Next Article in Journal
Azole-Resistance Development; How the Aspergillus fumigatus Lifecycle Defines the Potential for Adaptation
Previous Article in Journal
Dynamics and Predictors of Mortality Due to Candidemia Caused by Different Candida Species: Comparison of Intensive Care Unit-Associated Candidemia (ICUAC) and Non-ICUAC
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JoF
Volume 7
Issue 8
10.3390/jof7080598
jof-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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Biological Control of Fungal Diseases by Trichoderma aggressivum f. europaeum and Its Compatibility with Fungicides

by
Brenda Sánchez-Montesinos
1,
Mila Santos
1,*,
Alejandro Moreno-Gavíra
1,
Teresa Marín-Rodulfo
1,
Francisco J. Gea
2 and
Fernando Diánez
1,*
1
Departamento de Agronomía, Escuela Superior de Ingeniería, Universidad de Almería, 04120 Almería, Spain
2
Centro de Investigación, Experimentación y Servicios del Champiñón (CIES), Quintanar del Rey, 16220 Cuenca, Spain
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Fungi 2021, 7(8), 598; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof7080598
Submission received: 11 June 2021 / Revised: 6 July 2021 / Accepted: 21 July 2021 / Published: 24 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Fungal Pathogenesis and Disease Control)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Our purpose was to evaluate the ability of Trichoderma aggressivum f. europaeum as a biological control agent against diseases from fungal phytopathogens. Twelve isolates of T. aggressivum f. europaeum were obtained from several substrates used for Agaricus bisporus cultivation from farms in Castilla-La Mancha (Spain). Growth rates of the 12 isolates were determined, and their antagonistic activity was analysed in vitro against Botrytis cinerea, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, Fusarium solani f. cucurbitae, Pythium aphanidermatum, Rhizoctonia solani, and Mycosphaerella melonis, and all isolates had high growth rates. T. aggressivum f. europaeum showed high antagonistic activity for different phytopathogens, greater than 80%, except for P. aphanidermatum at approximately 65%. The most effective isolate, T. aggressivum f. europaeum TAET1, inhibited B. cinerea, S. sclerotiorum, and M. melonis growth by 100% in detached leaves assay and inhibited germination of S. sclerotiorum sclerotia. Disease incidence and severity in plant assays for pathosystems ranged from 22% for F. solani to 80% for M. melonis. This isolate reduced the incidence of Podosphaera xanthii in zucchini leaves by 66.78%. The high compatibility by this isolate with fungicides could allow its use in combination with different pest management strategies. Based on the results, T. aggressivum f. europaeum TAET1 should be considered for studies in commercial greenhouses as a biological control agent.

1. Introduction

In the past few decades, the use of plant growth-promoting microbes (PGPMs) and microbial biological control agents (MBCAs) has greatly increased in agriculture, mainly because consumers and producers are interested in reducing synthetic organic pesticides and chemical fertiliser residues in food, and in reducing the environmental impact of agricultural production. The extensive use of synthetic pesticides since 1945 has resulted in long-term environmental problems [1] and high health risks for humans [2]. About 3 to 4.6 million tons of pesticides are used annually, and the global intensive use of chemical fertilisers was about 109.1, 45.5, and 37.6 million tons of N, P2O5, and K2O, respectively, in 2017 (35.9% average increase since 2002) [3,4,5]; it directly endangers soil and water resources, causes environmental pollution [6] and inflicts diseases at alarming levels [7]. Therefore, sustainable agriculture will be achieved by biological pest and fertiliser management strategies; both are more natural and environmentally friendly alternative solutions to manage crop production with reduced use of pesticides and fertilisers.
Among the numerous microbes used as PGPMs or MBCAs (also termed probiotics), bacterial or fungal strains are the most frequently used against causal agents of aerial and soil diseases in plants. However, Trichoderma remains the gold standard of biological control. Numerous species of this genus, including T. harzianum Rifai; T. viride Pers; T. atroviride P. Karst; T. virens J.H. Mill, Giddens and A.A. Foster; T. longibrachiatum Rifai; T. polysporum Rifai; T. stromaticum Samuels and Pardo-Schulth; T. hamatum Bainier; T. asperellum Samuels, Lieckf and Nirenberg; T. citrinoviride Bissett; T. saturnisporum Hammill; T. aggressivum Samuels and W. Gams have been described as biological control agents (BCAs) against phytopathogens [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. Several studies have shown that species in this genus present most mechanisms identified in biological control, namely competition for resources (space and nutrients) [25], production and excretion of metabolites (antibiotics, cell wall-degrading enzymes, siderophores) [26,27,28,29,30], mycoparasitism on phytopathogenic fungi [31], and induction of defence responses (systemic acquired resistance, induced systemic resistance, and hypersensitive response) [32,33,34,35,36,37]. Among these, competition, mycoparasitism, and the production of antifungal compounds are considered the most important mechanisms [38,39]. Mycoparasitism is based on the recognition, binding, and rupture of the cell wall of the host fungus by numerous enzymes, primarily chitinolytic and glucanolytic enzymes [28,40]. As a result of mycoparasitism, many species of Trichoderma, including those indicated above, have been identified as causative agents of the disease known as green mould in mushroom crops in different countries [41,42,43,44,45,46,47]. T. pleurotum and T. pleuroticola have been detected in P. ostreatus [48], T. aggressivum in Agaricus bisporus [49], and T. harzianum, T. longibrachiatum, Trichoderma ghanense, T. asperellum, and T. atroviride in Agaricus compost substrates and Pleurotus, although they are not particularly aggressive [41]. One of these species, T. aggressivum f. europaeum Samuels & W. Gams, previously known as T. harzianum Th2 biotype, is responsible for Agaricus green mould problems in Europe [50]. Hyphal coiling and the formation of appressoria like structures is usually associated with mycoparasitism by Trichoderma species [32]. However, this kind of interaction between T. aggressivum and A. bisporus has rarely been observed [51]. Its most successful mechanism of action is its competitive tolerance to the inhibitory effect of numerous bacteria and fungi, which accounts for its rapid growth and sporulation [52,53], although T. aggressivum can be considered a mycopathogen given its effect on A. bisporus hyphae, as well as its induction of an oxidative stress response [54]. O’Brien et al. [55] reported a change in the production of intracellular proteins in the presence of A. bisporus directly related to stress tolerance, cell signalling, longevity, and structure. These functions may be part of the capability of T. aggressivum to displace A. bisporus and to decrease mushroom performance. It grows quickly (1 mm h−1) at 27 °C, producing a cottony layer of aerial mycelium. Sporulation starts only after 4 d and occurs in the central area, in concentric green bands. This species efficiently competes for space and nutrients, and produces extracellular enzymes, toxic secondary metabolites, and volatile organic compounds, resulting in drastic crop losses.
As for other Trichoderma, this species can be considered a biological control agent or a plant growth promoter. Accordingly, Ordaz-Ochoa et al. [56] described mycelial growth inhibition in dual cultures of different Armillaria spp. isolates from avocado by T. aggressivum. Recently, Sánchez-Montesinos et al. [24] highlighted the ability of T. aggressivum f. europaeum to promote melon plant growth under saline conditions. These authors also reported the damping-off control caused by Pythium ultimum in melon seedlings after applying T. aggressivum f. europaeum, reducing disease severity by 63%. Rodriguez et al. [57] have isolated and identified T. aggressivum as mycoparasites on coffee rusts caused by Hemileia vastatrix, which was then described for the first time in the tropics. This benefit has also been observed in the germination and development of tomato and pepper seedlings, leading to increased root dry weight by 66.66% and 36.36%, respectively [58]. Similarly, Lee et al. [59] have reported Arabidopsis growth promotion mediated by volatile compounds produced by T. aggressivum, with an increase of 37.1% in fresh shoot weight and 82.5% in chlorophyll. However, little is known about the role that T. aggressivum may play in fighting different phytopathogens both in vitro and in vivo.
Therefore, the main goals of this study are to (a) isolate and select T. aggressivum f. europaeum (TAE) strains, obtained from substrates of A. bisporus cultures and from carpophores with green mould, (b) determine the in vitro antagonistic activity of TAE isolates against different phytopathogens of interest in agriculture, (c) assess the in vivo capacity for controlling the development of the disease caused by phytopathogens in different pathosystems under greenhouse conditions, and (d) determine the compatibility of TAE with different fungicides commonly used to control fungal diseases.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Isolation and Identification of Trichoderma Isolates

A total of 12 isolates were obtained from mushroom farms located in Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) showing green mould disease symptoms (Figure 1). The isolates were maintained on potato dextrose agar (PDA) medium at 25 °C in the dark and were characterised taxonomically and molecularly. Conidiophore morphology was examined by light microscopy and were consistent with the genus Trichoderma (Figure 1).
Molecular identification was performed using the procedure of Carrasco et al. [60]. Sequencing of the rDNA region, including the spacers ITS1 and ITS2 and 5.8S rDNA, was conducted by automated DNA sequencing with fluorescent terminators using an ABI 377 Prism Sequencer (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) by the Technical Service of University of Almería. ChromasPro® (Technelysium Pty. Ltd., Tewantin, Australia) analysis software was used to edit each sequence sample. The obtained sequences were compared with those registered in the GenBank (NCBI) database through MegaBLAST searches for identification [61,62]. Sequences were deposited in the EMBL database.

2.2. Growth of the Trichoderma Isolates in PDA

The growth of each isolate was evaluated in vitro by placing a 5 mm plug from the edge of a 7 d old pure PDA culture, 0.5 cm from the edge of the Petri dish. The isolates were incubated in a growth chamber at 25 °C in the dark. The colony diameters were recorded every day during culturing. The experiment was completely randomised with five replicates.

2.3. Dual Culture Test

Trichoderma isolates were screened for their antagonism against B. cinerea Pers, S. sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary, F. solani f. cucurbitae W.C. Snyder & H.N. Hansen, P. aphanidermatum (Edson) Fitzp, R. solani J.G. Kühn and M. melonis (Pass.) by adopting the confrontation assay of Santos et al. [63]. Petri dishes (9 cm diameter) containing 17 mL of PDA (Bioxon, Becton Dickinson, Mexico) were prepared. Then, 0.5-cm plugs of mycelium of all fungi were cut from the growing edge of seven days old cultures with active growth of each isolate. The plugs were placed at the ends of Petri dishes with a distance of 7.5 cm between the two fungi, antagonist–phytopathogen. All plates were sealed with Parafilm® and incubated in the dark at 25 °C during 3 to 10 days. Radial fungal colony growth was measured daily. Results were transformed into percentages of mycelium growth inhibition (PIRM: percentage inhibition of radial mycelia growth of the pathogen, R1: radial growth of pathogen in control plates, R2: radial growth of pathogen in dual culture plates). These tests were conducted in quintuplicate. Zones where antagonist and pathogen meet were also observed by light microscopy and cryo-fracturing electron scanning microscopy (cryo-sem) according to the procedure of Diánez et al. [23]. Only one isolate was selected for subsequent tests, that is, the isolate with the highest growth rate, as well as a greater antagonistic capacity against a greater number of phytopathogens.

2.4. Antifungal Volatile Organic Compounds Bioassay

In vitro inhibition effects of volatile organic compounds produced by T. aggressivum f. europaeum TAET1 against different phytopathogenic fungi was determined. For this, a disk (0.5 cm diameter) was cut from the actively growing edges of TAET1 plates and was placed at a distance of 0.5 cm from the edge onto one half of a divided plate containing PDA medium. Following a 48 h incubation period at 25 ± 1 °C, 0.5 cm mycelial plugs for each pathogen were placed on the other half of the divided plate, containing PDA, and the plates were immediately wrapped in Parafilm®. Measurements of radial mycelial growth were taken daily for fungi with rapid growth (B. cinerea, S. sclerotiorum, P. aphanidermatum, and R. solani) and every 2 d for those growing more slowly (M. melonis and F. solani) until the edge of the plate was reached [23]. The experiment was performed five times with five replicates.

2.5. Detached Leaf Assay

Suppressive effects of T. aggressivum f. europaeum TAET1 on B. cinerea, S. sclerotiorum and M. melonis were assessed using a detached leaf assay as described by Novak et al. [64] and Patial et al. [65]. Leaves of cucumber (variety, Super Marketer, Mascarell), pepper (var. Pimiento del Padrón, Mascarell) and tomato (var. Red Cherry, Fitó) seedlings were disinfected using 3% sodium hypochlorite for 30 s and were washed twice to remove residues. The leaves were immersed for 3 min in a solution containing TAET1 spores at a dose of 106 spores·mL−1 or were immersed in an aqueous solution containing the fungicide Switch (cyprodinil 37.5% and fludioxonil 25% (WG) w/w; Syngenta, Basel, Switzerland) at 600 ppm to compare efficacy. Whole leaves or fragments were then placed on wet filter paper in plastic trays, and the centre of the leaf or leaf fragment was carefully punctured using a sterilised needle. A 0.5-cm disk containing the corresponding pathogen was placed at the puncture site. Petri dishes were then incubated at 25 °C, and number of leaves with symptoms were counted and photographed 72 h after inoculation. This experiment was repeated twice.

2.6. Degradation of Sclerotia of Sclerotinia Sclerotiorum by T. aggressivum f. europaeum

TAET1 were evaluated for efficacy in colonising and destroying sclerotia in soil. Soil moistened to field capacity was sterilised at 120 °C for 60 min twice on two consecutive days. Sclerotia were disinfected with 1% NaOCl for 2 min. Five sclerotia (0.5–1 cm) were mixed with the soil and then transferred to a Petri dish. Cultures of TAET1 were grown on PDA for 7 d. Soil was infested with a 0.5 cm plug placed on the soil surface. The plates were kept at 25 °C in the dark. After 25 d, the sclerotia were recovered from the soil and rinsed in tap water. The number of recovered sclerotia and the presence of white mycelium on its surface were determined. The experiment was performed twice with five replicates.

2.7. Compatibility of T. aggressivum f. europaeum TAET1 with Fungicides

In vitro compatibility of TAET1 with different selected fungicides (Table 1) for mycelial growth inhibition was established using the poisoned food technique [66,67]. The minimum recommended dose (D2), the maximum recommended dose (D3), 0.5 × D2, and 1.5 × D3 (Table 1) of each fungicide were tested. Using a sterile cork borer, mycelial discs (0.5 cm diameter) were cut from actively growing seven-days-old fungal cultures and were placed in the centre of a Petri dish containing PDA supplemented with various pesticides. Five replicates were used per treatment. Fungicidal or fungistatic effects of each fungicide was determined by transferring the initial disk of TAET1, which did not grow with fungicide to a PDA plate without fungicide.
Toxicity, i.e., compatibility of TAET1 and the fungicide, was classified using the scale of the International Organisation for Biological Control (OILB) [68]. This classification groups compatibility between microorganisms and fungicides depending on the proportion of inhibition compared to a control (<30%: harmless; 30–75%: slightly toxic; 75–90%: moderately toxic; >90%: toxic).

2.8. Evaluation of T. aggressivum f. europaeum on the Severity of Seven Phytopathogens

Biocontrol effects of TAET1 on different pathosystems was determined: B. cinerea–melon, S. sclerotiorum–pepper, R. solani–tomato, F. solani–zucchini, P. aphanidermatum–melon, M. melonis–melon, and P. xanthii–zucchini.
Seeds were disinfected using 2% hypochlorite for 3 min and were washed thoroughly with tap water to eliminate residues. Subsequently, the seeds were sown in 500 mL pots containing a commercial peat mix, at one seed per pot.
Then, 5 mL spore suspension of TAET1 was added to each pot at 1 × 106 propagules/plant; the control treatments received 5 mL water. To assess diseases of aerial parts, foliar spraying was carried out at the same dose to wet the whole plant with the TAET1 solution. Spraying was carried out three days before applying conidia/mycelium of the respective pathogen.
To prepare P. aphanidermatum inocula, the procedure described by Marin et al. [69] was followed. Inocula of the other phytopathogens were prepared by scraping and subsequent filtration, apart from R. solani, S. sclerotiorum, and P. xanthii. Phytopathogens were inoculated when the plants showed a second true leaf, and using a sterile micropipette, inoculation was performed by uniformly applying the zoospores/conidia suspension (5 mL) at a concentration of 104 CFU·mL−1 uniformly to the peat surface. In the case of B. cinerea and M. melonis, the pathogen was applied by spraying the plant five times at the same concentration. Before this, the first true leaf had been cut to facilitate pathogen entry.
Inoculation with R. solani was carried out by mixing mycelium into the substrate; inoculation with S. sclerotiorum was performed using the spray mycelium method as described by Chen and Wang [70]. The stem was wounded to facilitate pathogen entry. Symptom severity was recorded continuously and 30–60 days after inoculation, a final disease severity index was estimated according to the following scale: 0 = healthy plant; 1 = initial symptoms; 2 = moderate symptoms (25%); 3 = affected plant (50%); 4 = severely affected plant (75%); and 5 = dead plant.
In addition, a second trial to test the biocontrol effect of TAET1 on the pathosystem Fusarium solani f. cucurbitae-zucchini, using two different doses 105 (F1) and 104 (F2) CFU·mL−1, was carried out.
To determine the control effect of TAET1 on powdery mildew, an inoculum of P. xanthii was prepared from field-collected zucchini leaves affected by cucurbit powdery mildew. Using a sprayer, sterile distilled water was sprayed under pressure to rinse of fungal conidia. The suspension was collected, and experimental plants were immediately inoculated at a concentration of 104 CFU·mL−1. To determine the suppressive effect of TAET1 on the disease, the leaf area affected by powdery mildew was determined using WinDIAS 3.1.lnk software (Dynamax, Fresno, CA, USA) to calculate the proportion of affected leaf area with respect to total leaf area. Additionally, the numbers of affected leaves and petioles per plant were counted.
All pathogenicity tests were performed under greenhouse conditions and at different seasons to provide optimal environmental conditions for each pathogen. Experimental units consisted of four repetitions with 24 plants per pathosystem. Two experiments were conducted using a completely randomized block design.

2.9. Statistical Analyses

Data were analysed using analysis of variance with Statgraphics Centurion version XVI software. Mean separation was carried out using Fisher’s least significant difference test. Data were tested using a one-way analysis of variance or Student’s t-test; statistical significance is reported at p < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Morphological and Molecular Identification

The macro and microscopic observations of all isolates from mushroom farms confirmed that the different isolates belonged to the genus Trichoderma (Figure 1). The results of the identity analysis of the sequences obtained for the 12 strains allowed confirmation that they belonged to T. aggressivum f. europaeum.

3.2. Growth of Trichoderma Isolates

In Figure 2, the results obtained from the mycelial growth of 12 isolates of Trichoderma aggressivum f. europaeum are shown. The colony growth of most isolates was fast, reaching the opposite end of the Petri dish within 96–120 h. The isolates TAET1, TAE493, and TAE1409 were the fastest, with a growth rate of 1.76, 1.74 and 1.73 cm d−1, respectively. No isolates were discarded in determining the antagonistic activity of T. aggressivum against phytopathogens.

3.3. Effects of T. aggressivum f. europaeum Isolates on the Radial Growth of Phytopathogens

The results from the comparison of the 12 T. aggressivum f. europaeum (TAE) isolates to the different phytopathogens are shown in Table 2.
All TAE isolates showed high in vitro antagonistic activity against all phytopathogenic fungi tested. The highest inhibition percentages were detected for F. solani and M. melonis, which reached values close to 90%. In contrast, the lowest inhibition values were detected for P. aphanidermatum, with inhibition ranging from 53 to 65%. For the other phytopathogens, mycelial growth inhibition ranged from 70 to 90%. Trichoderma mycoparasitism process with hyphal coiling around the phytopathogens was observed (Figure 3).
One isolate was selected for the subsequent tests, TAET1, because it showed the highest growth rate and inhibition percentage for some phytopathogens.

3.4. Effect of Volatile Compounds on the Mycelial Growth of Phytopathogenic Fungi

The effect of volatile metabolites on the growth of phytopathogens is shown in Table 3. No significant inhibition percentages were found for most fungi, except for F. solani and M. melonis, which showed a decrease in growth in the last days, with mycelial inhibition percentages of 12.85% and 18.60%, respectively.

3.5. Detached Leaves Assay

Applying TAET1 spores on cucumber, pepper, and tomato leaves prevented the onset of symptoms caused by B. cinerea, S. sclerotiorum, and M. melonis in 100, 100, and 93% of the leaves, respectively, with the same efficacy as the control fungicide. Leaves not inoculated with TAET1 showed mycelial growth and obvious symptoms of rotting in 100% of the leaves for the three phytopathogens tested in this study (Figure 4).

3.6. S. sclerotiorum Sclerotia Degradation

Applying T. aggressivum f. europaeum TAET1 resulted in a marked decrease in sclerotia viability (Table 4). Sclerotia treated with TAET1 did not show white mycelium on their surface or TAET1 conidiophores. Similarly, TAET1 sporulation was detected on the soil surface (Figure 5).

3.7. T. aggressivum f. europaeum Compatibility with Fungicides

The observed effects of 19 fungicides on growth and development of T. aggressivum f. europaeum TAET1 are presented in Table 1. The results indicated that mycelial growth of TAET1 was affected by the different doses of each of the fungicides tested in vitro, compared to the control. According to the OILB scale [68], the compatibility of the 19 fungicides tested using minimum (D2) and maximum (D3) recommended doses in horticultural crops was as follows: three were harmless (kresoxim-methyl, pencycuron and cymoxanil; inhibition <30%), four were slightly toxic (flutriafol, azoxystrobin, fenhexamid, fosetyl-Al; 30–75%), one was moderately toxic (folpet + metalaxyl-M; 75–90%), and four were toxic (thiophanate-methyl, pyrimethanil, mancozeb and chlorothalonil; >90%). Total growth inhibition at doses D2 and D3 were observed only in two fungicides (thiophanate-methyl and mancozeb) with fungicidal effects.
Seven fungicides showed different behaviour according to the scale at maximum and minimum doses; four (iprodione, triadimenol, propamocarb, and dimethomorph + mancozeb) were slightly toxic at the maximum doses (D3) and harmless at the minimum doses (D2); two (myclobutanil and copper oxychloride) were moderately toxic at (D3) and slightly toxic at (D2); and one (cyprodinil + fludioxonil) was toxic at (D3) and moderately toxic at (D2).

3.8. Biocontrol of T. aggressivum f. europaeum against Fungal Diseases

T. aggressivum f. europaeum TAET1 decreased the disease severity in all study pathosystems (Figure 6).
The strongest effect was observed on M. melonis, with an 80.55% decrease in disease incidence. In B. cinerea and S. sclerotiorum, the decrease in disease severity reached 62% and 65.78%. Disease was also observed in the uninoculated controls (T0) of some of the pathosystems, because of the random arrangement of treatments. The severity of diseases caused by P. aphanidermatum, R. solani, and F. solani f. cucurbitae decreased by 58.69%, 67.44%, and 22.44%, respectively, after applying TAET1 spores (Figure 6). Two weeks after the last evaluation, no changes were observed in the severity index of the different pathosystems, except for F. solani f. cucurbitae, in which all plants reached mortality index 5. Repeating the test for F. solani f. cucurbitae with two inoculum concentrations confirmed the delay in disease onset, after applying TAET1, albeit without controlling the disease (Figure 7). Despite the high inoculum pressure, when the disease incidence was higher than 75%, applying TAET1 reduced the disease severity by 77 and 34%, upon F1 and F2 inoculum doses, respectively (Figure 8).
In turn, foliar application of TAET1 considerably suppressed the disease caused by P. xanthii (Figure 9), with a reduction of 66.78% in the proportion of leaf area showing symptoms. Similarly, the number of leaves and petioles with powdery mildew was reduced by 31.42% and 33.39%, respectively.

4. Discussion

Species of the genus Trichoderma are of great interest for their benefits in agriculture and natural ecosystems. Trichoderma species have antagonistic activity against several soil-borne and aerial-borne plant pathogens, mainly fungi such as Fusarium oxysporum [31,71,72,73,74,75], F. solani [76,77,78], B. cinerea [79,80,81,82,83,84,85], S. sclerotiorum [82,86], S. minor [87], Rhizoctonia solani [72,88,89,90], Phytophthora capsici [91,92], Phytophthora parasitica [85], Chondrostereum purpureum [93], Macrophomina phaseolina [94], Podosphaera xanthii [95], Alternaria alternata, [96], Pythium aphanidermatum [97] and Pythium ultimum [24,98], among many others.
In the present study, the isolate T. aggressivum f. europaeum TAET1 was selected to control different phytopathogens of interest in horticultural crops, assessing percentages of mycelial growth inhibition and disease severity reduction higher than those found in other Trichoderma species. For example, Zhang et al. [99] reported 75% and 82% in vitro mycelial growth inhibition of B. cinerea and R. solani by T. longibrachiatum, respectively. Fernandes et al. [100] also found good results of mycelial growth inhibition of S. sclerotiorum, R. solani, and F. solani when using different Trichoderma species. The same authors reported that T. tomentosum showed efficient antagonism against S. sclerotiorum and R. solani and moderate antagonism against F. solani. Additionally, Amin et al. [101] reported that T. viride highly inhibited the mycelial growth of R. solani, S. rolfsii, and S. sclerotiorum in comparison with T. harzianum. In general, the results from the comparison vary with the Trichoderma isolate and with the phytopathogen. Additionally, the results are affected by the growth medium, temperature, and other factors. Similar results were found in in vivo tests and in aerial or soil disease control. Rini and Sulochana [102] achieved 25% Rhizoctonia root rot incidence control after applying T. harzianum or T. pseudokoningii. In turn, Hafez et al. [103] reported approximately 40% control of powdery mildew caused by P. xanthii in cucumbers when using T. harzianum and T. viride. Both disease control percentages are lower than the values reached in this study with T. aggressivum. Very few studies have been conducted using T. aggressivum f. europaeum as the biological control agent. Sánchez-Montesinos et al. [24] have reported results very similar to those found in this study when analysing P. ultimun after applying T. aggressivum f. europaeum, even under saline stress conditions in melon plants. In F. solani f. cucurbitae, although the disease has not been well controlled, in contrast to the in vitro results, the disease onset was considerably delayed. Khanzada et al. [104] reported an in vitro mycelial growth inhibition close to 20% in comparison to T. harzianum. This percentage was higher for other species, reaching values close to 70% for T. pseudokoningii. Pérez-Hernández et al. [105] reported that applying T. harzianum strain T22 had no effect on disease control, in contrast to Roberti et al. [106], who detected Fusarium crown and foot rot control when applying the same strain, T22, and other formulations based on Trichoderma, in a range lower than 30%.
Interactions have been detected between T. aggressivum f. europaeum TAET1 hyphae and different pathogens. Hyperparasitism and strong competition exerted because of rapid growth and sporulation have been the main inhibition mechanisms reported in the literature [25]. Compared to the results from other authors, little antagonistic activity because of volatile metabolites was observed in this study. Recently, the production of volatile organic compounds (VOC) of green mould (T. aggressivum f. europaeum) on different culture media have been described by Radványi et al. [107]. Similarly, Krupke et al. [108] described the production of the metabolite 3,4-dihydro-8-hydroxy-3-methylisocoumarin by T. aggressivum. Lee et al. [59] established the relationship between VOC production by T. aggressivum f. europaeum and Arabidopsis growth promotion. Pandey et al. [109] reported enzyme production and VOC effects on Sclerotium rolfsii, R. bataticola, F. oxysporum, F. udum, and Colletotrichum capsici mycelial growth, assessing inhibition percentages ranging from 8 to 55% in vitro. Different studies on T. harzianum have demonstrated that the production of volatile metabolites resulted in in vitro mycelial growth inhibition percentages higher than 50% for F. oxysporum f. sp. dianthi [110]. Similar results were found by El-Katatny et al. [111] because of overproduction of volatile metabolites against Sclerotium rolfsii.
Studies on T. aggressivum f. europaeum sensitivity to fungicides have generally focused on fungicides used to control green mould in cultivated mushrooms, such as prochloraz and metrafenone [112]. Unlike some results from this work, tests conducted by Kosanovic et al. [42] reported that T. aggressivum f. europaeum isolates were sensitive to chlorothalonil and carbendazim and less susceptible to iprodione, and some isolates were resistant to thiophanate-methyl and resistant to trifloxystrobin. Williams et al. [51] developed a selective medium for Trichoderma isolation from commercial Agaricus bisporus composts containing propamocarb and discarded captan for inhibiting sporulation. Other studies have analysed the sensitivity to chemical active substances or biological agents [49], and T. aggressivum f. europaeum has been applied as a biocontrol agent only sporadically; therefore, no compatibility studies have been performed on this species with fungicides commonly used to control diseases in horticultural crops. Our study provides information on the compatibility of T. aggressivum f. europaeum TAET1 against different doses of fungicides in vitro. However, new studies must be conducted in planta to better establish the limits of each and to enable their use in integrated disease management.
There is no consensus on the use of pathogens derived from cultivated mushrooms [113,114]. Numerous commercial biofungicide formulations are based on species that have been described as causal agents of green mould. Similarly, although different Trichoderma species have been described as pathogenic agents for some plant species, such as pine seedlings [115], or as a pathogen causing ear rot disease in maize [116], and even as the cause of disease in humans after eating contaminated food [117,118] or in immunosuppressed patients [119,120], the use of Trichoderma in agriculture can be considered one of the best alternatives to chemical control because its benefits far outweigh any phytosanitary disadvantage.

5. Conclusions

Accordingly, based on the results from our study, we consider that T. aggressivum f. europaeum TAET1 should be studied in commercial greenhouses for future commercial purposes. Applications as a preventive and/or control of fungal plant diseases may be a viable alternative to the use of conventional synthetic compounds. The high compatibility of this isolate with fungicides could allow its use in combination with different pest management strategies.

Author Contributions

F.D., M.S. and F.J.G. conceived and designed the experiments; A.M.-G., B.S.-M. and T.M.-R. performed the experiments; F.D. and F.J.G. analysed the data; M.S. wrote the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The present work benefited from the input of the project RTC-2017-6486-2 and was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this manuscript.

References

  1. Arora, N.K.; Tewari, S.; Singh, S.; Lal, N.; Maheshwari, D.K. PGPR for protection of plant health under saline conditions. In Bacteria in Agrobiology: Stress Management; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2012; pp. 239–258. [Google Scholar]
  2. FAO. Manual on Development and Use of FAO and WHO Specifications for Pesticides; FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper 228; FAO/WHO Joint Work: Rome, Italy, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  3. Pimentel, D. Pesticides and pest control. In Integrated Pest Management: Innovation-Development Process; Rajinder, P., Dhawan, A., Eds.; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; Volume 1, pp. 83–87. [Google Scholar]
  4. Zhang, W.; Jiang, F.; Ou, J. Global pesticide consumption and pollution: With China as a focus. Proc. Int. Acad. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 2011, 1, 125–144. [Google Scholar]
  5. FAO. FAOSTAT. 2017. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/ (accessed on 10 April 2020).
  6. Sun, B.; Zhang, L.; Yang, L.; Zhang, F.; Norse, D.; Zhu, Z. Agricultural non-point source pollution in China: Causes and mitigation measures. Ambio 2012, 41, 370–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Gerhardson, B. Biological substitutes for pesticides. Trends Biotechnol. 2002, 20, 338–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Weindling, R. Trichoderma lignorum as a parasite of other soil fungi. Phytopathology 1932, 22, 837–845. [Google Scholar]
  9. Sulaiman, M.M.; Yass, S.T.A.; Aish, A.A.; Abdullah, S.J.; Youssef, S.A. Activity of Trichoderma spp. against Erwinia carotovora causal agent of potato tuber soft rot. Plant Arch. 2020, 20, 115–118. [Google Scholar]
  10. Belanger, R.; Dufuor, N.; Caron, J.; Benhamou, N. Chronological events associated with the antagonistic properties of Trichoderma harzianum against Botrytis cinerea: Indirect evidence for sequential role of antibiotics and parasitism. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 1995, 5, 41–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yedidia, I.; Benhamou, N.; Chet, I. Induction of defense responses in cucumber plants (Cucumis sativus L.) by the Biocontrol agent Trichoderma harzianum. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1999, 65, 1061–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Ahmed, A.S.; Ezziyyani, M.; Sánchez, C.P.; Candela, M. Effect of chitin on biological control activity of Bacillus spp. and Trichoderma harzianum against root rot disease in pepper (Capsicum annuum) plants. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2003, 109, 633–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Fraceto, L.; Maruyama, C.; Guilger, M.; Mishra, S.; Keswani, C.; Singh, H.; Lima, R. Trichoderma harzianum based novel formulations: Potential applications for management of next-gen agricultural challenges. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2018, 93, 2056–2063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Tan, J.Y.; Shao, X.H.; Chen, L.H.; Chen, L.N.; Xu, H.L. Effect of formulations of Trichoderma harzianum SQR-T037 on the induction of resistance against Fusarium wilt in cucumber. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2012, 10, 1205–1209. [Google Scholar]
  15. Azeem, W. Evaluation of Trichoderma harzianum and Azadirachta indica in the management of Meloidogyne incognita in Tomato. Pak. J. Zool. 2020, 53, 119–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Yan, L.; Khan, R.A.A. Biological control of bacterial wilt in tomato through the metabolites produced by the biocontrol fungus, Trichoderma harzianum. Egyptia J. Biol. Pest Control 2021, 31, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. de Souza, J.T.; Pomella, A.W.; Bowers, J.H.; Pirovani, C.P.; Loguercio, L.L.; Hebbar, K.P. Genetic and biological diversity of Trichoderma stromaticum, a mycoparasite of the cacao witches’-broom pathogen. Phytopathology 2006, 96, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Verma, M.; Brar, S.K.; Tyagi, R.D.; Sahai, V.; Prévost, D.; Valéro, J.R.; Surampalli, R.Y. Bench-scale fermentation of Trichoderma viride on wastewater sludge: Rheology, lytic enzymes and biocontrol activity. Enzym. Microb. Technol. 2007, 41, 764–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sreenivasaprasad, S.; Manibushanrao, K. Efficacy of Gliocladium virens and Trichoderma longibrachiatum as biological control agents of groundnut root and stem rot diseases. Int. J. Pest Manag. 1993, 39, 167–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bansal, R.; Mukherjee, M.; Horwitz, B.A.; Mukherjee, P.K. Regulation of conidiation and antagonistic properties of the soil-borne plant beneficial fungus Trichoderma virens by a novel proline-, glycine-, tyrosine-rich protein and a GPI-anchored cell wall protein. Curr. Genet. 2019, 65, 953–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Park, Y.H.; Chandra Mishra, R.; Yoon, S.; Kim, H.; Park, C.; Seo, S.T.; Bae, H. Endophytic Trichoderma citrinoviride isolated from mountain-cultivated ginseng (Panax ginseng) has great potential as a biocontrol agent against ginseng pathogens. J. Ginseng Res. 2019, 43, 408–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bunbury-Blanchette, A.L.; Walker, A.K. Trichoderma species show biocontrol potential in dual culture and greenhouse bioassays against Fusarium basal rot of onion. Biol. Control 2018, 130, 127–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Diánez, F.; Santos, M.; Carretero, F.; Marín, F. Trichoderma saturnisporum, a new biological control agent. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2016, 96, 1934–1944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sánchez-Montesinos, B.; Diánez, F.; Moreno-Gavíra, A.; Gea, F.J.; Santos, M. Plant growth promotion and biocontrol of Pythium ultimum by saline tolerant Trichoderma isolates under salinity stress. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Wells, H.D. Trichoderma as biocontrol agent. In Biocontrol of Plant Diseases; Mukerji, K.G., Garg, K.L., Eds.; CRC Press: New York, NY, USA, 1988; pp. 71–82. [Google Scholar]
  26. Lewis, K.; Whipps, J.M.; Cooke, R.C. Mechanisms of biological disease control with special reference to the case study of Pythium oligandrum as an antagonist. In Biotechnology of Fungi for Improving Plant Growth; Whipps, J.M., Lumsden, R.D., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1989; pp. 191–217. [Google Scholar]
  27. Suwan, S.; Isobe, M.; Kanokmedhakul, S.; Lourit, N.; Kanokmedhakul, K.; Soytong, K.; Koga, K. Elucidation of high micro-heterogencity of an acidic-neutral trichotoxin mixture from Trichoderma harzianum by electrospray ionization quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry. J. Mass Spectrom. 2000, 35, 1438–1451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Monte, E. Understanding Trichoderma: Between biotechnology and microbial ecology. Int. Microbiol. 2001, 4, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  29. Mohiddin, F.A.; Khan, M.R.; Khan, S.M.; Bhat, B.H. Why Trichoderma is considered super hero (super fungus) against the evil parasites? Plant Pathol. J. 2010, 9, 92–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Vinale, F.; Nigro, M.; Sivasithamparam, K.; Flematti, G.; Ghisalberti, E.L.; Ruocco, M.; Varlese, R.; Marra, R.; Lanzuise, S.; Eid, A.; et al. Harzianic acid: A novel siderophore from Trichoderma harzianum. FEMS Microb. Lett. 2013, 347, 123–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  31. 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]
  32. 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]
  33. Harman, G.E. Overview of mechanisms and uses of Trichoderma spp. Phytopathology 2006, 96, 190–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Haggag, W.M. Biotechnological aspects of plant resistant for fungal diseases management. Am. Eur. J. Sustain. Agric. 2008, 2, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  35. Bisen, K.; Keswani, C.; Patel, J.S.; Sarma, B.K.; Singh, H.B. Trichoderma spp.: Efficient inducers of systemic resistance in plants. In Microbial-Mediated Induced Systemic Resistance in Plants; Choudhary, D., Varma, A., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2016; pp. 185–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Benítez, T.; Rincón, A.M.; Limón, M.C.; Codón, A.C. Biocontrol mechanism of Trichoderma strains. Int. Microbiol. 2004, 7, 249–260. [Google Scholar]
  37. Keswani, C.; Mishra, S.; Sarma, B.K.; Singh, S.P.; Singh, H.B. Unraveling the efficient applications of secondary metabolites of various Trichoderma spp. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2014, 98, 533–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Verma, M.; Brar, S.K.; Tyagi, R.D.; Surampalli, R.Y.; Valéro, J.R. Antagonistic fungi, Trichoderma spp.: Panoply of biological control. Biochem. Eng. J. 2007, 37, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Harman, G.; Kubicek, C. Trichoderma Gliocladium; CRC Press: London, UK, 1998; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  40. Geremia, R.A.; Goldman, G.H.; Jacobs, D.; Ardiles, W.; Vila, S.B.; Van Montagu, M.; Herrera-Estrella, A. Molecular characterization of the proteinase-encoding gene, prb1, related to mycoparasitism by Trichoderma harzianum. Mol. Microbiol. 1993, 8, 603–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hatvani, L.; Antal, Z.; Manczinger, L.; Szekeres, A.; Druzhinina, I.S.; Kubicek, C.P.; Nagy, A.; Nagy, E.; Vágvölgyi, C.; Kredics, L. Green mold diseases of Agaricus and Pleurotus spp. are caused by related but phylogenetically different Trichoderma species. Phytopathology 2007, 97, 532–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Kosanović, D.; Potočnik, I.; Duduk, B.; Vukojević, J.; Stajić, M.; Rekanović, E.; Milijašević-Marčić, S. Trichoderma species on Agaricus bisporus farms in Serbia and their biocontrol. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2013, 163, 218–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jayalal, R.G.U.; Adikaram, N.K.B. Influence of Trichoderma harzianum metabolites on the development of green mould disease in the Oyster mushroom. Ceylon J. Sci. 2007, 36, 53–60. [Google Scholar]
  44. Kim, C.S.; Park, M.S.; Kim, S.C.; Maekawa, N.; Yu, S.H. Identification of Trichoderma, a competitor of shiitake mushroom (Lentinula edodes), and competition between Lentinula edodes and Trichoderma species in Korea. Plant Pathol. J. 2012, 28, 137–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Błaszczyk, L.; Siwulski, M.; Sobieralski, K.; Frużyńska-Jóźwiak, D. Diversity of Trichoderma spp. causing Pleurotus green mould diseases in Central Europe. Folia Microbiol. 2013, 58, 325–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. 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]
  47. Hermosa, R.; Viterbo, A.; Chet, I.; Monte, E. Plant-beneficial effects of Trichoderma and of its genes. Microbiology 2012, 158, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Park, M.S.; Bae, K.S.; Yu, S.H. Two new species of Trichoderma associated with green mold of oyster mushroom cultivation in Korea. Mycobiology 2006, 34, 111–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Gea, F.J.; Navarro, M.J.; Santos, M.; Diánez, F.; Carrasco, J. Control of fungal diseases in mushroom crops while dealing with fungicide resistance: A review. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Mamoun, L.M.; Savoie, J.M.; Olivier, J.M. Interactions between the pathogen Trichoderma harzianum Th2 and Agaricus bisporus in mushroom compost. Mycologia 2000, 92, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Williams, J.; Clarkson, J.M.; Mills, P.R.; Cooper, R.M. A selective medium for quantitative reisolation of Trichoderma harzianum from Agaricus bisporus compost. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2003, 69, 4190–4191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Mumpuni, A.; Sharma, H.; Brown, A.E. Effect of metabolites produced by Trichoderma harzianum biotypes and Agaricus bisporus on their respective growth radii in culture. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1998, 64, 5053–5056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Savoie, J.; Iapicco, R.; Largeteau-Mamoun, M. Factors influencing the competitive saprophytic ability of Trichoderma harzianum Th2 in mushroom (Agaricus bisporus) compost. Mycol. Res. 2001, 105, 1348–1356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kosanovic, D.; Grogan, H.; Kavanagh, K. Exposure of Agaricus bisporus to Trichoderma aggressivum f. europaeum leads to growth inhibition and induction of an oxidative stress response. Fungal Biol. 2020, 124, 814–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. O’brien, M.; Grogan, H.; Kavanagh, K. Proteomic response of Trichoderma aggressivum f. europaeum to Agaricus bisporus tissue and mushroom compost. Fungal Biol. 2014, 118, 785–791. [Google Scholar]
  56. Ordaz-Ochoa, J. Control Biológico y Químico de Armillaria spp., (Vahl.: Fr.) Karsten. Aisladas de Aguacate (Persea americana Mill. var. drymifolia (Schltdl. y Cham.) S.F. Blake). Maestría en Ciencias Biológicas, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolas de Hidalgo, Uruapan Michoacan, Mexico, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  57. Rodríguez, M.C.H.; Evans, H.C.; de Abreu, L.M.; de Macedo, D.M.; Ndacnou, M.K.; Bekele, K.B.; Barreto, R.W. New species and records of Trichoderma isolated as mycoparasites and endophytes from cultivated and wild coffee in Africa. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 5671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sánchez-Montesinos, B.; Diánez, F.; Moreno-Gavira, 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]
  59. Lee, S.; Yap, M.; Behringer, G.; Hung, R.; Bennett, J.W. Volatile organic compounds emitted by Trichoderma species mediate plant growth. Fungal Biol. Biotechnol. 2016, 3, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Carrasco, J.; Navarro, M.; Santos, M.; Diánez, F.; Gea, F. Incidence, identification and pathogenicity of Cladobotryum mycophilum, causal agent of cobweb disease on Agaricus bisporus mushroom crops in Spain. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2016, 168, 214–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zhang, Z.; Schwartz, S.; Wagner, L.; Miller, W. A greedy algorithm for aligning DNA sequences. J. Comput. Biol. 2000, 7, 203–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Morgulis, A.; Coulouris, G.; Raytselis, Y.; Madden, T.L.; Agarwala, R.; Schäffer, A.A. Database indexing for production MegaBLAST searches. Bioinformatics 2008, 24, 1757–1764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Santos, M.; Diánez, F.; del Valle, M.A.; Tello, J. Grape marc compost: Microbial studies and suppression of soil-borne mycosis in vegetable seedlings. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2008, 24, 1493–1505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Novak, N.G.; Perez, F.G.; Jones, R.W.; Lawrence, S.D. Detached leaf assays to simplify gene expression studies in potato during infestation by chewing insect Manduca sexta. J. Vis. Exp. 2019, 147, e59153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Patial, M.; Kumar, J.; Pal, D. Detached leaf assay for evaluating resistance to leaf rust Pst. 104-2 in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Indian J. Exp. Biol. 2017, 55, 789–794. [Google Scholar]
  66. Diánez, F.; Santos, M.; Blanco, R.; Tello, J.C. Fungicide resistance in Botrytis cinerea isolates from strawberry crops in Huelva (Southwestern Spain). Phytoparasitica 2002, 30, 529–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Nene, Y.L.; Thapliyal, R.N. Evaluation of Fungicides for Plant Disease Control, 3rd ed.; IBH Publishing Co.: New Dehli, India, 1993; p. 33. [Google Scholar]
  68. Viñuela, E.; Jacas, J.A.; Marco, V.; Adan, A.; Budia, F. Los efectos de los plaguicidas sobre los organismos beneficiosos en agricultura. Grupo de trabajo de OILB plaguicidas y organismos beneficiosos. I. Insecticidas y acaricidas. Phytoma 1993, 45, 18–25. [Google Scholar]
  69. Marín, F.; Diánez, F.; Santos, M.; Carretero, F.; Gea, F.J.; Castañeda, C.; Navarro, M.J.; Yau, J.A. Control of Phytophthora capsici and Phytophthora parasitica on pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) with compost teas from different sources and their effects on plant growth promotion. Phytopathol. Mediterr. 2014, 53, 216–228. [Google Scholar]
  70. Chen, Y.; Wang, D. Two convenient methods to evaluate soybean for resistance to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Plant Dis. 2005, 89, 1268–1272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Dubey, S.C.; Suresh, M.; Singh, B. Evaluation of trichoderma species against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris for integrated management of chickpea wilt. Biol. Control 2007, 40, 118–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Singh, S.; Balodi, R. Bio-management of soil borne pathogens infesting cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) under protected cultivation system. Biol. Control 2021, 157, 104569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Díaz-Gutiérrez, C.; Arroyave, C.; Llugany, M.; Poschenrieder, C.; Martos, S.; Peláez, C. Trichodermaasperellum as a preventive and curative agent to control Fusarium wilt in Stevia rebaudiana. Biol. Control 2021, 155, 104537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Jamil, A.; Musheer, N.; Ashraf, S. Antagonistic potential of Trichoderma harzianum and Azadirachta indica against Fusarium oxysporumf. sp. capsici for the management of chilli wilt. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2021, 128, 161–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. El-Komy, M.H.; Saleh, A.A.; Eranthodi, A.; Molan, Y.Y. Characterization of novel Trichoderma asperellum isolates to select effective biocontrol agents against tomato Fusarium wilt. Plant Pathol. J. 2015, 31, 50–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Rojo, F.G.; Reynoso, M.M.; Ferez, M.; Chulze, S.N.; Torres, A.M. Biological control by Trichoderma species of Fusarium solani causing peanut brown root rot under field conditions. Crop Prot. 2007, 26, 549–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Morsy, E.M.; Abdel-Kawi, K.A.; Khalil, M.N.A. Efficiency of Trichoderma viride and Bacillus subtilis as biocontrol agents against Fusarium solani on tomato plants. Egypt. J. Phytopathol. 2009, 37, 47–57. [Google Scholar]
  78. Amira, M.B.; López, D.; Mohamed, A.T.; Khouaja, A.; Chaar, H.; Fumanal, B.; Gousset-Dupont, A.; Bonhomme, L.; Label, P.; Goupil, P. Beneficial effect of Trichoderma harzianum strain Ths97 in biocontrolling Fusarium solani causal agent of root rot disease in olive trees. Biol. Control 2017, 110, 70–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Zimand, G.; Elad, Y.; Chet, I. Effect of Trichoderma harzianum on Botrytis cinerea pathogenicity. Phytopathology 1996, 86, 1255–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kapat, A.; Zimand, Y.; Elad, Y. Effect of two isolates of Trichoderma harzianum on the activity of hydrolytic enzymes produced by Botrytis cinerea. Physiol. Mol. Plant. Pathol. 1998, 52, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Elad, Y.; Kapat, A. The role of Trichoderma harzianum protease in the biocontrol of Botrytis cinerea. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 1999, 105, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Elad, Y. Trichodema harzianum T39 preparation for biocontrol of plant diseases–control of Botrytis cinerea, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and Cladosporium fulvum. Biocont. Sci. Technol. 2000, 10, 499–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Yang, H.H.; Yang, S.L.; Peng, K.C.; Lo, C.T.; Liu, S.Y. Induced proteome of Trichoderma harzianum by Botrytis cinerea. Mycol. Res. 2009, 113, 924–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Fedele, G.; Brischetto, C.; Rossi, V. Biocontrol of Botrytis cinereal on Grape Berries as influenced by temperature and humidity. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Choudhary, A.K.; Singh, N.; Singh, D. Evaluation of the bioformulation of potent native strains of Trichoderma spp. against the foot rot/gummosis of Kinnow mandarin. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2021, 31, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Manganiello, G.; Nicastro, N.; Caputo, M.; Zaccardelli, M.; Cardi, T.; Pane, C. Functional hyperspectral imaging by high-related vegetation indices to track the wide-spectrum Trichoderma biocontrol activity against soil-borne diseases of baby-leaf vegetables. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 630059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Abdollahzadeh, J.; Goltapeh, E.M.; Rouhani, H. Evaluation of antagonistic effect of Trichoderma species in biological control of causal agents of crown and root rot of sunflower (Sclerotinia minor) in vitro. Agric. Sci. Tabriz 2003, 13, 13–23. [Google Scholar]
  88. Pandey, S.; Pundhir, V.S. Mycoparasitism of potato black scurf pathogen (Rhizoctonia solani Kuhn) by biological control agents to sustain production. Indian J. Hortic. 2013, 70, 71–75. [Google Scholar]
  89. Lucon, M.C.M.; Koike, C.M.; Ishikawa, I.A.; Patrício, F.R.A.; Harakava, R. Bioprospection of Trichoderma spp. isolates to control Rhizoctonia solani on cucumber seedling production. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 2009, 44, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Zhang, Y.; Zhuang, W.Y. Trichodermabrevicrassum strain TC967 with capacities of diminishing cucumber disease caused by Rhizoctonia solani and promoting plant growth. Biol. Control 2020, 142, 104151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Ezziyyani, M.; Requena, M.E.; Egea-Gilabert, C.; Candela, M.E. Biological control of Phytophthora root rot of pepper using Trichoderma harzianum and Streptomyces rochei in combination. Int. J. Environ. Sci. 2007, 155, 342–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Roberts, D.P.; Maul, J.E.; McKenna, L.F.; Emche, S.E.; Meyer, S.L.F.; Collins, R.T.; Bowers, J.H. Selection of genetically diverse Trichoderma spp. isolates for suppression of Phytophthora capsici on bell pepper. Can. J. Microbiol. 2010, 56, 864–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Schubert, M.; Fink, S.; Schwarze, F.W.M.R. Evaluation of Trichoderma spp. as a biocontrol agent against wood decay fungi in urban trees. Biol. Control 2008, 45, 111–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Swehla, A.; Pandey, A.K.; Nair, R.M. Bioactivity of Trichoderma harzianum isolates against the fungal root rot pathogens with special reference to Macrophomina phaseolina causing dry root rot of mungbean. Indian Phytopathol. 2020, 73, 787–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Elad, Y. Biological control of foliar pathogens by means of Trichoderma harzianum and potential modes of action. Crop Prot. 2000, 19, 709–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Gveroska, B.; Ziberoski, J. Trichoderma harzianum as a biocontrol agent against Alternaria alternata on tobacco. ATI Appl. Tech. Innov. 2012, 7, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Le, H.T.; Black, L.L.; Sikora, R.A. Evaluation of Trichoderma spp. for biocontrol of tomato sudden caused by Pythium aphanidermatum following flooding in tropical hot season. Commun. Agric. Appl. Biol. Sci. 2003, 68, 463–474. [Google Scholar]
  98. Ramesh, R. Management of damping off in brinjal using biocontrol agents. J. Mycol. Plant Pathol. 2004, 34, 666–669. [Google Scholar]
  99. Zhang, S.; Xua, B.; Zhanga, J.; Ganc, Y. Identification of the antifungal activity of Trichoderma longibrachiatum T6 and assessment of bioactive substances in controlling phytopathgens. Pestic. Biochem. Phys. 2018, 147, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Fernandes, T.; Lopes, A.C.A.; Steindorff, S.A.R.; Jesuino, S.A.R.; Ulhoa, C. Mycoparasitism studies of Trichoderma species against three phytopathogenic fungi: Evaluation of antagonism and hydrolytic enzyme production. Biotechnol. Lett. 2013, 35, 1461–1468. [Google Scholar]
  101. Amin, F.; Razdan, V.K.; Mohiddin, F.A.; Bhat, K.A.; Sheikh, P.A. Effect of volatile metabolites of Trichoderma species against seven fungal plant pathogens in-vitro. J. Phytol. 2010, 2, 34–37. [Google Scholar]
  102. Rini, C.R.; Sulochana, K.K. Management of seedling rot of chilli (Capsicum annuum L.) using Trichoderma spp. and fluorescent pseudomonads (Pseudomonas fluorescens). J. Trop. Agric. 2006, 44, 79–82. [Google Scholar]
  103. Hafez, Y.M.; El-Nagar, A.S.; Elzaawely, A.A.; Kamel, S.; Maswada, H.F. Biological control of Podosphaera xanthii the causal agent of squash powdery mildew disease by up-regulation of defense-related enzymes. Egyptia J. Biol. Pest Control 2018, 28, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Khanzada, M.A.; Tanveer, M.; Maitlo, S.A.; Hajano, J.; Ujjan, A.A.; Syed, R.N.; Lodhi, A.M.; Rajput, A.Q. Comparative efficacy of chemical fungicides, plant extracts and biocontrol agents against Fusarium solani under laboratory conditions. Pak. J. Phytopathol. 2016, 28, 133–139. [Google Scholar]
  105. Pérez-Hernández, A.; Porcel-Rodríguez, E.; Gómez-Vázquez, J. Survival of Fusarium solani f. sp. cucurbitae and fungicide application, soil solarization and biosolarization for control of crown and foot rot of zucchini squash. Plant Dis. 2017, 101, 1507–1514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  106. Roberti, R.; Veronesi, A.; Flamigni, F. Evaluation of microbial products for the control of zucchini foot and root rot caused by Fusarium solani f. sp. cucurbitae race 1. Phytopathol. Mediterr. 2012, 51, 317–331. [Google Scholar]
  107. Radványi, D.; Geösel, A.; Jókai, Z.; Fodor, S.P.; Gere, A. Detection and identification of microbial volatile organic compounds of the green mold disease: MVOC profile on different media. Int. J. Agric. Environ. Inf. Sys. 2020, 11, 14–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Krupke, O.A.; Castle, A.J.; Rinker, D.L. The North American mushroom competitor, Trichoderma aggressivum f. aggressivum, produces antifungal compoundsin mushroom compost that inhibit mycelial growth of the commercial mushroom Agaricus bisporus. Mycol. Res. 2003, 107, 1467–1475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Pandey, V.; Shukla, A.; Kumar, J. Physiological and molecular signalling involved in disease management through Trichoderma: An effective biocontrol paradigm. In Current Trends in Plant Disease Diagnostics and Management Practices; Kumar, P., Gupta, V.K., Tiwari, A.K., Kamle, M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 317–346. [Google Scholar]
  110. Mahalakshmi, P.; Yesu, R.I. Biocontrol potential of Trichoderma species against wilt disease of carnation (Dianthus caryophyllus L.) caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. dianthi. J. Biopest. 2013, 6, 32–36. [Google Scholar]
  111. El-Katatny, M.; Gudelj, M.; Robra, K.H.; Elnaghy, M.; Gübitz, G. Characterization of a chitinase and an endo-β-1,3-glucanase from Trichoderma harzianum Rifai T24 involved in control of the phytopathogen Sclerotium Rolfsii. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2001, 56, 137–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Luković, J.; Milijašević-Marčić, S.; Hatvani, L.; Kredics, L.; Szűcs, A.; Vágvölgyi, C.; Duduk, N.; Vico, I.; Potočnik, I. Sensitivity of Trichoderma strains from edible mushrooms to the fungicides prochloraz and metrafenone. J. Environ. Sci. Health 2020, 56, 54–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Komon-Zelazowska, M.; Bissett, J.; Zafari, D.; Hatvani, L.; Manczinger, L.; Woo, S.; Lorito, M.; Kredics, L.; Kubicek, C.P.; Druzhinina, I.S. Genetically closely related but phenotypically divergent Trichoderma species cause world-wide green mould disease in oyster mushroom farms. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2007, 73, 7416–7426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  114. Oskiera, M.; Szczecha, M.; Stępowska, A.; Smolińska, U.; Bartoszewski, G. Monitoring of Trichoderma species in agricultural soil in response to application of biopreparations. Biol. Control 2017, 113, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Destri Nicosia, M.G.L.; Mosca, S.; Mercurio, R.; Schena, L. Dieback of Pinus nigra seedlings caused by a strain of Trichoderma viride. Plant Dis. 2015, 99, 44–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. Pfordt, A.; Schiwek, S.; Karlovsky, P.; von Tiedemann, A. Trichoderma Afroharzianum Ear Rot—A new disease on maize in Europe. Front. Agron. 2020, 2, 547758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Tijerino, A.; Cardoza, R.E.; Moraga, J.; Malmierca, M.G.; Vicente, F.; Aleu, J.; Collado, I.G.; Gutierrez, S.; Monte, E.; Hermosa, R. Overexpression of the trichodiene synthase gene tri5 increases trichodermin production and antimicrobial activity in Trichoderma brevicompactum. Fungal Genet. Biol. 2011, 48, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Yang, Y.; Yu, S.; Tan, Y.; Liu, N.; Wu, A. Individual and combined cytotoxic effects of co-occurring deoxynivalenol family mycotoxins on human gastric epithelial cells. Toxins 2017, 9, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  119. Muñoz, F.M.; Demmler, G.J.; Travis, W.R.; Ogden, A.K.; Rossmann, S.N.; Rinaldi, M.G. Trichoderma longibrachiatum infection in a pediatric patient with aplastic anemia. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1997, 35, 499–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Sautour, M.; Chrétien, M.L.; Valot, S.; Lafon, I.; Basmaciyana, L.; Legouge, C.; Verrier, T.; Gonssaud, B.; Abou-Hanna, H.; Dalle, F.; et al. First case of proven invasive pulmonary infection due to Trichoderma longibrachiatum in a neutropenic patient with acute leukemia. J. Mycol. Med. 2018, 28, 659–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jof 07 00598 g001 550
Figure 1. Green mould on the casing layer and mushroom (A,B). Isolate of T. aggressivum f. europaeum TAET1: Culture (C) and conidiophores (D).
Figure 1. Green mould on the casing layer and mushroom (A,B). Isolate of T. aggressivum f. europaeum TAET1: Culture (C) and conidiophores (D).
Jof 07 00598 g001
Jof 07 00598 g002 550
Figure 2. Growth rate (cm d−1) of different T. aggressivum f. europaeum isolates. Different letters indicate significant differences according to the one-way ANOVA (p = 0.05). (Accession number TAET1: MW751677.1).
Figure 2. Growth rate (cm d−1) of different T. aggressivum f. europaeum isolates. Different letters indicate significant differences according to the one-way ANOVA (p = 0.05). (Accession number TAET1: MW751677.1).
Jof 07 00598 g002
Jof 07 00598 g003 550
Figure 3. Mycoparasitism by Trichoderma hyphae a coiling around the hyphae (A–E). Hook formation (C,E), wrapping (B,D) and hyphallysis (F). Images were taken with a × 40 objective.
Figure 3. Mycoparasitism by Trichoderma hyphae a coiling around the hyphae (A–E). Hook formation (C,E), wrapping (B,D) and hyphallysis (F). Images were taken with a × 40 objective.
Jof 07 00598 g003
Jof 07 00598 g004 550
Figure 4. Symptoms of B. cinerea (A–C), M. melonis (D–F) and S. clerotiorum (G–I), infection on detached leaves treated with TAET1 (A,D,G), fungicide (C,F,I) or control (B,E,H).
Figure 4. Symptoms of B. cinerea (A–C), M. melonis (D–F) and S. clerotiorum (G–I), infection on detached leaves treated with TAET1 (A,D,G), fungicide (C,F,I) or control (B,E,H).
Jof 07 00598 g004
Jof 07 00598 g005 550
Figure 5. Effect of TAET1 on sclerotial germination. Control: sclerotia with white mycelium on their surface. TAET1: Observation of Trichoderma on soil surface (green mass).
Figure 5. Effect of TAET1 on sclerotial germination. Control: sclerotia with white mycelium on their surface. TAET1: Observation of Trichoderma on soil surface (green mass).
Jof 07 00598 g005
Jof 07 00598 g006 550
Figure 6. Disease severity of phytopathogens in plants was rated 30–90 d after inoculation based on a 0–5 scale: where 0 = no visible disease symptoms and 5 = plant dead. T0: control; TAET1: T. aggressivum f. europaeum TAET1; Bot: B. cinerea; Mym: M. melonis; Scle: S. sclerotiorum; Rz: R. solani; FSC: F. solani f. cucurbitae; Pya: P. aphanidermatum. Mean standard deviation is expressed by error bars (24 plants per repetition). Means with the same letter are not significantly different (LSD) according to the ANOVA (p < 0.05).
Figure 6. Disease severity of phytopathogens in plants was rated 30–90 d after inoculation based on a 0–5 scale: where 0 = no visible disease symptoms and 5 = plant dead. T0: control; TAET1: T. aggressivum f. europaeum TAET1; Bot: B. cinerea; Mym: M. melonis; Scle: S. sclerotiorum; Rz: R. solani; FSC: F. solani f. cucurbitae; Pya: P. aphanidermatum. Mean standard deviation is expressed by error bars (24 plants per repetition). Means with the same letter are not significantly different (LSD) according to the ANOVA (p < 0.05).
Jof 07 00598 g006
Jof 07 00598 g007 550
Figure 7. Comparison of the state of the plants at the end of the test: without FSC inoculum (A) and the treatments with F1 (B) and with F2 (C), with TAET1. FSC: Control without F. solani f. cucurbitae (FSC). F1: 105 CFU·mL−1; (F2): 104 CFU·mL−1.
Figure 7. Comparison of the state of the plants at the end of the test: without FSC inoculum (A) and the treatments with F1 (B) and with F2 (C), with TAET1. FSC: Control without F. solani f. cucurbitae (FSC). F1: 105 CFU·mL−1; (F2): 104 CFU·mL−1.
Jof 07 00598 g007
Jof 07 00598 g008 550
Figure 8. Comparison of the TAET1 effect on the percentage of disease severity after applying two doses of FSC (F1: 105 CFU mL−1; F2: 104 CFU mL−1. 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%: disease severity percentages higher than 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% for F1 and F2. Means with the same letter are not significantly different (LSD) according to the ANOVA (p < 0.05).
Figure 8. Comparison of the TAET1 effect on the percentage of disease severity after applying two doses of FSC (F1: 105 CFU mL−1; F2: 104 CFU mL−1. 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%: disease severity percentages higher than 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% for F1 and F2. Means with the same letter are not significantly different (LSD) according to the ANOVA (p < 0.05).
Jof 07 00598 g008
Jof 07 00598 g009 550
Figure 9. Control of P. xanthii by spraying zucchini plants with TAET1. Mean proportion of leaf area with powdery mildew symptoms per plant, percentage of the number of leaves with symptoms per plant, and percentage of number of petioles with powdery mildew. Px: Application of P. xanthii. Px-TAET1: application of TAET1 3 days before application of P. xanthii. Data were tested using Student’s t-test. * significant at p < 0.05.
Figure 9. Control of P. xanthii by spraying zucchini plants with TAET1. Mean proportion of leaf area with powdery mildew symptoms per plant, percentage of the number of leaves with symptoms per plant, and percentage of number of petioles with powdery mildew. Px: Application of P. xanthii. Px-TAET1: application of TAET1 3 days before application of P. xanthii. Data were tested using Student’s t-test. * significant at p < 0.05.
Jof 07 00598 g009
Table
Table 1. Effect of different fungicides on mycelial growth of P. variotii at different doses (D1–D4). Mean values (±standard deviation) followed by different letters (line) indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) by least significant difference test (LSD). (1) Cytoskeleton and motor proteins, (2) signal transduction, (3) sterol biosynthesis in membranes, (4) amino acids and protein synthesis, (5) respiration, (6) lipid synthesis or transport/membrane integrity or function, (7) chemicals with multi-site activity, (8) host plant defence induction, (9) unknown mode of action, (10) nucleic acids metabolism, and (11) cell wall biosynthesis. Fungicide/fungistactic action (red letters): F: Fungicide; f: fungistactic.
Table 1. Effect of different fungicides on mycelial growth of P. variotii at different doses (D1–D4). Mean values (±standard deviation) followed by different letters (line) indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) by least significant difference test (LSD). (1) Cytoskeleton and motor proteins, (2) signal transduction, (3) sterol biosynthesis in membranes, (4) amino acids and protein synthesis, (5) respiration, (6) lipid synthesis or transport/membrane integrity or function, (7) chemicals with multi-site activity, (8) host plant defence induction, (9) unknown mode of action, (10) nucleic acids metabolism, and (11) cell wall biosynthesis. Fungicide/fungistactic action (red letters): F: Fungicide; f: fungistactic.
Doses (ppm)
D1 (0.5 × D2)D2D3D4 (1.5 × D3)
Fungicide—Action MechanismsD2D3GrowthInhib.GrowthInhib.GrowthInhib.GrowthInhib.
Thiophanate-methyl 70% (WP) w/w—(1) (F: D1 D2 D3 D4)50010000 ± 0a100.0%0 ± 0a100.0%0 ± 0a100.0%0 ± 0a100.0%
Pencycuron 25% (SC) w/v—(1)5000800055.8 ± 3.3a19.1%52 ± 1.6b24.6%50.8 ± 1.3b26.4%46 ± 0.7c33.3%
Iprodione 50% (SC) w/v—(2)1000150063 ± 2.3a8.7%53 ± 1.6b23.2%43.6 ± 4.5c36.8%33.4 ± 5d51.6%
Flutriafol 12.5% (SC) w/v—(3)2000250023.4 ± 1.7a64.7%19.4 ± 1.3b70.7%18.3 ± 1.2bc72.4%16.6 ± 2.6c74.9%
Triadimenol 25% (EC) w/v—(3)25050061.8 ± 3.7a6.6%55 ± 4.5b16.9%39 ± 3.1c41.1%34.2 ± 1.3d48.3%
Myclobutanil 24% (EC) w/v—(3)20040023.8 ± 0.8a52.2%16 ± 1.4b67.9%5.6 ± 0.5c88.8%3.4 ± 0.5d93.2%
Fenhexamid 50% (WG) w/w—(3)1500200030 ± 0.7a53.6%26.8 ± 0.8b58.5%25.2 ± 0.4c61.0%23.4 ± 0.5d63.8%
Pyrimethanil 40% (SC) P/V—(4)150020005 ± 0a92.7%3.62 ± 0.4b94.7%2.28 ± 0.4c96.7%1.5 ± 0.9c97.8%
Azoxystrobin 25% (SC) w/v—(5)800100035.3 ± 2.3a46.7%33.3 ± 1b49.7%31.2 ± 0.8bc52.9%30.7 ± 1.2c53.6%
Kresoxim-methyl 50% (WG) w/w—(5)20050060.4 ± 6.1a14.0%58.8 ± 7.7a16.2%49.3 ± 1.2b29.8%45.9 ± 0.7b34.6%
Propamocarb 60.5% (SL) w/v—(6)2500500066.4 ± 1.5a3.8%54.6 ± 9.3b20.9%29.8 ± 4.1c56.8%21 ± 2.9d69.6%
Copper hydroxide 35% (WG) w/w—(7)2000300024 ± 1.2a62.8%16.8 ± 1.5b74.0%15.2 ± 1.3b76.5%9.4 ± 0.5c85.4%
Mancozeb 80% (WG) w/w—(7) (f: D2D3) (F: D4)200030007 ± 7.3a85.9%0 ± 0b100.0%0 ± 0b100.0%0 ± 0b100.0%
Chlorothalonil 50% (SC) w/v—(7)250030003.6 ± 1.5a94.6%3 ± 1.2ab95.5%1.8 ± 0.8bc97.3%1 ± 1.2c98.5%
Fosetyl-AL 80% (WG) w/w—(8)2500300045.2 ± 1.8a9.2%33 ± 0.7b33.7%27.8 ± 1.8c44.2%19.2 ± 1.3d61.4%
Cymoxanil 60% (WG) w/w—(9)20030070 ± 1a−8.4%65.8 ± 1.3b−1.9%61.2 ± 2.8c5.3%57.8 ± 2.4d10.5%
Cyprodinil 37.5% + Fludioxonil 25% (WG) w/w—(4 + 2)60010007.8 ± 1.8a84.3%6.4 ± 0.5a87.1%4.6 ± 0.5b90.8%4.7 ± 1b90.6%
Folpet 40% + Metalaxyl-M 10% (WP) w/w—(7 + 10)2000250014.6 ± 0.5a78.8%12.3 ± 0.7b82.2%10.2 ± 0.8c85.2%7.4 ± 0.5d89.3%
Dimethomorph 7.5% + Mancozeb 66.7% (WG) w/w—(11 + 7)2000300053.6 ± 1.5a22.3%49.8 ± 1.3b27.8%45.8 ± 0.8c33.6%43.4 ± 1.1d37.1%
Table
Table 2. Antagonistic potential of T. aggressivum f. europaeum isolates against six phytopathogens in dual culture on PDA medium. % mycelial inhibition was calculated as PIRM = (R1 − R2) ÷ R1 × 100, where: PIRM: percentage inhibition of radial mycelia growth of the pathogen, R1: radial growth of pathogen in control plates, R2: radial growth of pathogen in dual culture plates. Means with the same letter are not significantly different (LSD) according to ANOVA test (p < 0.05).
Table 2. Antagonistic potential of T. aggressivum f. europaeum isolates against six phytopathogens in dual culture on PDA medium. % mycelial inhibition was calculated as PIRM = (R1 − R2) ÷ R1 × 100, where: PIRM: percentage inhibition of radial mycelia growth of the pathogen, R1: radial growth of pathogen in control plates, R2: radial growth of pathogen in dual culture plates. Means with the same letter are not significantly different (LSD) according to ANOVA test (p < 0.05).
% Inhibition of Mycelial Growth Plant Pathogens
IsolatesBotrytis cinereaSclerotinia sclerotiorumFusarium solaniRhizoctonia solaniMycosphaerella melonisPythium aphanidermatum
TAE49274.25 ± 1.11 d85.25 ± 0.55 a84.25 ± 1.42 e80.75 ± 2.27 c87.25 ± 2.05 ab63.5 ± 0.55 b
TAE49376.5 ± 2.40 bcd84.00 ± 0.55 ab85.75 ± 0.68cd81.75 ± 1.42 bc87.25 ± 2.03 cd63.75 ± 0.88 ab
TAE88076.75 ± 1.11 abcd84.25 ± 1.42 ab86.00 ± 0.55 bcd80.50 ± 0.68 c87.00 ± 1.11 de55.00 ± 1.25 e
TAE132070.25 ± 2.4 e83.75 ± 1.25 abc82.00 ± 0.68 f76.00 ± 1.04 e85.50 ± 1.42 b58.5 ± 1.04 c
TAE140977.5 ± 3.30 abcd83.5 ± 1.36 abcd85.75 ± 1.42 cd81.50 ± 1.04 bc87.00 ± 1.11 ab65.00 ± 0.88 a
TAEB8078.25 ± 3.81 abc81.75 ± 3.37 bcd86.50 ± 0.55 bcd80.50 ± 0.68 c86.75 ± 2.59 ab53.5 ± 0.55 f
TAET180.00 ± 1.76 a84.00 ± 1.62 ab89.75 ± 2.85 a82.75 ± 0.55 ab87.50 ± 0.88 ab63.00 ± 1.11 b
TAE1375.00 ± 5.79 cd83.00 ± 2.27 abcd87 ± 0.68 bc76.75 ± 1.42 e88.25 ± 2.09 a59 ± 1.04 c
TAET275.50 ± 1.11 cd83.25 ± 3.13 abcd85.50 ± 0.68 de78.50 ± 1.36 d87.25 ± 2.05 ab54.25 ± 1.42 ef
TAET376.75 ± 1.42 abcd81.00 ± 2.40 cd87.25 ± 0.55 b82.25 ± 0.55 ab87.00 ± 0.68 ab58 ± 2.27 cd
TAET479.00 ± 1.04 ab82.25 ± 4.27 bcd89.25 ± 0.68 a82.25 ± 0.55 ab88.75 ± 0.88 a65.00 ± 0.88 a
TAET578.00 ± 2.27 abc80.75 ± 1.89 d86.5 ± 0.55 bcd83.25 ± 0.68 a86.75 ± 0.68 ab56.75 ± 0.68 d
P0.00010.08180.00000.00000.28600.0000
Mean values (±standard deviation) followed by different letters (line) indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) by least significant difference test (LSD).
Table
Table 3. Mycelial growth (cm) of phytopathogens on PDA medium due to exposure to Trichoderma aggressivum f. europaeum TAET1 volatiles vs. the growth control. * Means are significantly different (LSD) according to t students test (p < 0.05).
Table 3. Mycelial growth (cm) of phytopathogens on PDA medium due to exposure to Trichoderma aggressivum f. europaeum TAET1 volatiles vs. the growth control. * Means are significantly different (LSD) according to t students test (p < 0.05).
Mycelial Growth (cm) of Plant Pathogens
IsolatesB. cinereaS. sclerotiorumF. solaniR. solaniM. melonisP. aphanidermatum
Control4.26 ± 0.054.36 ± 0.114.26 ± 0.054.25 ± 0.054.20 ± 0.174.40 ± 0.10
TAET14.20 ± 0.174.16 ± 0.233.50 ± 0.40 *4.10 ± 0.233.66 ± 0.25 *4.23 ± 0.11
p0.56140.25080.03030.23770.03900.2901
Table
Table 4. Effects of applying T. aggressivum f. europaeum TAET1 on sclerotia of S. sclerotiorum. Number of sclerotia recovered, percentage of sclerotial germination, and TAET1 colonisation measured after 25 d of incubation. * Values represent means of five replicates. Data were analysed using Student’s t-test (p < 0.05).
Table 4. Effects of applying T. aggressivum f. europaeum TAET1 on sclerotia of S. sclerotiorum. Number of sclerotia recovered, percentage of sclerotial germination, and TAET1 colonisation measured after 25 d of incubation. * Values represent means of five replicates. Data were analysed using Student’s t-test (p < 0.05).
Sclerotia RecoveredSclerotial Germination (%)TAET1 Colonization (%)
Control563.20
TAET12.1 *0 *36.8 *
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sánchez-Montesinos, B.; Santos, M.; Moreno-Gavíra, A.; Marín-Rodulfo, T.; Gea, F.J.; Diánez, F. Biological Control of Fungal Diseases by Trichoderma aggressivum f. europaeum and Its Compatibility with Fungicides. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 598. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof7080598

AMA Style

Sánchez-Montesinos B, Santos M, Moreno-Gavíra A, Marín-Rodulfo T, Gea FJ, Diánez F. Biological Control of Fungal Diseases by Trichoderma aggressivum f. europaeum and Its Compatibility with Fungicides. Journal of Fungi. 2021; 7(8):598. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof7080598

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sánchez-Montesinos, Brenda, Mila Santos, Alejandro Moreno-Gavíra, Teresa Marín-Rodulfo, Francisco J. Gea, and Fernando Diánez. 2021. "Biological Control of Fungal Diseases by Trichoderma aggressivum f. europaeum and Its Compatibility with Fungicides" Journal of Fungi 7, no. 8: 598. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof7080598

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