Next Article in Journal
Gasification of Woody Biomasses and Forestry Residues: Simulation, Performance Analysis, and Environmental Impact
Previous Article in Journal
Saccharomyces cerevisiae Fermentation of 28 Barley and 12 Oat Cultivars
Previous Article in Special Issue
Yeast Metabolism and Its Exploitation in Emerging Winemaking Trends: From Sulfite Tolerance to Sulfite Reduction
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Fermentation
Volume 7
Issue 2
10.3390/fermentation7020060
fermentation-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:
Review

Microbial Biocontrol as an Alternative to Synthetic Fungicides: Boundaries between Pre- and Postharvest Applications on Vegetables and Fruits

by
Vincenzo Michele Sellitto
1,†,
Severino Zara
2,†,
Fabio Fracchetti
3,
Vittorio Capozzi
4,* and
Tiziana Nardi
5
1
Department of Agricultural Technologies, Faculty of Agriculture, Banat’s University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine “King Mihai I of Romania”, 119 Calea Aradului, 300645 Timisoara, Romania
2
Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Sassari, Viale Italia 39, 07100 Sassari, Italy
3
Microbion srl, Via Monte Carega 22, 37057 San Giovanni Lupatoto, Italy
4
National Research Council—Institute of Sciences of Food Production (ISPA) c/o CS-DAT, Via Michele Protano, 71121 Foggia, Italy
5
CREA—Council for Agricultural Research and Economics, Research Centre for Viticulture and Enology, Viale XXVIII Aprile 26, 31015 Conegliano, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Both authors equally contributed to this work.
Fermentation 2021, 7(2), 60; https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation7020060
Submission received: 20 March 2021 / Revised: 7 April 2021 / Accepted: 7 April 2021 / Published: 11 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Microbial Technologies for Sustainable Food Production: Bio-Based Eco- Friendly Solutions)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
From a ‘farm to fork’ perspective, there are several phases in the production chain of fruits and vegetables in which undesired microbial contaminations can attack foodstuff. In managing these diseases, harvest is a crucial point for shifting the intervention criteria. While in preharvest, pest management consists of tailored agricultural practices, in postharvest, the contaminations are treated using specific (bio)technological approaches (physical, chemical, biological). Some issues connect the ‘pre’ and ‘post’, aligning some problems and possible solution. The colonisation of undesired microorganisms in preharvest can affect the postharvest quality, influencing crop production, yield and storage. Postharvest practices can ‘amplify’ the contamination, favouring microbial spread and provoking injures of the product, which can sustain microbial growth. In this context, microbial biocontrol is a biological strategy receiving increasing interest as sustainable innovation. Microbial-based biotools can find application both to control plant diseases and to reduce contaminations on the product, and therefore, can be considered biocontrol solutions in preharvest or in postharvest. Numerous microbial antagonists (fungi, yeasts and bacteria) can be used in the field and during storage, as reported by laboratory and industrial-scale studies. This review aims to examine the main microbial-based tools potentially representing sustainable bioprotective biotechnologies, focusing on the biotools that overtake the boundaries between pre- and postharvest applications protecting quality against microbial decay.

1. Introduction

Fruits and vegetables represent a crucial part of the resources contributing to human nutrition, with a relevant impact on human health and well-being and a considerable hedonistic role [1]. These plant-based commodities provide important intakes of water, vitamins, minerals, sugars, fibres and a massive diversity of phytochemicals of high interest for the plethora of functional properties ascribable to these foodstuffs [2]. In a ‘from farm to fork’ perspective, there are several phases in the production chain of fruits and vegetables in which the plant, in general, and the edible part, in particular, can be infested or attacked by undesired microbial contaminations [3], including phytopathogen that produce mycotoxins (e.g., Fusarium) [4]. In managing these diseases/decays, harvest is a crucial phase responsible for a shift in the intervention criteria [5]. While in preharvest, pest management consists of tailored agricultural practices, in postharvest, the contaminations are treated using specific technological approaches [5,6]. The colonisation of undesired microorganisms in preharvest can affect the postharvest quality, influencing crop production, yield and storage [5]. Besides, it is important to underline that postharvest practices can also ‘amplify’ the contamination, favouring microbial spread and provoking injures of the product, with the consequent spur out of cellular juices, rich in nutrients that sustain microbial growth [7]. Considering eukaryotic microbes, the agent of postharvest diseases are mainly filamentous fungi, such as Botrytis cinerea, Colletotrichum spp., Aspergillus spp., Fusarium spp., and Penicillium spp. and Colletotrichum spp. are in the first positions of a special classification encompassing the ‘world top 10 fungal pathogens’ in plant pathology, ranked as a function of their impact on economic losses [8]. As said, filamentous fungi are not only food spoilers, but can also be responsible for safety risks in reason of the production of mycotoxins (secondary metabolites causing disease and death, e.g., nephrotoxic, carcinogenic) and of other metabolites responsible for adverse reactions in humans, but also in animals [4,9,10]. Moreover, prokaryotic organisms can be present on fruits and vegetables; considering these foodstuffs are minimally treated and usually consumed without further processing other than washing, they can be contaminated by food-borne pathogenic bacteria, including Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella spp., and Listeria monocytogenes [11,12,13]. These contaminations can reduce the yield, decrease shelf-life, and lower the marketability of the products. This means enormous losses in terms of economic value and wastes that the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimated in about one-fifth of the global production [14]. Several physical, chemical and biological strategies have been tested to reduce microbial decay on fresh plant-based products [6]. Each approach has peculiar pros and cons in the practical implementation as a function of facets, such as the technological regimen, the characteristic of the matrices, and market rules. In this frame, synthetic chemicals are typically used to protect plants and fruits from the abovementioned multitude of phytopathogenic organisms, even though their adverse effects on human health and on the environment are increasingly concerning [15,16,17]. This circumstance, therefore, displays the need for sustainable use of agropharmaceuticals, together with the demand for more environment-friendly production systems: These topics in recent years have fuelled a growing public interest in the search for alternative approaches to chemical control in plant disease management [18]. In this context, microbial biocontrol is a biological strategy receiving increasing interest because of the environment-friendly nature of the solution, useful to design sustainable innovation [19,20]. Microbial-based biotools can find application both to control plant diseases and to reduce contaminations on the product [21]. From this perspective, they can be considered biocontrol solutions in preharvest or in postharvest [3,5].
This review aims to examine the main microbial-based tools potentially used as sustainable bioprotective biotechnologies, focusing on the preharvest applications for improving the final quality and on the postharvest application to protect that quality against microbial decay.

2. Microbial Biocontrol and Sustainable Biotechnologies

Climate change is affecting agriculture production through a series of biotic and abiotic stresses. Among them, it can be underlined pathogens, nutrient insufficiencies and weather extremes, and some of those are encouraging the further use of chemicals [22]. In the current scenario, a lot of attention has been paid to the promotion of sustainable agriculture in which the agricultural crop productivities are possible by using their natural capacities, with a slight annoyance of the environment and no compromising the yields [23]. By 2050, agricultural production is expected to increase by at least 70%. At the same time, people are becoming conscious that sustainable agriculture is fundamental to gathering the future world’s agricultural stipulates [24]. One way to develop sustainable crop production processes is to enhance the beneficial plant-associated microbiome. This association, known as holobiont, strongly influences the nature of phytomicrobiome [25]. Microorganisms have the potential to increase crop growth by improving nutrient use efficiency, tolerating biotic and abiotic stresses, and diseases resistance. Microbes that exert beneficial roles on plants are called Plant Growth Promoting Microorganisms (PGPM). These microbes may inhabit the rhizosphere, rhizoplane, phyllosphere, endosphere, etc. [25]. The utilisation of PGPM microbial inoculants is an old practice [26], but only recently gained more prominence among researchers. They generally belong to the bacteria (such as Bacillus and Rhizobia) and fungi (especially Trichordema) subgroups [25,27,28]. PGPMs with biocontrol properties have been identified by researchers, conferring benefits to a variety of crop species [22]. Berendsen et al. [29] showed that PGPM isolated from plants exposed to pathogen attack were more effective if used as inoculants, than PGPM isolated from plants with no pathogen attack. In this regard, several companies have started to use individual microorganisms as biocontrol products and develop different valuable strains. The use of these inoculants has demonstrated an increase of 10–20% in crop production [30].
Biocontrol can reduce the utilisation of industrially manufactured chemicals in agricultural production. This would mean a decline in fossil fuels and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Different are the MBCA (microbial biological control agents) modes of action to protect crops from diseases [31]. They may induce resistance against infections by a pathogen in plant tissues without direct antagonistic interaction with the pathogen [32,33]. Other interactions with pathogens are competition for nutrients and space [34]. MBCAs may also interact directly with the pathogen by hyperparasitism or antibiosis. Hyperparasites invade and kill mycelium, spores, and other structures of fungal and bacterial pathogens [35]. Production of antimicrobial with inhibiting effects against pathogens is another direct mode of action [36]. Moreover, risks assessments for MBCAs are relevant if they contain antimicrobial metabolites at an effective concentration in the product [37].
Although the potential at the greenhouse scale of these microbial technologies, results at field trials are still scarce, as the convolution of interactions among microbes, plants, soil and climate is the major bottleneck in the field adoption of the technology [38]. As shown in Table 1, despite the extraordinary body of knowledge produced on the ability of microbial biocontrol agents to protect crops, at the time of the writing, few are the microorganisms registered as active substances in the EU [39]. This is the reason why it is urgent to improve the selection process and application technique and particularly to better understand the interactions between inoculated strains and native microbiomes under field conditions.
In this way, it has been suggested to investigate if the colonisation by inoculated microbial consortia may increase the beneficial effect of native microbiomes. In this regard, microbial consortia technology involves using more than one microbial species in a single inoculant product. The microbes may have the same or different modes of action [42,43,44], and may be from different phyla, genera, or even groups, for example, a combination of bacterial and fungal strains. Microbial consortia may have an advantage over single strains to synergistically interact and confer benefits to each other [43,44,45]. Associations with native microbiomes, imitating strongly structured networks in natural rhizosphere soils, may have a better chance to survive and provide benefits to the host, compared with single-strain formulations [46,47]. This mode of delivery can introduce beneficial traits within one generation and has several advantages over conventional application techniques, including better protection against competition from native microflora that significantly increases the colonisation and survival potential of the inoculated strain. Researchers have reported inefficient strains that became efficient in a consortium. For example, Santhanam et al. [44] observed that the inclusion of two bacterial strains with insignificant effects on mortality of sudden wilt pathogens in tobacco, in a consortium with three other bacteria, improved plants’ resistance to the same pathogen, in comparison to the consortium of 3 used alone. However, the reverse is true for some PGPM species, as reported by other researchers [43,44].
However, practical considerations render complex the introduction consortia. Validation in silico of the consortia would be complex and need substantial resources. In a commercial setting, development of mass production, down streaming and storage procedures separately for each individual consortium member would need substantially more investments than the production of a single strain. Registration of consortia as plant protection products is also difficult. Regulations in the EU demand the risk assessment of each active ingredient before the product can be registered. In the case of assembled consortia, costs will thus increase substantially [31].
Finally, more research should be done to address issues of inconsistencies observed on crop producers’ fields, following the use of microbial inoculants. It is obvious that single strains and consortia are issues that need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, a recommendation would be that more research is done to provide consumers with options that can address their unique needs while being economically practicable [22].

3. The Potential of Preharvest Microbial Applications on the Final Quality of Vegetables and Fruits

Harvesting represents a crucial phase in managing the quality and safety of vegetables and fruits. The infections due to microbial pathogens can occur both in the field and during product storage, leading to undesired spoilage phenomena. In various cases, undesired microbes in preharvest may pursue to impact on fruit/vegetable quality during postharvest (e.g., Botrytis cinerea, Colletotrichum musae, Penicillium expansum, Alternata alternata) [48,49]. While it is generally recognised that the preharvest quality strongly influences postharvest outcomes, less attention has been devoted to the effects in postharvest of specific preharvest treatments. The application of physical approaches on the plants is limited, and consequently, little was reported about the postharvest consequences. One example of physical strategies is the preharvest bagging of fruit found to improve postharvest fruit quality [50]. On the opposite, the major part of the scientific literature deals with the study of chemical treatments. The main compounds tested with this kind of management were calcium nitrate, hexanal, ammonium molybdate, gibberellic acid, oxalic acid, chitosan, chitosan oligosaccharide, organic acids, plant oils, forchlorfenuron, methyl salicylate, acetylsalicylic acid, salicylic acid, methyl jasmonate, calcium chloride, and putrescine [51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64]. These investigations include a heterogeneous representation of target products, such as winter guava, mango, apple, mandarin, kiwifruit, strawberry, pepper fruit, red-fleshed pitaya, table grape, pineapple, cherry fruit, papaya, plum [51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64]. In these studies [51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64], the principal parameters assessed in postharvest were quality, resistance, shelf life, reduced spoilage/decay incidence, firmness, total soluble solid, acidity, ascorbic acid, pectin methyl-esterase activity, respiratory rate, and palatability. A panel of targets is important to design a complete evaluation of preharvest treatments to shape postharvest quality. In the possible applications of microbial-based tools, one further crucial variable is the timing of application, particularly considering that the preharvest encompasses a long period in the plant development (Figure 1) [65]. The application of microbes with different timing led to a significant modification in the count of biocontrol strains at harvest, influencing the possible impacts [66].
Strategies include physical strategies, chemicals, biocontrol and microbe-associated molecular patterns (MAMPs). Reproduce with modification from Pétriacq et al. [65].Even though a huge interest has been deserved to biocontrol both in pre- and postharvest [14], only a few studies delved into the potential protection in the storage of field microbial-based treatments (Table 2). However, the more recent trends seem to indicate rising attention to explore some of the variables that can affect the phenomenon. What appears clear considering the number of crop fruits tested, the variability of microbial agents (species), the different timing/modality of application, and the target monitored to evaluate the postharvest effect (Table 2), it crucial to improve harmonisation in the research activities to steer and promote the innovation in this field.
In other terms, Table 2 reports some works on a sort of crosstalk between biological control agents in preharvest, that have as a target soil/seed/plant protection, and postharvest biocontrol tools, that aims to protect fruits and vegetables during conservation [49]. In other terms, we are talking of a potential integrative goal of field applications, where the ‘pre-’ agent has an effect on the ‘post-’ target [49]. From this point of view, for those pathogens that are the same ‘from farm to fork’, often quiescent and latent in the field, the management could start in preharvest, taking advantage of the knowledge about the timing of colonisation and the epidemiology of each pathogen [5]. A knowledge essential to design a well-conceived strategy to allow pre-emptive colonisation with a biocontrol agent against target disease [5]. This can be of particular interest when a given plant organ represents a potential target of infection, remembering that the biocontrol agent has to colonise it before the arrival of undesired microbes [76]. On the opposite, for pathogens peculiar to postharvest, a near-harvest application with selected biotools could be tailored to maintain high the antagonistic potential on harvested fruits/vegetables [76]. As a function of this consideration, it changes the interest in the ability of the biocontrol agent to attach, colonise, and survive on the phyllosphere (particular on the carposphere), also after exposure to harsh environmental stressors (e.g., cold, low water potential, low nutrients, UV radiation) and adverse climatic conditions (e.g., wind, rain) [76,77,78]. From this perspective, it can be remarkable to underline that eukaryotes (i.e., filamentous fungi and/or yeasts) appear more appropriate than prokaryotic for early applications in preharvest, in reason of an improved aptitude to colonise phyllosphere in field and tolerant of harsh environmental conditions, even if in appropriate condition (e.g., high humidity) also bacteria (e.g., Pseudomonas spp.; Bacillus subtilis) may control necrotrophic pathogens in the field [76]. Particular attention has recently been paid to the ecological relationship between microbes and plants (e.g., endophytes), as one of the facets of interest to elicit positive responses of interest in agriculture [79,80]. These aspects are all part of a holistic perspective allowed by the rising application of high-throughput sequencing-based techniques that contribute to describing fruits and vegetables as holobionts [81], with a microbiota at harvesting that embraces beneficial, pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms [81], and that is the ultimate target of microbial-based solutions in the field.
Indeed, the impact of microbial-based preharvest applications needs to be also evaluated on targets other than microbial decay. For example, Crupi et al. [82] evaluated the addition in preharvest of inactivated yeast on the anthocyanin content, finding that three anthocyanins’ content was probably modulated by the treatment. With regard to emerging issues, one aspect is deserved of great attention. On the one side, as said, the persistence of biological control agents after harvesting can appear as a desired phenomenon, enhancing the postharvest performance of the preharvest biological treatment. On the other side, the endurance of the ‘biocontrol tool’ on the product improves the probability of human ingestion, consequently, doubt about the safety of the strain/species used for this ‘extended’ biocontrol. With this regard, while Gotor-Vila et al. [70] monitored the survival of the biocontrol strain in postharvest to assure its efficacy, Zhao et al. [83] highlighted, in lab-scale trials, the persistence of high numbers of B. thuringiensis spores in leafy greens in both pre- and postharvest stages, suggesting a possible excessive residual dose of B. thuringiensis upon consumption.
All these considerations underline the importance to find tailored solutions for each scenario, considering the nature of the crop/production and of the target pathogens, the mode of action and the persistence of the agent in postharvest (including an evaluation of safe consumption for humans), and the climatic conditions.

4. Postharvest Application of Microorganisms as Biocontrol Agents

Although modern food-conservation techniques have prolonged the products’ shelf-life, in the postharvest phase of food production, there are still significant product losses caused by spoilage microorganisms, amounting to about 20–25% of the production [14,84].
In this regard, numerous microbial antagonists (fungi, yeasts and bacteria) that can be used on fruits and vegetables in pre- and postharvest have been identified in the laboratory, semi-commercial and commercial studies over years. Many of these antagonists have reached advanced levels of development and marketing, and there are currently several on the market, although their application is mostly targeted to deteriorating microorganisms (mainly fungal pathogens) that cause damage to fruit production when ripening in the field (preharvest). Indeed, the situation in postcollection is more complicated: despite hundreds of reports documenting potential commercially valid antagonists, the widespread use of a single product has not been achieved. Several products reached the market, but were later withdrawn, while others achieved success in niche markets [85]. This has been due to several factors, including inconsistent performance, lack of industry acceptance, cost relative to synthetic fungicides, registration hurdles, and formulation problems [86]. The postcollection process has to be seen as a complex system, which includes conditioning treatments, storage, shipping and all other aspects of the supply chain, managed to address a wide range of problems. There is a large space both for an optimisation of the bioprotection contribution to the process (through the implemented usage of microorganisms already present on the market) and for the selection of new strains [87].
The use of various microbes (yeast, yeast-like fungi, and bacteria) isolated from plant, fruit, and soil, as antagonists (biocontrol agents) to manage postharvest diseases came from the mid-1980s. Numerous papers on this subject have been and continue to be published (recently reviewed in [85]). New antagonists, new ways to use the antagonists, and new ways to integrate their use with other alternative approaches are continually being published. Indeed, a peculiarity of postharvest situation is that a multitude of different physicochemical (and eventually microbiological) techniques are simultaneously applied to preserve or increase shelf-life, spanning from temperature control to washing systems or atmosphere modifications. In this frame, a recent concept has evolved within the search for alternative methods to postharvest disease control: The idea of a multiple decrement approach [86]. In this synergistic strategy, the prevention of disease is brought about by using several methods that each reduces the percentage of decay by a specific amount (e.g., sanitation and or careful harvesting and handling; exposure to a wet/dry heat treatment; application of a microbial antagonist; use of modified or controlled atmosphere storage and/or packaging or dipping). The various approaches act together additively or synergistically to bring about commercial levels (97–99%) of disease control [86]. The use of microbial antagonists within such a strategy can represent a powerful weapon for decrementing spoiling microorganisms and increasing shelf-life within an overall sustainable method [18]. In the future, this may also lead to a wider application of the abovementioned multiple hurdle approach: From pre- to postharvest phases, in an integrated perspective. Indeed, this strategy can be applied throughout the whole lifespan of fruits and vegetables, if the different actors handling them (both before and after harvest) will better realise to what extent they can take advantage thereof. Indeed, no single intervention can completely eliminate detrimental microbes and consequent decays from a food product [86].
Another advancement, coming from recent findings in this field, is the awareness that complex interactions occur between food-plants and their microbiomes throughout all their production process: As said, in fact, recently, high-throughput sequencing-based techniques revealed fruits and vegetables as holobionts [81]. More information on the composition and function of the host’s associated microbiota at harvest will provide the basis for understanding the impact of the host-microbiome interaction on fruit metabolism and disease resistance [88]. Field and postharvest handling of fruits and vegetables was shown to affect the indigenous microbiome, and therefore, substantially impact the storability of fruits and vegetables. The generated knowledge provides profound insights into postharvest microbiome dynamics and sets a new basis for targeted, microbiome-driven, and multi-actor sustainable control (including biocontrol) strategies [81].
Indeed, it is still an open question if a single microorganism-based biofungicide can provide adequate biocontrol of numerous different pathogens on a wide range of harvested commodities, compared to using several microorganisms whose combined function may provide a superior effect. Microbial consortia that inhabit the exterior and interior of organisms have a profound effect on the physiology and health of that organism. Understanding and utilising this interaction in fruit crops and other harvested foodstuffs need to be explored. The use of a synthetic or a natural consortium that could be applied to a harvested commodity for better disease control would represent a novel approach, which will take advantage of new research approaches that were not previously available or utilised [89,90].
On the other hand, microbiome tracking can be implemented as a new tool also to evaluate and assess the existing postharvest bioprocesses and their contribution to fruit and vegetable health. For instance, a very recent study was undertaken to characterise the effect of near-harvest field application of a yeast biocontrol agent (Metschnikowia fructicola), on the strawberry fruit microbiome [91]. High-throughput sequencing revealed significant shifts in the bacterial and fungal community in response to the application of the yeast biocontrol agent at the time of application, after harvest, and after storage and shelf life. This kind of results will provide new insights into the dynamics of the postharvest fruit microbiome that will assist in the development of targeted, microbiome-driven approaches to robust and sustainable disease control strategies, even strengthening the existing products by broadening or fine-tuning their application ranges [81,91].
Both from a legal and ‘de facto’ point of views, boundaries between pre- and postharvest applications are sometimes fuzzy. Indeed, some products are nowadays proposed for both the applications (see Table 3), also thanks to EFSA recommendations that consider the presence of active cells of preharvest-applied biopesticides remaining after harvest [92]. Moreover, in some sectors, regulations and standards for food processing also apply; therefore, fresh fruit must be handled in compliance with these requirements from harvest. For instance, wine grapes need to be processed only with microorganisms that are also approved for winemaking from harvest onward (transport, prefermenting stages or drying processes). Therefore, non-Saccharomyces yeasts that are approved by OIV regulations (Resolution OIV-OENO 576B-2017), are more and more used as bioprotectors [93]. As a consequence, research programs that select and develop dedicated strains with pronounced biocontrol properties are recently coming into view (a non-exhaustive, continuously updating, list of the resulting microorganisms can be found at the end of Table 3).
These aspects would deserve a further in-depth analysis in the near future. Nonetheless, looking at the regulatory aspects at a glance, it is remarkable that 21 out of 39 substances approved in the latest update statement of “Pesticide active substances that do not require a review of the existing maximum residue levels under Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005” [94] are microbial-based products, this testifying the food sector orientation towards biopesticides.
Table
Table 3. Biocontrol-based products developed and marketed for postharvest applications.
Table 3. Biocontrol-based products developed and marketed for postharvest applications.
ProductActive IngredientCountry/CompanyFruit/VegetableTargetCurrently MarketedRef.
Biofungicides Recommended for Postharvest Applications
Aspire®Candida oleophilaEcogen USAPome Fruit, Citrus, Strawberry, Stone FruitBotrytis, Penicillium, MoniliniaNo[86,95]
YieldPlus®Cryptococcus albidusLallemand South AfricaPome Fruit, CitrusBotrytis, Penicillium, MucorNo[86,95]
Candifruit™Candida sakeIRTA/Sipcam-Inagra SpainPome FruitPenicillium, Botrytis, RhizopusNo[86]
Biosave®Pseudomonas syringaeJet Harvest Solutions USAPome Fruit, Citrus, Strawberry, Cherry, PotatoPenicillium, Botrytis, MucorYes[86]
AvogreenBacillus subtilisSouth AfricaAvocadoCercospora, ColletotrichumNo[86]
Nexy®Candida oleophilaLesaffre BelgiumPome FruitBotrytis, PenicilliumYes[86,95]
BoniProtect®
BlossomProtect®
Botector®		Aureobasisium pullulans (2 strains)Bio-ferm, AustriaPome Fruit
Grape		Penicillium, Botrytis, MoniliniaYes[86,95,96]
Pantovital®Pantoea agglomeransIRTA/Sipcam-Inagra SpainCitrus, Pome FruitPenicillium, Botrytis, MoniliniaNo[86]
NoliMetschnikowia fructicolaKoppert The NetherlandsTable Grape, Pome Fruit, Strawberry, Stone Fruit, Sweet PotatoBotrytis, Penicillium, Rhizopus, AspergillusYes[86,95,97]
Biofungicides Developed for Preharvest Applications, Also Recommended in Postharvest
Serenade® OptiBacillus subtilisBayerGrape, Berry Fruits, PotatoBotrytis, Silver scarfYes[98]
Amylo-x®Bacillus amyloliquefaciensBiogard, Italy
CBC-Europe, Germany		Grape, Apple, Pear, KiwifruitBotrytis, Pseudomonas syringaeYes[99]
Bioprotection Agents Developed for Food Processing, Also Recommended for Postharvest
Gaia™Metschnikowia fructicolaIOC, FranceHarvested grape, withering grape, grape mustsBotrytis, non-Saccharomyces spoiling yeastsYes[100]
Nymphea™Torulaspora delbrueckiiICV/Lallemand, FranceHarvested grape, grape mustsBotrytis, non-Saccharomyces spoiling yeastsYes[101]

5. Conclusions

Numerous microbial antagonists (fungi, yeasts and bacteria) can be used on fruits in pre- and postharvest, as demonstrated in laboratory, pilot and industrial-scale studies. Many of these biotools have reached advanced levels of development, although their application is mainly targeted towards deteriorating microorganisms (primarily fungal pathogens) during field ripening seasons (preharvest). The situation after harvest is quite dissimilar, due to the postharvest process itself, which also includes technological aspects of the supply chain that constitute a complex system in which microbial biocontrol can play a role. In this review, we summarised the current development of microbial-antagonism based strategies, considering both pre- and postharvest application, also highlighting the prospects of optimisation for both. In particular, the pros and cons of the development and application of microbial consortia were considered, together with the advancements in knowledge about complex interactions between food-plants and their microbiomes throughout all their production processes. Finally, the need for further research is illustrated for providing consumers with more options that can address their unique needs while being economically practicable.

Author Contributions

Investigation, V.M.S., S.Z., F.F., V.C. and T.N.; conceptualization, V.M.S., S.Z., F.F., V.C. and T.N.; literature search, V.M.S., S.Z., F.F., V.C. and T.N.; writing—original draft preparation, V.M.S., S.Z., F.F., V.C. and T.N.; writing—review and editing, V.M.S., S.Z., F.F., V.C. and T.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was partially funded by the Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca, Project Prin 2017 “MultI Functional polymer cOmposites based on groWn matERials (MI-FLOWER)”, Italian Grant number 2017B7MMJ5_001 (Severino Zara, University of Sassari; Vittorio Capozzi, ISPA-CNR).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The Authors gratefully thank (i) all the partners of the BIOPROTECT research project (Fondazione Cariverona) for contributing to develop the themes of this review and (ii) A.B.A. Mediterranea s.c.a.r.l. (Via Parini, 1, 74013 Ginosa, Italy) that contribute to promote the subject of this review in the framework of research activities funded through Piani Operativi 2020 REG UE N 1308/13, REG UE N 2017/891, REG UE N 2017/892. V.C. would like to thank Domenico Genchi and Franco De Marzo of the Institute of Sciences of Food Production—CNR for their skilled technical support provided during the realisation of this work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lapuente, M.; Estruch, R.; Shahbaz, M.; Casas, R. Relation of Fruits and Vegetables with Major Cardiometabolic Risk Factors, Markers of Oxidation, and Inflammation. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Głąbska, D.; Guzek, D.; Groele, B.; Gutkowska, K. Fruit and Vegetable Intake and Mental Health in Adults: A Systematic Review. Nutrients 2020, 12, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. De Simone, N.; Capozzi, V.; Amodio, M.L.; Colelli, G.; Spano, G.; Russo, P. Microbial-Based Biocontrol Solutions for Fruits and Vegetables: Recent Insight, Patents, and Innovative Trends. Recent Pat. Food Nutr. Agric. 2021, 12, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Perrone, G.; Ferrara, M.; Medina, A.; Pascale, M.; Magan, N. Toxigenic Fungi and Mycotoxins in a Climate Change Scenario: Ecology, Genomics, Distribution, Prediction and Prevention of the Risk. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ippolito, A.; Nigro, F. Impact of Preharvest Application of Biological Control Agents on Postharvest Diseases of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables. Crop. Prot. 2000, 19, 715–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. De Simone, N.; Pace, B.; Grieco, F.; Chimienti, M.; Tyibilika, V.; Santoro, V.; Capozzi, V.; Colelli, G.; Spano, G.; Russo, P. Botrytis Cinerea and Table Grapes: A Review of the Main Physical, Chemical, and Bio-Based Control Treatments in Post-Harvest. Foods 2020, 9, 1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Khadka, R.B.; Marasini, M.; Rawal, R.; Gautam, D.M.; Acedo, A.L. Effects of Variety and Postharvest Handling Practices on Microbial Population at Different Stages of the Value Chain of Fresh Tomato (Solanum Lycopersicum) in Western Terai of Nepal. BioMed Res. Int. 2017, 2017, e7148076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Dean, R.; Van Kan, J.A.L.; Pretorius, Z.A.; Hammond-Kosack, K.E.; Pietro, A.D.; Spanu, P.D.; Rudd, J.J.; Dickman, M.; Kahmann, R.; Ellis, J.; et al. The Top 10 Fungal Pathogens in Molecular Plant Pathology. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2012, 13, 414–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Abdallah, M.; Gïrgïn, G.; Baydar, T. Occurrence, Prevention and Limitation of Mycotoxins in Feeds. Anim. Nutr. Feed. Technol. 2015, 15, 471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Abdallah, M.F.; Ameye, M.; Saeger, S.D.; Audenaert, K.; Haesaert, G. Biological Control of Mycotoxigenic Fungi and Their Toxins: An Update for the Pre-Harvest Approach; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Russo, P.; Botticella, G.; Capozzi, V.; Massa, S.; Spano, G.; Beneduce, L. A Fast, Reliable, and Sensitive Method for Detection and Quantification of Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli O157:H7 in Ready-to-Eat Fresh-Cut Products by MPN-QPCR. BioMed Res. Int. 2014, 2014, e608296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Russo, P.; Hadjilouka, A.; Beneduce, L.; Capozzi, V.; Paramithiotis, S.; Drosinos, E.H.; Spano, G. Effect of Different Conditions on Listeria monocytogenes Biofilm Formation and Removal. Czec. J. Food Sci. 2018, 36, 208–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Capozzi, V.; Fiocco, D.; Amodio, M.L.; Gallone, A.; Spano, G. Bacterial Stressors in Minimally Processed Food. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2009, 10, 3076–3105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. OIV—FAO. FAO-OIV Focus 2016 Table and Dried Grapes; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2016; ISBN 978-92-5-109708-3. [Google Scholar]
  15. Zhou, B.; Li, X. The Monitoring of Chemical Pesticides Pollution on Ecological Environment by GIS. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021, 101506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kim, K.-H.; Kabir, E.; Jahan, S.A. Exposure to Pesticides and the Associated Human Health Effects. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 575, 525–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Brühl, C.A.; Zaller, J.G. Biodiversity Decline as a Consequence of an Inappropriate Environmental Risk Assessment of Pesticides. Front. Environ. Sci. 2019, 7, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Spadaro, D.; Gullino, M.L. Sustainable Management of Plant Diseases. In Innovations in Sustainable Agriculture; Farooq, M., Pisante, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 337–359. ISBN 978-3-030-23169-9. [Google Scholar]
  19. Inculet, C.-S.; Mihalache, G.; Sellitto, V.M.; Hlihor, R.-M.; Stoleru, V. The Effects of a Microorganisms-Based Commercial Product on the Morphological, Biochemical and Yield of Tomato Plants under Two Different Water Regimes. Microorganisms 2019, 7, 706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Puglisi, I.; Brida, S.; Stoleru, V.; Torino, V.; Sellitto, V.M.; Baglieri, A. Application of Novel Microorganism-Based Formulations as Alternative to the Use of Iron Chelates in Strawberry Cultivation. Agriculture 2021, 11, 217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Capozzi, V.; Fragasso, M.; Bimbo, F. Microbial Resources, Fermentation and Reduction of Negative Externalities in Food Systems: Patterns toward Sustainability and Resilience. Fermentation 2021, 7, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Naamala, J.; Smith, D.L. Relevance of Plant Growth Promoting Microorganisms and Their Derived Compounds, in the Face of Climate Change. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Umesha, S.; Singh, P.K.; Singh, R.P. Chapter 6—Microbial Biotechnology and Sustainable Agriculture. In Biotechnology for Sustainable Agriculture; Singh, R.L., Mondal, S., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2018; pp. 185–205. ISBN 978-0-12-812160-3. [Google Scholar]
  24. Altieri, M.A. Linking Ecologists and Traditional Farmers in the Search for Sustainable Agriculture. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2004, 2, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hartmann, A.; Rothballer, M.; Hense, B.A.; Schröder, P. Bacterial Quorum Sensing Compounds Are Important Modulators of Microbe-Plant Interactions. Front. Plant. Sci. 2014, 5, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Compant, S.; Samad, A.; Faist, H.; Sessitsch, A. A Review on the Plant Microbiome: Ecology, Functions, and Emerging Trends in Microbial Application. J. Adv. Res. 2019, 19, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Berg, M.; Koskella, B. Nutrient- and Dose-Dependent Microbiome-Mediated Protection against a Plant Pathogen. Curr. Biol. CB 2018, 28, 2487–2492.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Bashan, Y.; de-Bashan, L.E.; Prabhu, S.R.; Hernandez, J.-P. Advances in Plant Growth-Promoting Bacterial Inoculant Technology: Formulations and Practical Perspectives (1998–2013). Plant Soil 2014, 378, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Berendsen, R.L.; Vismans, G.; Yu, K.; Song, Y.; de Jonge, R.; Burgman, W.P.; Burmølle, M.; Herschend, J.; Bakker, P.A.H.M.; Pieterse, C.M.J. Disease-Induced Assemblage of a Plant-Beneficial Bacterial Consortium. ISME J. 2018, 12, 1496–1507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Pérez-Jaramillo, J.E.; Mendes, R.; Raaijmakers, J.M. Impact of Plant Domestication on Rhizosphere Microbiome Assembly and Functions. Plant Mol. Biol. 2016, 90, 635–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Köhl, J.; Kolnaar, R.; Ravensberg, W.J. Mode of Action of Microbial Biological Control Agents Against Plant Diseases: Relevance Beyond Efficacy. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Conrath, U.; Beckers, G.J.M.; Langenbach, C.J.G.; Jaskiewicz, M.R. Priming for Enhanced Defense. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2015, 53, 97–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pieterse, C.M.J.; Zamioudis, C.; Berendsen, R.L.; Weller, D.M.; Van Wees, S.C.M.; Bakker, P.A.H.M. Induced Systemic Resistance by Beneficial Microbes. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2014, 52, 347–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Spadaro, D.; Droby, S. Development of Biocontrol Products for Postharvest Diseases of Fruit: The Importance of Elucidating the Mechanisms of Action of Yeast Antagonists. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 47, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ghorbanpour, M.; Omidvari, M.; Abbaszadeh-Dahaji, P.; Omidvar, R.; Kariman, K. Mechanisms Underlying the Protective Effects of Beneficial Fungi against Plant Diseases. Biol. Control. 2018, 117, 147–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Raaijmakers, J.M.; Mazzola, M. Diversity and Natural Functions of Antibiotics Produced by Beneficial and Plant Pathogenic Bacteria. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2012, 50, 403–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Köhl, J.; Postma, J.; Nicot, P.; Ruocco, M.; Blum, B. Stepwise Screening of Microorganisms for Commercial Use in Biological Control of Plant-Pathogenic Fungi and Bacteria. Biol. Control. 2011, 57, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Trivedi, P.; Schenk, P.M.; Wallenstein, M.D.; Singh, B.K. Tiny Microbes, Big Yields: Enhancing Food Crop Production with Biological Solutions. Microb. Biotechnol. 2017, 10, 999–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Bejarano, A.; Puopolo, G. Bioformulation of Microbial Biocontrol Agents for a Sustainable Agriculture. In How Research Can Stimulate the Development of Commercial Biological Control Against Plant Diseases; De Cal, A., Melgarejo, P., Magan, N., Eds.; Progress in Biological Control; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 275–293. ISBN 978-3-030-53238-3. [Google Scholar]
  40. Binns, J. EU Pesticides Database. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/eu-pesticides-db_en (accessed on 13 March 2021).
  41. Arena, M.; Auteri, D.; Barmaz, S.; Bellisai, G.; Brancato, A.; Brocca, D.; Bura, L.; Byers, H.; Chiusolo, A.; Marques, D.C.; et al. Peer Review of the Pesticide Risk Assessment of the Active Substance Clonostachys rosea Strain J1446 (Approved in Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as Gliocladium catenulatum Strain J1446). EFSA J. 2017, 15, e04905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Backer, R.; Rokem, J.S.; Ilangumaran, G.; Lamont, J.; Praslickova, D.; Ricci, E.; Subramanian, S.; Smith, D.L. Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria: Context, Mechanisms of Action, and Roadmap to Commercialization of Biostimulants for Sustainable Agriculture. Front. Plant. Sci. 2018, 9, 1473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Li, X.-L.; George, E.; Marschner, H. Extension of the Phosphorus Depletion Zone in VA-Mycorrhizal White Clover in a Calcareous Soil. Plant Soil 1991, 136, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Santhanam, R.; Luu, V.T.; Weinhold, A.; Goldberg, J.; Oh, Y.; Baldwin, I.T. Native Root-Associated Bacteria Rescue a Plant from a Sudden-Wilt Disease That Emerged during Continuous Cropping. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, E5013–E5020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Wu, Y.; Lin, H.; Lin, Y.; Shi, J.; Xue, S.; Hung, Y.-C.; Chen, Y.; Wang, H. Effects of Biocontrol Bacteria Bacillus amyloliquefaciens LY-1 Culture Broth on Quality Attributes and Storability of Harvested Litchi Fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2017, 132, 81–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Singh, B.K.; Trivedi, P. Microbiome and the Future for Food and Nutrient Security. Microb. Biotechnol. 2017, 10, 50–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Wallenstein, M.D. Managing and Manipulating the Rhizosphere Microbiome for Plant Health: A Systems Approach. Rhizosphere 2017, 3, 230–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Shafi, J.; Tian, H.; Ji, M. Bacillus Species as Versatile Weapons for Plant Pathogens: A Review. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2017, 31, 446–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Morales-Cedeño, L.R.; Orozco-Mosqueda, M.d.C.; Loeza-Lara, P.D.; Parra-Cota, F.I.; de los Santos-Villalobos, S.; Santoyo, G. Plant Growth-Promoting Bacterial Endophytes as Biocontrol Agents of Pre- and Post-Harvest Diseases: Fundamentals, Methods of Application and Future Perspectives. Microbiol. Res. 2021, 242, 126612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sharma, R.; Garg, P.; Kumar, P.; Bhatia, S.K.; Kulshrestha, S. Microbial Fermentation and Its Role in Quality Improvement of Fermented Foods. Fermentation 2020, 6, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Goutam, M.; Dhaliwal, H.S.; Mahajan, B.V.C. Effect of Pre-Harvest Calcium Sprays on Post-Harvest Life of Winter Guava (Psidium guajava L.). J. Food Sci. Technol. 2010, 47, 501–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Kaur, K.; Kaur, G.; Brar, J.S. Pre-Harvest Application of Hexanal Formulations for Improving Post-Harvest Life and Quality of Mango (Mangifera indica L.) Cv. Dashehari. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 57, 4257–4264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Nunes, C.; Usall, J.; Teixidó, N.; de Eribe, X.O.; Viñas, I. Control of Post-Harvest Decay of Apples by Pre-Harvest and Post-Harvest Application of Ammonium Molybdate. Pest Manag. Sci. 2001, 57, 1093–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Rokaya, P.R.; Baral, D.R.; Gautam, D.M.; Shrestha, A.K.; Paudyal, K.P. Effect of Pre-Harvest Application of Gibberellic Acid on Fruit Quality and Shelf Life of Mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco). Am. J. Plant. Sci. 2016, 7, 1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Zhu, Y.; Yu, J.; Brecht, J.K.; Jiang, T.; Zheng, X. Pre-Harvest Application of Oxalic Acid Increases Quality and Resistance to Penicillium expansum in Kiwifruit during Postharvest Storage. Food Chem. 2016, 190, 537–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Anusuya, P.; Nagaraj, R.; Janavi, G.J.; Subramanian, K.S.; Paliyath, G.; Subramanian, J. Pre-Harvest Sprays of Hexanal Formulation for Extending Retention and Shelf-Life of Mango (Mangifera indica L.) Fruits. Sci. Hortic. 2016, 211, 231–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. DeBrouwer, E.J.; Sriskantharajah, K.; El Kayal, W.; Sullivan, J.A.; Paliyath, G.; Subramanian, J. Pre-Harvest Hexanal Spray Reduces Bitter Pit and Enhances Post-Harvest Quality in ‘Honeycrisp’ Apples (Malus domestica Borkh.). Sci. Hortic. 2020, 273, 109610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Mekawi, E.M.; Khafagi, E.Y.; Abdel-Rahman, F.A. Effect of Pre-Harvest Application with Some Organic Acids and Plant Oils on Antioxidant Properties and Resistance to Botrytis cinerea in Pepper Fruits. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 257, 108736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Jiang, Y.-L.; Chen, L.-Y.; Lee, T.-C.; Chang, P.-T. Improving Postharvest Storage of Fresh Red-Fleshed Pitaya (Hylocereus polyrhizus Sp.) Fruit by Pre-Harvest Application of CPPU. Sci. Hortic. 2020, 273, 109646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ehtesham Nia, A.; Taghipour, S.; Siahmansour, S. Pre-Harvest Application of Chitosan and Postharvest Aloe Vera Gel Coating Enhances Quality of Table Grape (Vitis vinifera L. Cv. ‘Yaghouti’) during Postharvest Period. Food Chem. 2021, 347, 129012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Yao, H.; Tian, S. Effects of Pre- and Post-Harvest Application of Salicylic Acid or Methyl Jasmonate on Inducing Disease Resistance of Sweet Cherry Fruit in Storage. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2005, 35, 253–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. García-Pastor, M.E.; Giménez, M.J.; Zapata, P.J.; Guillén, F.; Valverde, J.M.; Serrano, M.; Valero, D. Preharvest Application of Methyl Salicylate, Acetyl Salicylic Acid and Salicylic Acid Alleviated Disease Caused by Botrytis cinerea through Stimulation of Antioxidant System in Table Grapes. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2020, 334, 108807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Madani, B.; Muda Mohamed, M.T.; Biggs, A.R.; Kadir, J.; Awang, Y.; Tayebimeigooni, A.; Shojaei, T.R. Effect of Pre-Harvest Calcium Chloride Applications on Fruit Calcium Level and Post-Harvest Anthracnose Disease of Papaya. Crop. Prot. 2014, 55, 55–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Khan, A.S.; Singh, Z.; Abbasi, N.A.; Swinny, E.E. Pre- or Post-Harvest Applications of Putrescine and Low Temperature Storage Affect Fruit Ripening and Quality of ‘Angelino’ Plum. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2008, 88, 1686–1695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Pétriacq, P.; López, A.; Luna, E. Fruit Decay to Diseases: Can Induced Resistance and Priming Help? Plants 2018, 7, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Pertot, I.; Giovannini, O.; Benanchi, M.; Caffi, T.; Rossi, V.; Mugnai, L. Combining Biocontrol Agents with Different Mechanisms of Action in a Strategy to Control Botrytis cinerea on Grapevine. Crop. Prot. 2017, 97, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lima, G.; Ippolito, A.; Nigro, F.; Salerno, M. Effectiveness of Aureobasidium pullulans and Candida oleophila against Postharvest Strawberry Rots. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 1997, 10, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Karabulut, O.A.; Tezcan, H.; Daus, A.; Cohen, L.; Wiess, B.; Droby, S. Control of Preharvest and Postharvest Fruit Rot in Strawberry by Metschnikowia fructicola. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2004, 14, 513–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Vivekananthan, R. Pre-Harvest Application of a New Biocontrol Formulation Induces Resistance to Post-Harvest Anthracnose and Enhances Fruit Yield in Mango; Firenze University Press: Firenze, Italy, 2006; pp. 1000–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Gotor-Vila, A.; Teixidó, N.; Casals, C.; Torres, R.; De Cal, A.; Guijarro, B.; Usall, J. Biological Control of Brown Rot in Stone Fruit Using Bacillus amyloliquefaciens CPA-8 under Field Conditions. Crop. Prot. 2017, 102, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Poleatewich, A.M.; Ngugi, H.K.; Backman, P.A. Assessment of Application Timing of Bacillus spp. to Suppress Pre- and Postharvest Diseases of Apple. Plant Dis. 2012, 96, 211–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Kara, Z.; Sabır, F.K.; Sabir, A.; Yazar, K.; Günal, E. Effects of pre-harvest biopesticide and azotobacter applications on post harvest quality retention of table grape cv. “Antep Karası”. Selcuk J. Agric. Food Sci. 2018, 32, 133–141. [Google Scholar]
  73. Gava, C.A.T.; Alves, Í.L.S.; Duarte, N.C. Timing the Application of Bacillus subtilis QST 713 in the Integrated Management of the Postharvest Decay of Mango Fruits. Crop. Prot. 2019, 121, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Bhatt, K.; Jampala, S.S.M. Influence of Pre-Harvest Foliar Spray of Fungal Culture Filtrates on Post-Harvest Biology of Date Fruit Harvested at Khalal Stage. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2020, 166, 111220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Casals, C.; Guijarro, B.; Cal, A.D.; Torres, R.; Usall, J.; Perdrix, V.; Hilscher, U.; Ladurner, E.; Smets, T.; Teixidó, N. Field Validation of Biocontrol Strategies to Control Brown Rot on Stone Fruit in Several European Countries. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2021, 77, 2502–2511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Sellitto, V.M. I Microrganismi Utili in Agricoltura; Edagricole-New Business Media: Milano, Italy, 2020; ISBN 978-88-506-5588-5. [Google Scholar]
  77. Torsvik, V.; Øvreås, L. Microbial Diversity, Life Strategies, and Adaptation to Life in Extreme Soils. In Microbiology of Extreme Soils; Dion, P., Nautiyal, C.S., Eds.; Soil Biology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; ISBN 978-3-540-74231-9. [Google Scholar]
  78. Święciło, A.; Zych-Wezyk, I. Bacterial Stress Response as an Adaptation to Life in a Soil Environment. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2013, 22, 1577–1587. [Google Scholar]
  79. Omomowo, O.I.; Babalola, O.O. Bacterial and Fungal Endophytes: Tiny Giants with Immense Beneficial Potential for Plant Growth and Sustainable Agricultural Productivity. Microorganisms 2019, 7, 481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Abdallah, M.F.; De Boevre, M.; Landschoot, S.; De Saeger, S.; Haesaert, G.; Audenaert, K. Fungal Endophytes Control Fusarium graminearum and Reduce Trichothecenes and Zearalenone in Maize. Toxins 2018, 10, 493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  81. Kusstatscher, P.; Cernava, T.; Abdelfattah, A.; Gokul, J.; Korsten, L.; Berg, G. Microbiome Approaches Provide the Key to Biologically Control Postharvest Pathogens and Storability of Fruits and Vegetables. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2020, 96, fiaa119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Crupi, P.; Palattella, D.; Corbo, F.; Clodoveo, M.L.; Masi, G.; Caputo, A.R.; Battista, F.; Tarricone, L. Effect of Pre-Harvest Inactivated Yeast Treatment on the Anthocyanin Content and Quality of Table Grapes. Food Chem. 2021, 337, 128006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Zhao, X.; da Silva, M.B.R.; Van der Linden, I.; Franco, B.D.G.M.; Uyttendaele, M. Behavior of the Biological Control Agent Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. Aizawai ABTS-1857 and Salmonella enterica on Spinach Plants and Cut Leaves. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Blakeney, M. Food Loss and Food Waste: Causes and Solutions; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2019; ISBN 978-1-78897-539-1. [Google Scholar]
  85. Droby, S.; Romanazzi, G.; Tonutti, P. Alternative Approaches to Synthetic Fungicides to Manage Postharvest Decay of Fruit and Vegetables: Needs and Purposes of a Special Issue. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2016, 122, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Wisniewski, M.; Droby, S.; Norelli, J.; Liu, J.; Schena, L. Alternative Management Technologies for Postharvest Disease Control: The Journey from Simplicity to Complexity. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2016, 122, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Droby, S.; Wisniewski, M.; Teixidó, N.; Spadaro, D.; Jijakli, M.H. The Science, Development, and Commercialization of Postharvest Biocontrol Products. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2016, 122, 22–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Berg, G.; Rybakova, D.; Fischer, D.; Cernava, T.; Vergès, M.-C.C.; Charles, T.; Chen, X.; Cocolin, L.; Eversole, K.; Corral, G.H.; et al. Microbiome Definition Re-Visited: Old Concepts and New Challenges. Microbiome 2020, 8, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Wisniewski, M.; Droby, S. The Postharvest Microbiome: The Other Half of Sustainability. Biol. Control. 2019, 137, 104025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Droby, S.; Wisniewski, M. The Fruit Microbiome: A New Frontier for Postharvest Biocontrol and Postharvest Biology. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2018, 140, 107–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Zhimo, V.Y.; Kumar, A.; Biasi, A.; Salim, S.; Feygenberg, O.; Toamy, M.A.; Abdelfattaah, A.; Medina, S.; Freilich, S.; Wisniewski, M.; et al. Compositional Shifts in the Strawberry Fruit Microbiome in Response to Near-Harvest Application of Metschnikowia fructicola, a Yeast Biocontrol Agent. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2021, 175, 111469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Arena, M.; Auteri, D.; Barmaz, S.; Bellisai, G.; Brancato, A.; Brocca, D.; Bura, L.; Byers, H.; Chiusolo, A.; Marques, D.C.; et al. Peer Review of the Pesticide Risk Assessment of the Active Substance Metschnikowia fructicola NRRL Y-27328. EFSA J. 2017, 15, e05084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  93. Nardi, T. Microbial Resources as a Tool for Enhancing Sustainability in Winemaking. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  94. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Pesticide Active Substances That Do Not Require a Review of the Existing Maximum Residue Levels under Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. EFSA J. 2016, 14, 4458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Freimoser, F.M.; Rueda-Mejia, M.P.; Tilocca, B.; Migheli, Q. Biocontrol Yeasts: Mechanisms and Applications. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2019, 35, 154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. BIO-FERM.COM|Botector—Biotechnological Botryticid. Available online: https://bio-ferm.com/en/products/botector (accessed on 13 March 2021).
  97. Noli. Available online: https://www.koppert.com/noli/ (accessed on 13 March 2021).
  98. Serenade Opti|Biologicals|Bayer Crop Science. Available online: https://www.crop.bayer.com.au/find-crop-solutions/by-product/bayer-biologics/serenade-opti (accessed on 19 March 2021).
  99. Amylo-X®|Biogard. Available online: https://www.biogard.it/prodotto/amylo-x/ (accessed on 19 March 2021).
  100. Yeasts | IOC. Available online: https://ioc.eu.com/en/products/yeasts/ (accessed on 19 March 2021).
  101. Levure Œnologique ICV Nymphea®|Groupe ICV. Available online: https://www.icv.fr/produits-oenologiques/levures-vinification/icv-nymphea (accessed on 19 March 2021).
Fermentation 07 00060 g001 550
Figure 1. Pros and cons of treatments applied at different stages of plant and fruit development.
Figure 1. Pros and cons of treatments applied at different stages of plant and fruit development.
Fermentation 07 00060 g001
Table
Table 1. List of biocontrol microorganisms approved as active substances in the European Union.
Table 1. List of biocontrol microorganisms approved as active substances in the European Union.
Biocontrol MicroorganismsCategory
Ampelomyces quisqualis strain AQ10 FU
Bacillus subtilis str. QST 713 BA, FU
Gliocladium catenulatum strain J1446 * FU
Paecilomyces fumosoroseus Apopka strain 97 FU
Phlebiopsis gigantea (several strains) FU
Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA342 FU
Streptomyces K61 (formerly S. griseoviridis) FU
Trichoderma asperellum (formerly T. harzianum) strains ICC012, T25 and TV1 FU
Trichoderma asperellum (strain T34) FU
Trichoderma atroviride (formerly T. harzianum) strains IMI 206040 and T11 FU
Trichoderma atroviride strain I-1237 FU
Trichodermagamsii (formerly T.viride) strain ICC080 FU
Trichoderma harzianum strains T-22 and ITEM 908 FU
Trichoderma polysporum strain IMI 206039 FU
Verticillium albo-atrum (formerly Verticillium dahliae) strain WCS850 FU
Aureobasidium pullulansFU, BA
Bacillus amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum D747 FU
Bacillus pumilus QST 2808 FU
Candida oleophila strain O FU
Streptomyces lydicus WYEC 108 FU, BA
FU, fungicides; BA, bacteriocides. Information source: EU Pesticides Database [40]. * Currently named Clonostachys rosea strain J1446 [41].
Table
Table 2. Examples of microorganisms (for biological control) applications in preharvest tested to achieve positive effects (also) in postharvest.
Table 2. Examples of microorganisms (for biological control) applications in preharvest tested to achieve positive effects (also) in postharvest.
FruitYear/CountryTreatmentsEffectsRef.
Strawberry1997, ItalyApplication at flowering and at fruit maturity of Aureobasidium pullulans L47 and Candida oleophila L66Antagonists were more active when applied at the flowering stage[67]
Strawberry2002, TurkeyPreharvest treatment with Metschnikowia fructicola also for the control of postharvest rotsThe yeast reduced postharvest incidence of fruit rot significantly better than chemical control[68]
Mango fruits2006, IndiaApplication of P. fluorescens FP7 plus chitinDurably effective against anthracnose in postharvest storage.[69]
Stone fruits2017, SpainTreatments based on Bacillus amyloliquefaciens CPA-8 to control brown rot under field conditionsUsed at the correct concentration, CPA-8 reduced postharvest brown rot similar to chemical applications[70]
Apple2012, USABacillus megaterium isolate A3-6, Bacillus mycoides isolate A1-1, and Bacillus cereus FLS-5Combined pre- and postharvest application resulted in the greatest suppression of bitter rot[71]
Table grape2018, TurkeyBacillus subtilis QST 713 and Azotobacter chroococum + Azotobacter vinelandii preparationsPostharvest quality retention of table grape cv. ‘Antep Karası’.[72]
Mango fruits2019, BrazilApplication of a commercial formulation of Bacillus subtilis QST 713Reduced mango fruit decay[73]
Date fruit2020, IndiaPreharvest foliar spray of fungal culture filtrates from Aspergillus niger and Rhizopus oryzaeImprove plant defence mechanism, with also enhanced quality and shelf life of fruit.[74]
Stone fruits2021, Belgium, France, Italy and SpainApplication of two biocontrol agents (BCAs), Bacillus amyloliquefaciens CPA-8 or Penicillium frequentans 909With the incidence of brown rot in postharvest < 35%, the efficacy level of the BCA was comparable with chemical application[75]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sellitto, V.M.; Zara, S.; Fracchetti, F.; Capozzi, V.; Nardi, T. Microbial Biocontrol as an Alternative to Synthetic Fungicides: Boundaries between Pre- and Postharvest Applications on Vegetables and Fruits. Fermentation 2021, 7, 60. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation7020060

AMA Style

Sellitto VM, Zara S, Fracchetti F, Capozzi V, Nardi T. Microbial Biocontrol as an Alternative to Synthetic Fungicides: Boundaries between Pre- and Postharvest Applications on Vegetables and Fruits. Fermentation. 2021; 7(2):60. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation7020060

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sellitto, Vincenzo Michele, Severino Zara, Fabio Fracchetti, Vittorio Capozzi, and Tiziana Nardi. 2021. "Microbial Biocontrol as an Alternative to Synthetic Fungicides: Boundaries between Pre- and Postharvest Applications on Vegetables and Fruits" Fermentation 7, no. 2: 60. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation7020060

APA Style

Sellitto, V. M., Zara, S., Fracchetti, F., Capozzi, V., & Nardi, T. (2021). Microbial Biocontrol as an Alternative to Synthetic Fungicides: Boundaries between Pre- and Postharvest Applications on Vegetables and Fruits. Fermentation, 7(2), 60. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation7020060

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