Next Article in Journal
“When They See a Wheelchair, They’ve Not Even Seen Me”—Factors Shaping the Experience of Disability Stigma and Discrimination in Kenya
Next Article in Special Issue
The Deviation of the Behaviors of Rice Farmers from Their Stated Willingness to Apply Biopesticides—A Study Carried Out in Jilin Province of China
Previous Article in Journal
Biopollution by Invasive Marine Non-Indigenous Species: A Review of Potential Adverse Ecological Effects in a Changing Climate
Previous Article in Special Issue
Biological Control of a Phytosanitary Pest (Thaumatotibia leucotreta): A Case Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 18
Issue 8
10.3390/ijerph18084269
ijerph-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

Fungal and Bacterial Endophytes as Microbial Control Agents for Plant-Parasitic Nematodes

by
K. Kiran Kumar
1 and
Surendra K. Dara
2,*
1
ICAR-Central Citrus Research Institute, Nagpur 440033, Maharashtra, India
2
University of California Cooperative Extension, 2156 Sierra Way, Ste. C, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(8), 4269; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084269
Submission received: 20 March 2021 / Revised: 8 April 2021 / Accepted: 15 April 2021 / Published: 17 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current Status, Challenges, and Prospects of Biopesticides)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Endophytes are symbiotic microorganisms that colonize plant tissues and benefit plants in multiple ways including induced systemic resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses. Endophytes can be sustainable alternatives to chemical nematicides and enhance plant health in a variety of cropping and natural environments. Several in vitro and in vivo studies demonstrated the potential of multiple species of Fusarium and Bacillus against plant-parasitic nematodes in horticultural, agricultural, and fodder crops and in forestry. While there were efforts to commercialize some of the endophytes as bionematicides, a lack of good formulations with consistent field efficacy has been a major hurdle in commercializing endophytes for nematode control. Identification of efficacious and environmentally resilient strains, a thorough understanding of their modes of action, interactions with various biotic and abiotic factors, and developing strategies that improve their effectiveness are critical areas to advance the commercialization of bionematicides based on fungal and bacterial endophytes.

1. Introduction

Plant-parasitic nematodes (PPN) such as root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.), cyst nematodes (Heterodera spp. and Globodera spp.), and root lesion nematodes (Pratylenchus spp.) are important pests of many crops around the world causing significant yield losses. They primarily attack the root system by forming feeding sites such as, single giant cells, syncytia, non-hypertrophied nurse cells and coenocytes, which provide a protective feeding environment [1]. PPN feeding causes root deformity, stunting of plants, yellowing of leaves, and yield reduction. Additionally, PPN also act as entry ways for secondary pests and pathogens by causing wounds in the plant roots [2]. It is estimated that PPN cause an average yield loss of 12.6% equal to USD 215.8 billion in 20 major commercial crops including banana, coconut, peanut, potato, rice and sugarcane around the world [3]. While the root-knot and cyst nematodes are sedentary, root lesion nematodes, the burrowing nematode (Radopholus similis), the stem nematode (Ditylenchus dipsaci), and the reniform nematode (Rotylenchulus reniformis) are migratory [4]. Species of Longidorus, Xiphinema, Trichodorus, and Paratrichodorus are also vectors of plant viruses in addition to their feeding damage [5]. Fumigants and various classes of chemical nematicides are commonly used by growers for suppressing PPN, which have potential negative impacts on the environment including the detrimental effect on beneficial soil microbiota. Due to the higher cost of fumigation and the need for effective and safe non-chemical alternatives, bionematicides are gaining interest in the recent years [6,7].
There have been reports of nematode suppressive soils where PPN populations are suppressed due to the presence of bacteria and fungi. These beneficial microorganisms limit PPN proliferation by certain trapping structures or by producing toxins. Trichoderma harzianum, Purpureocillium lilacinum, Pochonia chlamydosporia, Monacrosporium lysipagum, Pseudomonas fluorescens and Pasteuria penetrans are some of the microorganisms involved in nematode suppression [8,9,10,11]. Bionematicides based on the fungi P. chlamydosporia, P. lilacinum, Arthrobotrys oligospora, Trichoderma spp., and Verticillium spp., and bacteria P. fluorescens, P. penetrans, and Bacillus spp. have been used in many cropping systems including lettuce-tomato, tomato-carrot, potato, common bean, tomato, cucumber, snapdragon, wheat and sugarcane [12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19]. While these bacteria and fungi appear to be effective in PPN suppression, there is an increased interest to explore endophytes as bionematicides especially for sedentary PPN because both of them colonize the same plant tissues and the former have a better chance of suppressing the latter [20]. Since many endophytes produce secondary metabolites that have pesticidal properties, they could be excellent candidates as bionematicides [21]. This review provides an overview of bacterial and fungal endophytes as potential bionematicides, and the challenges and opportunities in associated with their commercialization.

2. Endophytes

Endophytes are microorganisms that colonize plant tissues and live between plant cells in a symbiotic relationship usually characterized by mutualism. Endophytes include members of bacteria, fungi, archaea, and protists, but bacteria and fungi are the most common and widely studied taxa. While the plants provide living space and nutrition to the endophytes, the latter trigger immune responses in plants that help them withstand various biotic and abiotic stresses. Since some of the endophytes are closely related to plant pathogens, but are avirulent, plants sense their presence and activate defense responses through the production of various proteins, secondary metabolites, and hormones imparting tolerance to pathogens, herbivores, and abiotic stresses such as salinity and drought. Endophytes are in rhizosphere and phylloplane and colonize plants at various stages through seeds, seedlings, or vegetative propagative materials. The species composition, population abundance, and colonization depend on the plant species and soil and environmental conditions. While the endophytism is a common phenomenon studied for a long time, the impact of endophytes on pests including PPN is a new area of scientific interest particularly due to the demand for environmentally sustainable agricultural practices. Sikora et al. [20] discussed various laboratory, greenhouse, and field studies that explored endophytes for controlling PPN.

2.1. Fungal Endophytes

Among other endophytes, fungal endophytes are the most common, diverse, and well-studied group for their role in imparting stress resilience to plants [22,23]. Fungal endophytes are categorized into clavicipitaceous and non-clavicipitaceous groups based on their taxonomy, evolutionary relatedness, ecology, and host range [24,25,26,27]. Calvicipitaceous endophytes include the genera Balansia, Balansiopsis, Atkinsonella, Echinodothis, Epichloe, Myriogenospora, Neotyphodium, and Parepichloe, which are commonly associated with grasses and rely on their host throughout their life cycle as mutualists [24,26,28,29]. These endophytes grow in the intercellular spaces of the aboveground plant tissues and are transmitted both horizontally and vertically depending on the species [27,30]. Non-clavicipitaceous endophytes such as Fusarium, Colletotrichum, Phomopsis, and Xylaria are found in most terrestrial plants and do not rely on plants to complete their life cycle [29,31].
Among various species, Fusarium oxysporum is the most dominant endophyte isolated from different plants and is an antagonist of fungal pathogens, insects, and PPN [32,33,34]. Antagonism of F. oxysporum towards Helicotylenchus multicinctus, Meloidogyne incognita, Meloidogyne graminicola, Pratylenchus goodeyi, and R. similis, in banana, melons or tomato has been reported from different studies (Table 1)[35,36,37,38,39,40,41]. Other examples include Epichloe coenophiala (=Acremonium coenophialum, Neotyphodium coenophialum) against Pratylenchus scribneri, Meloidogyne marylandi, and Helicotylenchus pseudorobustus in tall fescue [42,43,44] and Chaetomium globosum towards M. incognita in cotton [45].

2.2. Bacterial Endophytes

Bacterial endophytes are the second most common endophytes and colonize most plant species locally or systemically living within the cells, in the intercellular spaces or vascular system [71,80]. Their antagonism towards PPN has been reported since mid-1990s [71,81]. Most of the Gram-negative endophytes and some species of Gram-positive endophytes are antagonists of plant pathogens [82]. Agrobacterium radiobacter, Burkholderia cepacian, and P. fluorescens are examples of Gram-negative endophytes and Bacillus spp. are examples of Gram-positive endophytes. It has also been found that species of Acrhomobacter, Acinetobacter, Agrobacterium, Bacillus, Brevibacterium, Microbacterium, Pseudomonas, Xanthomonas, and others have the potential for controlling PPN [83].

2.3. Mode of Action of Endophytes

Endophytes suppress the growth and development of various stages of PPN through various mechanisms and thus contribute to the improvement of plant health. These can be categorized into direct and indirect mechanisms as described below:

2.3.1. Direct Mechanisms

Endophytes can directly attack, kill, immobilize or repel PPN as they find their host, compete for space and produce secondary metabolites and other compounds that are detrimental to PPN. Endophytes produce metabolites such as flavonoids, peptides, quinones, alkaloids, steroids, phenols, terpenoids, and polyketones or lytic enzymes such as chitinases, cellulases, hemicellulases, and 1,3-glucanases [84,85,86]. These compounds inhibit the growth and development of PPN and other biotic stressors through antibiosis. Additionally, endophytes occupy plant tissues and inhibit PPN through niche competition or competitive displacement [85]. For example, F. oxysporum isolated from banana, paralyzes and kills P. goodeyi [39], while C. globosum produce secondary metabolites viz., chaetoglobosin A, chaetoglobosin B, flavipin, 3-methoxyepicoccone and 4,5,6-trihydroxy-7-methylphthalide against M. incognita [87].

2.3.2. Indirect Mechanisms

Endophytes induce systemic resistance by upregulating genes that produce various phytohormones, phytoalexins, volatile organic compounds, pathogenesis-related proteins, and trigger salicylic acid, jasmonic acid, and ethylene pathways that protect plants from stressors. Some of these defenses antagonize stressors such as PPN while others such as phytohormones promote plant growth and compensate for the damage by stressors. Additionally, endophytes can also influence root exudate composition and production that further inhibit stressors. For example, Bacillus sphaericus B43 and Rhizobium etli G12 application induced systemic resistance to Globodera pallida in potato [88] and to M. incognita in tomato [89]. Meloidogyne incognita showed a preference to root exudates extracted from tomato roots than those extracted from roots colonized by endophytic F. oxysporum strain Fo162 [35]. Such an interaction was also observed in M. graminicola with respect to rice in the presence or absence of F. moniliforme strain Fe14 [74].

3. Endophytes as Bionematicides

While regulatory guidelines might place certain endophytes as biostimulants or soil amendments and others as biopesticides, for this review, we present various examples of endophytes as microbial control agents of PPN in a variety of crops and forestry.

3.1. Vegetable Crops

Researchers around the world evaluated the culture filtrates of bacterial and fungal endophytes against root-knot nematodes in cucumber, okra, and tomato with a majority of the studies in tomato (Table 1) [35,46,47,50,51,52,53,54,55]. Tian et al. [53] reported that Acremonium implicatum inhibited the formation of root galls caused by M. incognita in potted tomato plants to 41 per plant compared to 122 in untreated plants. Under field conditions, root gall index was significantly reduced to 25 from the endophyte treatment compared to 96 in untreated plants. In a greenhouse study, Hu et al. [54] found that various isolates of Bacillus cereus caused 53–76% reduction in M. incognita egg masses, 70–81% reduction in gall formation while repelling second stage juveniles (J2s). Similarly, isolates of Bacillus sp., Methylobacterium sp., and Pseudomonas sp. significantly reduced the egg masses, number of eggs per egg mass, number of adult females, and overall M. incognita numbers in both soil and roots of tomato growing in pots [55]. The two isolates of Bacillus sp. resulted in the lowest gall index of 1.33 compared to 4.67 in control plants. Zhao et al. [90] reported 88–93% mortality in M. incognita J2s and 88–83% reduction in egg-hatch from Pseudomonas protegens and Serratia plymuthica in greenhouse tomato. Metabolites of both bacteria reduced the number of egg masses and root galls, while P. protegens also promoted seed germination and plant growth. In another study, Munif et al. [78] obtained 81% mortality of J2s and 81% reduction in egg-hatch of M. incognita with a consortium of bacterial endophytes isolated from trees. Details of these endophytic species were not revealed, however.
Seed treatment with endophytes has been explored as an option for controlling PPN. Yan et al. [49] found that Acremonium sp., Chaetomium sp., Fusarium spp., Paecilomyces sp., Phyllosticta sp., and Trichoderma sp. reduced the number of galls by M. incognita in cucumber after treating the seeds. Metabolites from some of these endophytes negatively impacted the motility of J2s. Among these fungi, Chaetomium sp. had the highest colonization of roots (70.5%) and aboveground parts (73.5%) with 42–47% reduction in root galls. In another study, bacterial isolates of Pantoe aagglomerans, Cedecea davisae, Enterobacter spp., and Pseudomonas putida reduced early root penetration of M. incognita in tomato by up to 56% when applied as seed treatment, root dip, or soil drench [51]. Seed treatment followed by soil drenching appeared to be more effective than single application in reducing gall formation.
Some consider that a consortium of beneficial microorganisms is better than using a single microorganism and several commercial products based on microbial consortia have been developed in the recent years [78,91]. However, consortia may not always provide better control than a single endophyte due to potential negative interactions among the members. For example, the fungal endopyte Piriformospora indica alone suppressed M. incognita infestations in tomato better than as a member of a consortium with Bacillus pumilus and P. fluorescens [92]. While all of them promoted the plant growth, nematode control of P. indica decreased in the presence of bacterial endophytes.

3.2. Fruit Crops

In pineapple, application of Bacillus sp. isolated from its roots suppressed R. reniformis infestations by 54–60% in two cultivars [93]. Crop rotation with sunn hemp (Crotalaria juncea) and application of the endophyte were found to be effective non-chemical alternatives for PPN control in pineapple. Effective use of F. oxysporum for controlling PPN in banana has been reported from several studies. Fusarium isolates induced systemic resistance and caused up to 41% of reduction in R. similis J2s penetration 15 days after treatment in a greenhouse study [59]. Three strains of F. oxysporum caused >85% mortality of R. similis, P. goodeyi and H. multicinctus mixed stages (J2s, males and females) after 24 h of exposure [41]. A strain of Streptomyces sp. isolated from banana roots showed >50% inhibiting rate of Meloidogyne javanica J2s in vitro and 71% of biocontrol efficiency in sterile soil [63]. However, in the presence of Streprtomyces sp., populations of bacterivorous nematode genera Mesorhabditis and Cephalobus also increased. In another study, Mendoza and Sikora [61] found that the combination of the strains of F. oxysporum and the egg parasitic fungus P. lilacinum (=Paecilomyces lilacinus) reduced R. similis populations by 68.5% while the combination of F. oxysporum and Bacillus firmus reduced PPN populations by 86% in banana under greenhouse conditions.

3.3. Tuber Crops

In potato, A. radiobacter and B. sphaericus induced systemic resistance against the potato cyst nematode, G. pallida [94]. Another study demonstrated significant control of M. incognita in potato from R. etli G12 application with 34% fewer galls than in control [64]. Bacillus carotarum, B. cereus, and Pseudomonas pseudoalcaligenes isolated from the roots and tubers of potato caused ≥80% mortality of Globodera rostochiensis J2s in vitro but did not limit the egg-hatch [66].

3.4. Ornamental Crops

There was only one example of using endophytes for PPN control in ornamental crops. Application of the endophytic bacteria P. agglomerans (MN34) and P. putida (MN12) reduced the gall index from M. incognita and promoted plant growth in natal plum (Carissa macrocarpa), dwarf lilyturf (Ophopogan japonicas), and other ornamental plants [67].

3.5. Plantation Crops

Endophytes for PPN control have been explored in black pepper, coffee, and other crops. In an Indian study, B. megaterium and Curtobacterium leteum, isolated from black pepper, provided the highest suppression of R. similis J2s among other isolates tested [68]. Similarly, a Vietnamese isolate of B. megaterium reduced numbers of Meloidogyne sp. by 82 and 73% in soil and pepper roots, respectively [69]. In Indonesia, 52% suppression in root galls and 75% suppression in M. incognita numbers was observed from the application of endophytic bacteria isolated from pepper plants [7]. When organic matter, in the form of cow manure, was applied along with endophytic bacteria, there was a 93% decrease in root galls and 97% decrease in nematode populations while a commercial organic fertilizer applied with endophytes caused 86 and 79% reduction in root galls and nematode numbers, respectively. In Vietnam, Streptomyces sp. (CBG9) isolated from robusta coffee in Central Highland inhibited M. incognita egg-hatch by 86% and caused 85% of mortality in J2s [70].

3.6. Agricultural Crops

Meloidogyne graminicola is an important pest of rice in South Asia and South East Asia. Rice is a staple food of billions around the world and M. graminicola is one of the pests that cause significant losses, if left uncontrolled. Various studies demonstrated the potential of endophytes in controlling M. graminicola. In Taiwan, B. megaterium, isolated from rice growing regions, provided more than 40% reduction in J2 penetration and gall formation by M. graminicola and 60% reduction of J2 migration [72]. In a German study, Fusarium isolates from rice producing areas in Vietnam reduced gall formation by 29–42% and improved the root weight by 33% [73]. Trichoderma spp. evaluated in this study also had a similar impact with up to 38% reduction in root galling. Similarly, in another German study F. moniliforme (Fe14) suppressed J2s penetration by 55% and increased the male to female ratio by 9 times [74]. Additionally, root exudates from endophyte treated plants were also less attractive to J2s.
In the US, C. globosum (TAMU 520), isolated from upland cotton used as a seed treatment, negatively impacted M. incognita, the cotton aphid (Aphis gossypii), and the beet armyworm (Spodoptera exigua) [45]. Endophyte reduced nematode infection and female reproduction as well as the fecundity of both insect species. In a different study in the USA, hundreds of nematophagous fungal endophytes were isolated from the roots of corn and soybean where the majority was Fusarium spp. along with less common Hirsutella rhossiliensis, Metacordyceps chlamydosporia, and Arthrobotrys iridis [95]. It was also observed that PPN population density influences the endophyte diversity as the fungal diversity in soybean roots was higher when Heterodera glycines density was higher.

3.7. Fodder Crops

Species of Epichloë (=Neotyphoidium and Acremonium) are endophytes of Gramineae family that contains tall fescue, perennial rye grass and others used for fodder. Although some endophytes release metabolites that are toxic to cattle, there are several examples of PPN reduction from the presence of various species of endophytes (Table 1). An earlier report indicated that the presence of the fungal endophyte E. coenophiala significantly reduced populations of P. scribneri and Tylenchorhynchus acutus in tall fescue and improved the yields [42]. However, endophyte colonized grass appeared to be toxic to cattle because of the ergot alkaloids they release. Inoculating tall fescue with non-ergotic strain of E. coenophiala offered resistance to Pratylenchus zeae and P. scribneri, however, to a lesser extent than ergotic strains [75]. In another study, 100% mortality of M. marylandi was observed when PPN-infested soil in pots was inoculated with E. coenophiala and with water deficit stress [44].

3.8. Forestry

The pine wilt nematode, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus, is a serious problem in Korea, Canada, USA, China, Japan and other South Eastern countries causing pine wilt of coniferous trees of the genus Pinus. Ponpandian et al. [79] isolated and investigated hundreds of bacterial endophytes for controlling B. xylophilus. Among them, Stenotrophomonas spp. and Bacillus spp. were very effective, causing ≥70% mortality of adult nematodes. Liu et al. [77] isolated 48 genera of Gamma-proteobacteria and others from four species of pine trees in Korea. Among those isolates, Escherichia coli and Serratia marcescens produced nematicidal metabolites causing 67 and 60% mortality in B. xylophilus, respectively, in laboratory assays.

4. Metabolites from Endophytes

Endophytes produce an array of secondary metabolites, which have biopesticide potential against plant pathogens and PPN. These metabolites categories include alkaloids, flavonoids, peptides, phenols, polyketones, quinols, terpenoids, and steroids [96], which induce systemic resistance in plants against various biotic and abiotic stresses.Several of these secondary metabolites have nematicidal properties and can be important IPM options (Table 2). For example, F. oxysporum isolated from the roots of the tomato cultivar Moneymaker produces several bioactive compounds including 4-hydroxybenzoic acid, indole-3-acetic acid, and gibepyrone D, which are nematicidal with LC50 values of 104, 117, and 134 µg/mL, respectively [97]. In another study, five metabolites—chaetoglobosin A, chaetoglobosin B, flavipin, 3-methoxyepicoccone, and 4, 5, 6-trihydroxy-7-methylphthalide—derived from C. globosum caused moderate to high levels of mortality in M. javanica J2s [87]. With LC50 values of 200 µg/mL, chaetoglobosin A and B significantly suppressed nematode reproduction and promoted plant growth in a potted plant study.

5. Commercialization

Identification, mass-production, and commercialization of nematicidal endophytes have a great potential for PPN control in many systems in a sustainable manner. Since some of these endophytes induce systemic resistance against multiple stressors or antagonize multiple categories of pests, endophytes can be comprehensive tools for improving overall crop health, yields, and optimize the cost of crop care. Although numerous studies demonstrated the potential of bacterial and fungal endophytes for controlling PPN, there are noncommercial nematicides based on these endophytes. However, some strains are available as biostimulants or biofungicides.

6. Constraints and Future Opportunities

Major constraints of biopesticides are their high cost of production and relatively fewer efficacy data compared to synthetic pesticides. As a result, there is some hesitation in the farming community to use biopesticides as their primary choice. Some of the reasons for low, slow, or inconsistent field performance of some endophytes are adverse soil conditions, competition with other soil microorganisms, the presence of mycophagous or bacteriophagous nematodes [105,106]. In some cases, endophytes might release toxic metabolites that are harmful to herbivorous mammals or alter the microbial community in the rhizosphere or phylloplane with negative consequences [107].
Some strategies to improve the prospects of bionematicides based on endophytic bacteria and fungi are investing in applied research that generates field efficacy data, developing formulation technologies that optimize production costs and improve product efficacy, and educating the farming community with IPM practices that make the best use of bionematicides and other such products. Research, outreach, communication at various levels, employing various control options, and exploiting modern technologies for monitoring crop health and delivering agricultural inputs are various elements of IPM [108]. When bionematicides are integrated with other management practices, they provide effective and long-term suppression of PPN.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.K.K. and S.K.D.; methodology, K.K.K. and S.K.D.; writing—original draft preparation, K.K.K. and S.K.D.; writing—review and editing, S.K.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Palomares-Rius, J.E.; Escobar, C.; Cabrera, J.; Vovlas, A.; Castillo, P. Anatomical alterations in plant tissues induced by plant-parasitic nematodes. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Caboni, P.; Aissani, N.; Demurtas, M.; Ntalli, N.; Onnis, V. Nematicidal activity of acetophenones and chalcones against Meloidogyne incognita, and structure–activity considerations. Pest Manag. Sci. 2016, 72, 125–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Abd-Elgawad, M.M.M.; Askary, T.H. Impact of phytonematodes on agriculture economy. In Biocontrol Agents of Phytonematodes; Askary, T.H., Martinelli, P.R.P., Eds.; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2015; pp. 3–49. [Google Scholar]
  4. Jones, J.T.; Haegeman, A.; Danchin, E.G.; Gaur, H.S.; Helder, J.; Jones, M.G.; Kikuchi, T.; Manzanilla-López, R.; Palomares-Rius, J.E.; Wesemael, W.M.; et al. Top 10 plant-parasitic nematodes in molecular plant pathology. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2013, 14, 946–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Dijkstra, J.; de Jager, C.P. Virus transmission by nematodes. In Practical Plant Virology: Protocols and Excercises; Dijkstra, J., de Jager, C.P., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1998; pp. 128–142. [Google Scholar]
  6. Kumar, K.K.; Sridhar, J.; Murali-Baskaran, R.K.; Senthil-Nathan, S.; Kaushal, P.; Dara, S.K.; Arthurs, S. Microbial biopesticides for insect pest management in India: Current status and future prospects. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2019, 165, 74–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Munif, A.; Harni, R. Management of endophytic bacteria and organic material for the biological control of yellowing disease on pepper. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 418, 012052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Davies, K.G.; Srivastava, A.; Kumar, K.K.; Mohan, S. Understanding nematode suppressive soils: Molecular interactions between Pasteuria endospores and the nematode surface coat. In Proceedings of the 4th Symposium of Potato Cyst Nematode Management (including Other Nematode Parasites of Potatoes), Newport, UK, 7–8 September 2015; Association of Applied Biologists: Wellesbourne, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  9. Li, J.; Zou, C.; Xu, J.; Ji, X.; Niu, X.; Yang, J.; Huang, X.; Zhang, K.-Q. Molecular mechanisms of nematode-nematophagous microbe interactions: Basis for biological control of plant-parasitic nematodes. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2015, 53, 67–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Silva, J.C.P.D.; Medeiros, F.H.V.; Campos, V.P. Building soil suppressiveness against plant-parasitic nematodes. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Topalovi´c, O.; Hussain, M.; Heuer, H. Plants and associated soil microbiota cooperatively suppress plant-parasitic nematodes. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Verdejo-Lucas, S.; Sorribas, F.J.; Ornat, C.; Galeano, M. Evaluating Pochonia chlamydosporia in a double-cropping system of lettuce and tomato in plastic houses infested with Meloidogyne javanica. Plant Pathol. 2003, 52, 521–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Affokpon, A.; Coyne, D.L.; Htay, C.C.; Agbèdè, R.D.; Lawouin, L.; Coosemans, J. Biocontrol potential of native Trichoderma isolates against root-knot nematodes in West African vegetable production systems. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2011, 43, 600–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sellitto, V.M.; Curto, G.; Dallavalle, E.; Ciancio, A.; Colagiero, M.; Pietrantonio, L.; Bireescu, G.; Stoleru, V.; Storari, M. Effect of Pochonia chlamydosporia-based formulates on the regulation of root-knot nematodes and plant growth response. Front. Life Sci. 2016, 9, 177–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Wepuhkhulu, M.; Kimenju, J.; Anyango, B.; Wachira, P.; Kyallo, G. Effect of soil fertility management practices and Bacillus subtilis on plant parasitic nematodes associated with common bean, Phaseolus vulgaris. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyst. 2011, 13, 27–34. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kokalis-Burelle, N. Pasteuria penetrans for control of Meloidogyne incognita on tomato and cucumber, and M. arenaria on snapdragon. J. Nematol. 2015, 47, 207. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  17. Zhao, D.; Zhao, H.; Zhao, D.; Zhu, X.; Wang, Y.; Duan, Y.; Xuan, Y.; Chen, L. Isolation and identification of bacteria from rhizosphere soil and their effect on plant growth promotion and root-knot nematode disease. Biol. Control 2018, 119, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhang, S.W.; Gan, Y.T.; Xu, B.L.; Xue, Y.Y. The parasitic and lethal effects of Trichoderma longibrachiatum against Heterodera avenae. Biol. Control 2014, 72, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mazzuchelli, R.D.C.L.; Mazzuchelli, E.H.L.; de Araujo, F.F. Efficiency of Bacillus subtilis for root-knot and lesion nematodes management in sugarcane. Biol. Control 2020, 143, 104185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sikora, R.A.; Schafer, K.; Dababat, A.A. Modes of action associated with microbially induced in planta suppression of plant-parasitic nematodes. Aust. Plant Pathol. 2007, 36, 124–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Yadav, A.N. Endophytic fungi for plant growth promotion and adaptation under abiotic stress conditions. Acta Sci. Agric. 2019, 3, 91–93. [Google Scholar]
  22. Lugtenberg, B.J.; Caradus, J.R.; Johnson, L.J. Fungal endophytes for sustainable crop production. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2016, 92, fiw194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yan, L.; Zhu, J.; Zhao, X.; Shi, J.; Jiang, C.; Shao, D. Beneficial effects of endophytic fungi colonization on plants. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2019, 103, 3327–3340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rodriguez, R.J.; White, J.F., Jr.; Arnold, A.E.; Redman, R.S. Fungal endophytes: Diversity and functional roles. New Phytol. 2009, 182, 314–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kusari, S.; Hertweck, C.; Spiteller, M. Chemical ecology of endophytic fungi: Origins of secondary metabolites. Chem. Biol. 2012, 19, 792–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. O’Hanlon, K.A.; Knorr, K.; Jorgensen, L.N.; Nicolaisen, M.; Boelt, B. Exploring the potential of symbiotic fungal endophytes in cereal disease suppression. Biol. Control 2012, 63, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Santangelo, J.S.; Turley, N.E.; Johnson, M.T. Fungal endophytes of Festuca rubra increase in frequency following long term exclusion of rabbits. Botany 2015, 93, 233–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hardoim, P.R.; van Overbeek, L.S.; Berg, G.; Pirttilä, A.M.; Compant, S.; Campisano, A.; Döring, M.; Sessitsche, A. The hidden world within plants: Ecological and evolutionary considerations for defining functioning of microbial endophytes. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2015, 79, 293–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. De Silva, N.I.; Lumyong, S.; Hyde, K.D.; Bulgakov, T.; Phillips, A.J.L.; Yan, J.Y. Mycosphere essays 9: Defining biotrophs and hemibiotrophs. Mycosphere 2016, 7, 545–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Schardl, C.L.; Leuchtmann, A.; Spiering, M.J. Symbioses of grasses with seed borne fungal endophytes. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2004, 55, 315–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Jayawardena, R.S.; Hyde, K.D.; Damm, U.; Cai, L.; Liu, M.; Li, X.H.; Zhang, W.; Zhao, W.S.; Yan., J.Y. Notes on currently accepted species of Colletotrichum. Mycosphere 2016, 7, 1192–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Alabouvette, C.; Couteaudier, Y. Biological control of Fusarium wilts with nonpathogenic Fusaria. In Biological Control of Plant Diseases. NATO ASI Series (Series A: Life Sciences); Tjamos, E.C., Papavizas, G.C., Cook, R.J., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1992; pp. 415–426. [Google Scholar]
  33. Hallmann, J.; Sikora, R.A. Influence of F. oxysporum, a mutualistic fungal endophyte, on M. incognita of tomato. J. Plant Dis. Protect. 1994, 101, 475–481. [Google Scholar]
  34. Griesbach, M. Occurrence of Mututalistic Fungal Endophytes in Bananas (Musa spp.) and Their Potential as Biocontrol Agents of Banana Weevil (Germar) in Uganda. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  35. Dababat, A.E.F.A.; Sikora, R.A. Influence of the mutualistic endophyte Fusarium oxysporum 162 on Meloidogyne incognita attraction and invasion. Nematology 2007, 9, 771–776. [Google Scholar]
  36. Bogner, C.W.; Kariuki, G.M.; Elashry, A.; Sichtermann, G.; Buch, A.K.; Mishra, B.; Thines, M.; Grundler, F.M.W.; Schouten, A. Fungal root endophytes of tomato from Kenya and their nematode biocontrol potential. Mycol. Progress 2016, 15, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Niere, B.I. Significance of Non-Pathogenic Isolates of Fusarium oxysporum Schlecht: Fries for the Biological Control of the Burrowing Nematode Radopholus similis (Cobb) Thorne on Tissue Cultured Banana. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  38. Felde, A.Z.; Pocasangre, L.E.; Carnizares Monteros, C.A.; Sikora, R.A.; Rosales, F.E.; Riveros, A.S. Effect of combined inoculations of endophytic fungi on the biocontrol of Radopholus similis. InfoMusa 2006, 15, 12–18. [Google Scholar]
  39. Mwaura, P.; Dubois, T.; Losenge, T.; Coyne, D.; Kahangi, E. Effect of endophytic Fusarium oxysporum on paralysis and mortality of Pratylenchus goodeyi. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2010, 9, 1130–1134. [Google Scholar]
  40. Menjivar, R.D.; Hagemann, M.H.; Kranz, J.; Cabrera, J.A.; Dababat, A.A.; Sikora, R.A. Biological control of Meloidogyne incognita on cucurbitaceous crops by the non-pathogenic endophytic fungus Fusarium oxysporum strain 162. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2011, 57, 249–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Van Dessel, P.; Coyne, D.; Dubois, T.; Waele, D.D.; Franco, J. In vitro nematicidal effect of endophytic Fusarium oxysporum against Radopholus similis, Pratylenchus goodeyi and Helicotylenchus multicinctus. Nematropica 2011, 41, 154–160. [Google Scholar]
  42. West, C.P.; Izekor, E.; Oosterhuis, D.M.; Robbins., R.T. The effect of Acremonium coenophialum on the growth and nematode infestation of tall fescue. Plant Soil 1988, 112, 3–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kimmons, C.A.; Quinn, K.D.; Bernard, E.C. Nematode reproduction on endophyte infected and endophyte-free tall rescue. Plant Dis. 1990, 74, 757–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Elmi, A.A.; West, C.P.; Robbins, R.T.; Kirkpatrick, T.L. Endophyte effects on reproduction of a root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne marylandi) and osmotic adjustment in tall fescue. Grass Forage Sci. 2000, 55, 166–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zhou, W.; Starr, J.L.; Krumm, J.L.; Sword, G.A. The fungal endophyte Chaetomium globosum negatively affects both above-and belowground herbivores in cotton. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2016, 92, fiw158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Munif, A.; Hallmann, J.; Sikora, R.A. Evaluation of the biocontrol activity of endophytic bacteria from tomato against Meloidogyne incognita. Meded. Fac. Landbouwkund. EnToegepaste Biol. Wet. Univ. Gent. 2000, 65, 471–480. [Google Scholar]
  47. Mekete, T.; Hallmann, J.; Kiewnick, S.; Sikora, R. Endophytic bacteria from Ethiopian coffee plants and their potential to antagonize Meloidogyne incognita. Nematology 2009, 11, 117–127. [Google Scholar]
  48. Vetrivelkalai, P.; Sivakumar, M.; Jonathan, E.I. Biocontrol potential of endophytic bacteria on Meloidogyne incognita and its effect on plant growth in bhendi. J. Biopestic. 2010, 3, 452–457. [Google Scholar]
  49. Yan, X.-N.; Sikora, R.A.; Zheng, J.-W. Potential use of cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) endophytic fungi as seed treatment agents against root-knot nematode Meloidogyne incognita. J. Zhejiang Univ.-Sci. B (Biomed. Biotechnol.) 2011, 12, 219–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  50. Martinuz, A.; Schouten, A.; Sikora, R.A. Post-infection development of Meloidogyne incognita on tomato treated with the endophytes Fusarium oxysporum strain Fo162 and Rhizobium etli strain G12. BioControl 2013, 58, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Munif, A.; Hallmann, J.; Sikora, R.A. The influence of endophytic bacteria on Meloidogyne incognita infection and tomato plant growth. J. ISSAAS 2013, 19, 68–74. [Google Scholar]
  52. Amin, N. The use of fungal endophytes Gliocladium spp. in different concentration to control of root-knot nematode Meloidogyne spp. Acad. Res. Int. 2014, 5, 91–95. [Google Scholar]
  53. Tian, X.; Yao, Y.; Chen, G.; Mao, Z.; Wang, X.; Xie, B. Suppression of Meloidogyne incognita by the endophytic fungus Acremonium implicatum from tomato root galls. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2014, 60, 239–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hu, H.; Chen, Y.; Wang, Y.; Tang, Y.; Chen, S.; and Yan, S. Endophytic Bacillus cereus effectively controls Meloidogyne incognita on tomato plants through rapid rhizosphere occupation and repellent action. Plant Dis. 2017, 101, 448–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Vetrivelkalai, P. Evaluation of endophytic bacterial isolates against root knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita in tomato under glasshouse condition. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 2019, 8, 2584–2589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Pocasangre, L. Biological Enhancement of Banana Tissue Culture Plantlets with Endophytic Fungi for the Control of the Burrowing Nematode Radopholus similis and the Panama Disease (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense). Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  57. Dubois, T.; Gold, C.S.; Coyne, D.; Paparu, P.; Mukwaba, E.; Athman, S.; Kapindu, S.; Adipala, E. Merging biotechnology with biological control: Banana Musa tissue culture plants enhanced by endophytic fungi. Uganda J. Agric. Sci. 2004, 9, 445–451. [Google Scholar]
  58. Jonathan, E.I.; Umamaheswari, R. Biomanagement of nematodes infesting banana by bacterial endophytes (Bacillus subtilis). Indian J. Nematol. 2006, 36, 6303–6960. [Google Scholar]
  59. Vu, T.; Sikora, R.; Hauschild, R. Fusarium oxysporum endophytes induced systemic resistance against Radopholus similis on banana. Nematology 2006, 8, 847–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Viljoen, A.; Labuschagne, N.; Dubois, T.; Athman, S.; Coyne, D.; Gold, C.S. Effect of endophytic Fusarium oxysporum on root penetration and reproduction of Radopholus similis in tissue culture-derived banana (Musa spp.) plants. Nematology 2007, 9, 599–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mendoza, A.R.; Sikora, R.A. Biological control of Radopholus similis in banana by combined application of the mutualistic endophyte Fusarium oxysporum strain 162, the egg pathogen Paecilomyces lilacinus strain 251 and the antagonistic bacteria Bacillus firmus. Biocontrol 2009, 54, 263–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Waweru, B.W.; Losenge, T.; Kahangi, E.M.; Dubois, T.; Coyne, D. Potential biological control of lesion nematodes on banana using Kenyan strains of endophytic Fusarium oxysporum. Nematology 2013, 15, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Su, L.; Shen, Z.; Ruan, Y.; Tao, C.; Chao, Y.; Li, R.; Shen, Q. Isolation of antagonistic endophytes from banana roots against Meloidogyne javanica and their effects on soil nematode community. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 2070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hallmann, J.; Quadt-Hallmann, A.; Miller, W.G.; Sikora, R.A.; Lindow, S.E. Endophytic colonization of plants by the biocontrol agent Rhizobium etli G12 in relation to Meloidogyne incognita infection. Phytopathology 2001, 91, 415–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Trifonova, Z.; Tsvetkov, I.; Bogatzevska, N.; Batchvarova, R. Efficiency of Pseudomonas spp. for biocontrol of the potato cyst nematode Globodera rostochiensis (Woll.). Bulg. J. Agric. Sci. 2014, 20, 666–669. [Google Scholar]
  66. Istifadah, N.; Pratama, N.; Taqwim, S.; Sunarto, T. Effects of bacterial endophytes from potato roots and tubers on potato cyst nematode (Globodera rostochiensis). Biodiversitas 2018, 19, 47–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Muhae-ud-Din, G.; Moosa, A.; Ghummen, U.F.; Jabran, M.; Abbas, A.; Naveed, M.; Jabbar, A.; Ali, M.A. Host status of commonly planted ornamentals to Meloidogyne incognita and management through endophytic bacteria. Pak. J. Zool. 2018, 50, 1393–1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Aravind, R.; Eapen, S.J.; Kumar, A.; Dinu, A.; Ramana, K.V. Screening of endophytic bacteria and evaluation of selected isolates for suppression of burrowing nematode (Radopholus similis Thorne) using three varieties of black pepper (Piper nigrum L.). Crop Prot. 2010, 29, 318–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Tran, T.P.H.; Wang, S.-L.; Nguyen, V.B.; Tran, D.M.; Nguyen, D.S.; Nguyen, A.D. Study of novel endophytic bacteria for biocontrol of black pepper root-knot nematodes in the central highlands of Vietnam. Agronomy 2019, 9, 714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Hoang, H.; Tran, L.H.; Nguyen, T.H.; Nguyen, D.A.T.; Nguyen, H.H.T.; Pham, N.B.; Trinh, P.Q.; de Boer, T.; Brouwer, A.; Chu, H.H. Occurrence of endophytic bacteria in Vietnamese robusta coffee roots and their effects on plant parasitic nematodes. Symbiosis 2020, 80, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hallmann, J.; Quadt-Hallmann, A.; Mahaffee, W.F.; Kloepper, J.W. Bacterial endophytes in agricultural crops. Can. J. Microbiol. 1997, 43, 895–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Padgham, J.L.; Sikora, R.A. Biological control potential and modes of action of Bacillus megaterium against Meloidogyne graminicola on rice. Crop Protect. 2007, 26, 971–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Le, H.T.T.; Padgham, J.L.; Sikora, R.A. Biological control of the rice rootknot nematode Meloidogyne graminicola on rice, using endophytic and rhizosphere fungi, Int. J. Pest Manag. 2009, 55, 31–36. [Google Scholar]
  74. Le, H.T.T.; Padgham, J.L.; Hagemann, M.H.; Sikora, R.A.; Schouten, A. Developmental and behavioural effects of the endophytic Fusarium moniliforme Fe14 towards Meloidogyne graminicola in rice. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2016, 169, 134–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Timper, P.; Gates, R.N.; Bouton, J. Response of Pratylenchus spp. in tall fescue infected with different strains of the fungal endophyte Neotyphodium coenophialum. Nematology 2005, 7, 105–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Rogers, J.K.; Walker, N.R.; Young, C.A. The effect of endophytic fungi on nematode populations in summer-dormant and summer-active tall fescue. J. Nematol. 2016, 48, 87–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Liu, Y.; Ponpandian, L.N.; Kim, H.; Jeon, J.; Hwang, B.S.; Lee, S.K.; Park, S.-C.; Bae, H. Distribution and diversity of bacterial endophytes from four Pinus species and their efficacy as biocontrol agents for devastating pine wood nematodes. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 12461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Munif, A.; Mulyadisastra, S.; Herliyana, E.N.; Pradana, A.P. Endophytic bacterial consortium originated from forestry plant roots and their nematicidal activity against Meloidogyne incognita infestation in greenhouse. Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendelianae Brun. 2019, 67, 1171–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Ponpandian, L.N.; Rim, S.O.; Shanmugam, G.; Jeon, J.; Park, Y.-H.; Lee, S.-K.; Bae, H. Phylogenetic characterization of bacterial endophytes from four Pinus species and their nematicidal activity against the pine wood nematode. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 12457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Zinniel, D.K.; Lambrecht, P.; Harris, N.B.; Feng, Z.; Kuczmarski, D.; Higley, P.; Ishimaru, C.A.; Arunakumari, A.; Barletta, R.G.; Vidaver, A.K. Isolation and characterization of endophytic colonizing bacteria from agronomic crops and prairie plants. Appl. Env. Microbiol. 2002, 68, 2198–2208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  81. Siddiqui, Z.A.; Mahmood, I. Role of bacteria in the management of plant parasitic nematodes: A review. Bioresour. Technol. 1999, 69, 167–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kobayashi, D.Y.; Palumbo, J.D. Bacterial endophytes and their effects on plants and uses in agriculture. In Microbial Endophytes; Bacon, C.W., White, J., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2000; pp. 199–233. [Google Scholar]
  83. Yadav, A.N.; Verma, P.; Kour, D.; Rana, K.L.; Kumar, V.; Singh, B.; Chauahan, V.S.; Sugitha, T.; Saxena, A.K.; Dhaliwal, H.S. Plant microbiomes and its beneficial multifunctional plant growth promoting attributes. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Nat. Resour. 2017, 3, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Escudero, N.; Lopez-Llorca, L.V. Effects on plant growth and root-knot nematode infection of an endophytic GFP transformant of the nematophagous fungus Pochonia chlamydosporia. Symbiosis 2012, 57, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Schouten, A. Mechanisms involved in nematode control by endophytic fungi. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2016, 54, 121–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Fadiji, A.E.; Babalola, O.O. Elucidating mechanisms of endophytes used in plant protection and other bioactivities with multifunctional Prospects. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020, 8, 467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Khan, B.; Yan, W.; Wei, S.; Wang, Z.; Zhao, S.; Cao, L.; Rajput, N.A.; Ye, Y. Nematicidal metabolites from endophytic fungus Chaetomium globosum YSC5. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2019, 366, fnz169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Hasky-Gunther, K.; Sikora, R.A. Induced resistance: A mechanism induced systemically throughout the root system by rhizosphere bacteria towards the potato cyst nematode Globodera pallida. Nematologica 1995, 41, 306. [Google Scholar]
  89. Schafer, K. Dissecting Rhizobacteria-Induced Systemic Resistance in Tomato against Meloidogyne incognita: The First Step Using Molecular Tools. Ph.D. Thesis, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitat Bonn, Bonn, Germany, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  90. Zhao, J.; Wang, S.; Zhu, X.; Wang, Y.; Liu, X.; Duan, Y.; Fan, H.; Chen, L. Isolation and characterization of nodules endophytic bacteria Pseudomonas protegens Sneb 1997 and Serratia plymuthica Sneb 2001 for the biological control of root-knot nematode. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2021, 164, 103924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Kumar, V.; Sarma, M.V.R.K.; Saharan, K.; Srivastava, R.; Kumar, L.; Sahai, V.; Bisaria, V.S.; Sharma, A.K. Effect of formulated root endophytic fungus Piriformospora indica and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria fluorescent pseudomonads R62 and R81 on Vigna mungo. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2012, 28, 595–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Varkey, S.; Anith, K.N.; Narayana, R.; Aswini, S. A consortium of rhizobacteria and fungal endophyte suppress the root-knot nematode parasite in tomato. Rhizosphere 2018, 5, 38–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Soler, A.; Marie-Alphonsine, P.A.; Quénéhervé, P.; Prin, Y.; Sanguin, H.; Tisseyre, P.; Daumur, R.; Pochat, C.; Dorey, E.; Rodriguez, R.G.; et al. Field management of Rotylenchulus reniformis on pineapple combining crop rotation, chemical-mediated induced resistance and endophytic bacterial inoculation. Crop Protec. 2021, 141, 105446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Hasky-Günther, K.; Hoffmann-Hergarten, S.; Sikora, R.A. Resistance against the potato cyst nematode Globodera pallida systemically induced by the rhizobacteria Agrobacterium radiobacter (G12) and Bacillus sphaericus (B43). Fund. Appl. Nematol. 1998, 21, 511–517. [Google Scholar]
  95. Strom, N.; Hu, W.; Haarith, D.; Chen, S.; Bushley, K. Corn and soybean host root endophytic fungi with toxicity toward the soybean cyst nematode. Phytopathology 2020, 110, 603–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Korkina, L.G. Phenylpropanoids as naturally occurring antioxidants: From plant defense to human health. Cell. Mol. Biol. 2007, 53, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  97. Bogner, C.W.; Kamdem, R.S.T.; Sichtermann, G.; Matthäus, C.; Hölscher, D.; Popp, J.; Proksch, P.; Grundler, F.M.W.; Schouten, A. Bioactive secondary metabolites with multiple activities from a fungal endophyte. Microb. Biotechnol. 2017, 10, 175–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Koepcke, B.; Johansson, M.; Sterner, O.; Anke, H. Biologically active secondary metabolites from the ascomycete A111-95 1. Production, isolation and biological activities. J. Antibiot. 2002, 55, 36–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  99. Schwarz, M.; Köpcke, B.; Weber, R.W.; Sterner, O.; Anke, H. 3-Hydroxypropionic acid as a nematicidal principle in endophytic fungi. Phytochemistry 2004, 65, 2239–2245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Li, G.H.; Yu, Z.F.; Li, X.; Wang, X.B.; Zheng, L.J.; Zhang, K.Q. Nematicidal metabolites produced by the endophytic fungus Geotrichum sp. AL4. Chem. Biodivers. 2007, 4, 1520–1524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Kwon, H.R.; Son, S.W.; Han, H.R.; Choi, G.J.; Jang, K.S.; Choi, Y.H.; Lee, S.; Sung, N.-D.; Kim, J.C. Nematicidal activity of bikaverin and fusaric acid isolated from Fusarium oxysporum against pine wood nematode, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus. Plant Pathol. J. 2007, 23, 318–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Zheng, L.; Li, G.; Wang, X.; Pan, W.; Li, L.; Hua, L.; Liu, F.; Dang, L.; Mo, M.; Zhang, K. Nematicidal endophytic bacteria obtained from plants. Ann. Microbiol. 2008, 58, 569–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Hu, Y.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, P.; Ruan, W.; Zhu, X. Nematicidal activity of chaetoglobosin A poduced by Chaetomium globosum NK102 against Meloidogyne incognita. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2013, 61, 41–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Liarzi, O.; Bucki, P.; Braun Miyara, S.; Ezra, D. Bioactive volatiles from an endophytic Daldinia cf. concentrica isolate affect the viability of the plant parasitic nematode Meloidogyne javanica. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0168437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Siddiqui, I.A.; Shaukat, S.S. Endophytic bacteria: Prospects and opportunities for the biological control of plant-parasitic nematodes. Nematol. Mediterr. 2003, 31, 111–120. [Google Scholar]
  106. Hallmann, J.; Davies, K.G.; Sikora, R. Biological control using microbial pathogens, Endophytes and antagonists. In Root Knot Nematodes; Perry, R.N., Moens, M., Starr, J.L., Eds.; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2009; pp. 380–411. [Google Scholar]
  107. Rabiey, M.; Hailey, L.E.; Roy, S.R.; Grenz, K.; Al-Zadjali, M.A.S.; Barrett, G.A.; Jackson, R.W. Endophytes vs tree pathogens and pests: Can they be used as biological control agents to improve tree health? Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2019, 155, 711–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Dara, S.K. The new integrated pest management paradigm for the modern age. J. Integr. Pest Manag. 2019, 10, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Table
Table 1. Effect of fungal and bacterial endophytes against plant-parasitic nematodes (PPN) in different crops.
Table 1. Effect of fungal and bacterial endophytes against plant-parasitic nematodes (PPN) in different crops.
PPN SpeciesCropEndophytic OrganismEffect on PPNReferences
Vegetable crops
Meloidogyne incognitaTomatoPantoe agglomerans (MK-29), Cedecea davisae (MK-30), Enterobacter intermedius (MK-42), Pseudomonas putida (MT-19), P. putida (MT-04), Pseudomonas fluorescens (MK-35)Reduced the number of galls by 27–43% after soil drench application and reduced nematode infestation as a seed treatment [46]
M. incognitaTomatoF. oxysporum (strain 162)Reduced nematode penetration by 36–56%[35]
M. incognita Tomato Agrobacterium radiobacter, Bacillus pumilus, B. brevis, B. megaterium, B. mycoides, B. licheniformis, Chryseobacterium balustinum, Cedecea davisae, Cytophaga johnsonae, Lactobacillus paracasei, Micrococcus luteus, Micrcoccus halobius, Pseudomonas syringae and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Reduced the number of galls and egg masses by 33 and 39%[47]
M. incognitaBhendiPseudomonas spp. (EB3)
Bacillus spp. (EB16, EB18), Methlobacterium spp. (EB19)		Reduced the number of adult females, egg masses, eggs per egg mass and lowered root gall index[48]
M. incognitaCucumber Phyllosticta (Ph5110), Chaetomium (Ch1001),
Acremonium (Ac985), Paecilomyces (Pa972) 		Reduced the number of galls by 24–58% in the first screening and 15.6–44.3% in the repeated test. Chaetomium showed the highest potential for seed treatment against M. incognita[49]
M. incognitaTomato Fusarium oxysporum (Fo162); Rhizobium etli (G12)Reduced the number of eggs per female 35 days after nematode inoculation [50]
M. incognitaTomatoP. agglomerans (MK-29), C. davisae (MK-30), Enterobacter spp. (MK-42), P. putida (MT-19)Reduced early root penetration of J2s into roots up to 56% when applied as a root dip and soil drench; Reduced the number of galls by seed treatment with endophytic bacteria followed by soil drench application [51]
Meloidogyne spp.Tomato Gliocladium spp.Significant decrease in damage intensity to 33% by inoculating conidial suspension at the rate of 106 mL−1[52]
M. incognitaTomatoAcremonium implicatum96.0% of J2s were killed by a culture filtrate after 48 h; Formation of root galls was inhibited in potted plants and root gall index was reduced in the field[53]
M. incognitaTomato F. oxysporum; F. solani;
Trichoderma asperellum		Reduced nematode penetration; T. asperellum and F. oxysporum isolates reduced nematode egg densities by 35–46% [36]
M. incognita TomatoBacillus cereus (BCM2)Reduced gall and egg mass indexes [54]
M. incognitaTomatoBacillus sp. (EB16, EB18)
Methylobacterium sp. (EB19)
Pseudomonas sp. (EB3)		Reduced the number of adult females, egg masses, eggs per eggmass, soil and root population of M. incognita[55]
Fruit crops
Radopholus similisBananaFusariumReduced the number of J2s per gram root by >80%[56]
R. similisBananaF. oxysporumReduced nematode population density on tissue culture plantlets by 49–79%[37]
R. similisBananaFusarium spp. (V5w2)Decreased nematode reproduction by 22.9 and 60.6% in cultivars, Enyeru and Kibuzi respectively[57]
M. incognita, Pratylenchus coffeae,
R. similis, Helicotylenchus multicinctus		BananaBacillus subtilis (EPB 5, 22, 31 and EPC 16)
Talc based		Reduced nematode population in the combined treatment of EPB 5+31[58]
R. similisBananaF. oxysporum (S9, P12)63% reduction in R. similis population in root system[38]
R. similisBanana F. oxysporumPre-inoculation of banana plantlets on one half of the root system significantly reduced root penetration of J2s on the non-treated half of the root by 30–40%[59]
R. similisBananaF. oxysporum (V5w2)Disrupted nematode reproduction[60]
R. similisBananaF. oxysporum (strain
162), Paecilomyces lilacinus (strain 251),
Bacillus firmus		Reduced nematode density by 68% after combined application of F. oxysporum and P. lilacinus; Application of F. oxysporum and B. firmus resulted in reduced J2 density by 86.2%[61]
Pratylenchus goodeyiBananaF. oxysporumIncreased paralysis and mortality of motile stages by 17–26% and 62–73% respectively[39]
M. incognitaSquash and melon F. oxysporum (strain 162) Reduced early root penetration of J2s in squash and melon up to 69 and 73%, respectively [40]
R. similis,
P. goodeyi,
H. multicinctus		BananaF. oxysporumHigher nematode mortality after 24 h exposure to culture filtrates;
H. multicinctus was less sensitive to culture filtrates than R. similis and P. goodeyi		[41]
P. goodeyiBananaF. oxysporum (4MOC321, 11SR23)Significant reduction of P. goodeyi population by >50% and percentage root necrosis was reduced by >30% [62]
M. javanica Banana Streptomyces sp. Inhibition rate of >50% in vitro and biocontrol efficiency of 70.7% in sterile soil against J2s [63]
Tuber crops
M. incognitaPotatoR. etli (G12)The no. of galls on roots was 34% lower than control[64]
Globodera rostochiensisPotato P. fluorescens, P. putida 3, P. syxantha, P. aurantiacea 13Reduced nematode multiplication by 40.7–42.2% over the control with P. putida 3 and P. aurantiacea 13 respectively[65]
G. rostochiensisPotato Bacillus carotarum, B. cereus, and Pseudomonas pseudoalcaligenesIncreased the mortality of J2s by 67–97%; No effect on eggs; suppressed the number of cysts by 51–65% and J2s by 48–76% in greenhouse experiment[66]
Ornamental crops
M. incognitaOrnamentalsP. agglomerans (MN34); P. putida 9MN12) Decreased galling index[67]
Plantation crops
R. similisBlack pepperBacillus megaterium (BP 17) and Curtobacterium luteum (TC 10)Higher nematode suppression with C. luteum followed by B. megaterium[68]
Meloidogyne sp.Black pepperB. megaterium (DS9)Reduced nematode population with great inhibition values of 81 and 73%[69]
Meloidogyne spp.; Pratylenchus spp.; Apratylenchus spp.; Criconemella spp.; Xiphinema spp.; Rotylenchulus spp.CoffeeBacillus spp., Serratia spp., Paenibacillus spp., Enterobacter spp. and Streptomyces spp. (CBG9)Streptomyces sp. showed inhibited egg hatching by 85% and mortality of M. incognita J2s by 85%[70]
M. incognita;
R. similis		Black pepperAA2, MER7, ANIC, TT2, MER9, HEN1, EH11, TT2 Reduced the number of root galls by 30–91%; reduced nematode population in the soil by 15–99%[7]
Agricultural crops
M. incognitaCotton Reduced 30–50% of root galls by seed treatment application [71]
Meloidogyne graminicolaRiceBacillus megateriumReduced nematode penetration and gall formation by >40%[72]
M. graminicolaRiceFusarium spp.Reduced root-galling by 29–42% and increased root weight by 33%[73]
M. incognitaCottonChaetomium globosum TAMU 520 Inhibited nematode infection and reduced female production [45]
M. graminicolaRiceFusarium moniliforme Fe14 Reduced J2 penetration into roots by 55% and increased male to female ratio by nine times. [74]
Fodder crops
Pratylenchus scribneriTall fescueEpichloe coenophialaReduced nematode population[42]
Meloidogyne marylandiTall fescueE. coenophialaReduced the emergence of J2s, number of egg masses per pot and the number of eggs per egg mass [43,44]
P. scribneri;
Helicotylenchus pseudorobustus; M. marylandi		Tall fescueE. coenophialaHinderance in reproduction of the nematodes [43]
Pratylenchus spp.Tall fescueE. coenophialaNon-ergot strain AR584 confer resistance in cv. Georgia 5[75]
Tylenchorhynchus spp., Criconemella spp., Helicotylenchus spp.; Pratylenchus spp.Tall fescueE. coenophiala (AR584; AR542; AR502)No effect on nematode population densities[76]
Forest trees
Bursaphelenchus xylophilusPine treesEscherichia coli (M131, M132) Serratia marcescens (M44)E. coli and S. marcescens showed significant nematicidal activity (67 and 60% mortality) respectively [77]
M. incognitaShorea sp.; Swietenia sp.; Albizia falcataria; Anthocephalus cadamba; Juglans nigraBacterial isolatesInhibited egg hatching up to 81% and mortality up to 85%[78]
B. xylophilusPine trees Stenotrophomonas and Bacillus sp. Significant inhibitory activity against PWN during their developmental stages [79]
Table
Table 2. Secondary metabolites identified in endophytes and their effect on PPN.
Table 2. Secondary metabolites identified in endophytes and their effect on PPN.
MetaboliteBacteria/FungiNematodeReferences
PregaliellalactoneGaliella rufaMeloidogyne incognita[98]
3-Hydroxypropionic acidEndophytic fungiM. incognita[99]
Chlorinated oxazinane derivate (1-[(2R*,4S*,5S*)-2-chloro-4-methyl-1,3-oxazinan-5-yl] ethenone) and an epimer of the former (1-[(2R*,4S*,5R*)-2-chloro-4-methyl-1,3-oxazinan-5-yl] ethanone)Geotrichum sp. (AL4)Bursaphelenchus xylophilus; Panagrellus redivivus[100]
Fusaric acid and Bikaverin Fusarium oxysporum (EF119) B. xylophilus[101]
(R)-(−)-2-ethylhexan-1-olBrevundimonas diminuta (LCB-3)B. xylophilus[102]
Chaetoglobosin A Chaetomium globosum (NK102)M. incognita[103]
3-methyl-1-butanol, (±)-2-methyl-1-butanol, 4-heptanone, and isoamyl acetate Daldinia cf. concentricaMeloidogyne javanica[104]
4-hydroxybenzoic acid, indole-
3-acetic acid and gibepyrone D 		F. oxysporum (162)M. incognita[97]
Chaetoglobosin A, chaetoglobosin B and flavipinC. globosum (YSC5)M. javanica[87]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kumar, K.K.; Dara, S.K. Fungal and Bacterial Endophytes as Microbial Control Agents for Plant-Parasitic Nematodes. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4269. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084269

AMA Style

Kumar KK, Dara SK. Fungal and Bacterial Endophytes as Microbial Control Agents for Plant-Parasitic Nematodes. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(8):4269. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084269

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kumar, K. Kiran, and Surendra K. Dara. 2021. "Fungal and Bacterial Endophytes as Microbial Control Agents for Plant-Parasitic Nematodes" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 8: 4269. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084269

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