P), chitosan (Beta-Chikol) and tea tree oil (Timorex Gold 24 EC) in carrot cultivation considerably improved the growth, development and health of this vegetable plant. They protected the germinating seeds and older plants from infection by soil-borne fungi. Their effect matched or exceeded the effect of the chemical substance tiuram (fungicide Zaprawa Nasienna T 75 DS/WS). Moreover, they had a positive influence on microbial communities in the rhizosphere. They reduced the population of pathogenic fungi colonizing carrot roots, while increasing the population of antagonistic fungi. The application of these preparations had a positive effect on the antagonistic activity of saprotrophic fungi against the studied polyphages (Alternaria dauci, Alternaria radicina, Rhizoctonia solani and Sclerotinia sclerotiorum). On the basis of the present study and studies of other authors, these preparations can be regarded as factors improving the phytosanitary condition of the soil, which is of great importance in plant protection. Consequently, Trianum P, Beta-Chikol and Timorex Gold 24 EC can be recommended as biostimulants in ecological agricultural production, including Daucus carota cultivation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: E.P., M.B.-W., E.M. and A.J.; Methodology: E.P., E.M., A.J. and M.B.-W.; Data curation: E.P.; Formal analysis and software: E.P.; Validation: E.P., E.M., A.J., B.S.-B., M.B.-W.; Writing—original draft preparation: E.P. and B.S.-B., Writing—review and editing: E.P., E.M., A.J., B.S.-B. and M.B.-W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financed by the University of Life Sciences, project OKF/DS/2.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank reviewers for the valuable comments that have enriched the content of the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Szopińska, D.; Jarosz, M.; Sławińska, B. The effect of hydrogen peroxide on seed quality and emergence of carrot (Daucus carota L.). Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum Cultus 2017, 16, 21–33. [Google Scholar]
  2. FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Statistics Division 2002. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data (accessed on 15 September 2020).
  3. Rachamallu, R.R. Hairy roots production through Agrobacterium rhizogenes genetic transformation from Daucus carota explants. Int. J. Adv. Res. Biol. Sci. 2016, 3, 23–27. Available online: http://s-o-i.org/1.15/ijarbs-2016-3-8-5 (accessed on 15 September 2020).
  4. Leja, M.; Kamińska, I.; Kramer, M.; Maksylewicz-Kaul, A.; Kammerer, D.; Carle, R.; Baranski, R. The content of phenolic compounds and radical scavenging activity varies with carrot origin and root color. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 2013, 68, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Desobry, S.A.; Netto, F.M.; Labuza, T.P. Preservation of β-carotene from carrots. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 1998, 38, 381–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Darvin, M.E.; Sterry, W.; Lademann, J.; Vergou, T. The role of carotenoids in human skin. Molecules 2011, 16, 10491–10506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Groot, S.P.C.; van der Wolf, J.M.; Jalink, H.; Langerak, C.J.; van den Bulk, R.W. Challenges for the production of high quality organic seeds. Seed Test. Int. 2004, 127, 12–15. [Google Scholar]
  8. Sadowski, C.; Lenc, L.; Łukanowski, A. Pytopathological aspect of onion seed production in organic farm. J. Res. Appl. Agric. Eng. 2009, 54, 80–84. [Google Scholar]
  9. Patkowska, E.; Krawiec, M. Yielding and healthiness of pea cv. ‘Sześciotygodniowy TOR’ after applying biotechnical preparations. Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum Cultus 2016, 15, 143–156. [Google Scholar]
  10. Sultana, V.; Baloch, G.N.; Ara, J.; Esteshamul-Haque, S.; Tariq, R.M.; Athar, M. Seaweeds as alternative to chemical pesticides for the management of root diseases of sunflower and tomato. J. Appl. Bot. Food Qual. 2011, 84, 162–168. [Google Scholar]
  11. Stoleru, V.; Sellitto, V.M. Pest Control in Organic System. In Integrated Pest Management (IPM): Environmentally Sound Pest Management, 1st ed.; Gill, H., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2016; pp. 1239–1560. [Google Scholar]
  12. Koziara, W.; Sulewska, H.; Panasiewicz, K. Effect of resistance stymulator application to some agricultural crops. J. Res. Appl. Agric. Eng. 2006, 51, 82–87. [Google Scholar]
  13. Patkowska, E. Effect of bio-products on bean yield and bacterial and fungal communities in the rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2009, 18, 255–263. [Google Scholar]
  14. Wadas, W.; Dziugieł, T. Changes in Assimilation Area and Chlorophyll Content of Very Early Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Cultivars as Influenced by Biostimulants. Agronomy 2020, 10, 387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Reuveni, M.; Sanches, E.; Barbier, M. Curative and Suppressive Activities of Essential Tea Tree Oil against Fungal Plant Pathogens. Agronomy 2020, 10, 609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jamiołkowska, A. Natural Compounds as Elicitors of Plant Resistance Against Diseases and New Biocontrol Strategies. Agronomy 2020, 10, 173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Mielniczuk, E.; Skwaryło-Bednarz, B. Fusarium Head Blight, Mycotoxins and Strategies for Their Reduction. Agronomy 2020, 10, 509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Raja, N.; Masresha, G. Plant Based Biopesticides: Safer Alternative for Organic Food Production. J. Fertil. Pestic. 2015, 6, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. El-Gremi, S.M.; Draz, I.S.; Youssef, W.A.-E. Biological control of pathogens associated with kernel black point disease of wheat. Crop. Prot. 2017, 91, 13–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Adams, I.P.; Skelton, A.; Macarthur, R.; Hodges, T.; Hinds, H.; Flint, L.; Nath, P.D.; Boonham, N.; Fox, A. Carrot yellow leaf virus is associated with carrot internal necrosis. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e109125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Nesha, R.; Siddiqui, Z.A. Interactions of Pectobacterium carotovorum pv. carotovorum, Xanthomonas campestris pv. carotae, and Meloidogyne javanica on the disease complex of carrot. Int. J. Veget. Sci. 2013, 19, 403–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lerat, S.; Simao-Beaunoir, A.-M.; Beaulieu, C. Genetic and physiological determinants of Streptomyces scabies pathogenicity. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2009, 10, 579–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Patkowska, E. Soil-borne microorganisms threatening carrot cultivated with the use of cover crops. Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum Cultus 2020, 19, 71–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Koike, S.T.; Smith, R.F.; Cahn, M.D.; Pryor, B.M. Association of the carrot pathogen Alternaria dauci with new diseases, Alternaria leaf speck, of lettuce and celery in California. Plant Health Prog. 2017, 18, 136–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Zafar, M.M.; Abrar, M.; Umar, M.; Bahoo, M.A.; Khan, N.A.; Salahuddin, M.; Bilal, A.; Abdullah. Screening of different carrot varieties against Alternaria leaf blight and its chemical management. Researcher 2017, 9, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Coles, R.B.; Wicks, T.J. The incidence of Alternaria radicina on carrot seeds, seedlings and roots in South Australia. Austral. Plant Pathol. 2003, 32, 99–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mazur, S.; Nawrocki, J. The influence of carrot plant control against Alternaria blight on the root health status after storage. Veget. Crops Res. Bull. 2007, 67, 117–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Nawrocki, J.; Mazur, S. Effect of cultivation methods on the health of carrot roots. In Proceedings of the Abstract Book of 3th Congress of PTNO “Science and Gardening Practice for Health and the Environment”, Lublin, Poland, 14–16 September 2011; University of Life Sciences in Lublin: Lublin, Poland, 2011; p. 109. [Google Scholar]
  29. Park, K.H.; Ryu, K.Y.; Yun, H.J.; Yun, J.C.; Kim, B.S.; Jeong, K.S.; Kwon, Y.S.; Cha, B. Gray mold on carrot caused by Botrytis cinerea in Korea. Res. Plant Dis. 2011, 17, 364–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Aktaruzzaman, M.; Kim, J.Y.; Xu, S.J.; Kim, B.S. First report of postharvest gray mold rot on carrot caused by Botrytis cinerea in Korea. Res. Plant Dis. 2014, 20, 129–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Wagini, N.H.; Abubakar, S. Incidence and severity of common diseases of carrot and their pathogenic agents in northern Nigeria. Katsina J. Natural Appl. Sci. 2015, 4, 212–219. [Google Scholar]
  32. Koutouan, C.; Clerc, V.L.; Baltenweck, R.; Claudel, P.; Halter, D.; Hugueney, P.; Hamama, L.; Suel, A.; Huet, S.; Merle, M.H.B.; et al. Link between carrot leaf secondary metabolites and resistance to Alternaria dauci. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 13746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Le Clerc, V.; Aubert, C.; Cottet, V.; Yovanopoulos, C.; Piquet, M.; Suel, A.; Huet, S.; Koutouan, C.; Hamama, L.; Chalot, G.; et al. Breeding for Carrot Resistance to Alternaria dauci without Compromising Taste. Mol. Breed. 2019, 39, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lamichhane, J.R.; Durr, C.; Schwanck, A.A.; Robin, M.H.; Sarthou, J.P.; Cellier, V.; Messean, A.; Aubertot, J.N. Integrated management of damping-off diseases. A review. Agron. Sust. Develop. 2017, 37, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Baturo-Cieśniewska, A.; Łukanowski, A.; Koczwara, K.; Lenc, L. Development of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary on stored carrot treated with Pythium oligandrum Drechsler determined by qPCR assay. Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum Cultus 2018, 17, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Siddiqui, Z.A.; Hashmi, A.; Khan, M.R.; Parveen, A. Management of bacteria Pectobacterium carotovorum, Xanthomonas campestris pv. carotae, and fungi Rhizoctonia solani, Fusarium solani and Alternaria dauci with silicon dioxide nanoparticles on carrot. Internat. J. Veget. Sci. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Boiteux, L.S.; Reis, A.; Fonseca, M.E.N.; Lourenço, V.; Costa, A.F. Powdery mildew caused by Erysiphe heraclei: A novel field disease of carrot (Daucus carota) in Brazil. Plant Dis. 2017, 101, 1544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. El Ghaouth, A.; Wilson, C.; Wisniewski, M. Biologically-Based Alternatives to Synthetic Fungicides for the Control of Postharvest diseases of Fruit and Vegetables. In Diseases of Fruits and Vegetables, 1st ed.; Naqvi, S.A.M.H., Ed.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2004; pp. 511–536. [Google Scholar]
  39. Vardi, Y.; Reuveni, M. Antifungal activity of a new broad spectrum bio-fungicide in the controlling of plant diseases. Phytopathology 2009, 99, S134. [Google Scholar]
  40. Reuveni, M.; Neifeld, D. Timorex Gold—A novel organic fungicide for the control of plant diseases and black Sigatoka in banana. Acta Hortic. 2011, 811, 129–132. [Google Scholar]
  41. Patkowska, E.; Błażewicz-Woźniak, M.; Konopiński, M.; Wach, D. Effect of cover crops on the fungal and bacterial communities in the soil under carrot cultivation. Plant Soil Environ. 2016, 62, 237–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Borowy, A. Growth and yield of ‘Hamburg’ parsley under no-tillage cultivation using white mustard as a cover crop. Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum Cultus 2013, 12, 13–32. [Google Scholar]
  43. Kołota, E.; Adamczewska-Sowińska, K. Living mulches in vegetable crops production: Perspectives and limitations (a review). Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum Cultus 2013, 12, 127–142. [Google Scholar]
  44. Sánchez-Montesinos, B.; Diánez, F.; Moreno-Gavíra, A.; Gea, F.J.; Santos, M. Role of Trichoderma aggressivum f. europaeum as Plant-Growth Promoter in Horticulture. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. ALKahtani, M.D.F.; Attia, K.A.; Hafez, Y.M.; Khan, N.; Eid, A.M.; Ali, M.A.M.; Abdelaal, K.A.A. Chlorophyll Fluorescence Parameters and Antioxidant Defense System Can Display Salt Tolerance of Salt Acclimated Sweet Pepper Plants Treated with Chitosan and Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Al-Tawaha, A.M.; Seguin, P.; Smith, D.L.; Beaulieu, C. Foliar application of elicitors alters isoflavone concentrations and other seed characteristics of field-grown soybean. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2006, 86, 677–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Khan, N.; Bano, A.M.; Babar, A. Impacts of plant growth promoters and plant growth regulators on rainfed agriculture. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0231426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Vejan, P.; Abdullah, R.; Khadiran, T.; Ismail, S.; Nasrulhaq Boyce, A. Role of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria in Agricultural Sustainability-A Review. Molecules 2016, 21, 573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Prasad, R.; Singh Gill, S.; Tuteja, N. Trichoderma: Its Multifarious Utility in Crop Improvement. In New and Future Developments in Microbial Biotechnology and Bioengineering. Crop Improvement through Microbial Biotechnology, 1st ed.; Prasad, R.; Singh Gill, S.; Tuteja, N. Elsevier, B.V.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 263–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Druzhinina, I.S.; Seidl-Seiboth, V.; Herrera-Estrella, A.; Horwitz, B.A.; Kenerley, C.M.; Monte, E.; Mukherjee, P.K.; Zeilinger, S.; Grigoriev, I.V.; Kubicek, C.P. Trichoderma: The genomics of opportunistic success. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2011, 16, 749–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Strakowska, J.; Błaszczyk, L.; Chełkowski, J. The significance of cellulolytic enzymes produced by Trichoderma in opportunistic lifestyle of this fungus. J. Basic Microbiol. 2014, 54, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Woo, S.L.; Ruocco, M.; Vinale, F.; Nigro, M.; Marra, R.; Lombardi, N.; Pascale, A.; Lanzuise, S.; Manganiello, G.; Lorito, M. Trichoderma-based products and their widespread use in agriculture. Open Mycol. J. 2014, 8, 71–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Wojtkowiak-Gębarowska, E. Mechanizmy zwalczania fitopatogenów glebowych przez grzyby z rodzaju Trichoderma. Post. Mikrobiol. 2006, 45, 261–273. [Google Scholar]
  54. Harman, G.; Howell, C.; Viterbo, A.; Chet, I.; Lorito, M. Trichoderma species—opportunistic, avirulent plant symbionts. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2004, 2, 43–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Selitrennikoff, C.P. Antifungal proteins. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2001, 67, 2883–2894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Abbas, A.; Jiang, D.; Fu, Y. Trichoderma spp. as antagonist of Rhizoctonia solani. J. Plant Pathol. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Błaszczyk, L.; Siwulski, M.; Sobieralski, K.; Lisiecka, J.; Jędryczka. Trichoderma spp.—Application and prospects for use in organic farming and industry. J. Plant Prot. Res. 2014, 54, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Leelavathi, M.S.; Vani, L.; Reena, P. Antimicrobial activity of Trichoderma harzianum against bacteria and fungi. Internat. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2014, 3, 96–103. [Google Scholar]
  59. Vinale, F.; Sivasithamparam, K.; Ghisalberti, E.L.; Marra, R.; Woo, S.L.; Lorito, M. Trichoderma – plant-pathogen interactions. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2008, 40, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ferrigo, D.; Raiola, A.; Picollo, E.; Scopel, C.; Causin, R. Trichoderma harzianum T22 induces in maize systemic resistance against Fusarium verticillioides. J. Plant. Pathol. 2014, 96, 133–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wang, G.; Cao, X.; Ma, X.; Guo, M.; Liu, C.; Yan, L.; Bian, Y. Diversity and effect of Trichoderma spp. associated with green mold disease on Lentinula edodes in China. MicrobiologyOpen 2016, 5, 709–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Kumar, S.; Thakur, M.; Rani, A. Trichoderma: Mass production, formulation, quality control, delivery and its scope in commercialization in India for the management of plant diseases. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2014, 9, 3838–3852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. López-Bucio, J.; Pelagio-Flores, R.; Herrera-Estrella, A. Trichoderma as biostimulant: Exploiting the multilevel properties of a plant beneficial fungus. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 196, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Katiyar, D.; Hemantaranjan, A.; Singh, B. Chitosan as a promising natural compound to enhance potential physiological responses in plant: A review. Indian J. Plant Physiol. 2015, 20, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Younes, I.; Rinaudo, M. Chitin and Chitosan Preparation from Marine Sources. Structure, Properties and Applications. Mar. Drugs. 2015, 13, 1133–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Kaczmarek, M.B.; Struszczyk-Swita, K.; Li, X.; Szczęsna-Antczak, M.; Daroch, M. Enzymatic Modifications of Chitin, Chitosan, and Chitooligosaccharides. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2019, 7, 243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Xing, K.; Zhu, X.; Peng, X.; Qin, S. Chitosan antimicrobial and eliciting properties for pest control in agriculture: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 569–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. El Hadrami, A.; Adam, A.R.; El Hadrami, I.; Daayf, F. Chitosan in plant protection. Mar. Drugs. 2010, 8, 968–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Carson, C.F.; Hammer, K.A.; Riley, T.V. Melaleuca alternifolia (Tea Tree) Oil: A Review of Antimicrobial and Other Medicinal Properties. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2006, 19, 50–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  70. Rudbäck, J.; Bergström, M.A.; Börje, A.; Nilsson, U.; Karlberg, A.-T. α-terpinene, an antioxidant in tea tree oil, autoxidizes rapidly to skin allergens on air exposure. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2012, 25, 713–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Jamiołkowska, A.; Hetman, B. Mechanizm działania preparatów biologicznych stosowanych w ochronie roślin przed patogenami. Ann. UMCS Sectio E Agric. 2016, LXXI, 13–29. [Google Scholar]
  72. Angelini, P.; Pagiotti, R.; Menghini, A.; Vianello, B. Antimicrobial activities of various essential oils against foodborne pathogenic or spoilage moulds. Ann. Microbiol. 2006, 56, 65–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Terzi, V.; Morcia, C.; Faccioli, P.; Valé, G.; Tacconi, G.; Malnati, M. In vitro antifungal activity of the tea tree (Melaleuca alternifolia). Essentials oil and its major components against plant pathogens. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2007, 44, 613–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Le, T.K.; Nguyen, T.T.H.; Le, T.T.T. Antifungal activity of tea tree essential oils (Melaleuca alternifolia) against phytopathogenic fungi. Int. J. Adv. Res. 2019, 7, 1239–1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Patkowska, E.; Konopiński, M. Pathogenicity of selected soil-borne microorganisms for scorzonera seedlings (Scorzonera hispanica L.). Folia Hort. 2008, 20/1, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Mielniczuk, E.; Patkowska, E.; Jamiołkowska, A. The influence of catch crops on fungal diversity in the soil and health of oat. Plant Soil Environ. 2020, 66, 99–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Patkowska, E.; Konopiński, M. Harmfulness of soil-borne fungi towards root chicory (Cichorium intybus L. var sativum Bisch.) cultivated with the use of cover crops. Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum Cultus 2013, 12, 3–18. [Google Scholar]
  78. Patkowska, E.; Konopiński, M. Fungi threatening scorzonera (Scorzonera hispanica L.) cultivation using plant mulches. Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum Cultus 2013, 12, 215–225. [Google Scholar]
  79. Pszczółkowska, A.; Okorski, A.; Fordoński, G.; Kotecki, A.; Kozak, M.; Dzienis, G. Effect of Weather Conditions on Yield and Health Status of Faba Bean Seeds in Poland. Agronomy 2020, 10, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Barnett, H.L.; Hunter, B.B. Ilustrated Genera of Imperfect Fungi; Burgess Publishing Company: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 1972; p. 241. [Google Scholar]
  81. Booth, G. The genus Fusarium; Commonwealth Mycological Institute Kew: Surrey, UK, 1971; p. 237. [Google Scholar]
  82. De Vries, A.G. Contribution to the Knowledge of the Genus Cladosporium Link ex Fr.; Baarn Hitgeverij & Drukkeryij: Baarn, The Netherlands, 1952; p. 121. [Google Scholar]
  83. Domsch, K.H.; Gams, W. Pilze aus Agrarböden; G. Fischer Verlag: Stuttgart, Germany, 1970; p. 222. [Google Scholar]
  84. Domsch, K.W.; Gams, W.; Hudson, P.S. Fungi in Agricultural Soils; Longman: Edinbourgh, UK, 1970; p. 290. [Google Scholar]
  85. Domsch, K.H.; Gams, W.; Anderson, T.H. Compendium of Soil Fungi; Academic Press: London, UK, 1980; p. 860. [Google Scholar]
  86. Ellis, M.B. Dematiaceous Hyphomycetes; Commonwealth Mycological Institute Kew: Surrey, UK, 1971; p. 608. [Google Scholar]
  87. Ellis, M.B.; Ellis, J.P. Microfungi on Land Plants. An Identification Handbook; Macmillan Publishing Co.: New York, NY, USA, 1985; p. 868. [Google Scholar]
  88. Gillman, J.C. A Manual of Soil Fungi; The Iowa State Coll. Press: Iowa, IA, USA, 1957; p. 450. [Google Scholar]
  89. Kwaśna, H.; Chełkowski, J.; Zajkowski, P. Grzyby (Mycota), tom 22. Sierpik (Fusarium); Institute of Botany of the Polish Academy of Sciences: Warsaw–Krakow, Poland, 1991; p. 137. [Google Scholar]
  90. Marcinkowska, J. Oznaczanie Rodzajów Grzybów Ważnych w Patologii Roślin; Foundation “Development of SGGW”: Warsaw, Poland, 2003; p. 328. [Google Scholar]
  91. Marcinkowska, J. Oznaczanie Rodzajów Ważnych Organizmów Fitopatologicznych (Fungi, Oomycota, Plasmodiophorida); SGGW Press: Warsaw, Poland, 2010; p. 216. [Google Scholar]
  92. Nelson, P.E.; Toussoun, Y.A.; Marasas, W.F.O. Fusarium species. In An Illustrated Manunal for Identification; Pensylvania State University Press: Pensylvania, PA, USA, 1983; p. 193. [Google Scholar]
  93. Raper, K.B.; Thom, C.; Fennel, D.J. A Manual of the Penicillium; Hafner Publishing Company: New York, NY, USA, 1968; p. 875. [Google Scholar]
  94. Rifai, M.A. A Revision of the Genus Trichoderma; Commonwealth Mycological Institute: Surrey, UK, 1969; p. 56. [Google Scholar]
  95. Watanabe, T. Pictorial Atlas of Soil and Seed Fungi; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2002; p. 504. [Google Scholar]
  96. Leslie, J.F.; Summerell, B.A. The Fusarium Laboratory Manual; Blackwell Publishing Professional: Ames, IA, USA, 2006; p. 388. [Google Scholar]
  97. Ramirez, C. Manual and Atlas of the Penicillia; Elsevier Biomedical Press Amsterdam: New York, NY, USA, 1982; p. 874. [Google Scholar]
  98. Czaban, J.; Gajda, A.; Wróblewska, B. The mobility of bacteria from rhizosphere and different zones of winter wheat roots. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2007, 16, 301–308. [Google Scholar]
  99. Patkowska, E.; Jamiołkowska, A.; Mielniczuk, E. Antagonistic fungi in the soil after Daucus carota L. cultivation. Plant Soil Environ. 2019, 65, 159–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Mańka, K.; Kowalski, S. A new method for evaluating interaction between soil inhibiting fungi and plant pathogen. Bulletin OILB/SROP 1992, 15, 73–77. [Google Scholar]
  101. Mańka, K.; Kowalski, S. The effect of communities of soil-borne fungi from two forest nurseries (pine and ash) on the development of necrotic fungus Fusarium oxysporum Schl.). Poznań Soc. Friends Sci. 1968, 25, 197–205. [Google Scholar]
  102. Pastucha, A. Chitosan as a compound inhibiting the occurrence of soybean diseases. Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum Cultus 2008, 7, 41–55. [Google Scholar]
  103. Pięta, D.; Patkowska, E.; Pastucha, A. The protective effect of biopreparations applied as the dressing for common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and pea (Pisum sativum L.). Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum Cultus 2005, 4, 59–67. [Google Scholar]
  104. Mangwende, E.; Kritzinger, Q.; Truter, M.; Aveling, T.A.S. Alternaria alternata: A new seed-transmitted disease of coriander in South Africa. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2018, 152, 409–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Ding, S.; Meinholz, K.; Cleveland, K.; Jordan, S.A.; Gevens, A.J. Diversity and virulence of Alternaria spp. causing potato early blight and brown spot in Wisconsin. Phytopathology 2019, 109, 436–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Kurzawińska, H.; Mazur, S.; Nawrocki, J. Microorganisms colonizing the leaves, shoots and roots of boxwood (Buxus sempervirens L.). Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum Cultus 2019, 18, 151–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Tülek, S.; Dolar, F.S. Detection and identification of Alternaria species causing diseases of carrot in Ankara province, Turkey. Sci. Papers. Ser. B Hortic. 2015, LIX, 263–268. [Google Scholar]
  108. Farrar, J.J.; Pryor, B.M.; Davis, R.M. Alternaria diseases of carrot. Plant Dis. 2004, 88, 776–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Ahmad, L.; Siddiqui, Z.A. Effects of Meloidogyne incognita, Alternaria dauci and Fusarium solani on carrot in different types of soil. Acta Phytopat. Entomol. Hung. 2017, 52, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Kathe, L.; Krämer, R.; Budahn, H.; Pillen, K.; Rabenstein, F.; Nothnagel, T. Characterisation of Alternaria radicina isolates and assessment of resistance in carrot (Daucus carota L.). J. für Kulturpflanzen 2017, 69, 277–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Mazur, S.; Waksmundzka, A. Effect of some compounds on the decay of strawberry fruits caused by Botrytis cinerea Pers. Meded. Rijksuniv. Gent. Fak. Landbouwkd. Toegep. Biol. Wet. 2001, 66, 227–231. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  112. Szczeponek, A.; Mazur, S.; Nawrocki, J. The Usage of Chitosan in Protection of Some Peppermint and Lemon Balm Pathogens; Polish Chitin Society: Łódź, Poland, 2006; pp. 193–200. [Google Scholar]
  113. Patkowska, E. The Application of Chitosan, Pythium oligandrum and Grapefruit Extract in the Protection of Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) from Soil-borne Phytopathogens; Polish Chitin Society: Łódź, Poland, 2008; pp. 133–140. [Google Scholar]
  114. Sheikha, S.A.A.K.; Al-Malki, F.M. Growth and chlorophyll responses of bean plants to the chitosan applications. Eur. J. Sci. Res. 2011, 50, 124–134. [Google Scholar]
  115. Nakkeeran, S.; Renukadevi, P.; Aiyanathan, K. Exploring the Potential of Trichoderma for the Management of Seed and Soil-Borne Diseases of Crops; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 77–130. [Google Scholar]
  116. Orlikowski, L.B.; Skrzypczak, C. Biocides in the control of soil-borne and leaf pathogens. Hortic. Veget. Grow. 2003, 22, 426–433. [Google Scholar]
  117. Kurzawińska, H.; Mazur, S. The Effect of Chitosan and Pythium oligandrum Used in Protection of Potato Tubers Against Late Blight and Soft Rot; Polish Chitin Society: Łódź, Poland, 2008; pp. 117–123. [Google Scholar]
  118. Kurzawińska, H.; Mazur, S. The evaluation of Pythium oligandrum and chitosan in control of Phytophthora infestans (Mont.) de Bary on potato plants. Folia Hortic. 2009, 21, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  119. Włodarek, A.; Robak, J. Możliwości stosowania środków pochodzenia naturalnego w ochronie sałaty w uprawie polowej i pod osłonami przed chorobami. Zesz. Nauk. Inst. Ogrod. 2013, 21, 43–47. [Google Scholar]
  120. Pastucha, A.; Patkowska, E. Wpływ płynów pohodowlanych grzybów antagonistycznych na zdrowotność i plonowanie soi. Acta Agrobot. 2005, 58, 111–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  121. Haikal, N.Z. Control of Rhizoctonia solani in soybean (Glycine max L.) by seed-coating with Trichoderma viride and Gliocladium virens spores. J. Appl. Biosci. 2008, 1, 34–39. [Google Scholar]
  122. Rollán, M.C.; Mónaco, C.; Lampugnani, G.; Arteta, N.; Bayo, D.; Urrutia, M.I. Effects of post-emergent herbicides on Trichoderma harzianum, a potential biocontrol agent against Sclerotinia sclerotiorum in soybean cropping. Acta Agron. Hungar. 2007, 55, 355–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Nygren, K.; Dubey, M.; Zapparata, A.; Iqubal, M.; Tzelepis, G.D.; Durling, M.B.; Jensen, D.F.; Karlsson, M. The mycoparasitic fungus Clonostachys rosea responds with both common and specific gene expression during interspecific interactions with fungal prey. Evol. Appl. 2018, 11, 931–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  124. Singh, U.B.; Malviya, D.; Singh, S.; Kumar, M.; Sahu, P.K.; Singh, H.V.; Kumar, S.; Roy, M.; Imran, M.; Rai, J.P.; et al. Trichoderma harzianum and methyl jasmonate-induced resistance to Bipolaris sorokiniana through enhanced phenylpropanoid activities in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 1697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  125. Li, X.; Zhang, T.; Wang, X.; Hua, K.; Zhao, L.; Han, Z. The composition of root exudates from two different resistant peanut cultivars and their effects on the growth of soil-borne pathogens. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 2013, 9, 164–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  126. Patkowska, E. Effect of chitosan and Zaprawa Oxafun T on the healthiness and communities of rhizosphere microorganisms of runner bean (Phaseolus coccineus L.). Ecolog. Chem. Engin. S 2009, 16, 163–174. [Google Scholar]
  127. Patkowska, E. The effect of biopreparations on the formation of rhizosphere microorganism populations of soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill). Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum Cultus 2005, 4, 89–99. [Google Scholar]
  128. Pięta, D.; Pastucha, A.; Patkowska, E. A Possibility of Using Grapefruit Extract, Chitosan and Pythium oligandrum to Protect Soybean (Glycine Max (L.) Merrill) from Pathogens; Polish Chitin Society: Łódź, Poland, 2007; pp. 197–203. [Google Scholar]
  129. Lucas, G.C.; Alves, E.; Pereira, R.B.; Perina, F.J.; Magela de Souza, R. Antibacterial activity of essential oils on Xanthomonas vesicatoria and control of bacteria spot in tomato. Pesq. Agropec. Bras. 2012, 47, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Yu, D.; Wang, J.; Shao, X.; Xu, F.; Wang, H. Antifungal modes of action of tea tree oil and its two characteristic components against Botrytis cinerea. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2015, 119, 1253–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  131. Reuveni, M.; Pipko, G.; Neufeld, D.; Finkelstein, E.; Malka, B.; Hornik, Y. New organic formulations of essential tea tree oil for the control of plant diseases. Veget. Crop News 2006, 42, 77–85. [Google Scholar]
  132. Riccioni, L.; Orzali, L. Activity of tea tree (Malaleuca alternifolia, Chell) and thyme (Thymus vulgaris L.) essential oils against some pathogenic seed borne fungi. J. Essent. Oil Res. 2012, 23, 43–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Sood, M.; Kapoor, D.; Kumar, V.; Sheteiwy, M.S.; Ramakrishnan, M.; Landi, M.; Araniti, F.; Sharma, A. Trichoderma: The “Secrets” of a Multitalented Biocontrol Agent. Plants 2020, 9, 762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Kumar, S. Trichoderma: A biological weapon for managing plant diseases and promoting sustainability. Int. J. Agric. Sci. Med. Vet. 2013, 1, 106–121. [Google Scholar]
  135. Fesel, P.H.; Zuccaro, A. β-glucan: Crucial component of the fungal cell wall and elusive MAMP in plants. Fungal Genet. Biol. 2016, 90, 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  136. Hu, M.; Li, Q.-L.; Yang, Y.-B.; Liu, K.; Miao, C.-P.; Zhao, L.-X.; Ding, Z.-T. Koninginins RS from the endophytic fungus Trichoderma koningiopsis. Nat. Prod. Res. 2017, 31, 835–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Turaga, V.N.R. Peptaibols: Antimicrobial Peptides from Fungi. In Bioactive Natural Products in Drug Discovery; Singh, J., Meshram, V., Gupta, M., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 713–730. [Google Scholar]
  138. Manganiello, G.; Sacco, A.; Ercolano, M.R.; Vinale, F.; Lanzuise, S.; Pascale, A.; Napolitano, M.; Lombardi, N.; Lorito, M.; Woo, S.L. Modulation of tomato response to Rhizoctonia solani by Trichoderma harzianum and it secondary metabolite harzianic acid. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 1966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Brito, J.P.C.; Ramada, M.H.S.; de Magalhães, M.T.Q.; Silva, L.P.; Ulhoa, C.J. Peptaibols from Trichoderma asperellum TR356 strain isolated from Brazilian soil. SpringerPlus 2014, 3, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  140. Masi, M.; Nocera, P.; Reveglia, P.; Cimmino, A.; Evidente, A. Fungal Metabolites Antagonists towards Plant Pests and Human Pathogens: Structure-Activity Relationship Studies. Molecules 2018, 23, 834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  141. Alabouvette, C.; Olivain, C.; Migheli, Q.; Steinberg, C. Microbiological control of soil-borne phytopathogenic fungi with special emphasis on wilt-inducing Fusarium oxysporum. New Phytol. 2009, 184, 529–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Sarrocco, S.; Guidi, L.; Fambrini, S.; Degl’Innocenti, E.; Vannacci, G. Competition for cellulose exploitation between Rhizoctonia solani and two Trichoderma isolates in the decomposition of wheat straw. J. Plant Pathol. 2009, 91, 331–338. [Google Scholar]
  143. Srivastava, M.P.; Gupta, S.; Sharm, Y.K. Detection of siderophore production from different cultural variablesby CAS-agar plate assay. Asian J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 2018, 4, 66–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. de La Cruz, J.; Hidalgo-Gallego, A.; Lora, J.M.; Benitez, T.; Pintor-Toro, J.A.; Llobell, A. Isolation and characterization of three chitinases from Trichoderma harzianum. Eur. J. Biochem. 1992, 206, 859–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Sivan, A.; Chet, I. Degradation of fungal cell walls by lytic enzymes of Trichoderma harzianum. Microbiology 1989, 135, 675–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  146. Chet, I.; Harman, G.E.; Baker, R. Trichoderma hamatum: Its hyphal interactions with Rhizoctonia solani and Pythium spp. Microb. Ecol. 1981, 7, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Patkowska, E.; Konopiński, M. Antagonistic activity of selected bacteria and fungi inhabiting the soil environment of salsify (Tragopogon porrifolius va. sativus (Gaterau) Br.) cultivated after cover crops. Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum Cultus 2014, 13, 33–48. [Google Scholar]
  148. Patkowska, E.; Błażewicz-Woźniak, M.; Konopiński, M. Antagonistic activity of selected fungi occurring in the soil after root chicory cultivation. Plant Soil Environ. 2015, 61, 55–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  149. Herrera-Téllez, V.I.; Cruz-Olmedo, A.K.; Plasencia, J.; Gavilanes-Ruíz, M.; Arce-Cervantes, O.; Hernández-León, S.; Saucedo-García, M. The Protective Effect of Trichoderma asperellum on Tomato Plants against Fusarium oxysporum and Botrytis cinerea Diseases Involves Inhibition of Reactive Oxygen Species Production. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  150. Iqbal, M.N.; Ashraf, A. Trichoderma: A Potential Biocontrol Agent for Soilborne Fungal Pathogens. Int. J. Mol. Microbiol. 2019, 2, 22–24. Available online: https://journals.psmpublishers.org/index.php/ijmm (accessed on 12 September 2020).
  151. Błaszczyk, L.; Basińska, A.; Ćwiek, H.; Gromadzka, K.; Popiel, D.; Stępień, Ł. Suppressive effect of Trichoderma on toxigenic Fusarium species. Pol. J. Microbiol. 2017, 1, 85–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  152. Popiel, D.; Kwaśna, H.; Chełkowski, J.; Stępień, Ł.; Laskowska, M. Impact of selected antagonistic fungi on Fusarium species—Toxigenic cereal pathogens. Acta Mycol. 2008, 43, 29–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  153. Gveroska, B.; Ziberoski, J. Trichoderma harzianum as a biocontrol agent against Alternaria alternata on tobacco. Appl. Tech. Innov. 2012, 7, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Zeng, W.; Kirk, W.; Hao, J. Field management of Sclerotinia stem rot of soybean using biological control agents. Biol. Control 2012, 60, 141–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Smolińska, U.; Kowalska, B. Biological control of the soil-borne fungal pathogen Sclerotinia sclerotiorum––a review. J. Plant Pathol. 2018, 100, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  156. Roberti, R.; Bergonzoni, F.; Finestrelli, A.; Leonardi, P. Biocontrol of Rhizoctonia solani disease and biostimulant effect by microbial products on bean plants. Micol. Italiana 2015, 44, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Carrot seedlings: (a) without necrosis on the roots and (b) infected by fungi (photo by E. Patkowska).
Figure 1. Carrot seedlings: (a) without necrosis on the roots and (b) infected by fungi (photo by E. Patkowska).
Agronomy 10 01637 g001
Figure 2. Carrot roots: (a): Sclerotinia sclerotiorum on the carrot roots; (b) sclerotia of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum on the carrot roots; (photo by E. Patkowska).
Figure 2. Carrot roots: (a): Sclerotinia sclerotiorum on the carrot roots; (b) sclerotia of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum on the carrot roots; (photo by E. Patkowska).
Agronomy 10 01637 g002
Figure 3. Sclerotinia sclerotiorum: (a) sclerotia and mycelium; (b) sclerotia; (photo by E. Patkowska).
Figure 3. Sclerotinia sclerotiorum: (a) sclerotia and mycelium; (b) sclerotia; (photo by E. Patkowska).
Agronomy 10 01637 g003
Figure 4. Values of the disease index of carrot seedlings. A—Trianum P, B—Beta-Chiko with l, C—Timorex Gold 24 EC, D—Zaprawa Nasienna T 75 DS/WS, E—control. Values for years marked the same letter do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05.
Figure 4. Values of the disease index of carrot seedlings. A—Trianum P, B—Beta-Chiko with l, C—Timorex Gold 24 EC, D—Zaprawa Nasienna T 75 DS/WS, E—control. Values for years marked the same letter do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05.
Agronomy 10 01637 g004
Figure 5. Total participation of selected microorganisms isolated from carrot plants in 2014–2016: (a) carrot seedlings and (b) carrot roots; A.a.—Alternaria alternata, A.ch.—Alternaria chartarum, A.c.—Alternaria consortialis, A.d.—Alternaria dauci; A.r.—Alternaria radicina, A.spp.—Alternaria spp., F.c.—Fusarium culmorum; Fox.—Fusarium oxysporum; G.i.—Globisporangium irregulare, N.s.—Neocosmospora solani, Ph.sp.—Phytophthora sp.; R.s.—Rhizoctonia solani, S.s.—Sclerotinia sclerotiorum.
Figure 5. Total participation of selected microorganisms isolated from carrot plants in 2014–2016: (a) carrot seedlings and (b) carrot roots; A.a.—Alternaria alternata, A.ch.—Alternaria chartarum, A.c.—Alternaria consortialis, A.d.—Alternaria dauci; A.r.—Alternaria radicina, A.spp.—Alternaria spp., F.c.—Fusarium culmorum; Fox.—Fusarium oxysporum; G.i.—Globisporangium irregulare, N.s.—Neocosmospora solani, Ph.sp.—Phytophthora sp.; R.s.—Rhizoctonia solani, S.s.—Sclerotinia sclerotiorum.
Agronomy 10 01637 g005
Figure 6. Microorganisms isolated from the rhizosphere of carrot in Petri dishes: (a,b) bacteria; (c,d) fungi (photo by E. Patkowska).
Figure 6. Microorganisms isolated from the rhizosphere of carrot in Petri dishes: (a,b) bacteria; (c,d) fungi (photo by E. Patkowska).
Agronomy 10 01637 g006
Figure 7. Total participation of selected fungi isolated from the rhizosphere of carrot in 2014–2016. A.a.—Alternaria alternata, A.c.—Alternaria chartarum, A.d.—Alternaria dauci, A.r.—Alternaria radicina, A.spp.—Alternaria spp., F.a.—Fusarium avenaceum, F.c.—Fusarium culmorum, F.ox.—Fusarium oxysporum, N.s.—Neocosmospora solani, R.s.—Rhizoctonia solani, S.s.—Sclerotinia sclerotiorum.
Figure 7. Total participation of selected fungi isolated from the rhizosphere of carrot in 2014–2016. A.a.—Alternaria alternata, A.c.—Alternaria chartarum, A.d.—Alternaria dauci, A.r.—Alternaria radicina, A.spp.—Alternaria spp., F.a.—Fusarium avenaceum, F.c.—Fusarium culmorum, F.ox.—Fusarium oxysporum, N.s.—Neocosmospora solani, R.s.—Rhizoctonia solani, S.s.—Sclerotinia sclerotiorum.
Agronomy 10 01637 g007
Figure 8. Number of antagonistic fungi isolated from the rhizosphere of carrot (sum from 2014–2016). A—Trianum P, B—Beta-Chikol, C—Timorex Gold 24 EC, D—Zaprawa Nasienna T 75 DS/WS, E—control.
Figure 8. Number of antagonistic fungi isolated from the rhizosphere of carrot (sum from 2014–2016). A—Trianum P, B—Beta-Chikol, C—Timorex Gold 24 EC, D—Zaprawa Nasienna T 75 DS/WS, E—control.
Agronomy 10 01637 g008
Figure 9. Ten-day-old colonies of fungi on the potato dextrose agar (PDA) medium: (a) Rhizoctonia solani; (b) Trichoderma sp. and (c) Trichoderma sp. and Rhizoctonia solani (photo by E. Patkowska).
Figure 9. Ten-day-old colonies of fungi on the potato dextrose agar (PDA) medium: (a) Rhizoctonia solani; (b) Trichoderma sp. and (c) Trichoderma sp. and Rhizoctonia solani (photo by E. Patkowska).
Agronomy 10 01637 g009
Table 1. Plant density and health status of carrot seedlings.
Table 1. Plant density and health status of carrot seedlings.
Experimental
Treatment
Field Stand per 1 m2Diseased Seedlings (%)
201420152016Mean201420152016Mean
Trianum P84.8 a91.4 a76.2 a84.1 a1.5 c2.5 c3.0 c2.3 c
Beta-Chikol76.6 b83.6 b63.6 74.6 b2.5 c4.0 bc4.5 c3.6 c
Timorex Gold 24 EC75.0 b81.4 b61.0 b72.4 b5.0 b7.5 b8.5 b7.0 b
Zaprawa Nasienna T 75 DS/WS 82.4 a90.6 a73.4 a82.1 a2.0 c3.0 c4.0 c3.0 c
Control62.2 c70.0 c52.2 c61.4 c9.5 a11.5 a13.0 a11.3 a
Values in columns marked with the same letter do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05.
Table 2. Microorganisms isolated from diseased carrot seedlings (sum from 2014 to 2016).
Table 2. Microorganisms isolated from diseased carrot seedlings (sum from 2014 to 2016).
MicroorganismsExperimental Treatment/Number of Isolates
ABCDETotal
Alternaria alternata (Fr.) Keissler591171547
Alternaria consortialis (Thüm.) J.W. Groves and S. Hughes1573824
Alternaria dauci (Kühn) Groves and Skolko1120261534106
Alternaria radicina Meier, Drechsler and Eddy1224311739123
Clonostachys rosea (Link) Schroers, Samuels, Seifert754--16
Cylindrocarpon didymum (Harting) Wollenw.27941133
Epicoccum nigrum Link61519102575
Fusarium culmorum (W.G.Sm.) Sacc.1729342243145
Fusarium oxysporum Schl.3454634285278
Globisporangium irregulare (Buisman) Uzuhashi, Tojo and Kakish.481061543
Neocosmospora solani (Mart.) L. Lombard and Crous5101271347
Penicillium lividum Westling81620122480
Penicillium thomii Marie-5831026
Phytophthora sp.922271433105
Rhizoctonia solani J.G. Kühn2238463058194
Trichoderma sp.171163-37
Total isolates1602783331954131379
A—Trianum P, B—Beta-Chikol, C—Timorex Gold 24 EC, D—Zaprawa Nasienna T 75 DS/WS, E—control.
Table 3. Microorganisms isolated from diseased carrot roots after harvest (sum from 2014 to 2016).
Table 3. Microorganisms isolated from diseased carrot roots after harvest (sum from 2014 to 2016).
MicroorganismsExperimental Treatment/Number of Isolates
ABCDETotal
Alternaria alternata (Fr.) Keissler2563824
Alternaria chartarum Preuss2463823
Alternaria consortialis (Thüm.) J.W. Groves and S. Hughes4665829
Alternaria dauci (Kühn) Groves and Skolko81518122477
Alternaria radicina Meier, Drechsler and Eddy7121491860
Arthrinium phaeospermum (Corda) M.B. Ellis--2-57
Cylindrocarpon didymum (Harting) Wollenw.-57-1224
Epicoccum nigrum Link161011533
Fusarium avenaceum (Fr.) Sacc.----33
Fusarium culmorum (W.G.Sm.) Sacc.37951337
Fusarium oxysporum Schl.2537443156193
Gliomastix murorum (Corda) S. Hughes--6-1117
Neocosmospora solani (Mart.) L. Lombard and Crous15911531
Mucor plumbeus Bonord.37951135
Penicillium dierckxii Biourge91419112578
Penicillium janczewskii Zalessky71417102371
Rhizopus stolonifer (Ehrenb.) Vuill.-35-1220
Rhizoctonia solani J.G. Kühn48961542
Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary4060694989307
Torula herbarum (Pers.) Link--1-34
Trichoderma sp.2014112-47
Total isolates1362222771533741162
A—Trianum P, B—Beta-Chikol, C—Timorex Gold 24 EC, D—Zaprawa Nasienna T 75 DS/WS, E—control.
Table 4. Number of bacteria and fungi isolated from the rhizosphere of carrot in 2014–2016.
Table 4. Number of bacteria and fungi isolated from the rhizosphere of carrot in 2014–2016.
Experimental TreatmentTotal CFU of Bacteria
(106/g of Soil DW)
CFU of Bacillus sp.
(106/g of Soil DW)
CFU of Pseudomonas sp.
(106/g of Soil DW)
Total CFU of Fungi
(103/g of Soil DW)
201420152016Mean201420152016Mean201420152016Mean201420152016Mean
Trianum P5.08 a7.12 a8.26 a6.82 a3.10 a5.16 a5.83 a4.70 a1.80 a1.62 a2.24 a1.88 a2.56 c3.82 c3.52 c3.30 c
Beta-Chikol3.14 b4.25 b6.15 b4.51 b2.13 b3.20 b4.14 b3.16 b1.00 a,b1.02 a,b1.92 a1.31 a,b4.98 b5.98 b6.15 b5.70 b
Timorex Gold 24 EC3.10 b4.16 b5.84 b4.36 b2.12 b3.10 b4.02 b3.08 b0.75 b0.43 b0.54 b0.57 b5.14 b6.50 b6.84 b6.16 b
Zaprawa Nasienna T 75 DS/WS 5.24 a7.34 a8.45 a7.01 a3.14 a5.28 a6.00 a4.81 a2.05 a2.00 a2.31 a2.12 a2.32 c3.68 c3.14 c3.05 c
Control1.08 c2.06 c3.00 c2.05 c0.52 c1.15 c1.32 c0.99 c0.12 c0.23 b0.34 b0.23 b9.64 a9.92 a8.56 a9.37 a
Values in columns followed by the same letter do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05.
Table 5. Fungi isolated from the rhizosphere of the carrot (sum from 2014 to 2016).
Table 5. Fungi isolated from the rhizosphere of the carrot (sum from 2014 to 2016).
Fungus SpeciesExperimental Treatment/Number of Isolates
ABCDETotal
Albifimbria verrucaria (Alb. and Schwein.) L. Lombard and Crous201912--51
Alternaria alternata (Fr.) Keissler71416102370
Alternaria chartarum Preuss1352617
Alternaria dauci (Kühn) Groves and Skolko-14-813
Alternaria radicina Meier, Drechsler and Eddy--2-46
Aspergillus fumigatus Fresen.47861237
Cladosporium herbarum (Pers.) Link381261746
Clonostachys rosea (Link) Schroers, Samuels, Seifert201882-48
Epicoccum nigrum Link171121839
Fusarium avenaceum (Fr.) Sacc.171031839
Fusarium culmorum (W.G.Sm.) Sacc.81214102064
Fusarium oxysporum Schl.3041513674232
Gliomastix murorum (Corda) S. Hughes-35-917
Mucor racemosus Fresenius6121682466
Neocosmospora solani (Mart.) L. Lombard and Crous1351818
Penicillium aurantiogriseum Dierckx86351032
Penicillium glabrum (Wehmer) Westling94271537
Rhizoctonia solani J.G. Kühn1829362249154
Rhizopus stolonifer (Ehrenb.) Vuill.71621113388
Sarocladium kiliense (Grütz) Summerb.--2-57
Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary91315111967
Talaromyces flavus (Klöcker) Stolk and Samson1410362053
Talaromyces stipitatus (Thom ex C.W. Emmons) C.R. Benj.4101471651
Trichoderma sp.5051347-142
Total isolates2212943091624081394
A—Trianum P, B—Beta-Chikol, C—Timorex Gold 24 EC, D—Zaprawa Nasienna T 75 DS/WS, E—control.
Table 6. Antagonistic activity of selected saprotrophic fungi isolated from the carrot rhizosphere towards pathogenic fungi.
Table 6. Antagonistic activity of selected saprotrophic fungi isolated from the carrot rhizosphere towards pathogenic fungi.
FungiNumber of Isolates Alternaria dauciAlternaria radicinaRhizoctonia solaniSclerotinia sclerotiorum
IBE*GBE**IBE*GBE**IBE*GBE**IBE*GBE**
Trianum P
Albifimbria verrucaria (Alb. and Schwein.) L. Lombard and Crous20+5+100+5+100+4+80+3+60
Clonostachys rosea (Link) Schroers, Samuels, Seifert20+6+120+7+140+4+80+4+80
Penicillium aurantiogriseum Dierckx8+2+16+2+16+1+8+2+16
Penicillium glabrum (Wehmer) Westling9+1+9+1+9+1+9+1+9
Talaromyces flavus (Klöcker) Stolk and Samson14+3+42+4+56+3+42+2+28
Trichoderma sp.50+8+400+8+400+8+400+8+400
Number of isolates121
SBE*** +687 +721 +619 +593
Beta-Chikol
Albifimbria verrucaria (Alb. and Schwein.) L. Lombard and Crous19+5+95+5+95+4+76+3+57
Clonostachys rosea (Link) Schroers, Samuels, Seifert18+6+108+7+126+4+72+4+74
Penicillium aurantiogriseum Dierckx6+2+12+2+12+1+6+2+12
Penicillium glabrum (Wehmer) Westling4+1+4+1+4+1+4+1+4
Talaromyces flavus (Klöcker) Stolk and Samson10+3+30+4+40+3+30+2+20
Trichoderma sp.51+8+408+8+408+8+408+8+408
Number of isolates108
SBE*** +657 +685 +596 +575
Timorex Gold 24 EC
Albifimbria verrucaria (Alb. and Schwein.) L. Lombard and Crous12+5+60+5+60+4+48+3+36
Clonostachys rosea (Link) Schroers, Samuels, Seifert8+6+48+7+56+4+32+4+32
Penicillium aurantiogriseum Dierckx3+2+6+2+6+1+3+2+6
Penicillium glabrum (Wehmer) Westling2+1+2+1+2+1+2+1+2
Talaromyces flavus (Klöcker) Stolk and Samson3+3+9+4+12+3+9+2+6
Trichoderma sp.34+8+272+8+272+8+272+8+272
Number of isolates62
SBE*** +397 +408 +366 +354
Zaprawa Nasienna T 75 DS/WS
Clonostachys rosea (Link) Schroers, Samuels, Seifert2+6+12+7+14+4+8+4+8
Penicillium aurantiogriseum Dierckx5+2+10+2+10+1+5+2+10
Penicillium glabrum (Wehmer) Westling7+1+7+1+7+1+7+1+7
Talaromyces flavus (Klöcker) Stolk and Samson6+3+18+4+24+3+18+2+12
Trichoderma sp.7+8+56+8+56+8+56+8+56
Number of isolates27
SBE*** +103 +111 +94 +93
Control
Penicillium aurantiogriseum Dierckx10+2+20+2+20+1+10+2+20
Penicillium glabrum (Wehmer) Westling15+1+15+1+15+1+15+1+15
Talaromyces flavus (Klöcker) Stolk and Samson18+3+54+4+72+3+54+2+36
Number of isolates43
SBE*** +89 +107 +79 +71
IBE*—individual biotic effect; GBE**—general biotic effect; SBE***—summary biotic effect.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Patkowska, E.; Mielniczuk, E.; Jamiołkowska, A.; Skwaryło-Bednarz, B.; Błażewicz-Woźniak, M. The Influence of Trichoderma harzianum Rifai T-22 and Other Biostimulants on Rhizosphere Beneficial Microorganisms of Carrot. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1637. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10111637

AMA Style

Patkowska E, Mielniczuk E, Jamiołkowska A, Skwaryło-Bednarz B, Błażewicz-Woźniak M. The Influence of Trichoderma harzianum Rifai T-22 and Other Biostimulants on Rhizosphere Beneficial Microorganisms of Carrot. Agronomy. 2020; 10(11):1637. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10111637

Chicago/Turabian Style

Patkowska, Elżbieta, Elżbieta Mielniczuk, Agnieszka Jamiołkowska, Barbara Skwaryło-Bednarz, and Marzena Błażewicz-Woźniak. 2020. "The Influence of Trichoderma harzianum Rifai T-22 and Other Biostimulants on Rhizosphere Beneficial Microorganisms of Carrot" Agronomy 10, no. 11: 1637. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10111637

APA Style

Patkowska, E., Mielniczuk, E., Jamiołkowska, A., Skwaryło-Bednarz, B., & Błażewicz-Woźniak, M. (2020). The Influence of Trichoderma harzianum Rifai T-22 and Other Biostimulants on Rhizosphere Beneficial Microorganisms of Carrot. Agronomy, 10(11), 1637. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10111637

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop