Next Article in Journal
Mechanisms and Adaptation Strategies to Improve Heat Tolerance in Rice. A Review
Next Article in Special Issue
The Role of Plant-Associated Microbes in Mediating Host-Plant Selection by Insect Herbivores
Previous Article in Journal
Qualitative and Quantitative Differences in Osmolytes Accumulation and Antioxidant Activities in Response to Water Deficit in Four Mediterranean Limonium Species
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 8
Issue 11
10.3390/plants8110507
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Mycorrhization Mitigates Disease Caused by “Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum” in Tomato

by
Eric-Olivier Tiénébo
1,2,
Kyle Harrison
1,
Kouabenan Abo
2,
Yao Casimir Brou
2,
Leland S. Pierson III
3,
Cecilia Tamborindeguy
4,
Elizabeth A. Pierson
1,3,* and
Julien G. Levy
1,*
1
Department of Horticultural Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2133, USA
2
Department of Agriculture and Animal Resources, Institut National Polytechnique Felix Houphouët-Boigny, PoBox 1313 Yamoussoukro, Cote d’Ivoire
3
Department of Plant Pathology and Microbiology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2133, USA
4
Departments of Entomology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2133, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2019, 8(11), 507; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants8110507
Submission received: 21 August 2019 / Revised: 31 October 2019 / Accepted: 12 November 2019 / Published: 15 November 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Insect-Plant-Microbe Interactions)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Disease caused by the bacterial pathogen “Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum” (Lso) represents a serious threat to solanaceous crop production. Insecticide applications to control the psyllid vector, Bactericera cockerelli Šulc (Hemiptera: Triozidae) has led to the emergence of resistance in psyllids populations. Efforts to select natural resistant cultivars have been marginally successful and have been complicated by the presence of distinct Lso haplotypes (LsoA, LsoB) differing in symptoms severity on potato and tomato. A potentially promising management tool is to boost host resistance to the pathogen and/or the insect vector by promoting mycorrhization. Here we tested the hypothesis that mycorrhizal fungi can mitigate the effect of Lso infection on tomato plants. The presence of mycorrhizal fungi substantially delayed and reduced the incidence of Lso-induced symptoms on tomato as compared to non-mycorrhized plants. However, PCR with specific Lso primers revealed that mycorrhization did not prevent Lso transmission or translocation to newly formed leaves. Mycorrhization significantly reduced oviposition by psyllids harboring LsoA and survival of nymphs from these eggs. However, mycorrhization had no effect on oviposition by psyllids harboring LsoB or the survival of nymphs from parents harboring LsoB. These findings indicate the use of mycorrhizal fungi is a promising strategy for the mitigation of disease caused by both LsoA and LsoB and warrants additional field testing.

1. Introduction

Diseases caused by “Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum” (Lso) have had significant economic impacts on potato and tomato production in North and Central America and New Zealand [1,2]. Lso is a rod-shaped, Gram-negative bacterial species belonging to the α-proteobacteria class and the Rhizobiaceae family [3]. “Ca. Liberibacter” species are generally regarded as important emerging plant pathogens worldwide, and all of them rely on psyllid vectors for transmission [2]. Lso is related closely to “Ca. Liberibacter” species responsible for Huanglongbing (HLB), also known as citrus greening disease. These include: “Ca. L. asiaticus” (CLas), “Ca. L. africanus,” and “Ca. L. americanus.”
Six different haplotypes of Lso have been identified to date (LsoA, LsoB, LsoC, LsoD, LsoE, LsoU), which currently are delineated by host, geographic range, and vector species [4,5,6,7,8,9,10]. The best-characterized disease caused by LsoA and LsoB is zebra chip disease of potato (ZC), which results in reduced tuber quality and quantity, and often plant death [11]. LsoA and LsoB cause ZC in the United States and LsoA causes ZC in New Zealand [7,12]. In addition to ZC, LsoA and LsoB cause diseases of other economically important solanaceous hosts, including tomato, pepper, and eggplant [3,13]. Both are vectored by the potato psyllid (also known as the tomato psyllid) Bactericera cockerelli (Šulc) [5]. LsoC, LsoD, and LsoE are associated with Apiacea crops in Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa [9]. LsoC and LsoD are vectored by the carrot psyllids Trioza apicalis and Bactericera trigonica, respectively, whereas LsoE has no confirmed vectors [9]. LsoU is associated with Urticaceae [9].
Lso is phloem-restricted, causing symptoms typical of phloem-limited pathogens [14]. Aboveground symptoms of Lso infection on potato and tomato include stunted growth (shortened, thickened internodes), leaf symptoms (purpling of lamina or midvein, chlorosis, curling), wilt symptoms (necrosis, plant collapse), and premature death [15,16]. It was observed previously that LsoB causes more significant symptoms than LsoA on tomatoes [17]. Greenhouse-grown tomatoes infected with LsoB typically showed earlier and more severe symptoms, including plant stunting and leaf curling, chlorosis, necrosis, and death of both young and old leaves, and newly produced leaves were often small and discolored [17]. By the eighth week post-infection, greenhouse plants infected with LsoB were typically dead or dying [17]. In contrast, LsoA-infected tomatoes continued to develop new leaves similar in appearance to uninfected plants, but were shorter than uninfected plants and typically remained alive more than 8 weeks post infection [17]. To date, Lso remains non-culturable in vitro [2].
Currently, the most widely used approach to manage Lso-related diseases is early and repeated applications of insecticides [18]. The consequences of these methods are the emergence of resistant psyllid populations [19] and antibiotic-resistant Lso pathovars. Efforts to select natural resistant cultivars have not been successful, but have identified differences in susceptibility in potatoes [20,21]. A potentially promising management approach is the application of beneficial microbes capable of promoting plant growth and natural plant defense mechanisms. Fungi capable of forming arbuscular mycorrhizae (AM) are especially good biocontrol candidates because mycorrhization can both stimulate plant health directly by promoting plant nutrient uptake leading to enhanced productivity [22,23] as well as alter plant susceptibility to certain pathogens, insects (vectors), and the symptoms they cause [24]. For example, improved growth and nutritional status with mycorrhization can compensate for insect feeding damage and facilitate the regrowth of tissues [25]. Improvements in nutritional status also may alter the source-sink nutrient distribution patterns within plants and thereby the suitability of foliar tissues to attackers [26,27,28,29,30,31,32]. Previous studies have shown that mycorrhization generally has a negative effect on herbivory by leaf chewing insects, but may have a positive (most frequent), neutral, or negative effect on phloem feeders such as psyllids [27,29,30,31,33]. A limited number of studies have focused on how mycorrhization affects the progress of diseases caused by phloem-limited pathogens vectored by phloem-feeding insects. Most of these reports focused on diseases caused by phytoplasmas and showed a reduction in disease severity or incidence that may be associated with a decrease in the titer of the phytoplasmas [28,34]. Although analysis of mycorrhizal effects on pathogens may be complicated by the potential impact of mycorrhization on the insect vector and other multi-trophic interactions, AM formation on the rootstocks of grafted tomato and pear also resulted in the reduction of disease symptoms caused by a Phytoplasma spp. [28]. It has been suggested that mycorrhization elicits an ISR-type response that primes jasmonic acid (JA) signaling in plants mitigating plant health problems caused by chewing insects and phloem residing pathogens, but potentially making them more susceptible to phloem-feeding insects [28,34]. This effect is referred to as mycorrhizal induced resistance (MIR) [35].
In this study, we test the hypothesis that mycorrhization of tomato by the AM fungus Rhizophagus irregularis prior to psyllid infestation is capable of mitigating symptoms caused by LsoA and the more severe LsoB. We hypothesize that mycorrhization alleviates disease symptoms via improvements in plant productivity linked to enhanced nutrient uptake capacity and MIR associated with mycorrhization. We also investigate whether mycorrhization alters insect fertility or fitness that may be linked to a MIR effect. To test these hypotheses, a 2 × 3 factorial experiment was used to compare the health and growth of tomato plants with or without mycorrhization by R. irregularis, treated with B. cockerelli infected with either LsoA or LsoB, or receiving no insects. Symptom development and plant growth were measured over an 8-week period. Psyllid oviposition and nymph survival also were measured.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plants

The tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) cultivar Moneymaker (Thompson & Morgan Inc., Jackson, NJ, USA) was used in this study. Seeds were surface-sterilized in diluted commercial bleach (3%) for 30 min and rinsed twice with sterilized water. Surface-sterilized seeds were pregerminated on water agar for 4–5 days. Pregerminated seeds were transferred to pots (10 × 10 × 10 cm) filled with an autoclaved mix (1:1, v:v) of turface (Turface Athletics MVP, Profile Products LLC, Buffalo Grove, IL) and sand (Brown Play Sand, Quikrete, Atlanta, GA) supplemented 1:100 g:g with slow-release rock phosphate. Plants were grown inside insect-proof cages (Bioquip Inc, Compton, CA) at room temperature with a photoperiod of 16h:8h (light:dark). Plants received 30 mL of sterile distilled water on alternating days and also 30 mL of 0.5 × Hoagland solution twice a week.

2.2. AM Fungi and Inoculation

The AM fungus utilized in this study is commercially distributed as Myke® Pro Potato L (Premier Tech, Québec, Canada). One-hundred microliter of Myke® Pro Potato L containing 10,500 viable spores/mL of R. irregularis were injected into the soil in the immediate vicinity of the root system of one-week-old plants. The control plants also received a 100 µL aliquot of a filtrate (obtained by 30 µm-sieving of the AMF inoculum in order to provide all nutritional and microbial components of the inoculum other than living AMF). Mycorrhization was quantified on 10 plants chosen randomly per inoculation treatment per experiment at three- and eleven-weeks after inoculation after trypan blue staining [36] as the percentage of the root length colonized [37].

2.3. Insects

Currently, there are four different B. cockerelli haplotypes in the United States [38], and the Northwestern haplotype was used in this study. Colonies of B. cockerelli harboring LsoA or LsoB were previously characterized and maintained as described by Mendoza-Herrera et al. [17]. Diagnostic PCR analyses to detect Lso in B. cockerelli were performed for all colonies as described previously [39,40], and confirmed infection status. Three weeks after AM fungus inoculation, three adult male and three adult female psyllids from the confirmed LsoA- or LsoB-harboring colonies were placed on a single leaf inside an “organza-bag” [15] in the middle tier of the shoot system and adult psyllids were removed two days later. Uninfested plants were maintained similarly, but no psyllids were added.

2.4. Experimental Design

The experiment consisted of a 2 × 3 factorial completely randomized design with two inoculation treatments: non-mycorrhized plants (NM) and mycorrhized plants (Ri) and three infestation treatments: psyllids harboring LsoA, psyllids harboring LsoB, and uninfested plants (no psyllids). There were 12 replicates of each inoculation treatment, totaling 72 plants (one plant per pot). The entire experiment was replicated twice between May 2015 and June 2016, and all experiments were teminated 8 WAI before the plants outgrew the insect-proof cages.

2.5. Assessment of the R. irregularis Effects on Disease Development and Plant Growth

After infestation, the disease symptom development was monitored until 8 WAI. The incidence and severity of foliar disease symptoms were scored 3, 6, 8 WAI based on the 0 to 4 scale, as described in Table 1. For incidence, a rating of 1–4 was scored as symptomatic, and severity estimates were made only on symptomatic plants. Growth measurements were taken at experiment termination on 10 randomly chosen plants per treatment and included root and shoot dry weights, plant height, and number of green leaves.

2.6. Detection of Lso on Top-Tier Leaves

In order to detect Lso movement from the site of infection, tissues from newly expanded leaves (mid-vein) were sampled from the top-tier of leaves at 3 and 6 WAI. DNA was extracted as described previously [15]. PCR-based detection was carried out using the Lso TX 16/23 primers to amplify 383 bp of the 16S-23S rDNA intergenic region, as described previously [41,42,43]. This primer set cannot discriminate between LsoA and LsoB. Positive PCR controls consisted of psyllid and tomato genomic DNA previously authenticated as infected by Lso, whereas the negative control was genomic DNA from an Lso-free tomato [15]. The tomato elongation factor-1 (EF1) gene primer set EF1 F/EF1 R was used to control for false negatives in plant samples [40].

2.7. Assessment of AM Effect on B. cockerelli Oviposition and Nymph Survival

Two days after infestation, the adult psyllids were removed from the leaves, and eggs were counted. One week later, living nymphs were counted on alternate days. Manipulation of plants for nymph counting (including removal and replacement of organza bags) sometimes resulted in injury or breakage of the leaf. Data from leaves that became injured were excluded. Young adults were removed as they emerged.

2.8. Statistical Analyses

For all analyses, data from both experiments were pooled. For percent root colonization, data were log-transformed to ensure normality. A general linear model (ANOVA) and Fisher’s protected LSD were used to analyze transformed root colonization data and disease severity data. For the growth data, missing data were input using the multivariate singular value decomposition (SVD) method. Logistic regression was performed on growth data and showed that all growth variables were significant predictors of treatment effects. Growth data were analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with Lso treatment, mycorrhizal treatment, and Lso × mycorrhizal treatment as fixed effects, and a Student’s t was used for multiple comparisons. For psyllid life stages (eggs vs nymphs), means were compared at each observation date using the same fixed effects and multiple comparison statistic, and a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used for comparisons across dates.
All analyses were performed in JMP® version 14.3 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA, 1989-2019), P-value < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Estimation of Root Colonization by AM Fungi Rhizophagus Irregularis

Root colonization by R. irregularis was assessed twelve weeks after the inoculum was applied to the plants. Data for root length colonization was slightly, but significantly different among treatments, e.g., 82 ± 0.1 ≥ 75 ± 0.1 ≥ 69 ± 0.1%, for plants infested with LsoB-infected psyllids, no-psyllids, and LsoA-infected psyllids, respectively.

3.2. Rhizophagus Irregularis Delays the Development of Symptoms Associated with Lso Infection and Promotes Plant Growth under Disease Stress

Plants that were not infested with psyllids remained healthy during the entire experiment and displayed no disease symptoms. For both mycorrhized and non-mycorrhized plants infested with psyllids no disease symptoms were observed at 3 WAI (Table 2). By 6 WAI, both mycorrhized and non-mycorrhized plants displayed disease symptoms (e.g., distorted growth, especially shortened internodes or stunting), regardless of whether the psyllids harbored LsoA or LsoB. Wilt symptoms were observed first on non-mycorrhized plants (~3 days after 3 WAI). Disease incidence based on symptoms at 6 WAI was 100% for non-mycorrhized plants treated with Lso-infected psyllids compared to 42% for mycorrhized plants treated with Lso-infected psyllids (Table 2). By 8 WAI, disease incidence based on symptoms for mycorrhized plants was 58%, and these results were consistent between experiments. However, there were no differences in the mean disease severity indices for non-mycorrhized versus mycorrhized plants that displayed disease symptoms (Table 2). These data indicate that mycorrhization reduced the incidence of disease, but once mycorrhized plants acquired symptoms associated with Lso infection, the symptoms developed to the same level of severity. Notably across both experiments, four of 14 mycorrhized plants that did not have any symptoms at 6 WAI, developed advanced symptoms by 8 WAI. In general, the symptoms because of LsoB were more severe than those because of LsoA (Table 2).
Lso was detectable via PCR by 3 WAI, and about half of the symptomatic plants were Lso positive. By 6 WAI, 75% of the symptomatic plants tested Lso positive via PCR, but only 50% of symptomless, psyllid infested plants were Lso positive (data not shown).
The analysis indicated a significant Lso treatment-by-mycorrhization treatment interaction effect (p < 0.05), but only for shoot dry weight biomass production, indicating that mycorrhization improved shoot biomass production of the uninfected plants, but not the Lso infected plants, which were significantly smaller than the uninfected plants (groups ‘a’ and ‘b’ vs. group ‘c’ in Figure 1A). For all other variables there was a significant main effect for mycorrhization treatment (p < 0.05), which resulted in greater root biomass, plant height, and leaf number in mycorrhized plants (NM vs. RI in Figure 1B–D). There also was a significant main effect for Lso treatment for these three variables (p < 0.05). Multiple comparisons indicated LsoB-infected plants had less root growth, were shorter, and produced/retained fewer leaves than the uninfected plants, and were shorter and produced fewer leaves than the LsoA-infected plants.

3.3. Effect of Mycorrhization on the Development of Nymphs from Parents Harboring Different Lso Haplotypes

Mycorrhization by R. irregularis also influenced psyllid oviposition success, but the effect of mycorrhization differed based on the Lso haplotype the psyllids harbored. In the absence of mycorrhization, psyllids harboring LsoA laid significantly more eggs than psyllids harboring LsoB. However, mycorrhization significantly reduced the number of eggs laid by psyllids harboring LsoA, but had no effect on the number of eggs laid by psyllids harboring LsoB (Table 3). All eggs hatched 9 DAI regardless of the treatments. As expected based on egg number, there were more nymphs from LsoA-infected B. cockerelli parents on non-mycorrhized plants than mycorrhized plants. However, there was a significant decrease in the number of living LsoA-infected nymphs from 9 DAI to 11 DAI on mycorrhized plants, but no such decline was observed on non-mycorrhized plants. Number of hatched eggs from LsoB-infected parents resulted in statistically similar nymph populations at 9 and 11 DAI, regardless of the mycorrhization treatment.
The findings indicate that mycorrhization significantly reduced oviposition by psyllids harboring LsoA and survival of nymphs from these eggs. However, mycorrhization had no effect on oviposition by psyllids harboring LsoB or the survival of nymphs from parents harboring LsoB.

4. Discussion

Efforts to manage diseases of solanaceous plants caused by Lso have been complicated by the presence of two Lso haplotypes that differ in the intensity of disease symptoms they cause. In this study, we examined whether mycorrhization mitigates disease symptoms in tomato caused by both LsoA and LsoB haplotypes. To avoid bias because of vector genotype, all B. cockerelli insects used in this study were from the U.S. Northwestern haplotype. Disease symptoms developed in 100% of non-mycorrhized, psyllid-treated plants. As reported previously [17], disease symptoms in non-mycorrhized plants infected with LsoB were significantly more severe than in plants infected with LsoA. In the previous study, advanced symptom development was associated with higher Lso titer as measured via quantitative PCR and a distinct Lso distribution.
Our study demonstrated that mycorrhization consistently reduced the incidence of disease. Whereas 100% of non-mycorrhized plants developed significant disease, at least 40% of the mycorrhized plants were still without discernable disease symptoms at 8 weeks, and this was consistent in two separate experiments. The benefits of mycorrhization are particularly important for LsoB-infected tomatoes that typically do not survive beyond 8 weeks under greenhouse conditions [17]. We still do not know why some of the mycorrhized plants developed disease symptoms and 40% of the population did not. Our data indicate that mycorrhization did not prevent Lso infection, because Lso was detectable in the non-symptomatic plants. However, as reported previously [15], conventional PCR was not sensitive enough to detect Lso in the newly expanded leaves of all symptomatic plants, and we detected Lso in only ~50% of the Ri-treated non-symptomatic plants. Future studies should investigate whether the reduced disease severity observed in AM inoculated plants is associated with a reduction in Lso titer or a modification of Lso distribution.
Previous reports suggested that mycorrhization may mitigate disease via improvements in plant vigor and MIR-mediated effects on disease progress, psyllid fitness, or both [35]. As expected, mycorrhization promoted shoot biomass production in the absence of Lso infection and root biomass, plant height, and leaf production/retention in the absence or presence of mycorrhization [22,23]. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that mycorrhization contributed to plant vigor and the mitigation of LsoA- and LsoB-mediated disease symptoms [44]. Enhanced uptake of phosphorous is one of the major benefits provided by mycorrhizae to plants [45], and indeed injection of potassium phosphate (in combination with other compounds) into CLas-infected citrus trees suppressed HLB disease symptoms and reduced CLas titer [46].
A growing body of evidence suggests that mycorrhization elicits a MIR response that primes JA-dependent defense responses in plants [35]. Consistent with this hypothesis, mycorrhization has been shown to mitigate plant health problems caused by necrotrophs and chewing insects, whereas mycorrhized plants may be more susceptible to biotrophs and potentially phloem-feeding insects targeted by salicylic acid (SA) -regulated defenses [28,34]. This pattern correlates with an activation of JA-dependent defenses and repression of SA-dependent ones [35]. JA-dependent defense responses also may reduce insect growth, development, and survival on plants [47]. However, insect behaviors and development on plants are likely to be complicated by the effect of endosymbionts/plant pathogens on insect physiology as well as on JA and SA-regulated plant defenses once transmitted to the plant. Although not investigated in this no-choice experiment, previous studies demonstrated a positive correlation between plant mycorrhization and phloem-feeding performance [27,28,30,31,32,35,48]. We investigated whether mycorrhization would influence other psyllid behaviors. Our study documented MIR-mediated changes in psyllid oviposition behavior, but this effect was strongly dependent on the Lso haplotype harbored by the parent. On non-mycorrhized plants, the number of eggs laid by females harboring LsoA was significantly greater than that observed for females harboring LsoB. On mycorrhized plants, the number of eggs laid by females harboring LsoA was no different from the low number of eggs laid by females harboring LsoB on either mycorrhized or non-mycorrhized plants. Mycorrhization also reduced the survival of nymphs hatching from the eggs of LsoA-infected parents. Nymph numbers from the eggs of LsoB-infected parents were generally low and not significantly different on non-mycorrhized and mycorrhized plants. We do not know the mechanism underlying the effects of MIR on the ovipositioning behavior of parents or the survival of nymphs harboring LsoA. We hypothesize that feeding nymphs might be directly affected by MIR induced production of volatile organics compounds, phytoalexins, or other defense-related molecules produced by plants in response to insect herbivory [49]. We speculate that different Lso haplotypes induce distinct responses in plants and insects, which influence the observed differences in psyllid behavior between LsoA and LsoB parents.
These results constitute the first report that mycorrhization mitigates disease on tomato Lso-caused by both LsoA and LsoB. These results reinforce the idea that mycorrhization confers resistance to phloem-limited pathogens [28,34]. However, Lso-mediated disease involves complex interactions between pathogen, vector, and host, and it is still unclear to us how mycorrhization is affecting these interactions. Future experiments under greenhouse conditions and ultimately in the field will be required to determine whether mycorrhization can protect plants sufficiently to improve marketable yield and to dissect whether there are differences in the outcome of yield trials because of different Lso haplotypes.

Author Contributions

E.-O.T., L.S.P.III, C.T., J.G.L., and E.A.P. contributed to the experimental design, the interpretation of the results, and the writing of the original manuscript. E.-O.T. conducted the DNA extraction and PCR-based detection and all plant, insect, and mycorrhizal measurements under the supervision of J.G.L. and E.A.P., E.-O.T., K.H., J.G.L., and E.A.P. statistically analyzed data and interpreted results. K.A. and Y.C.B. reviewed and edited the manuscript, especially during the review process. C.T. generously provided insects and guidance on best practices using them. All authors read and approved the manuscript.

Funding

The funds of this work were provided by the Institute of International Education, Foreign Fulbright Programs Division (Junior Staff Development Program Number G–1-00001) and indirect funds provided to E.A.P. from previous United States Department of Agriculture research support.

Acknowledgments

We thank the current and former members of the Pierson research group: Jun Myoung Yu, Panatda Saenkham, Robert Dorosky, Huiqaio Pan, Tessa Rose Mahmoudi, Emily Boak, and Jeroen Versteegen as well as current and former members of Tamborindeguy research group: Freddy Ibanez and Azucena Mendoza-Herrera. We also thank Fred T. Davies and Fatmeh Matsouri for helpful discussions. We thank Premier Tech, Québec, Canada for providing Myke® Pro Potato for this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Tamborindeguy, C.; Huot, O.B.; Ibanez, F.; Levy, J. The influence of bacteria on multitrophic interactions among plants, psyllids, and pathogen. Insect Sci. 2017, 24, 961–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Wang, N.; Pierson, E.A.; Setubal, J.C.; Xu, J.; Levy, J.G.; Zhang, Y.; Li, J.; Rangel, L.T.; Martins, J. The Candidatus Liberibacter–Host interface: Insights into pathogenesis mechanisms and disease control. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2017, 55, 451–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Liefting, L.W.; Perez-Egusquiza, Z.C.; Clover, G.R.G.; Anderson, J.A.D. A new ‘Candidatus Liberibacter’ species in Solanum tuberosum in New Zealand. Plant. Dis. 2008, 92, 1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Munyaneza, J.E.; Fisher, T.W.; Sengoda, V.G.; Garczynski, S.F.; Nissinen, A.; Lemmetty, A. First report of “Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum” associated with psyllid-affected carrots in Europe. Plant. Dis. 2010, 94, 639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Nelson, W.R.; Fisher, T.W.; Munyaneza, J.E. Haplotypes of “Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum” suggest long-standing separation. Eur. J. Plant. Pathol. 2011, 130, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Alfaro-Fernández, A.; Siverio, F.; Cebrián, M.C.; Villaescusa, F.J.; Font, M.I. ‘Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’ associated with Bactericera trigonica-affected carrots in the Canary Islands. Plant. Dis. 2012, 96, 581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Nelson, W.R.; Sengoda, V.G.; Alfaro-Fernandez, A.O.; Font, M.I.; Crosslin, J.M.; Munyaneza, J.E. A new haplotype of “Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum” identified in the Mediterranean region. Eur. J. Plant. Pathol. 2012, 135, 633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tahzima, R.; Maes, M.; Achbani, E.H.; Swisher, K.D.; Munyaneza, J.E.; De Jonghe, K. First report of ‘Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’ on carrot in Africa. Plant. Dis. 2014, 98, 1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Haapalainen, M.; Wang, J.; Latvala, S.; Lehtonen, M.T.; Pirhonen, M.; Nissinen, A.I. Genetic variation of ‘Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’haplotype C and identification of a novel haplotype from Trioza urticae and stinging nettle. Phytopathology 2018, 108, 925–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Haapalainen, M.; Kivimäki, P.; Latvala, S.; Rastas, M.; Hannukkala, A.; Jauhiainen, L.; Lemmetty, A.; Pirhonen, M.; Virtanen, A.; Nissinen, A.I. Frequency and occurrence of the carrot pathogen ‘Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’haplotype C in Finland. Plant. Pathol. 2017, 66, 559–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hansen, A.K.; Trumble, J.T.; Stouthamer, R.; Paine, T.D. A new Huanglongbing species, “Candidatus Liberibacter psyllaurous,” found to infect tomato and potato, is vectored by the psyllid Bactericera cockerelli (Sulc). Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2008, 74, 5862–5865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Pitman, A.R.; Drayton, G.M.; Kraberger, S.J.; Genet, R.A.; Scott, I.A.W. Tuber transmission of ‘Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’ and its association with Zebra Chip on potato in New Zealand. Eur. J. Plant. Pathol. 2011, 129, 389–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Camacho-Tapia, M.; Rojas-Martínez, R.I.; Zavaleta-Mejía, E.; Hernández-Deheza, M.G.; Carrillo-Salazar, J.A.; Rebollar-Alviter, A.; Ochoa-Martínez, D.L. Aetiology of chili pepper variegation from Yurécuaro, México. J. Plant. Pathol. 2011, 93, 331–335. [Google Scholar]
  14. Callaway, E. Bioterror: The green menace. Nature 2008, 452, 148–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Levy, J.; Ravindran, A.; Gross, D.; Tamborindeguy, C.; Pierson, E. Translocation of ‘Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’, the Zebra Chip pathogen, in potato and tomato. Phytopathology 2011, 101, 1285–1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Harrison, K.; Tamborindeguy, C.; Scheuring, D.C.; Herrera, A.M.; Silva, A.; Badillo-Vargas, I.E.; Miller, J.C.; Levy, J.G. Differences in Zebra Chip severity between ‘Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’ haplotypes in Texas. Am. J. Potato Res. 2019, 96, 86–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mendoza-Herrera, A.; Levy, J.; Harrison, K.; Yao, J.; Ibanez, F.; Tamborindeguy, C. Infection by Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’ haplotypes A and B in Solanum lycopersicum ‘Moneymaker’. Plant. Dis. 2018, 102, 2009–2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Echegaray, E.R.; Rondon, S.I. Incidence of Bactericera cockerelli (Hemiptera: Triozidae) under different pesticide regimes in the lower Columbia basin. J. Econ. Entomol. 2017, 110, 1639–1647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Prager, S.M.; Vindiola, B.; Kund, G.S.; Byrne, F.J.; Trumble, J.T. Considerations for the use of neonicotinoid pesticides in management of Bactericera cockerelli (Šulk) (Hemiptera: Triozidae). Crop Prot. 2013, 54, 84–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Diaz-Montano, J.; Vindiola, B.G.; Drew, N.; Novy, R.G.; Miller, J.C.; Trumble, J.T. Resistance of selected potato genotypes to the potato psyllid (Hemiptera: Triozidae). Am. J. Potato Res. 2014, 91, 363–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Levy, J.G.; Scheuring, D.C.; Koym, J.W.; Henne, D.C.; Tamborindeguy, C.; Pierson, E.; Miller, J.C. Investigations on putative Zebra Chip tolerant potato selections. Am. J. Potato Res. 2015, 92, 417–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Smith, S.E.; Jakobsen, I.; Grønlund, M.; Smith, F.A. Roles of arbuscular mycorrhizas in plant phosphorus nutrition: Interactions between pathways of phosphorus uptake in arbuscular mycorrhizal roots have important implications for understanding and manipulating plant phosphorus acquisition. Plant. Physiol. 2011, 156, 1050–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Smith, S.E.; Smith, F.A. Fresh perspectives on the roles of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in plant nutrition and growth. Mycologia 2012, 104, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Bennett, A.E.; Orrell, P.; Malacrino, A.; Pozo, M.J. Fungal-mediated above–belowground interactions: The community approach, stability, evolution, mechanisms, and applications. In Aboveground–Belowground Community Ecology; Ecological Studies; Ohgushi, T., Wurst, S., Johnson, S.N., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 234, pp. 85–116. ISBN 978-3-319-91614-9. [Google Scholar]
  25. Bennett, A.E.; Bever, J.D. Mycorrhizal species differentially alter plant growth and response to herbivory. Ecology 2007, 88, 210–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bennett, A.E.; Alers-Garcia, J.; Bever, J.D. Three-way interactions among mutualistic mycorrhizal fungi, plants, and plant enemies: Hypotheses and synthesis. Am. Nat. 2006, 167, 141–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Pozo, M.J.; Azcón-Aguilar, C. Unraveling mycorrhiza-induced resistance. Curr. Opin. Plant. Biol. 2007, 10, 393–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pozo, M.J.; Jung, S.C.; López-Ráez, J.A.; Azcón-Aguilar, C. Impact of arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis on plant response to biotic stress: The role of plant defence mechanisms. In Arbuscular Mycorrhizas: Physiology and Function; Koltai, H., Kapulnik, Y., Eds.; Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 193–207. ISBN 978-90-481-9488-9. [Google Scholar]
  29. Gehring, C.; Bennett, A. Mycorrhizal fungal–plant–insect interactions: The importance of a community approach. Environ. Entomol. 2009, 38, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Koricheva, J.; Gange, A.C.; Jones, T. Effects of mycorrhizal fungi on insect herbivores: A meta-analysis. Ecology 2009, 90, 2088–2097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Barber, N.A.; Kiers, E.T.; Hazzard, R.V.; Adler, L.S. Context-dependency of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on plant-insect interactions in an agroecosystem. Front. Plant. Sci. 2013, 4, 338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pozo, M.J.; López-Ráez, J.A.; Azcón-Aguilar, C.; García-Garrido, J.M. Phytohormones as integrators of environmental signals in the regulation of mycorrhizal symbioses. New Phytol. 2015, 205, 1431–1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wehner, J.; Antunes, P.M.; Powell, J.R.; Mazukatow, J.; Rillig, M.C. Plant pathogen protection by arbuscular mycorrhizas: A role for fungal diversity? Pedobiologia 2010, 53, 197–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. D’Amelio, R.; Berta, G.; Gamalero, E.; Massa, N.; Avidano, L.; Cantamessa, S.; D’Agostino, G.; Bosco, D.; Marzachì, C. Increased plant tolerance against Chrysanthemum yellows phytoplasma (‘Candidatus Phytoplasma asteris’) following double inoculation with Glomus mosseae BEG12 and Pseudomonas putida S1Pf1Rif. Plant. Pathol. 2011, 60, 1014–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jung, S.C.; Martinez-Medina, A.; Lopez-Raez, J.A.; Pozo, M.J. Mycorrhiza-induced resistance and priming of plant defenses. J. Chem. Ecol. 2012, 38, 651–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Phillips, J.M.; Hayman, D.S. Improved procedures for clearing roots and staining parasitic and vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi for rapid assessment of infection. Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc. 1970, 55, 158–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Giovannetti, M.; Mosse, B. An evaluation of techniques for measuring vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizal infection in roots. New Phytol. 1980, 84, 489–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Swisher, K.D.; Sengoda, V.G.; Dixon, J.; Munyaneza, J.E.; Murphy, A.F.; Rondon, S.I.; Thompson, B.; Karasev, A.V.; Wenninger, E.J.; Olsen, N.; et al. Assessing potato psyllid haplotypes in potato crops in the pacific northwestern United States. Am. J. Potato Res. 2014, 91, 485–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Nachappa, P.; Shapiro, A.A.; Tamborindeguy, C. Effect of ‘Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’ on Fitness of Its Insect Vector, Bactericera cockerelli (Hemiptera: Triozidae), on Tomato. Phytopathology 2011, 102, 41–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Nachappa, P.; Levy, J.; Pierson, E.; Tamborindeguy, C. Correlation between “Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum” infection levels and fecundity in its psyllid vector. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2014, 115, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ravindran, A.; Levy, J.; Pierson, E.; Gross, D.C. Development of primers for improved PCR detection of the potato Zebra Chip pathogen, ‘Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’. Plant. Dis. 2011, 95, 1542–1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Ravindran, A.; Levy, J.; Pierson, E.; Gross, D.C. Development of a loop-mediated isothermal amplification procedure as a sensitive and rapid method for detection of ‘Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’ in potatoes and psyllids. Phytopathology 2012, 102, 899–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Levy, J.; Hancock, J.; Ravindran, A.; Gross, D.; Tamborindeguy, C.; Pierson, E. Methods for rapid and effective PCR-based detection of ‘Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’ from the insect vector Bactericera cockerelli: Streamlining the DNA extraction/purification process. J. Econ. Entomol. 2013, 106, 1440–1445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Liu, J.; Maldonado-Mendoza, I.; Lopez-Meyer, M.; Cheung, F.; Town, C.D.; Harrison, M.J. Arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis is accompanied by local and systemic alterations in gene expression and an increase in disease resistance in the shoots. Plant. J. 2007, 50, 529–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Javot, H.; Pumplin, N.; Harrison, M.J. Phosphate in the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis: Transport properties and regulatory roles. Plant. Cell Environ. 2007, 30, 310–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Hu, J.; Jiang, J.; Wang, N. Control of Citrus Huanglongbing via trunk injection of plant defense activators and antibiotics. Phytopathology 2017, 108, 186–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Howe, G.A.; Jander, G. Plant immunity to insect herbivores. Annu. Rev. Plant. Biol. 2008, 59, 41–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Pozo, M.J.; Cordier, C.; Dumas-Gaudot, E.; Gianinazzi, S.; Barea, J.M.; Azcón-Aguilar, C. Localized versus systemic effect of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on defence responses to Phytophthora infection in tomato plants. J. Exp. Bot. 2002, 53, 525–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ahmad, S.; Veyrat, N.; Gordon-Weeks, R.; Zhang, Y.; Martin, J.; Smart, L.; Glauser, G.; Erb, M.; Flors, V.; Frey, M.; et al. Benzoxazinoid metabolites regulate innate immunity against aphids and fungi in maize. Plant. Physiol. 2011, 157, 317–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Plants 08 00507 g001 550
Figure 1. Influence of mycorrhization and Lso infection on tomato shoot dry weight (A), root dry weight (B), height (C), and number of leaves (D). NM: non-mycorrhized plants, RI: mycorrhized plants. Growth data are pooled across experiments. For shoot dry weight biomass there was a significant Lso treatment-by-mycorrhization treatment interaction effect, and bars marked with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05) according to multiple comparisons using Student’s t test. For all other variables, there were significant mycorrhization treatment and Lso treatment main effects (p < 0.05). Multiple comparisons (p < 0.05) were used to test for differences among Lso treatments. Results were as follows: RI > NM, root dry weight: no-psyllid ≥ LsoA ≥ LsoB, plant height: no-psyllid = LsoA > LsoB, leaf number: no-psyllid > LsoA > LsoB.
Figure 1. Influence of mycorrhization and Lso infection on tomato shoot dry weight (A), root dry weight (B), height (C), and number of leaves (D). NM: non-mycorrhized plants, RI: mycorrhized plants. Growth data are pooled across experiments. For shoot dry weight biomass there was a significant Lso treatment-by-mycorrhization treatment interaction effect, and bars marked with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05) according to multiple comparisons using Student’s t test. For all other variables, there were significant mycorrhization treatment and Lso treatment main effects (p < 0.05). Multiple comparisons (p < 0.05) were used to test for differences among Lso treatments. Results were as follows: RI > NM, root dry weight: no-psyllid ≥ LsoA ≥ LsoB, plant height: no-psyllid = LsoA > LsoB, leaf number: no-psyllid > LsoA > LsoB.
Plants 08 00507 g001
Table
Table 1. Rating scale of disease severity on tomato.
Table 1. Rating scale of disease severity on tomato.
ScoreSymptom Type
0No symptoms
1Slight curling and/or purpling of leaves
2Mild stunting of the plant, wilting and leaf midvein purpling
3Accentuated stunting, yellowing, interveinal chlorosis. Presence of vein greening mottled or chlorotic leaves
4Extreme stunting and extreme scorching, wilt, yellowing or interveinal chlorosis. Mottled or chlorotic leaves. Plant collapse and death of the plant.
Table
Table 2. Disease incidence and severity assessment.
Table 2. Disease incidence and severity assessment.
Disease QuantificationLso and Inoculation Treatment3 WAI6 WAI8 WAI
Disease IncidenceLsoANon-mycorrhized plants0%100%100%
Mycorrhized plants0%42%58%
LsoBNon-mycorrhized plants0%100%100%
Mycorrhized plants0%42%58%
Disease Severity IndicesLsoANon-mycorrhized plants0.03.0 ± 0.1 b3.5 ± 0.1 b
Mycorrhized plants0.03.0 ± 0.1 b3.7 ± 0.1 b
LsoBNon-mycorrhized plants0.03.5 ± 0.1 a4.0 ± 0.0 a
Mycorrhized plants0.03.6 ± 0.0 a4.0 ± 0.0 a
Incidence is reported as the percentage of plants out of 24 replicate plants per treatment that displayed disease symptoms, e.g., disease severity score is ≥ 1. Disease severity was assessed only on plants displaying symptoms and is expressed as the mean ± standard error. Disease incidence was identical across both experiments. Disease severity data are pooled across experiments. For each date, means marked with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05) according to LSD test.
Table
Table 3. Psyllid life history assessment.
Table 3. Psyllid life history assessment.
TreatmentsEggsNymphs 9 DAINymphs 11 DAI
LsoANon-mycorrhized plants50.6 ± 3.4 a37.7 ± 4.3 a30.5 ± 3.6 a
Mycorrhized plants25.1 ± 1.9 b15.0 ± 2.0 b *8.2 ± 1.4 b *
LsoBNon-mycorrhized plants19.3 ± 2.4 c6.3 ± 0.9 c4.9 ± 0.8 b
Mycorrhized plants14.9 ± 2.0 c7.3 ± 1.2 c6.2 ± 1.1 b
Influence of mycorrhization on oviposition and nymph survival by B. cockerelli harboring LsoA or LsoB. Data are pooled across experiments. Number of eggs and the number of nymphs at 9 and 11 days after infestation per leaf. Data are reported as means and standard errors, and for each column means marked with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05) according to Students t test. * indicate a significant change in nymph numbers from 9 to 11 DAI as determined by MANOVA.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tiénébo, E.-O.; Harrison, K.; Abo, K.; Brou, Y.C.; Pierson, L.S., III; Tamborindeguy, C.; Pierson, E.A.; Levy, J.G. Mycorrhization Mitigates Disease Caused by “Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum” in Tomato. Plants 2019, 8, 507. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants8110507

AMA Style

Tiénébo E-O, Harrison K, Abo K, Brou YC, Pierson LS III, Tamborindeguy C, Pierson EA, Levy JG. Mycorrhization Mitigates Disease Caused by “Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum” in Tomato. Plants. 2019; 8(11):507. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants8110507

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tiénébo, Eric-Olivier, Kyle Harrison, Kouabenan Abo, Yao Casimir Brou, Leland S. Pierson, III, Cecilia Tamborindeguy, Elizabeth A. Pierson, and Julien G. Levy. 2019. "Mycorrhization Mitigates Disease Caused by “Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum” in Tomato" Plants 8, no. 11: 507. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants8110507

APA Style

Tiénébo, E.-O., Harrison, K., Abo, K., Brou, Y. C., Pierson, L. S., III, Tamborindeguy, C., Pierson, E. A., & Levy, J. G. (2019). Mycorrhization Mitigates Disease Caused by “Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum” in Tomato. Plants, 8(11), 507. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants8110507

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