Introduction
Seeds are the most crucial input in crop production systems, with 90% of all food crops worldwide grown from seeds.
Pathogens infecting seeds cause seed-borne diseases causing contribute to around 10% of losses in India's primary crops and also affecting crop quantity and quality.
Biocontrol agents, such as Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Serratia and Trichoderma defend seeds and seedlings from infections by antagonistic effect or by out-competing pathogens or by inducing resistance in host plants. These agents can also enhance plant growth and productivity.
What is seed borne pathogen?
Any infectious agent associated with the seed, having the potential of causing a disease of a seedling or plant, is termed a seed-borne pathogen. e.g., fungi, bacteria, nematode, virus etc.
What are seed-borne diseases?
It means the association of pathogens in, on or with the seeds may consequently be able to transmit the pathogens through the seed which as a result, may lead to the development of a disease in the seedling or plant. e.g., loose smut of wheat, downy mildew, wilt etc.
Biocontrol Agents: an eco-friendly strategy to control seed borne diseases.pptx
1. BIOCONTROLAGENTS:
An Eco-Friendly Strategy to Control Seed-Borne Diseases
DEPARTMENT OF SEED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
FACULTY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
PREPARED & PRESENTED BY:
Mr. Sahil Sahu
Regd. No.- 2161920003
M.Sc. (Ag) 2nd Year Student
Master’s Seminar
on
3. Contents
• Introduction
• Seed borne pathogen and seed
borne diseases
• Seedborne diseases lead to
• Transmission
• Biocontrol agents or
bioagents
• Selection of Biocontrol Agents
• Why Bio-control agent?
• Mode of action
• Application Methods
• Future Directions for R&D
• BCAs in Sustainable
Agriculture
• Case studies
• Conclusion
4. Introduction
• Seeds are the most crucial input in crop production systems, with 90%
of all food crops worldwide grown from seeds.
• Pathogens infecting seeds cause seed-borne diseases causing
contribute to around 10% of losses in India's primary crops and also
affecting crop quantity and quality.
• Biocontrol agents, such as Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Serratia and
Trichoderma defend seeds and seedlings from infections by
antagonistic effect or by out-competing pathogens or by inducing
resistance in host plants. These agents can also enhance plant
growth and productivity.
(Bisen et al., 2020 & Borah et al., 2023)
5. • What is seed borne pathogen?
Any infectious agent associated with the
seed, having the potential of causing a disease
of a seedling or plant, is termed a seed-borne
pathogen. e.g., fungi, bacteria, nematode, virus
etc.
• What are seed-borne diseases?
It means the association of pathogens in,
on or with the seeds may consequently be able
to transmit the pathogens through the seed
which as a result, may lead to the development
of a disease in the seedling or plant. e.g., loose
smut of wheat, downy mildew, wilt etc.
(Chaudhuri, 2018)
Phytophthora parasitica
Buck eye rot
6. Seed-borne diseases lead to
1. Discolouration
Cercospora kikuchii produces light
to dark purple stain on seed coat of
soybean
Brown colored wheat kernels
infected with bunt of wheat
Tilletia spp.
(Chaudhuri, 2018)
8. 4. Mortality in nursery condition
5. Reduction in germination percentage
(Chaudhuri, 2018)
Seedling infection
(Aspergillus flavus)
Pre-emergence damping-
off of soybean
Poor plant stand in field
Karnal bunt
(Tilletia indica )
9. 6. Larger number of unhealthy plants
7. Changes in nutritional compounds and production of toxins
Ochratoxin A in Coffee seeds
by Aspergillus ochraceus
Aflatoxins in Soybean seeds
by Aspergillus flavus
(Chaudhuri, 2018)
Wilt Symptom
11. What are Biocontrol Agents or Bioagents?
• The microorganisms used in the biological control of plant pathogens
are known as bio-agents or biocontrol agents.
Fungal Antagonists Bacterial Antagonists
• Trichoderma harzianum
• Trichoderma virens
• Trichoderma koningii
• Trichoderma hamatum
• Trichoderma viridae
• Pseudomonas fluorescens
• Bacillus subtilis
• Bacillus firmus
• Bradyrhizobium
Trichoderma harzianum P. fluorescens
(Ankit, 2014)
12. Ideal characteristics of Biocontrol Agents
• It should be non-pathogenic to plants, humans and animals.
• It should have broad spectrum activity in control many diseases.
• It must be genetically stable.
• It should have a fast growth and sporulation.
• It should can be cultured under artificial media.
• Effective under different environmental conditions.
• It should easily establish in the soil with high persistence and survival capacity.
• It should have least susceptibility to the different agro chemicals.
• The BCAs should not reduce the efficacy of other control agents or practices.
(Ankit, 2014)
13. Why Bio-control agents?
• Decrease disease intensity.
• Reduce the use of chemical fungicides.
• Reduce undesirable effects from chemical
fungicide.
• Play a key role in integrated management of
diseases.
• Safe for the users and the farming community.
• Provide natural long-term immunity to crops
and soil.
(Ankit, 2014)
14. Mechanism of Action
1. Mycoparasitism
2. Competition
3. Antibiosis
4. Stimulation of plant defence response
5. Colonization of seed surface
(Koul, 2022)
16. 1. Mycoparasitism
The phenomenon of one fungus becoming
parasitic on another fungus is known as
mycoparasitism. Mycoparasitism involves
interactions such as hyphae coiling around the
pathogen, haustorial penetration, and lysis.
Trichoderma adheres to host hyphae by
coiling, hooks, and a body resembling an
appressorium; it then breaks down the host
cytoplasm by penetrating the host cell wall with
the help of hydrolytic enzymes.
(Koul et al., 2022)
17. 2. Competition
Competition for resources is one of the
most common mechanisms by which BCAs
suppress seed-borne pathogens. BCAs can
outcompete the pathogens for nutrients,
oxygen or space on the seed surface or in the
rhizosphere, thereby reducing their growth and
infection potential.
Example: some Pseudomonas and
Bacillus strains
(Koul et al., 2022)
18. 3. Antibiosis
The production of antimicrobial
compounds is another important mechanism
by which BCAs inhibit seed-borne pathogens.
BCAs can produce various substances that have
toxic or inhibitory effects on the pathogens,
such as antibiotics, hydrogen cyanide, volatile
organic compounds, or lytic enzymes.
Example: Trichoderma and Gliocladium
strains can produce chitinases and glucanases
that degrade the cell walls of fungal pathogens
(Koul et al., 2022)
19. Table: List of various antibiotics with their sources, targeted pathogen and
diseases
(Mann et al., 2014)
Antibiotic Source Target Pathogen Disease
2,4- diacetylphloroglucinol Pseudomonas fluorescens Pythium spp. Damping off
Agrocin 84 Agrobacterium radiobacter Agrobacterium tumefaciens Crown gall
Bacillomycin D Bacillus subtilis Aspergillus flavus
Aflatoxin
contamination
Bacillomycin, Fengycin Bacillus amyloliquefaciens Fusarium oxysporum Wilt
Xanthobaccin A Lysobacter sp. Aphanomyces cochlioides Damping off
Gliotoxin Trichoderma virens Rhizoctonia solani Root rots
Herbicolin Pantoea agglomerans Enwinia amylovora Fire blight
Iturin A B. subtilis
Botrytis cinerea,
Rhizoctonia solani
Damping off
Mycosubtilin B. subtilis Pythium aphanidermatum Damping off
Phenazines P. fluorescens
Gaeumannomyces graminis
var. tritici
Take-all
20. 4. Stimulation of plant defence response
Stimulation of plant defence responses is a mechanism by which
BCAs enhance the resistance of plants to seed-borne pathogens.
BCAs can Induce Systemic Resistance (ISR) in plants by activating
defence related genes and pathways.
Example: Pseudomonas and Bacillus strains can Induce
Systemic Resistance (ISR) in plants by producing salicylic acid or
ethylene.
(Koul et al., 2022)
21. 5. Colonization of seed surface
Colonization of seed surfaces is a mechanism by which BCAs
prevent the attachment and invasion of seed-borne pathogens. BCAs can
form biofilms or endophytic associations with the seeds or seedlings,
thereby creating a physical barrier for the pathogens.
Example: Burkholderia and Pantoea strains can colonize the seed
coat or embryo of rice seeds and protect them from bacterial blight by
Xanthomonas oryzae.
(Koul et al., 2022)
BCA
22. Application Methods
I. Seed Coating
(Bisen et. al, 2020)
II. Seed Treatment
III. Seedling dipping IV. Seed Bio-priming
23. I. Seed Coating
• Seed coating is a process of covering the seed surface with a protective
layer of biocontrol agents, along with other materials such as
polymers, fertilizers or growth regulators.
• The main purpose of seed coating is to improve the seed quality,
germination, emergence, and establishment of the crop. Seed coating
also helps to protect the seeds from soil-borne and seed-borne pathogens
by creating a physical barrier or by producing antimicrobial substances.
• Example: Trichoderma spp. @ 1% for Fusarium head blight in Maize,
Pseudomonas spp. @ 0.5% for Phytophthora blight in Tomato,
Bacillus spp. @ 2% for Pythium root rot in Soybean
(Bisen et al., 2020)
25. Advantages:
• It is easy to apply and handle.
• It does not affect the seed viability or vigour.
• It can enhance seed performance and yield.
• It can improve the shelf life and storage stability of the seeds.
Limitations:
• It may require special equipment and facilities.
• It may increase the cost of seed production.
• It may alter the seed size and weight.
• It may not provide adequate protection against systemic or airborne
pathogens.
(Bisen et al., 2020)
26. II. Seed Treatment
• Seed treatment can be done by applying
biocontrol agents directly to the seeds
without any additional materials.
• The main purpose is to eradicate or reduce
the pathogen load on the seeds and to prevent
the transmission of diseases during storage or
sowing.
• Example: Pseudomonas fluorescens @ 0.5%
for Phytophthora blight in Tomato,
& Bacillus subtilis @ 2% for Pythium root
rot in Soybean
(Bisen et al., 2020)
27. Advantages:
• It is simple and economical.
• It can eliminate or reduce the pathogen inoculum on the seeds.
• It can prevent or delay the onset of diseases.
• It can improve plant growth and yield.
Limitations:
• It may affect the seed viability or vigour.
• It may not provide uniform coverage or distribution of biocontrol agents on
the seeds.
• It may not protect the seeds from soil-borne or airborne pathogens.
• It may have variable efficacy depending on the environmental conditions.
(Bisen et al., 2020)
28. III. Seedling Dipping
• Seedling inoculation is a process of applying
biocontrol agents to the young plants after
germination or emergence.
• Seedling inoculation also helps to protect
plants from soil-borne pathogens.
• Example: Trichoderma harzianum @ 2-4gm/l,
Trichoderma viridae @ 5-10gm/l.
(Bisen et al., 2020)
29. Advantages:
• It can increase the root colonization and persistence of biocontrol agents in
the rhizosphere.
• It can enhance the plant’s defence mechanisms against pathogens.
• It can improve plant growth and yield.
Limitations:
• It may require special equipment and facilities.
• It may increase the cost and labour of crop production.
• It may not provide adequate protection against seed-borne pathogens.
• It may have variable efficacy depending on the environmental conditions.
(Bisen et al., 2020)
30. IV. Seed Bio-priming
• Bio-priming is a process of a biological seed treatment that refers
combination of seed hydration (the physiological aspect of disease
control) and inoculation (the biological aspect of disease control) of
seeds with beneficial organisms after the dehydration of seeds to safe
limits to protect seed.
(Bisen et al., 2020)
32. Procedure:
Take the bioprimed seeds for field sowing purpose or green house or storage
Final weight of sample. (Initial Weight = Final Weight)
Dehydration of seeds
Hydration of seeds
Standardization of soaking hour and conc. of biocontrol agent
Selection of biocontrol agent
Measure the initial weight
Take required amount of seed
(Bisen et al., 2020)
33. Advantages:
• Seed bio-priming has potential advantages over simple control coating of
seeds as it results in rapid and uniform seedling emergences.
• When the seeds are treated with bio-agents like Trichoderma and
Pseudomonas, it forms a thin layer around the seed surface, thus making the
pathogens difficult to invade.
• Bio-primed seeds could tolerate adverse soil conditions better.
Limitations:
• Proper standardization of soaking hour and bio control agent
concentration is necessary.
• Choice of biocontrol agent for a particular crop.
• It is difficult for crops which are prone to soaking injury.
(Bisen et al., 2020)
34. Future Directions for R&D
• Discovery and characterization of new biocontrol agents.
• Improvement of existing biocontrol agents.
• Evaluation of impact and sustainability of biocontrol agents.
• Integration of biocontrol with other disease or pest management
strategies.
• Identification of the factors affecting the performance and
consistency of biocontrol products.
• Explanation of the mechanisms and interactions involved in
biocontrol process.
(Stenberg et al., 2020)
35. BCAs in Sustainable Agriculture
• Reduce the reliance on chemical pesticides.
• Enhance the biodiversity and flexibility of the agroecosystem.
• Improve the seed quality, germination, emergence, establishment,
growth and yield of the crop.
• Increase crop productivity and profitability.
• Support food security and food safety.
(Stenberg et al., 2020)
37. Sl. No. Treatments Per cent seed infection Per cent seed germination Vigour index
1 P. fluorescens @ 0.8% 14.00 (21.96) 92.00 (73.57) 1291.07
2 P. fluorescens @ 0.8% + Jelly 10.00 (18.43) 98.33 (82.67) 2058.23
3 P. fluorescens @ 0.8% + Vermiculite 12.33 (20.56) 95.33 (77.87) 1738.33
4 P. fluorescens @ 0.8% + Coco peat 12.00 (20.27) 96.33 (78.98) 1916.53
5 P. fluorescens @ 0.8% + Coir pith 13.33 (21.40) 94.00 (75.82) 1316.87
6 T. harzianum @ 0.8% 14.67 (22.52) 91.67 (73.23) 1235.57
7 T. harzianum @ 0.8% + Jelly 12.67 (20.85) 95.00 (77.08) 1811.33
8 T. harzianum @ 0.8% + Vermiculite 13.67 (21.69) 92.67 (74.30) 1640.77
9 T. harzianum @ 0.8% + Coir pith 15.33 (23.04) 91.33 (72.90) 1212.60
10 T. harzianum @ 0.8% + Coco peat 11.33 (19.67) 91.33 (72.90) 2091.97
11 Control 29.67 (33.00) 68.67 (55.96) 1007.07
Mean 14.45 (22.13) 92.03 (74.76) 1574.58
S.Em± 0.39 0.75 20.27
CD at 1% 1.57 2.98 80.81
Efficacy of bio priming agent as seed dressers against seed-borne fungal
infection and seed quality parameters of tomato
Source: Rajput et al., 2019. Biopriming: A novel seed treatment options to manage the seed-borne fungal infection of tomato,
Journal of Pharmacology and Phytochemistry; 8(6): 659-661
CASE
STUDY-
I
38. SN Sample Treatment
Growth inhibition %
T. viridae P. fluorescens
01 C. capsici C1 74.8 43.7
02 C. acutatum C2 67.4 42.2
03 C. truncatum C3 65.9 44.4
04 C. indemuthianum C4 77.0 40.7
05 C. falcatum C5 75.5 51.1
06 C. gloeosporioides C6 80.0 35.6
07 C. fragariae C7 81.4 50.3
08 Control - 0.00 0.00
CV (%) - 5.20 8.01
CD (5%) - 5.90 5.40
SEm - 1.90 1.80
Impact of T. viride and P. fluorescence against Colletotrichum spp.
Source: Sinha et al., 2023. Sensitivity of Bio-control agents against Colletotrichum spp. Isolated from different hosts, The
Pharma Innovation Journal; 12(6): 3876-3879
CASE
STUDY-
II
39. Sr.
No.
Bioagents
Per cent Mean
inhibition
Antagonism index
1. Trichoderma harzianum 77.78 ++++
2. Trichoderma viridae 72.22 +++
3. Trichoderma falcatum 60.00 +++
4. Pseudomonas fluorescens 37.78 +
5. Pseudomonas aeurogenosa 31.11 +
6. Bacillus subtillis 47.78 ++
7. Control 00 -
S.Em± 0.78
C.D. at 5% 2.31
Per cent growth inhibition of Fusarium oxysporum with different bio
agents in vitro.
Source: Desai et al., 2019. Evaluation of biocontrol agent against Fusarium spp. Causing wilt in Okra under in vitro, Frontiers
in crop improvement; 7(2): 155-156
N.B: ++++ = Severe antagonism, +++ = Moderate antagonism, ++ = Weak antagonism, - = No antagonism
CASE
STUDY-
III
41. Sr.
No.
Bioagents
% seed borne
infection
% inhibition
1 Trichoderma viridae 9.78 (18.31) 80.08
2 Trichoderma harzianum 12.45 (20.66) 74.88
3 Gliocladium virens 15.69 (23.33) 68.34
4 Control 49.56 (44.47) -
C.D (p = 5%) 2.64
Effect of bioagents on seed borne infection of C. lindemuthianum
Source: Padder et al., 2010. Evaluation of Bioagents and Biopesticides against Colletotrichum lindemuthianum and its
Integrated Management in Common Bean, Not Sci Biol: 2(3), 72-76
Average of three replications; Figures in parentheses are arc sine transformed values
CASE
STUDY-
IV
42. 9.87
12.45
15.69
49.56
80.88
74.88
68.34
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Trichoderma viride T. harzianum Gliocladium virens Control
% seed borne infection % inhibition
Effect of bioagents on seed borne infection of C. lindemuthianum
Source: Padder et al., 2010. Evaluation of Bioagents and Biopesticides against Colletotrichum lindemuthianum and its
Integrated Management in Common Bean, Not Sci Biol: 2(3), 72-76
CASE
STUDY-
IV
43. Treat
No.
Bioagents
Mean colony diameter
(mm)
Inhibition (%)
T1 Trichoderma viridae 20.67 (27.02) 77.04
T2 Trichoderma harzianum 16.67 (24.04) 81.48
T3 Trichoderma hamatum 26.33 (30.87) 70.74
T4 Trichoderma koningii 28.33 (32.16) 68.52
T5 Pseudomonas fluorescens 43.67 (41.36) 51.48
T6 Bacillus subtilis 53.67 (47.10) 40.37
T7 Control 90 (71.57) -
S.E.+ 0.68
CD at 5% 2.08
CV 3.04
In vitro efficacy of different bioagents on mycelial growth and inhibition
of Alternaria carthami
Source: Zanjare et al., 2019. In vitro evaluation of bio control agents against seed borne Alternaria carthami causing leaf spot
disease of safflower, International journal of chemical studies; 8(1): 2994-2997
CASE
STUDY-
V
44. In vitro efficacy of different bioagents on mycelial growth and inhibition
of Alternaria carthami
Source: Zanjare et al., 2019. In vitro evaluation of bio control agents against seed borne Alternaria carthami causing leaf spot
disease of safflower, International journal of chemical studies; 8(1): 2994-2997
20.67
16.67
26.33 28.33
43.67
53.67
90
77.04
81.48
70.74 68.52
51.48
40.37
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Trichoderma viride Trichoderma
harzianum
Trichoderma
hamatum
Trichoderma
koningii
Pseudomanas
fluorescens
Bacillus subtilis Control
Mean colony diameter (mm) Inhibition (%)
CASE
STUDY-
V
45. Sr.
No.
Treatments
F. oxysporum f. sp. lini Alternaria lini Curvularia lunata
Colony
diameter (mm)
Mycelial
growth
inhibition
(%)
Colony
diameter
(mm)
Mycelial
growth
inhibition
(%)
Colony
diameter
(mm)
Mycelial
growth
inhibition
(%)
T1 T. asperellum 25.33 71.85 (57.95) 17.53 80.52 (63.80) 22.20 7.33 (60.21)
T2 T. harzianum 11.83 86.85 (68.73) 15.80 82.44 (65.22) 10.66 88.15 (69.86)
T3 T. hamatum 13.06 85.48 (67.60) 7.56 91.60 (73.15) 13.43 85.07 (67.26)
T4 T. koningii 16.56 81.60 (64.59) 20.66 77.04 (61.36) 25.66 71.48 (57.72)
T5 T. lignorium 22.10 75.44 (60.29) 22.96 74.48 (59.65) 15.66 82.60 (65.34)
T6 Aspergillus niger 15.16 83.15 (65.76) 12.80 85.77 (67.83) 18.63 79.30 (62.93)
T7
Pseudomonas
fluorescens
43.16 52.04 (46.16) 38.16 57.60 (49.37) 41.16 54.26 (47.44)
T8 Control (untreated) 90.00 0.00 (00.00) 90.00 0.00 (00.00) 90.00 0.00 (00.00)
0.47 0.52 0.53 0.57 0.63 0.70
1.38 1.53 1.56 1.68 1.85 2.05
In vitro efficacy of several bioagents against F. oxysporum f. sp. lini,
Alternaria lini and Curvularia lunata of linseed seeds
Source: Brahmankar et al., 2020. In vitro bioefficacy of bioagents against pathogenic mycoflora of linseed seeds, Journal of
Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry; 10(1): 989-992
CASE
STUDY-
VI
46. In vitro efficacy of several bioagents against F. oxysporum f. sp. Lini of
linseed seeds
Source: Brahmankar et al., 2020. In vitro bioefficacy of bioagents against pathogenic mycoflora of linseed seeds, Journal of
Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry; 10(1): 989-992
25.33
11.83 13.06
16.56
22.1
15.16
43.16
90
71.85
86.85 85.48
81.6
75.44
83.15
52.04
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
T. asperellum T. harzianum T. hamatum T. koningii T. lignorium Aspergillus niger Pseudomonas
fluorescens
Control
(untreated)
Colony diameter (mm) Mycelial growth inhibition (%)
CASE
STUDY-
VI
47. In vitro efficacy of several bioagents against Alternaria lini of linseed
seeds
Source: Brahmankar et al., 2020. In vitro bioefficacy of bioagents against pathogenic mycoflora of linseed seeds, Journal of
Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry; 10(1): 989-992
17.53 15.8
7.56
20.66
22.96
12.8
38.16
90
80.52 82.44
91.6
77.04
74.48
85.77
57.6
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
T. asperellum T. harzianum T. hamatum T. koningii T. lignorium Aspergillus niger Pseudomonas
fluorescens
Control
(untreated)
Colony diameter (mm) Mycelial growth inhibition (%)
CASE
STUDY-
VI
48. In vitro efficacy of several bioagents against Curvularia lunata of linseed
seeds
Source: Brahmankar et al., 2020. In vitro bioefficacy of bioagents against pathogenic mycoflora of linseed seeds, Journal of
Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry; 10(1): 989-992
22.2
10.66
13.43
25.66
15.66
18.63
41.16
90
75.33
88.15
85.07
71.48
82.6
79.3
54.26
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
T. asperellum T. harzianum T. hamatum T. koningii T. lignorium Aspergillus niger Pseudomonas
fluorescens
Control
(untreated)
Colony diameter (mm) Mycelial growth inhibition (%)
CASE
STUDY-
VI
49. Effect of different treatments on seed germination, collar rot incidence
and yield of groundnut.
Source: Rani et al., 2022. Integrated Management of Stem Rot and Collar Rot Diseases of Groundnut incited by Aspergillus
niger and Sclerotium rolfsii, Biological Forum – An International Journal. 14(3): 1524-1530
Treatments
Seed germination
(%)
Disease incidence
(%)
Yield (Kg ha-
1)
Seed Treatment with bioagent MBNRT-1 (T. harzianum) 71.3 (58.3) 7.9 (16.1) 1044.3
Seed Treatment with bioagent MBNRB-3 (B. amyloliquefaciens) 67.7 (56.0) 7.15 (15.2) 996.9
Seed + Soil Treatment with bioagent MBNRT-1(T. harzianum) 74.7 (60.8) 5.9 (12.6) 1276.1
Seed + Soil Treatment with bioagent MBNRB-3
(B. amyloliquefaciens)
72.7 (59.3) 5.43 (12.0) 1155.2
Seed treatment with Tebuconazole 74.2 (60.1) 4.56 (12.1) 1047.1
Seed Treatment with bioagent MBNRT-1
(T. harzianum + Azoxystrobin)
70.9 (58.6) 6.3 (13.9) 942.4
Uninoculated control 77.5 (64.4) 2.5 (8.0) 985.2
Inoculated control 64.0 (53.6) 26.5 (30.7) 712.60
CD 5.61 6.15 169.7
SE(d) 2.80 3.07 84.8
SE(m) 7.94 8.70 54.0
CV (%) 9.56 27.7 12.7
CASE
STUDY-
VII(A)
50. Effect of different treatments on seed germination, stem rot incidence and
yield of groundnut.
Source: Rani et al., 2022. Integrated Management of Stem Rot and Collar Rot Diseases of Groundnut incited by Aspergillus
niger and Sclerotium rolfsii, Biological Forum – An International Journal. 14(3): 1524-1530
Treatments
Seed germination
(%)
Disease incidence
(%)
Yield
(Kg ha-1)
Seed Treatment with bioagent MBNRT-1 (T. harzianum) 74.08 (60.0) 19.9 (26.4) 718.3
Seed Treatment with bioagent MBNRB-3 (B. amyloliquefaciens) 71.04 (57.8) 19.7 (26.3) 751.7
Seed + Soil Treatment with bioagent MBNRT-1(T. harzianum) 77.66 (63.0) 16.4 (23.7) 918.6
Seed + Soil Treatment with bioagent MBNRB-3
(B. amyloliquefaciens)
74.58 (60.8) 17.9 (24.8) 807.6
Seed treatment with Tebuconazole 71.8 (58.9) 15.4 (23.1) 770.1
Seed Treatment with bioagent MBNRT-1
(T. harzianum + Azoxystrobin)
75.2 (60.9) 17.6 (24.7) 717.8
Uninoculated control 75.0 (61.8) 7.79 (16.0) 1010.5
Inoculated control 59.4 (51.0) 37.3 (37.4) 573.9
CD 2.80 6.2 245.7
SE(d) 2.76 3.1 122.8
SE(m) 7.94 8.8 347.5
CV (%) 11.9 26.3 21.6
CASE
STUDY-
VII(B)
51. Management of stem blight and fruit rot of brinjal in pot conditions
Source: Thesiya et al., 2020. Comparative Efficacy of Fungicides and Biocontrol Agents against Stem
Blight and Fruit Rot Disease of Brinjal under Pot Culture Conditions
Sr.
No.
Treatments Quantity/
kg or lit
Methods of
application
Per cent disease index @
1 Mancozeb (0.25%) 3.3 g/kg Seed treatment 46.36 (52.37)
2 Antracol (0.25%) 3.6 g/kg Seed treatment 57.69 (71.37)
3 Carboxin 37.5% + Thiram 37.5% (0.2%) 2.7 g/kg Seed treatment 22.20 (14.28)
4 Trichoderma viride 10 g/kg Seed treatment 22.20 (14.28)
5 Trichoderma virens 10 g/kg Seed treatment 57.69 (71.43)
6 Carbendazim (0.05%) 1.0 g/kg Spraying 22.20 (14.28)
7 Propiconazole (0.05%) 2.0 ml/lit Spraying 49.09 (57.12)
8 Pyraclostrobin 12.5% + Epoxiconazole 4.7% (0.2%) 2.7 g/kg Spraying 22.20 (14.28)
9 Control - - 85.71 (67.79)
S.Em.+_ 0.91
C.D. at 5% 2.71
C.V. (%) 3.86
CASE
STUDY-
VIII
52. Management of stem blight and fruit rot of brinjal in pot conditions
Source: Thesiya et al., 2020. Comparative Efficacy of Fungicides and Biocontrol Agents against Stem
Blight and Fruit Rot Disease of Brinjal under Pot Culture Conditions
46.36
57.69
22.2 22.2
57.69
22.2
49.09
22.2
85.71
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Mancozeb
(0.25%)
Antracol
(0.25%)
Carboxin 37.5%
+ Thiram 37.5%
(0.2%)
Trichoderma
viride
Trichoderma
virens
Carbendazim
(0.05%)
Propiconazole
(0.05%)
Pyraclostrobin
12.5% +
Epoxiconazole
4.7% (0.2%)
Control
CASE
STUDY-
VIII
53. Conclusion
Biocontrol agents are promising alternatives to chemical
fungicides. There are many types of biocontrol which are present
commercially but to ensure the wide adaptation the researchers,
producers and growers should work in a collaboration. Biocontrol
agents are significant tools for sustainable agriculture as they can
reduce our reliance on chemical fungicides and enhance the biodiversity
and resilience of the agroecosystem.
54. BCAs are not a panacea for all plant diseases, but they
are a viable solution that should be considered as a part
of an integrated disease management strategy.
“
”
55. References
• Bisen, K., Singh, V., Keswani, C., Ray, S., Sarma, B.K., Singh, H.B. (2020). Use of Biocontrol Agents for the Management of
Seed-Borne Diseases. In: Kumar, R., Gupta, A. (eds) Seed-Borne Diseases of Agricultural Crops: Detection, Diagnosis &
Management. Springer, Singapore.
• Borah, M., Routhu, G.K., Saikia, B., Saikia, A., Bhamra, G.K., Nath, P.D. (2023). Fungal Biocontrol Agents: A Sustainable
Management Option for Soybean Diseases. In: Singh, I., Rajpal, V.R., Navi, S.S. (eds) Fungal Resources for Sustainable
Economy. Springer, Singapore.
• Rajput J., RAO MSL., Hegde RV. and Kulkarni V. (2019). Biopriming: A novel seed treatment options to manage the seed-borne
fungal infection of tomato. Journal of Pharmacology and Phytochemistry; 8(6): 659-661
• Desai T.P., Chudasama M.K. and Rakholiya K.B. (2019). Evaluation Of Biocontrol Agents Against Fusarium Sp. Caus Ing Wilt
In Okra Un Der In-vitro. Frontiers in crop Improvement:7(2): 155-156
• Sinha P., Singh J., Chouksey N. and Singh AK. (2023). Sensitivity of bio-control agents against Colletotrichum spp. isolated
from different hosts, The Pharma innovation journal, 12(6): 3876-3879
• Padder B.A., Sharma P.N., Kapil R., Pathania A. and Sharma O.P. (2010). Evaluation of Bioagents and Biopesticides against
Colletotrichum lindemuthianum and its Integrated Management in Common Bean. Not Sci Biol 2 (3), 72-76
• Snehal S Zanjare, AV Suryawanshi, SR Zanjare and VR Shelar (2019). In vitro evaluation of bio control agents against seed
borne Alternaria carthami and Alternaria alternata causing leaf spot disease of safflower. International Journal of Chemical
Studies; 8(1): 2994-2997
56. • RG Brahmankar, VG Mulekar, PA Sahane, DB Kolhe and VB Udar (2020). In vitro bioefficacy of bioagents against
pathogenic mycoflora of linseed seeds. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry; 10(1): 989-992
• V. Divya Rani, Hari Sudini, P. Narayan Reddy1, G. Uma Devi1 and K. Vijay Krishna Kumar (2022). Integrated
Management of Stem Rot and Collar Rot Diseases of Groundnut incited by Aspergillus niger and Sclerotium rolfsii,
Biological Forum – An International Journal, 14(3): 1524-1530
• M. R. Thesiya, K. B. Rakholiya, R. Lokesh and M. R. Shekhda (2020). Comparative Efficacy of Fungicides and Biocontrol
Agents against Stem Blight and Fruit Rot Disease of Brinjal under Pot Culture Conditions. Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci
9(10): xx-xx
• Eco-friendly management of fungal seed-borne pathogens through bio-agents by Ankit K. Chaudhuri
• Seed Borne Nature Of Plant Pathogens: Role In Quarantine by Subah Thapa
• Mode of Action of Microbial Biological Control Agents Against Plant Diseases: Relevance Beyond Efficacy by Jürgen
Köhl, Kolnaar Rogier, Ravensberg Willem J.
• Chapter 3 - Microorganisms as biocontrol agents for sustainable agriculture by Bhupendra Koul, Manpriya Chopra, Supriya
Lamba
• Stenberg, J.A., Sundh, I., Becher, P.G. et al. When is it biological control? A framework of definitions, mechanisms, and
classifications. J Pest Sci 94, 665–676 (2021).
• Palmieri, D.; Ianiri, G.; Del Grosso, C.; Barone, G.; De Curtis, F.; Castoria, R.; Lima, G. Advances and Perspectives in the
Use of Biocontrol Agents against Fungal Plant Diseases. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 577.
• Plant Pathology: A competitive vision by S.V. Mann, P.L. Kashyap and S.S. Kang (2014). Kalyani Publications
Editor's Notes
Ochratoxin- change in immunity
Aflatoxin- vomiting, nausea, pain in abdomen
Pink due to pyroverdin
Ja- jasmonic acid
Et- ethelene signal
Ja- jasmonic acid
Et- ethelene signal
Increase physical and chemical barrier
