Fermentation Conditions and Wettable Powder Formulation of Biocontrol Agent Bacillus atrophaeus YL84 in Control of Pear Valsa Canker
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Strains and Culture Media
2.2. Carriers and Adjuvants
2.3. Preparation of Seed Inoculum
2.4. Effect of Fermentation Media on Bacterial Growth and Antagonistic Activity
colony diameter)/control colony diameter] × 100.
2.5. Single-Factor Optimization of Fermentation Medium Components
2.6. Response Surface Optimization of Fermentation Medium Components
2.7. Optimization of Fermentation Conditions
2.8. Evaluation of Fermentation Outcomes
2.9. Screening of Wettable Powder Carriers and Adjuvants
2.9.1. Carrier Selection and Preparation of Original Powder
2.9.2. Screening of Wetting and Dispersing Agents
2.9.3. Optimization of the Wetting-to-Dispersing Agent Ratio
2.9.4. Effect of Total Adjuvant Dosage on Wettable Powder Performance
2.9.5. Stabilizer Screening
2.9.6. UV Protectant Screening
2.9.7. Formulation of the Final YL84 Wettable Powder
2.9.8. Quality Evaluation of the Wettable Powder
2.9.9. Inhibition of Mycelial Growth of Cytospora pyri by the Wettable Powder
2.9.10. Detached-Branch Assay Against Korla Pear Valsa Canker
2.10. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Effects of Basal Fermentation Media on YL84 Growth and Antagonistic Activity
3.2. Determination of Optimal Carbon, Nitrogen, and Inorganic Salt Sources and Loading Levels
3.3. Response Surface Methodology for Medium Optimization
0.190625BC − 0.1523A2 − 1.07687B2 − 0.359844C2
3.4. Effects of Fermentation Conditions on YL84
3.5. Inhibition of Korla Pear Valsa Canker Mycelia Under Optimized Conditions
3.6. Carrier Selection for the YL84 Wettable Powder
3.7. Screening of Wetting and Dispersing Agents
3.8. Optimization of the Wetting-to-Dispersing Agent Ratio
3.9. Determination of the Total Adjuvant Dosage
3.10. Screening of High-Temperature Stabilizers
3.11. UV Protectant Screening
3.12. Quality Assessment of the Bacillus atrophaeus YL84 WP
3.13. Inhibition of Cytospora pyri Mycelial Growth by the YL84 WP
3.14. Control Efficacy of the YL84 WP on Korla Pear Valsa Canker
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Adams, G.; Wingfield, M.J.; Common, R.; Roux, J. Phylogenetic relationships and morphology of Cytospora species and related teleomorphs (Ascomycota, Diaporthales, Valsaceae) from Eucalyptus. Stud. Mycol. 2004, 52, 1–144. [Google Scholar]
- Mao, X.; Ding, S.; Tian, Y.; Chen, B.; Mao, J.; Ma, Z.; Zuo, C. Transcriptomic analysis revealed hormone-related and receptor-like kinase genes involved in wound healing of ‘Duli’ and its resistance to Valsa pyri. Plant Mol. Biol. Rep. 2022, 40, 271–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agrios, G.N. How plants defend themselves against pathogens. In Plant Pathology, 5th ed.; Agrios, G.N., Ed.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 207–248. [Google Scholar]
- Spielman, L.J. A monograph of Valsa on hardwoods in North America. Can. J. Bot. 1985, 63, 1355–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Zang, R.; Yin, Z.; Kang, Z.; Huang, L. Delimiting cryptic pathogen species causing apple Valsa canker with multilocus data. Ecol. Evol. 2014, 4, 1369–1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, Z.F.; Wu, X.Q.; Lv, G.H.; Xue, C.; Wu, T.T.; Liu, P.; Zhu, L.W. Identification of the pathogen causing pear tree rot disease and screening of chemical agents. J. Huazhong Agric. Univ. 2015, 34, 49–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, H.; Wu, Z.; Tian, C.; Liang, Y.; You, C.; Chen, L. Identification and characterization of the endophytic bacterium Bacillus atrophaeus XW2, antagonistic towards Colletotrichum gloeosporioides. Ann. Microbiol. 2015, 65, 1361–1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ketta, H.A.; Elkhateeb, N.M.; Saleh, M.M.; Kamel, S.M. Efficiency assessment of combinations between Rhizobium leguminosarum and Trichoderma spp. for controlling of pea (Pisum sativum L.) damping-off disease. Egypt. J. Phytopathol. 2021, 49, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zambrano, E.C.; Parra, A.S.; Ortiz, Á.M.M. Biocontrol of rice sheath blight with microorganisms obtained in rice cultivated soils. Bragantia 2021, 80, e0921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guardado-Valdivia, L.; Tovar-Pérez, E.; Chacón-López, A.; López-García, U.; Gutiérrez-Martínez, P.; Stoll, A.; Aguilera, S. Identification and characterization of a new Bacillus atrophaeus strain B5 as biocontrol agent of postharvest anthracnose disease in soursop (Annona muricata) and avocado (Persea americana). Microbiol. Res. 2018, 210, 26–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xue, J.; Sun, L.; Xu, H.; Gu, Y.; Lei, P. Bacillus atrophaeus NX-12 utilizes exosmotic glycerol from Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cucumerinum for fengycin production. J. Agric. Food. Chem. 2023, 71, 10565–10574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rajaofera, M.J.N.; Wang, Y.; Dahar, G.Y.; Jin, P.; Fan, L.; Xu, L.; Liu, W.; Miao, W. Volatile organic compounds of Bacillus atrophaeus HAB-5 inhibit the growth of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2019, 156, 170–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tang, Y.X.; Wang, Z.; Wang, L.; Zhang, Y.W.; Zhang, Z.; Peng, S.S.; Li, Z.Y. Screening, identification and biological functional characteristics of antagonistic bacteria against the tree rot pathogen of Korla sweet pear. J. Plant Protect. 2025, 52, 677–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ratnam, B.V.V.; Narasimha Rao, M.; Damodar Rao, M.; Subba Rao, S.; Ayyanna, C. Optimization of fermentation conditions for the production of ethanol from sago starch using response surface methodology. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2003, 19, 523–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anthony, T.; Rajesh, T.; Kayalvizhi, N.; Gunasekaran, P. Influence of medium components and fermentation conditions on the production of bacteriocin(s) by Bacillus licheniformis AnBa9. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 872–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Acharya, S.; Chaudhary, A. Optimization of fermentation conditions for cellulases production by Bacillus licheniformis MVS1 and Bacillus sp. MVS3 isolated from Indian hot spring. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 2012, 55, 497–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Y.; Yang, X.; Li, Q.; Peng, Z.; Li, J.; Zhang, J. Optimization of fermentation conditions for surfactin production by Bacillus subtilis YPS-32. BMC Microbiol. 2023, 23, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Egbewale, O.S.; Kumar, A.; Mokoena, P.M.; Olaniran, O.A. Optimization of anthracene biodegradation by indigenous Trichoderma lixii and Talaromyces pinophilus using response surface methodology. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2025, 289, 117431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brar, S.K.; Verma, M.; Tyagi, R.D.; Valéro, J.R. Recent advances in downstream processing and formulations of Bacillus thuringiensis based biopesticides. Process Biochem. 2006, 41, 323–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ranjbar, Z.; Salehi, M.; Safaie, N. An endophytic Trichoderma-based wettable powder formulation for biocontrol of apple stem cankers. J. Phytopathol. 2024, 172, e13266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xing, Z.; Liu, D.; Luo, M.; Yang, Z.; Pang, W.; Feng, Y.; Yan, J.; He, F.; Feng, X.; Yuan, Q.; et al. Analysis of the control effect of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens C4 wettable powder on potato bacterial wilt caused by Ralstonia solanacearum. Agronomy 2025, 15, 206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, Y.; Xue, Q.; Yu, J.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, Z.; Wang, L.; Feng, H. Biocontrol and growth-promoting potential of antagonistic strain YL84 against Verticillium dahliae. Agronomy 2025, 15, 1997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, L.; Feng, H. Study on Pathogenesis of Cytospora pyri in Korla Fragrant Pear Trees (Pyrus sinkiangensis). J. Fungi 2025, 11, 257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Q.; Shan, Z.; Yang, Z.; Ma, H.; Zou, L.; Dong, M.; Qi, T. Biocontrol potential of Bacillus stercoris strain DXQ-1 against rice blast fungus guy11. Microorganisms 2025, 13, 1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, Y.X.; Li, M.G.; Shi, Z.F.; Zhao, J.Y.; Wang, N.; Li, Z.F.; Yang, M.Y.; Chen, Q.B.; Yang, P.W. Development of the wettable powder of Bacillus belaisi strain SH-1471 and its efficacy in controlling tomato wilt disease. Chin. J. Biol. Control 2023, 39, 904–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wen, J.; Pi, N.; He, F.; Zeng, Y.; Weng, Q.; Luo, J. Optimization of the fermentation and preparation of the wettable powder formulation of Bacillus velezensis F0b. Microorganisms 2025, 13, 560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- GB/T 19136-2021; Testing Method of the Accelerated Storage Stability at Elevated Temperature for Pesticides. China Standards Press: Beijing, China, 2021.
- Li, Y.S.; Cui, W.Y.; Zhang, C.F.; Huang, X.X.; He, P.J. Optimization of culture medium and fermentation parameters of Bacillus velezensis HC-8 antagonistic to Erysiphe lonicerae. J. South. Agric. 2021, 52, 2148–2157. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, J.M. Optimization of Fermentation Conditions of Bacillus atrophaeus XW2. Master’s Thesis, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, China, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiao, J.H.; Shen, S.; Hu, R. Optimization of the activity of Bacillus atrophaeus E20303 against potato dry rot pathogens by response surface methodology. J. Microbiol. 2022, 49, 2411–2427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jangir, M.; Sharma, S.; Sharma, S. Development of next-generation formulation against Fusarium oxysporum and unraveling bioactive antifungal metabolites of biocontrol agents. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 22895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qaderi, S.; Safaie, N. Endophytic fungi-based wettable powder formulation for Rhizoctonia solani AG-4 biocontrol. Plant Soil 2023, 488, 485–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zulfitri, A.; Krishanti, N.P.R.A.; Lestari, A.S.; Meisyara, D.; Zulfiana, D. Efficacy of several entomopathogenic microorganism as microbial insecticide against insect pest on chili (Capsicum annum L.). IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 572, 012020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, M.; Li, S.; Zhou, Q.; Zhou, D.; He, N.; Qian, Z. Safety evaluation of microbial pesticide (HaNPV) based on PCR method. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng. 2019, 13, 377–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samada, L.H.; Tambunan, U.S.F. Biopesticides as promising alternatives to chemical pesticides: A Review of their current and future status. OnLine J. Biol. Sci. 2020, 20, 66–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiou, A.L.; Wu, W. Formulation of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens B190 for control of lily grey mould (Botrytis elliptica). J. Phytopathol. 2003, 151, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeng, Y.; Liu, H.; Zhu, T.; Han, S.; Li, S. Preparation of nanomaterial wettable powder formulations of antagonistic bacteria from Phellodendron chinense and the biological control of brown leaf spot disease. Plant Pathol. J. 2021, 37, 215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yi, Y.; Luan, P.; Liu, S.; Shan, Y.; Hou, Z.; Zhao, S.; Jia, S.; Li, R. Efficacy of Bacillus subtilis XZ18-3 as a biocontrol agent against Rhizoctonia cerealis on wheat. Agriculture 2022, 12, 258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.Y.; Sun, L.L.; Zhang, J.; Cao, C.W. Preparation and insecticidal efficacy of wettable powder formulations of Bacillus thuringiensis and Beauveria bassiana. J. Beijing For. Univ. 2014, 36, 34–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.G.; Guo, C.J.; Jiao, Y.; Zhao, P.; Tian, J.; Zhang, L.R.; Shen, R.Q. The development of wettable powder of the thick-walled spores of Trichoderma harzianum M-17 and its field efficacy against potato dry rot disease. Chin. J. Biol. Control 2024, 40, 1319–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansel, J.; Saville, A.C.; Ristaino, J.B. Evaluation of a formulation of Bacillus subtilis for control of Phytophthora blight of bell pepper. Plant Dis. 2024, 108, 1014–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, C.; Li, X.Y.; Zou, Y.Q.; Wang, R.; Hou, J.M.; Liao, W.M.; Liu, T. Formulation preparation of wettable powder for Trichoderma brev. Agrochemicals 2022, 61, 329–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, P.X.; Li, S.L.; Li, Y.G.; Zhang, D.J.; Luo, Y.C.; Tian, L. Optimization of the wettable powder formula for Bacillus marinus. Chin. J. Pestic. Sci. 2014, 16, 206–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.J.; Xu, W.; Huang, Y.L.; Huang, Y.Y.; Jia, Z.H. Storage ability and application effect of Trichoderma Tr-92 chlamydospores wettable powder. J. Plant Protect. 2017, 44, 495–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, R.L. Screening of Biocontrol Microbe and Agentpreperation on Kiwifruit Bacterial canker. Master’s Thesis, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, China, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, Q.J.; Lei, M.Y.; Yang, Y.X.; Hu, Y.; Han, Z.M.; Sun, Z.; Wang, W.; Zhang, H.; Yang, L.M. Research on the development of wettable powder of Chaetomium globosum and its prevention and control of ginseng rust root rot. Chin. Wild Plant Resour. 2025, 44, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hang, N.T.T.; Oh, S.O.; Kim, G.H.; Hur, J.S.; Koh, Y.J. Bacillus subtilis S1-0210 as a biocontrol agent against Botrytis cinerea in strawberries. Plant Pathol. J. 2005, 21, 59–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dahar, G.Y.; Wang, H.W.; Rajer, F.U.; Jin, P.; Xu, P.; Abro, M.A.; Qureshi, A.S.; Karim, A.; Miao, W. Comparative genomic analysis of Bacillus atrophaeus HAB-5 reveals genes associated with antimicrobial and plant growth-promoting activities. Front. Microbiol. 2024, 15, 1384691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S.; Dai, S.; Huang, L.; Cui, Y.; Ying, M. Biocontrol ability of strain Bacillus amyloliquefaciens SQ-2 against table grape rot caused by Aspergillus tubingensis. J. Agric. Food. Chem. 2024, 72, 24374–24386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chen, L.; Shi, H.; Heng, J.; Wang, D.; Bian, K. Antimicrobial, plant growth-promoting and genomic properties of the peanut endophyte Bacillus velezensis LDO2. Microbiol. Res. 2019, 218, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, F.; Mao, Y.; Zhao, F.; Idris, A.L.; Liu, Q.; Zou, S.; Guan, X.; Huang, T. Towards sustainable green adjuvants for microbial pesticides: Recent progress, upcoming challenges, and future oerspectives. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jadhav, N.; Pantwalawalkar, J.; Sawant, R.; Attar, A.; Lohar, D.; Kadane, P.; Ghadage, K. Development of progesterone oily suspension using moringa oil and neusilin US2. J. Pharm. Innov. 2021, 21, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sukirno, S.; Lukmawati, D.; Hanum, S.S.L.; Ameliya, V.F.; Sumarmi, S.; Purwanto, H.; Suparmin, S.; Sudaryadi, I.; Soesilohadi, R.C.H.; Aldawood, A.S. The effectiveness of Samia ricini Drury (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae) and Attacus atlas L. (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae) cocoon extracts as ultraviolet protectants of Bacillus thuringiensis for controlling Spodoptera litura Fab. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2022, 42, 255–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- NY/T 2293.1-2012; Bacterial Pesticides-Bacillus subtilis-Part 1: Bacillus subtilis Technical Concentrates (TK). China Standards Press: Beijing, China, 2012.











| Level | Factor | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Sucrose (g·L−1) | Tryptone (g·L−1) | MgSO4 (g·L−1) | |
| −1 | 10 | 10 | 2 |
| 0 | 15 | 12 | 6 |
| 1 | 20 | 14 | 10 |
| Run Number | A: Sucrose | B: Tryptone | C: MgSO4 | Inhibition Rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 76.4% |
| 2 | 1 | −1 | 0 | 73.5% |
| 3 | −1 | 1 | 0 | 74.5% |
| 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 70.9% |
| 5 | −1 | 0 | −1 | 74.5% |
| 6 | 1 | 0 | −1 | 70.3% |
| 7 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 73.4% |
| 8 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 71.3% |
| 9 | 0 | −1 | −1 | 71.3% |
| 10 | 0 | 1 | −1 | 73.3% |
| 11 | 0 | −1 | 1 | 73.5% |
| 12 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 69.4% |
| 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 81.4% |
| 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 81.6% |
| 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 82.5% |
| 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 80.7% |
| 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 83.5% |
| Treatment | Inhibition Rate (%) | OD600 |
|---|---|---|
| Before optimization | 77.34 ± 2.08 b | 1.346 ± 0.06 b |
| Optimized | 83.71 ± 1.46 a | 1.758 ± 0.08 a |
| Filler | Adsorption Capacity (mL/g) | Wetting Time (s) | Suspending Rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diatomite | 1.42 ± 1.73 c | 19 s ± 2.94 d | 14% ± 3.45 c |
| Kaolin | 0.88 ± 0.10 d | 32 s ± 3.74 c | 30% ± 5.72 b |
| Talcum powder | 0.5 ± 0.19 d | 87 s ± 2.12 a | 11.8% ± 1.31 c |
| Attapulgite | 1.86 ± 0.15 b | 25 s ± 4.32 d | 48.6% ± 3.89 a |
| Precipitated silica | 2.26 ± 0.17 a | 49 s ± 3.56 b | 27.4% ± 2.77 b |
| Treatment | Different Combinations | Wetting Time (s) | Levitation Rate (%) | Spore Viability (×109 CFU/g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sodium lignin sulfonate Sodium alkyl naphthalene sulfonate | 46.4 ± 5.69 ab | 63.78 ± 2.63 b | 1.73 ± 0.19 d |
| 2 | Sodium lignin sulfonate Sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) | 26.8 ± 8.23 d | 60.12 ± 4.20 b | 2.27 ± 0.16 bc |
| 3 | Sodium lignin sulfonate Tween 60 | 45.3 ± 6.01 ab | 16.67 ± 3.05 f | 1.99 ± 0.15 cd |
| 4 | Polyethylene glycol 6000 (PEG6000) Sodium alkyl naphthalene sulfonate | 31.7 ± 4.99 cd | 72.44 ± 3.38 a | 2.73 ± 0.24 a |
| 5 | Polyethylene glycol 6000 (PEG6000) Sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) | 50.2 ± 5.49 a | 18.67 ± 3.71 ef | 2.55 ± 0.11 ab |
| 6 | Polyethylene glycol 6000 (PEG6000) Tween 60 | 38.6 ± 3.80 abc | 25.56 ± 3.73 de | 2.56 ± 0.12 ab |
| 7 | Sodium tripolyphosphate Sodium alkyl naphthalene sulfonate | 43.5 ± 7.77 abc | 38.89 ± 4.18 c | 2.22 ± 0.17 bc |
| 8 | Sodium tripolyphosphate Sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) | 36.6 ± 3.09 bcd | 44.89 ± 3.41 c | 1.64 ± 0.08 d |
| 9 | Sodium tripolyphosphate Tween 60 | 35.6 ± 4.70 bcd | 29.56 ± 3.96 d | 1.82 ± 0.12 d |
| Treatment | Different Combinations | Wetting Time (s) | Levitation Rate (%) | Spore Viability (×109 CFU/g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1:9 | 42.3 ± 3.07 cd | 62.67 ± 2.97 b | 2.42 ± 0.09 c |
| 2 | 2:8 | 52.9 ± 3.83 ab | 49.56 ± 3.53 d | 2.53 ± 0.08 bc |
| 3 | 3:7 | 33.0 ± 1.76 f | 71.56 ± 2.53 a | 2.87 ± 0.09 a |
| 4 | 4:6 | 32.4 ± 3.40 f | 65.78 ± 2.33 ab | 2.74 ± 0.11 ab |
| 5 | 5:5 | 53.2 ± 3.36 ab | 60.44 ± 3.08 bc | 2.84 ± 0.12 a |
| 6 | 6:4 | 39.8 ± 3.93 de | 59.78 ± 2.69 bc | 2.63 ± 0.11 abc |
| 7 | 7:3 | 57.6 ± 4.46 a | 55.11 ± 2.27 cd | 2.78 ± 0.10 a |
| 8 | 8:2 | 49.1 ± 3.11 bc | 62.22 ± 2.08 b | 2.71 ± 0.09 ab |
| 9 | 9:1 | 36.4 ± 3.03 de | 60.22 ± 3.01 bc | 2.74 ± 0.13 ab |
| Treatment | Different Combinations | Wetting Time (s) | Levitation Rate (%) | Spore Viability (×109 CFU/g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2% | 28.2 ± 2.47 ab | 57.99 ± 2.57 de | 2.82 ± 0.05 a |
| 2 | 4% | 26.6 ± 2.27 b | 56.66 ± 3.57 e | 2.83 ± 0.088 a |
| 3 | 6% | 31.1 ± 1.72 ab | 62.22 ± 4.09 bcde | 2.84 ± 0.10 a |
| 4 | 8% | 31.0 ± 3.14 ab | 65.33 ± 4.84 abcd | 2.93 ± 0.06 a |
| 5 | 10% | 30.2 ± 2.92 ab | 59.77 ± 4.76 cde | 2.90 ± 0.15 a |
| 6 | 12% | 29.5 ± 3.96 ab | 66.52 ± 3.20 abc | 2.96 ± 0.11 a |
| 7 | 14% | 31.1 ± 1.68 ab | 68.37 ± 2.95 ab | 2.85 ± 0.12 a |
| 8 | 16% | 33.6 ± 4.00 a | 68.96 ± 2.19 ab | 2.98 ± 0.14 a |
| 9 | 18% | 28.4 ± 1.64 ab | 72.22 ± 3.02 a | 3.01 ± 0.07 a |
| Stabilizer | Content | Wetting Time (s) | Levitation Rate (%) | Initial Spore Viability (×109 CFU/g) | Spore Viability After 7 d of Heat Storage (×109 CFU/g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| K2HPO4 | 1% | 34.6 ± 3.02 c | 55.41 ± 4.18 e | 2.56 ± 0.15 cd | 1.16 ± 0.09 bc |
| 2% | 42.03 ± 3.93 ab | 60.74 ± 3.60 cde | 2.41 ± 0.08 de | 1.35 ± 0.05 b | |
| 3% | 35.0 ± 2.35 c | 58.37 ± 0.86 de | 2.57 ± 0.11 cd | 1.18 ± 0.15 bc | |
| CMC-Na | 1% | 41.4 ± 2.78 ab | 66.22 ± 3.18 bc | 2.33 ± 0.06 e | 1.01 ± 0.22 c |
| 2% | 43.8 ± 2.69 a | 68.00 ± 1.91 ab | 2.64 ± 0.05 bc | 1.39 ± 0.13 b | |
| 3% | 42.8 ± 3.76 a | 61.63 ± 3.45 cd | 2.70 ± 0.08 abc | 1.26 ± 0.09 bc | |
| CaCO3 | 1% | 35.5 ± 2.29 c | 71.55 ± 2.45 ab | 2.73 ± 0.06 abc | 1.64 ± 0.06 a |
| 2% | 33.0 ± 2.17 c | 73.40 ± 0.82 a | 2.84 ± 0.08 a | 1.78 ± 0.06 a | |
| 3% | 36.4 ± 1.39 bc | 71.26 ± 1.17 ab | 2.75 ± 0.07 a | 1.65 ± 0.09 a | |
| CK | - | 46.1 ± 1.68 a | 47.78 ± 1.37 f | 2.46 ± 0.06 de | 1.27 ± 0.05 bc |
| UV Protective Agent | Content | Wetting Time (s) | Levitation Rate (%) | Initial Spore Viability (×109 CFU/g) | Spore Viability After 12 h of UV Irradiation (×109 CFU/g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vitamin C | 0.5% | 38.2 ± 1.24 bcde | 68.89 ± 2.74 b | 2.62 ± 0.07 a | 1.49 ± 0.03 a |
| 1% | 35.7 ± 1.64 de | 74.08 ± 1.06 a | 2.65 ± 0.11 a | 1.43 ± 0.09 a | |
| 1.5% | 36.1 ± 5.07 cde | 69.78 ± 1.19 ab | 2.47 ± 0.09 a | 1.16 ± 0.05 b | |
| Dextrin | 0.5% | 46.0 ± 1.65 a | 54.74 ± 3.09 c | 2.45 ± 0.06 a | 1.28 ± 0.12 ab |
| 1% | 40.3 ± 3.61 bcd | 51.96 ± 1.79 cd | 2.63 ± 0.06 a | 0.57 ± 0.16 c | |
| 1.5% | 35.5 ± 0.98 de | 51.56 ± 2.92 cd | 2.64 ± 0.12 a | 0.72 ± 0.11 c | |
| Humic Acid | 0.5% | 33.1 ± 1.08 e | 47.70 ± 1.27 de | 2.53 ± 0.07 a | 1.29 ± 0.13 ab |
| 1% | 41.5 ± 1.35 abc | 45.93 ± 1.74 e | 2.44 ± 0.11 a | 1.15 ± 0.10 b | |
| 1.5% | 43.2 ± 2.99 ab | 46.30 ± 2.18 e | 2.48 ± 0.12 a | 0.778 ± 0.12 c | |
| CK | - | 38.8 ± 0.96 bcd | 45.68 ± 2.87 e | 2.59 ± 0.13 a | 1.28 ± 0.06 ab |
| Target | Measurement Value |
|---|---|
| Spore viability (109 CFU g−1) | 2.63 |
| pH | 7.7 |
| Wetting time (s) | 35.7 |
| Suspension rate (%) | 74.8 |
| WP Dilution Factor | Inhibition Rate (%) |
|---|---|
| 50-fold | 75.26 ± 2.12 a |
| 100-fold | 68.13 ± 1.89 b |
| Treatment | Lesion Length/cm | Control Effect/% |
|---|---|---|
| Inoculating WP of antagonistic Bacillus atrophaeus YL84 first and then inoculating Cytospora pyri | 1.97 ± 0.13 b | 72.83 ± 2.23 a |
| Inoculating C. pyri first and then inoculating WP of antagonistic Bacillus atrophaeus YL84 | 2.28 ± 0.15 b | 68.59 ± 1.84 b |
| Only inoculating C. pyri | 7.26 ± 0.19 a | - |
| Only WP YL84 (CK) | - | - |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Tang, Y.; Li, P.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Li, Z.; Xue, Q.; Yu, J.; Wang, Z.; Feng, H.; Wang, L. Fermentation Conditions and Wettable Powder Formulation of Biocontrol Agent Bacillus atrophaeus YL84 in Control of Pear Valsa Canker. Microorganisms 2026, 14, 331. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms14020331
Tang Y, Li P, Zhang Y, Zhang Z, Li Z, Xue Q, Yu J, Wang Z, Feng H, Wang L. Fermentation Conditions and Wettable Powder Formulation of Biocontrol Agent Bacillus atrophaeus YL84 in Control of Pear Valsa Canker. Microorganisms. 2026; 14(2):331. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms14020331
Chicago/Turabian StyleTang, Yuxin, Pengfei Li, Yiwen Zhang, Zhen Zhang, Ziying Li, Qinyuan Xue, Jiahui Yu, Zhe Wang, Hongzu Feng, and Lan Wang. 2026. "Fermentation Conditions and Wettable Powder Formulation of Biocontrol Agent Bacillus atrophaeus YL84 in Control of Pear Valsa Canker" Microorganisms 14, no. 2: 331. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms14020331
APA StyleTang, Y., Li, P., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Z., Li, Z., Xue, Q., Yu, J., Wang, Z., Feng, H., & Wang, L. (2026). Fermentation Conditions and Wettable Powder Formulation of Biocontrol Agent Bacillus atrophaeus YL84 in Control of Pear Valsa Canker. Microorganisms, 14(2), 331. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms14020331
