Next Article in Journal
Spray Deposition and Losses to Soil from a Remotely Piloted Aircraft and Airblast Sprayer on Coffee
Previous Article in Journal
Use of Dielectric Heating in Greenhouses
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Trichoderma Production and Encapsulation Methods for Agricultural Applications

by
Erick Vindas-Reyes
1,*,
Randall Chacón-Cerdas
1 and
William Rivera-Méndez
2
1
Biotechnology Research Center, Applied Biochemistry Laboratory, Biology School, Costa Rica Institute of Technology, Cartago P.O. Box 159-7050, Costa Rica
2
Biotechnology Research Center, Biocontrol Laboratory, Biology School, Costa Rica Institute of Technology, Cartago P.O. Box 159-7050, Costa Rica
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
AgriEngineering 2024, 6(3), 2366-2384; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering6030138
Submission received: 4 May 2024 / Revised: 20 June 2024 / Accepted: 9 July 2024 / Published: 22 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Pre and Post-Harvest Engineering in Agriculture)

Abstract

:
Trichoderma is one of the most widely used microorganisms in the biological control of plant pathogens. The techniques for its formulation are well known and are commercially distributed in both solid and liquid presentations based on formulations of its reproductive structures. Currently, agricultural systems integrate this type of fungus as an alternative for sustainable production, and even though its traditional formulation still has important limitations, it has a high potential to be combined with new technologies for the development and innovation of products that improve their effectiveness. In response to this, micro- and nanotechnology are presented as alternatives to technify bioagents, promoting greater resistance, viability, and dissemination for both biomass and metabolites through encapsulation and smart delivery techniques. Some works have been developed to achieve this, especially using ionic gelation, with good results for agriculture. In this work, some generalities of the organism are mentioned, including its most common formulations for agricultural applications, information related to encapsulation systems, and the potential for improvement of biologics represented by biomass microencapsulation.

1. Introduction

Controlling plant pathogens is crucial for maintaining the quality and quantity of food available worldwide, as they affect production systems at various points and with different severity levels [1]. It is estimated that losses in food due to the action of fungi, bacteria, viruses, nematodes, insects, and weeds range from 31% to 42% of the total, which could be higher, possibly doubling this percentage, if the available strategies for controlling plant diseases were disregarded [2]. Among these, fungal problems stand out, with more than 10,000 pathogenic species reported in agriculturally important plants [3].
Various strategies have been tested to achieve this goal, but the inclination for the strong use of chemical products continues to prevail due to cost, availability, and speed of action, regardless of the environmental impact they entail [4,5]. However, the accumulation of toxic substances due to the extensive use of these biocides compromises human health and ecosystems, making them a controversial issue [6,7].
In response to this scenario, the use of biological control agents (BCAs) has positioned itself as one of the main candidates for the development of sustainable agriculture and achieving a change in conventional production methods [8]. These BCAs are usually isolated from the rhizosphere, phyllosphere, or soil near the area where they are intended to be used, thus not adversely altering the local microbiota [9].
BCAs can be made from various organisms, most commonly bacteria and fungi, and selected according to the specific application, the climate where they are going to be implemented, and the growth and storage needs of the biological agent to develop a formulation. Plant-pathogenic bacteria extracts, plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria, growth-promoting fungi, non-pathogenic fungi, mycorrhizae, entomopathogenic fungi, mycoparasitic fungi, or endophytic fungi are some of the common groups of microorganisms [8,10,11]. Table 1 shows examples of BCAs and their reported effectivity.
Among filamentous fungi, most of those with BCA capabilities belong to the Ascomycota phylum, and many of its representatives are numerous species of the Trichoderma genus [30]. In general, among the biological models for the development of specialized bioinputs for the control of pathogens or pests of agronomic interest, along with the promotion of growth with promising results, the Trichoderma sp. genus stands out for its high versatility to adapt to various ecological environments and agricultural scenarios combined with its compatibility with some products used in agricultural management or other biocontrol agents, making it a good candidate for implementation in biological control programs and production systems [31,32]. This trend is also observed in Table 1, where this organism has been implemented in a wide spectrum of agronomic problems. As an interesting fact, in the case of bacterial BCAs, there is a notable preference for the Bacillus genus.

2. Trichoderma as a Biocontrol Agent

Species of fungi from the genus Trichoderma have been used as biocontrol agents for managing diseases and controlling pathogenic fungi in crops [24]. Historically, their versatile management has made them widely recognized as an antagonistic organism since 1920. Furthermore, they possess mechanisms that promote plant growth, induce the production of metabolites of interest and growth-regulating compounds, stimulate plant defense mechanisms, and induce siderophore production [8].
These microorganisms are ubiquitously distributed, rapidly growing on different substrates, and demonstrate swift soil colonization. They exhibit high competition capacity for resources and adaptability to various environments, thanks to their ability to synthesize antimicrobial enzymes and metabolites, their hyperparasitism, and their voracity in acquiring space, oxygen, and nutrients [6]. Identifying a specific species through morphology is challenging due to the plasticity of structural characteristics; hence, molecular testing is always preferable [6].
The mechanisms of action of Trichoderma can be divided into two types of relationships: “Trichoderma-Plant” and “Trichoderma-Pathogens” [33]; the most cited are mycoparasitism (direct attack of other pathogenic fungus by coiling, penetration, and digestion with lytic enzymes), antibiosis (liberation of low-molecular-weight diffusible compounds that inhibit the growth of bacterial or fungal pathogens), competition (effective competitivity for space and nutrients that leads fungal phytopathogens to starvation), and induced resistance (elicit and promote plant defense responses that trigger systemic resistance and systemic acquired resistance) (Figure 1) [34,35]. Besides these, it can facilitate plant–environment interaction, even from plant to plant using phytohormones, help in the absorption of nutrients, and promote efficient management of internal resources and an intelligent response to abiotic factors, granting Trichoderma a growth regulation mechanism [36].
Examples of these capabilities and their applications are their reported efficacy against pathogens such as Fusarium oxysporum [37], Fusarium graminearum [38], Sclerotium rolfsii [39], Corynespora cassiicola [40], Ralstonia solanacearum [41], and Erysiphe alphitoides [42], among others. This fungus aids the root development of Phaseolus vulgaris and Solanum lycopersicum plants by facilitating nutrient absorption and mobilization [37,43], improving photosynthetic rate, and reducing oxidation due to metabolism in Saccharum sp. crops [44] and promoting systemic defense in Lactuca sativa L. [40] and bean plants [43].
In addition, it can produce fungicides or intermediates such as acetamide, dibromocyanacetamide, ethylamide, ethylene glycol, glycine, ethanolamide, citric acid, malic acid, and o-toluic acid. More than 68 secondary metabolites with microbial activity have been identified associated with this fungus [34]. This could be used in the elaboration of alternative products without the need for its original biomass. Finally, there is also an application in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products due to its ability to produce trichosperellins [45].

3. Agricultural Product Formulations of Trichoderma sp.

A formulation comprises an active ingredient (AI) (biocontrol agents, natural extracts, chemical molecules) and auxiliary substances or excipients (inert substances that protect and aid the release of the formulation). Excipients ensure the product’s stability, protection of the AI from UV radiation, target adhesion, moisture retention, desiccation protection, improved product dispersion, and simplified application [46]. Thus, the primary function of these mixtures is to maintain the microorganism in a state of low or no metabolic activity while keeping it viable and effective for as long as possible during storage [47].
The development and commercialization of BCAs encompass a series of steps, from the idea to the final application. Normally, the microorganism needs prior isolation, analysis, and optimization of production, usage, and storage conditions before entering the on-field applications phase [48]. Typical challenges associated with those products are:
  • Environmental: biotic (interactions with the resident microbiome, alterations of the original effect depending on the crop) and abiotic (variations in soil properties, interactions with other agricultural components).
  • Practical: social aspects (added value and perspective from consumers), accessibility (BCA’s limited versatility, adaptability, or shelf-life; knowledge of manipulation and application by farmers), and regulations (lack of protocols, guides, laws, or regulations)
Products derived from Trichoderma are often able to integrate into a productive chain, thanks to the characteristics of the fungi mentioned before, which alleviates a big part of these challenges. Usually, the formulations contain structures of the living organism, with the aim of establishing it at the site of interest and allowing the fungus the opportunity to express the maximum amount of the mechanisms (Figure 1) on crops and maintain them over time during the fungus’s development [49]. Also, when working with fungal BCAs, it is important to take care of the pH, low aw level, and low temperatures to preserve the product [50].
Substrate selection is a key factor in the production of any BCA-based preparation. When focusing on filamentous fungi like Trichoderma, culturing on cereals or low-cost fermentable organic material is a priority due to its practicality for solid substrate fermentations [51]. Broken rice, corn, wheat, soy, sorghum, or waste material from the banana industry are some of the substrates commonly employed for this fungus’s multiplication [51,52]. These are processed in volumes less than 1 kg per fermentation in bags or autoclavable containers, and water is added to increase the relative humidity (RH) in the container, promoting optimal development of the microorganism. The temperature range suitable for the growth of this fungus is observed to be 22 to 28 °C, with optimal growth at 25 °C [53]. The process is finally subjected to drying and grinding that can be utilized to recover the conidia used as input when applied directly or in specific mixes that provide additional properties [54].
The use of spores or conidia is recurrent, although using the fungus’s biomass in general can be effective. Asexual growth allows obtaining high concentrations of viable reproductive structures that facilitate the dispersal of the organism while conferring the necessary resistance for it to establish itself in the environment [49]. Commercially, it is recommended to use concentrations ranging from 105 to 1010 spores to achieve adequate action of the BCA [54,55]. It is noteworthy that the resistance, and therefore the lifespan of the spores, is greater when the fungi are cultivated on solid media compared to liquid media, as the stress involved for the organism due to excess moisture and turbulence, as well as the lack of support and surface roughness, impedes the adequate structuring of these bodies [56].
Another significant aspect of this fungus is the reported synergistic activity with another BCA like mycorrhizae [29] or Bacillus sp. [57], natural compounds like onion extracts [58], and partial compatibility with chemical pesticides such as Cu-based fungicides [59] or mancozeb [54]. These attributes reduce the chemical dosages typically needed on macroscale systems without compromising its effectiveness as a biocontrol agent [32,60].
The following image (Figure 2) shows a summary of the types and presentations of Trichoderma formulations. Each one of them is explained below in their respective section.

3.1. Liquid Formulations

Liquid formulations of microbial suspensions, particularly in their dormant state, are enhanced with additives like starch and humic acid to improve viscosity, dispersion, stability, and nutritional properties. These improvements extend shelf life, enhance agricultural suitability, and ensure rapid microorganism contact with plants, boosting their resilience to adverse soil conditions [61]. Compared to conventional carrier-based BCAs, liquid presentations tend to have a longer shelf life (12–24 months) and retain their properties up to 45 °C in extreme cases. They also combat indigenous populations more effectively, are easily identified by their fermented smell, and ensure better survival on seeds and soil, offering ease of application, increased commercial revenue, and higher export potential [62].
The boundaries mentioned are the case for most applications, especially bacterial BCAs, but for fungi such as Trichoderma, being exposed for extended periods to a high water content environment decreases their viability due to cell imbibition damage and spontaneous germination [63]. Because of this, there is a need to incorporate specialized carrier substances and protectants that lead to higher-cost production and investigation efforts to develop the product. Additionally, liquid presentations of Trichoderma are mostly emulsions with a strong oil base or some type of encapsulated conidia dispersed in water [55]. They also require handling of large work volumes, have limited protection against contamination, and still depend on low temperatures to maintain prolonged stability, representing additional storage costs [64].

3.1.1. Oil Dispersions

An emulsion is defined as an unstable system containing two or more immiscible liquid phases, where one of the phases contains colloidal particles dispersed in the other [65]. For its production, a spore concentrate of the fungus is used, suspended in a combination of immiscible (organic and mineral) solvents in water, and a surfactant is added to eliminate the surface tension of the water. Thus, when combined with water, this allows for the formation of a homogeneous emulsion. A large amount of emulsifier needs to be produced, and the oils used must not be toxic to spores, plant species, animals, or humans. The use of oils has the advantage of protecting the spores and extending their shelf life, even once applied in the field [51].

3.1.2. Concentrated Suspensions

In aqueous formulations, the biomass of interest is separated and then suspended in a liquid medium that may contain various adjuvants that maintain the stability and physical integrity of the formulation during application. The carrier agent of the active ingredient is water [66]. It must be considered that the product’s shelf life may rapidly decrease, as the organism can suffer damage due to the high humidity it is exposed to, and the formula must be complemented with products that help reduce water activity (aw) [64].

3.2. Solid Formulations

The solid presentation of Trichoderma-based products is the dominant commercial alternative. It can be achieved from solid or liquid fermentation, where the biomass is taken with little or no treatment or after a collection and then drying process [51]. In conventional presentations, sometimes part of the initial medium can be integrated into the final formulation without posing a problem; this is determined by the final composition of the product, which is often empirically defined [66].
It is possible to work with various raw materials; costs can be reduced by exchanging inert materials or salts for organic alternatives and waste material, but generally, production costs are high due to the stages involved in their creation, as well as the prior treatment of the active ingredient (AI), but still lower compared to liquid alternatives [54]. There are various methods of application and purposes that each of the different presentations can fulfill. They even allow forming pastes or being applied without alterations as coatings to plant materials, for example, on seeds and seedlings, thus ensuring the accompaniment of the BCA with the crop during its development [67].
Viability tends to be low due to the stress the organism undergoes during processing procedures, packaging, and application. However, while they are easy to store and have a lower risk of contamination compared to liquid presentations, their critical dust content can quickly disperse into the air if not handled properly and could pose a respiratory or other health problem due to conidia and mineral particles [55,66].

3.2.1. Soluble Powders

Hydratable solids containing concentrated conidia or spores are the most common products on the market. They are combined with trace powders such as inert materials, dry plant residues, carbohydrates, oils, and salts that facilitate dispersion and extend the product’s shelf life [68]. The materials commonly used to make these powders are talc or clays because they prevent over-hydration of the spores, do not react with the organism’s metabolism, and do not complicate their solubilization or form clumps when used in spray applications [68].

3.2.2. Granulated Compounds

Granulated products have a higher degree of environmental and user protection [69]. Thanks to their granular complexion, they are less prone to absorb ambient moisture; hence, they contaminate less thanks to the reduction of water activity and improve the survival of the microorganisms [70]. These products require encapsulation with biocompatible materials that allow the conservation of the spores within their structure. This can be achieved with techniques such as spray-drying or ionic gelation with natural and synthetic polymers. During their elaboration, it is possible to incorporate humectants, dispersants, disintegrants, and adhesives that aid the properties of the granules [69].

3.2.3. Microencapsulation

The microencapsulation of conidia with sugars or lipids increases the survival of fungi such as Trichoderma. This process involves creating very small droplets or particles that contain the BCA and are coated with a protective layer or embedded in a matrix to produce small capsules [71]. Materials used include chitosan, guar gum, gum arabic, sodium alginate, or polyacrylamides. These matrices serve as good transport media and provide different release kinetics, enhancing their efficiency. They physically protect from adverse environmental conditions such as UV radiation or excessive rainfall [72].
They allow for long-term storage at room temperature, reduce the volume needed for production, and facilitate the handling of the product. This is particularly useful for BCAs that require slow releases, making them suitable for soil applications, although this consequently results in a slow rehydration rate, complicating their use when rapid activation of the product is needed [66].

4. Integration with Emerging Technologies

Permanent challenges for sustainable crop production include the optimization and search for efficient agricultural technology that meets production requirements and has a lower environmental impact. Adopting systems focused on biological or biotechnological products is part of this strategy [73].
Micro- and nanotechnology are versatile disciplines that have enabled the optimization of biological products through effective encapsulation of compounds in a broad range of areas, including agricultural biotechnology [74]. This protects the encapsulated active ingredients from the external environment and offers properties such as controlled release of its components or improved interaction with the product’s target [75].
These particles can be classified into two types according to their internal structure and morphology: microspheres or microcapsules. A microsphere has its nuclear material or active ingredient randomly distributed throughout the barrier material, while a microcapsule focuses on coating the nuclear material with a polymeric barrier [74]. Each approach offers specific properties that can be exploited according to the application; for example, producing multifunctional products that can reduce microbial load with an antifungal such as copper and almost simultaneously inoculating a beneficial mycoparasitic fungus in the area [76].
Furthermore, these technologies focus on the synthesis of particles from natural polymers through green chemistry. These biopolymers integrate and assimilate rapidly by microorganisms [77]. Another advantage is that both the native polymer and its derivatives provide benefits to the soil and crops as they degrade, functioning analogously to organic matter [78].
Some limitations and technical challenges associated with the encapsulation of BCAs are related to the materials used in their production. Since these bioinputs generally need to exhibit biocompatibility and degradability, the most common choices for encapsulation are natural polymers and derived nanocomposites. However, this presents significant challenges in selecting materials that meet the required mechanical and chemical properties without compromising their effectiveness [79]. For instance, some carbohydrates degrade rapidly due to the action of decomposing microorganisms, which limits their application in processes requiring slow, controlled release while also affecting the shelf life. Another challenge is the combination of materials that not only serve as vehicles for the BCAs but also provide additional functions to the capsule [80].
Standardizing the processes for the characterization and manufacture of encapsulating materials is also a challenge for this technology. Typically, raw material sources are heterogeneous, and extraction/purification protocols are not easily adaptable, negatively impacting the physicochemical characteristics of the resulting encapsulates [80,81]. It is possible that coating materials could impact soil agrobiology, and this remains a research gap, along with toxicity studies that are size-dependent [82].
Regarding regulatory concerns, coordination between technical and governmental sectors is essential for these products to reach the market [83]. The registry of traditional chemical-based products is easier since the formulation is well defined and testable, while the BCA-based ones are commonly a complex matrix with multiple active ingredients [84]. Additionally, it is crucial to streamline processes for the registration and use of these bioinputs in key countries for this kind of technology to grow, like better communication between growers, stakeholders, and decision-makers to cope with the bureaucratic barriers [85]. Europe and the USA have limitations in the registry process due to their focus mainly on additives and microbial content, while China and India are the ones with more formal registered BCAs. China has well-defined categories of BCAs considering multiple features of quality, and India has already included some of the terms (e.g., Biofertilizer) in their legislation and created a proper regulatory mechanism [48]. Concerning commercial production, it is critical to reduce the high costs of research, development, and import expenses, which are already implicit in the BCA market. Scalability is another challenge, primarily due to the high manufacturing costs when encapsulates are produced at the micro- or even nanoscale [86].

4.1. Spore Encapsulation Methods

The method for particle synthesis is largely determined by the defined polymer and the active ingredient’s resistance to the physicochemical conditions of the environment in which the reactions will occur. Spores are the preferred material due to their greater resistance compared to other fungal tissues, though other parts, such as the mycelium, can also be employed [49]. Nevertheless, spores have thresholds of temperature, pressure, and acidity they can withstand, which vary according to the organism; hence, tests must be conducted for each case.
Ghosh et al. [87] note that there are numerous technologies for encapsulating nuclear materials, and based on their synthesis methods, they are classified into three groups with their respective techniques:
  • Chemical processes: including techniques such as “suspension, dispersion, and emulsion” and “polycondensation”.
  • Physicochemical processes: “coacervation”, “Layer-by-Layer (L-B-L)”, “ionic gelation”, and “supercritical microencapsulation with CO2”.
  • Physical-mechanical processes: “spray-drying”, “spraying with multiple nozzles”, “fluid bed coating”, “centrifugal techniques”, “vacuum encapsulation”, and “electrostatic encapsulation”.
It has been reported that the application of these techniques to enhance the viability of microorganisms is a potential pathway to improve their production or application systems. In fungi, it is well-established that encapsulating conidia in biodegradable polymeric matrices can preserve their characteristics and enhance their effectiveness [88]; added to this, the physical barrier provided by encapsulation protects them from changes in pH, moisture, or ultraviolet radiation [89].
The techniques of spray-drying and ionic gelation (IG) stand out among those implemented for the encapsulation of microorganisms, with the former being less favorable, as, despite achieving successful encapsulations with live cells, it significantly decreases the maximum viability percentage during the manufacturing process [90]. Ionic gelation does not present these drawbacks due to the type of synthesis required and the biocompatibility of the materials used, which has been successfully explored in organisms such as Beauveria bassiana [88], arbuscular mycorrhizal spores [91], Trichoderma asperellum [92], Trichoderma harzianum [93,94,95], and Trichoderma viride [76,96].
It is important to remember that microencapsulation products derived by ionic gelation tend to have relatively low water permeability, although they contain a considerable amount of internal humidity [97]. This makes the particles a long-term method of delivering compounds, or in this case, biomass.

4.2. Reported Trichoderma Microencapsulation Models

Table 2 provides an overview of the encapsulated syntheses of Trichoderma sp. reported in the literature, along with some of their observed properties and characteristics.
Regarding the cited papers in Table 2, the final size of the products is not the primary determinant in producing these types of bioinputs; rather, the focus is on improving or maintaining their effectiveness as biocontrol agents.
There is a notable preference for the use of ionic gelation (IG) as an encapsulation technique, with sodium alginate and calcium salts as the base of the formulations. This method is favored because it is a simple and efficient alternative for encapsulating molecules or structures of interest, requiring only an emulsion of the biopolymer mixed with the compound of interest and dispensed into another solution containing a divalent cation [115]. Additionally, this technique can be complemented with drip or extrusion technologies to form uniformly sized particles, which, while improving the applicability and standardization of the formulation, also involve associated production costs.
For all scenarios, the particles created with these technologies are typically made from food-grade biopolymers based on proteins or polysaccharides, including pectin, chitosan, collagen, gelatin, and the most popular alternative, alginate [77,116]. These confer a high degree of biodegradability and environmental integration, in addition to being produced through green chemistry. This allows their incorporation into applications for human consumption, agricultural production, or the pharmaceutical industry, among many other areas.
Specifically, alginate (ALG) is an excellent biocompatible alternative for encapsulation since it is a low-cost linear anionic polysaccharide obtained from multiple species of algae. It consists of glycosidic (1,4) bonds of β-D-mannuronic acid (ManA) and α-L-guluronic acid (GulA), where the molar ratio of each monomer depends on the raw material’s source and its processing [117]. For instance, capsules acquire different properties of elasticity and strength depending on the proportion of GulA, with higher concentrations leading to greater rigidity in their molecular structure compared to chains predominated by ManA [118].
Another feature that contributes to the differences in the proportion of GulA residues is the affinity to form cross-links with divalent ions such as Zn2+, Ca2+, or Ba2+ or with trivalent ions in a composite structure that forms gels through the cooperation of several ALG chains commonly known as the “egg-box” model [118]. This can be leveraged to work with different elements, thereby granting desirable properties to the particles, for example, as a protective product and as a biofertilizer [119]. Not to mention the natural chelating properties of alginate in the chelation of ions like Cu2+ or Zn2+ [78] and its ability to retain soil moisture [120].
This analysis provides evidence that although it is a widely used technology, the combination with different ions or integration with other polymers through ionic complexations has not been fully exploited and could be a strong point for research.
Another notable finding shown in Figure 3 is that, according to our search, most of the reported formulations were developed in Brazil, Croatia, and Malaysia—countries that, except for Croatia, have high levels of biodiversity and tropical climates. Central Europe had the most references on the topic; however, this research trend does not seem to have been significantly adopted in regions with temperate climates or first-world economies, such as countries in North America or Western Europe. Furthermore, Central and Southern Asia have shown interest in this topic in recent years, and this trend may increase.
For Central America and Africa, developing encapsulation technologies with polymers could be an attractive alternative offering competitive advantages to their markets, where the economy is predominantly agricultural. It also opens the window to explore the biodiversity in the area and address production issues through specific approaches for each locality and its crops.
We did not find quantified data on the economic and commercial impact that Trichoderma encapsulates currently have within the BCA market. However, this category of agricultural products has had a growing overall trend due to international regulations on organic production [121].
According to a report from 2022 [122], the BCA market grew by 60% between 2012 and 2020, reaching a value of $3 billion, which represented approximately 5% of the global crop protection product market at that time ($62 billion). This growth was significantly higher compared to conventional chemical-based agricultural products, which grew by only 14% during the same period. It also indicated that by 2022, there were approximately 1000 active ingredients in the BCA market worldwide, marketed in mixture or pure forms through about 5000 different brands promoted by around 500 companies, with average annual sales of $10 million per company [122]. In 2023, the total value was around $5.2 billion, and the forecast proposes a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) between 2024 and 2032 of over 16.4% [121].
Considering the distribution of companies within this market, most commercial activity was registered in Europe (31%), North America (29%), and Asia (24%), followed by Latin America (15%) and finally, the Middle East and Africa (1%). In terms of BCA usage, most products are indicated as bioinsecticides (70%), biofungicides (25%), bionematicides (3%), or bioherbicides (2%). Between 70 and 80% of applications are concentrated on fruit, vegetable, flower, and ornamental crops [122].
Products based on the genus Trichoderma represent nearly 50% of the fungal BCAs in the market, with a notable preference for the harzianum, viride, asperellum, atroviride, and koningii strains [30,123]. Similar occurrence is also observed in encapsulation studies for the mentioned strains (Figure 3), suggesting that the application of technology is driven more by market demands than by microbial resistance or process compatibility.
The three most popular strains that we have identified as leading the efforts are:
  • T. harzianum: Known for inducing systemic resistance in plants through the production of enzymes and metabolites that stimulate plant immune responses and enhance growth. It is also effective in environments where chemical fungicides are ineffective due to its ability to efficiently colonize plant roots and persist in the soil [124].
  • T. viride: Produces extracellular enzymes, such as cellulases and chitinases, that degrade the cell walls of plant pathogens, inhibiting their growth and recycling nutrients in the soil. This enhances soil fertility and makes it an effective biocontrol agent against root rot and other soil-borne diseases [125].
  • T. asperellum: Exhibits biocontrol activity by competing for space and nutrients, suppressing the growth of fungi. It promotes plant and root growth, enhancing nutrient uptake and improving the soil microenvironment [123].
However, their selection may also be influenced by their similar action at the soil level.
There are multiple examples of BCAs produced with Trichoderma that have been validated under real conditions. The majority are traditional formulations whose characteristics have been mentioned throughout this manuscript. A representative list of commercial products/trademarks is summarized in the review of Ghazanfar et al., including more than 40 examples for readers to check [125]. According to the evidence presented in Table 2, Trichoderma microencapsulation formulations currently appear to still be in the development stage, as the available documentation is more focused on academic research than on commercial production. However, many of the cited studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and advantages of microencapsulated Trichoderma both in vitro and in field conditions, and they show promise for scalability in short- and medium-term production.

5. Conclusions

The technification of traditional biocontrol methods through the application of encapsulation technologies to biocontrol agent (BCA)-based products can offer highly valuable alternatives in agriculture and the market. Integrating fungal structures within biopolymer matrices can significantly enhance the natural dispersion and resistance capabilities of organisms such as Trichoderma.
According to this review, structuring through ionic gelation stands out in these applications due to its simplicity and high versatility in creating various products with specialized or multifunctional characteristics. Biodegradable polymers like alginate are suitable for use as raw materials, which, in addition to being combinable with ions that act as nutrients in plant species, do not require a high economic investment to obtain the necessary materials.
Multidisciplinary research utilizing micro-, nano-, and biotechnology offers a great alternative to address the challenges currently faced by agriculture, promoting the transition to green technologies that are compatible with soil diversity and sustainable development. The ability to address problems with specificity on a small scale can be a key element in modeling current and future agricultural scenarios.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.V.-R. and R.C.-C.; writing—original draft preparation, E.V.-R. and R.C.-C.; writing—review and editing, E.V.-R., R.C.-C. and W.R.-M.; visualization, E.V.-R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was founded by the Vice-presidency of Research and Extensión. Costa Rica Institute of Technology. Project: Development of a microencapsulated prototype of the biocontrol fungus Trichoderma harzianum obtained from conidia fermentations in a bioreactor. Program N°4 -Research. Project 49-2022-65-2023.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

Icons used in this review by Servier, with some modifications in color, size, or combination of the original images or correction of minor details. https://smart.servier.com/ (accessed on 20 May 2024) is licensed under CC-BY 4.0. Unported https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (accessed on 20 May 2024).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Tsegaye, Z.; Assefa, F.; Genene, T.; Tenkegna, T.; Gizaw, B.; Abatenh, E. Concept, Principle and Application of Biological Control and Their Role in Sustainable Plant Diseases Management Strategies. Int. J. Res. Stud. Biosci. 2018, 6, 18–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Moustafa-Farag, M.; Almoneafy, A.; Mahmoud, A.; Elkelish, A.; Arnao, M.B.; Li, L.; Ai, S. Melatonin and Its Protective Role against Biotic Stress Impacts on Plants. Biomolecules 2019, 10, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Atreya, K. Pesticide Use in Agriculture: The Philosophy, Complexities and Opportunities. Sci. Res. Essays 2012, 7, 2168–2173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ghormade, V.; Deshpande, M.V.; Paknikar, K.M. Perspectives for Nano-Biotechnology Enabled Protection and Nutrition of Plants. Biotechnol. Adv. 2011, 29, 792–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Raymaekers, K.; Ponet, L.; Holtappels, D.; Berckmans, B.; Cammue, B.P. Screening for Novel Biocontrol Agents Applicable in Plant Disease Management—A Review. Biol. Control 2020, 144, 104240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Filizola, P.R.B.; Luna, M.A.C.; de Souza, A.F.; Coelho, I.L.; Laranjeira, D.; Campos-Takaki, G.M. Biodiversity and Phylogeny of novel Trichoderma Isolates from Mangrove Sediments and Potential of Biocontrol against Fusarium Strains. Microb. Cell Factories 2019, 18, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Ramírez-Guzmán, K.; Torres-León, C.; Saldaña-Mendoza, S.; Martinez-Medina, G.; Tranier, M.; Roussos, S.; De la Cruz-Quiroz, R.; Parra-Saldívar, R.; Flores-Gallegos, A.C.; Rodríguez-Herrera, R.; et al. Biocontrol Agents as Strategy of Agro-Ecosystem Management to Restitution of Productive Soils for Food Production. In Phytobiont and Ecosystem Restitution; Kumar, V., Kumar, M., Prasad, R., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 185–213. ISBN 9789811311871. [Google Scholar]
  8. Al-Ani, L.K.T. Trichoderma: Beneficial Role in Sustainable Agriculture by Plant Disease Management. In Plant Microbiome: Stress Response; Egamberdieva, D., Ahmad, P., Eds.; Microorganisms for Sustainability; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 105–126. ISBN 978-981-10-5514-0. [Google Scholar]
  9. Sellitto, V.M.; Zara, S.; Fracchetti, F.; Capozzi, V.; Nardi, T. Microbial Biocontrol as an Alternative to Synthetic Fungicides: Boundaries between Pre- and Postharvest Applications on Vegetables and Fruits. Fermentation 2021, 7, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dai, Z.; Ahmed, W.; Yang, J.; Yao, X.; Zhang, J.; Wei, L.; Ji, G. Seed Coat Treatment by Plant-Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria Lysobacter Antibioticus 13–6 Enhances Maize Yield and Changes Rhizosphere Bacterial Communities. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2023, 59, 317–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Liu, Q.; Yang, J.; Ahmed, W.; Wan, X.; Wei, L.; Ji, G. Exploiting the Antibacterial Mechanism of Phenazine Substances from Lysobacter Antibioticus 13-6 against Xanthomonas oryzae pv. Oryzicola. J. Microbiol. 2022, 60, 496–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Gu, Q.; Qiao, J.; Wang, R.; Lu, J.; Wang, Z.; Li, P.; Zhang, L.; Ali, Q.; Khan, A.R.; Gao, X.; et al. The Role of Pyoluteorin from Pseudomonas protegens Pf-5 in Suppressing the Growth and Pathogenicity of Pantoea ananatis on Maize. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 6431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Ahmed, W.; Dai, Z.; Zhang, J.; Li, S.; Ahmed, A.; Munir, S.; Liu, Q.; Tan, Y.; Ji, G.; Zhao, Z. Plant-Microbe Interaction: Mining the Impact of Native Bacillus amyloliquefaciens WS-10 on Tobacco Bacterial Wilt Disease and Rhizosphere Microbial Communities. Microbiol. Spectr. 2022, 10, e0147122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Maksimov, I.; Blagova, D.; Veselova, S.; Sorokan, A.; Burkhanova, G.; Cherepanova, E.; Sarvarova, E.; Rumyantsev, S.; Alekseev, V.Y.; Khayrullin, R. Recombinant Bacillus subtilis 26DCryChS Line with Gene Btcry1ia Encoding Cry1Ia Toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis Promotes Integrated Wheat Defense against Pathogen Stagonospora nodorum Berk. and Greenbug schizaphis Graminum Rond. Biol. Control 2020, 144, 104242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wang, M.; Geng, L.; Sun, X.; Shu, C.; Song, F.; Zhang, J. Screening of Bacillus thuringiensis Strains to Identify New Potential Biocontrol Agents against Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and Plutella xylostella in Brassica campestris L. Biol. Control 2020, 145, 104262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Liang, Z.; Ali, Q.; Wang, Y.; Mu, G.; Kan, X.; Ren, Y.; Manghwar, H.; Gu, Q.; Wu, H.; Gao, X. Toxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis Strains Derived from the Novel Crystal Protein Cry31Aa with High Nematicidal Activity against Rice Parasitic Nematode Aphelenchoides besseyi. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 8189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Al Raish, S.M.; Saeed, E.E.; Alyafei, D.M.; El-Tarabily, K.A.; AbuQamar, S.F. Evaluation of Streptomycete Actinobacterial Isolates as Biocontrol Agents against Royal Poinciana Stem Canker Disease Caused by the Fungal Pathogen Neoscytalidium Dimidiatum. Biol. Control 2021, 164, 104783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Shao, Z.; Schenk, P.M.; Dart, P. Phyllosphere bacterial strains Rhizobium b1 and Bacillus subtilis b2 Control Tomato Leaf Diseases Caused by Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato and Alternaria solani. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2023, 134, lxad139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Iqbal, M.; Jamshaid, M.; Zahid, M.A.; Andreasson, E.; Vetukuri, R.R.; Stenberg, J.A. Biological Control of Strawberry Crown Rot, Root Rot and Grey Mould by the Beneficial Fungus Aureobasidium pullulans. Bio. Control 2021, 66, 535–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mota, S.F.; Pádua, P.F.; Ferreira, A.N.; Gomes, L.d.B.W.; Dias, M.A.; Souza, E.A.; Pereira, O.L.; Cardoso, P.G. Biological Control of Common Bean Diseases Using Endophytic Induratia spp. Biol. Control 2021, 159, 104629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sinno, M.; Ranesi, M.; Di Lelio, I.; Iacomino, G.; Becchimanzi, A.; Barra, E.; Molisso, D.; Pennacchio, F.; Digilio, M.C.; Vitale, S.; et al. Selection of Endophytic Beauveria bassiana as a Dual Biocontrol Agent of Tomato Pathogens and Pests. Pathogens 2021, 10, 1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Liu, S.; Li, J.; Feng, Q.; Chu, L.; Tan, Z.; Ji, X.; Jin, P. Insecticidal Effect of the Entomopathogenic Fungus Lecanicillium araneicola HK-1 in Aphis craccivora (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Insects 2023, 14, 860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Khan, R.A.A.; Najeeb, S.; Mao, Z.; Ling, J.; Yang, Y.; Li, Y.; Xie, B. Bioactive Secondary Metabolites from Trichoderma spp. against Phytopathogenic Bacteria and Root-Knot Nematode. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Díaz-Gutiérrez, C.; Arroyave, C.; Llugany, M.; Poschenrieder, C.; Martos, S.; Peláez, C. Trichoderma asperellum as a Preventive and Curative Agent to Control Fusarium wilt in Stevia rebaudiana. Biol. Control 2021, 155, 104537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Degani, O.; Dor, S. Trichoderma Biological Control to Protect Sensitive Maize Hybrids against Late Wilt Disease in the Field. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Aoki, Y.; Haga, S.; Suzuki, S. Direct antagonistic Activity of Chitinase Produced by Trichoderma sp. SANA20 as Biological Control Agent for Grey Mould Caused by Botrytis cinerea. Cogent Biol. 2020, 6, 1747903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rivera-Méndez, W.; Obregón, M.; Morán-Diez, M.E.; Hermosa, R.; Monte, E. Trichoderma asperellum Biocontrol Activity and Induction of Systemic Defenses against Sclerotium Cepivorum in Onion Plants under Tropical Climate Conditions. Biol. Control 2020, 141, 104145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Jones, E.E.; Rabeendran, N.; Stewart, A. Biocontrol of Sclerotinia Sclerotiorum Infection of Cabbage by Coniothyrium Minitans and trichoderma spp. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2014, 24, 1363–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Meddad-Hamza, A.; Benzina, F.; Meddad, C.; Hamza, N.; Reghmit, A.; Ziane, H.; Ksentini, H. Biological Control of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Trichoderma Harzianum against Fusarium Oxysporum and Verticillium Dahliae Induced Wilt in Tomato Plants. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control. 2023, 33, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tyśkiewicz, R.; Nowak, A.; Ozimek, E.; Jaroszuk-Ściseł, J. Trichoderma: The Current Status of Its Application in Agriculture for the Biocontrol of Fungal Phytopathogens and Stimulation of Plant Growth. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 2329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Muñoz-Celaya, A.L.; Ortiz-García, M.; Vernon-Carter, E.J.; Jauregui-Rincón, J.; Galindo, E.; Serrano-Carreón, L. Spray-Drying Microencapsulation of Trichoderma Harzianum Conidias in Carbohydrate Polymers Matrices. Carbohydr. Polym. 2012, 88, 1141–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Woo, S.L.; Ruocco, M.; Vinale, F.; Nigro, M.; Marra, R.; Lombardi, N.; Pascale, A.; Lanzuise, S.; Manganiello, G.; Lorito, M. Trichoderma-based Products and their Widespread Use in Agriculture. Open Mycol. J. 2014, 8, 71–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Singh, A.; Shukla, N.; Kabadwal, B.; Tewari, A.; Kumar, J. Review on Plant-Trichoderma-Pathogen Interaction. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2018, 7, 2382–2397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wu, Q.; Sun, R.; Ni, M.; Yu, J.; Li, Y.; Yu, C.; Dou, K.; Ren, J.; Chen, J. Identification of a novel Fungus, Trichoderma asperellum GDFS1009, and Comprehensive Evaluation of Its Biocontrol Efficacy. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0179957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Kidwai, M.K.; Nehra, M. Biotechnological Applications of Trichoderma Species for Environmental and Food Security. In Plant Biotechnology: Recent Advancements and Developments; Gahlawat, S.K., Salar, R.K., Siwach, P., Duhan, J.S., Kumar, S., Kaur, P., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2017; pp. 125–156. ISBN 978-981-10-4732-9. [Google Scholar]
  36. Hermosa, R.; Rubio, M.B. The Contribution of Trichoderma to Balancing the Costs of Plant Growth and Defense. Int. Microbiol. 2013, 16, 69–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Li, Y.-T.; Hwang, S.-G.; Huang, Y.-M.; Huang, C.-H. Effects of Trichoderma asperellum on Nutrient Uptake and Fusarium Wilt of Tomato. Crop Prot. 2018, 110, 275–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Li, Y.; Sun, R.; Yu, J.; Saravanakumar, K.; Chen, J. Antagonistic and Biocontrol Potential of Trichoderma asperellum ZJSX5003 against the Maize Stalk Rot Pathogen Fusarium graminearum. Indian J. Microbiol. 2016, 56, 318–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Duarte-Leal, Y.; Lamz-Piedra, A.; Martínez-Coca, B. Antagonismo in Vitro de Aislamientos de Trichoderma asperellum Samuels, Lieckfeldt & Nirenberg Frente a Sclerotium Rolfsii Sacc. Rev. Protección Veg. 2017, 32. [Google Scholar]
  40. Baiyee, B.; Ito, S.-I.; Sunpapao, A. Trichoderma asperellum T1 Mediated Antifungal Activity and Induced Defense Response against Leaf Spot Fungi in Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.). Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2019, 106, 96–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Konappa, N.; Dhamodaran, N.; Shanbhag, S.S.; Sampangi, M.A.; Krishnamurthy, S.; Arakere, U.C.; Chowdappa, S.; Jogaiah, S. Chapter 18—Trichoderma: A Potential Biopesticide for Sustainable Management of Wilt Disease of Crops. In Biopesticides; Rakshit, A., Meena, V.S., Abhilash, P.C., Sarma, B.K., Singh, H.B., Fraceto, L., Parihar, M., Singh, A.K., Eds.; Advances in Bio-Inoculant Science; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2022; pp. 261–275. ISBN 978-0-12-823355-9. [Google Scholar]
  42. Oszako, T.; Voitka, D.; Stocki, M.; Stocka, N.; Nowakowska, J.A.; Linkiewicz, A.; Hsiang, T.; Belbahri, L.; Berezovska, D.; Malewski, T. Trichoderma asperellum Efficiently Protects Quercus Robur Leaves against Erysiphe Alphitoides. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2021, 159, 295–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. González-Marquetti, I.; Infante-Martínez, D.; Arias-Vargas, Y.; Gorrita-Ramírez, S.; Hernández-García, T.; de la Noval-Pons, B.M.; Martínez-Coca, B.; Peteira, B.; González-Marquetti, I.; Infante-Martínez, D.; et al. Efecto de Trichoderma aasperellum Sa-muels, Lieckfeldt & Nirenberg Sobre Indicadores de Crecimiento y Desarrollo de Phaseolus vulgaris L. Cultivar BAT-304. Rev. Prot. Veg. 2019, 34, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  44. Scudeletti, D.; Crusciol, C.A.C.; Bossolani, J.W.; Moretti, L.G.; Momesso, L.; Servaz Tubaña, B.; de Castro, S.G.Q.; De Oliveira, E.F.; Hungria, M. Trichoderma asperellum Inoculation as a Tool for Attenuating Drought Stress in Sugarcane. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 645542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Chen, M.-Y.; Kong, F.-D.; Yang, L.; Ma, Q.-Y.; Xie, Q.-Y.; Yu, J.; Chen, P.-W.; Zhou, L.-M.; Wu, Y.-G.; Dai, H.-F.; et al. Phenethoxy Derivatives with Anti-Inflammatory Activities from the Betelnut Endophytic Trichoderma Asperellum G10. J. Nat. Prod. 2022, 85, 1193–1200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Garcia, A.; Gómez Alvarez, M.; Grijalba, E.; Santos, A.; Barrera, F.M.; Cotes, A. Capitulo 12: Desarrollo y Escalamientode Bioplaguicidas; AGROSAVIA: Mosquera, Colombia, 2019; pp. 632–682. ISBN 978-958-740-254-4. [Google Scholar]
  47. Ravensberg, W.J. A Roadmap to the Successful Development and Commercialization of Microbial Pest Control Products for Control of Arthropods; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; ISBN 978-94-007-0436-7. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ibáñez, A.; Garrido-Chamorro, S.; Vasco-Cárdenas, M.F.; Barreiro, C. From Lab to Field: Biofertilizers in the 21st Century. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 1306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sharma, P.; Sharma, M.; Manokaran, R.; Shanmugam, V. Status of Trichoderma Research in India: A Review. Indian Phytopethol. 2014, 67, 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  50. Van Long, N.N.; Vasseur, V.; Coroller, L.; Dantigny, P.; Le Panse, S.; Weill, A.; Mounier, J.; Rigalma, K. Temperature, Water Activity and pH during Conidia Production Affect the Physiological State and Germination Time of Penicillium Species. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2017, 241, 151–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Ramanujam, B.; Prasad, R.D.; Sriram, S.; Rangeswaran, R. Mass Production, Formulation, Quality Control and Delivery of Trichoderma for Plant Disease Management. J. Plant Prot. Sci. 2010, 2, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  52. Verma, M.; Brar, S.K.; Tyagi, R.D.; Surampalli, R.Y.; Valéro, J.R. Antagonistic Fungi, Trichoderma spp.: Panoply of Biological Control. Biochem. Eng. J. 2007, 37, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Domingues, M.V.P.F.; de Moura, K.E.; Salomão, D.; Elias, L.M.; Patricio, F.R.A. Effect of Temperature on Mycelial Growth of Trichoderma, Sclerotinia Minor and S. sclerotiorum, as well as on Mycoparasitism. Summa Phytopathol. 2016, 42, 222–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Bahadur, A.; Dutta, P. Trichoderma spp.: Their Impact in Crops Diseases Management; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2022; ISBN 978-1-80355-355-9. [Google Scholar]
  55. Martinez, Y.; Ribera, J.; Schwarze, F.W.M.R.; De France, K. Biotechnological Development of Trichoderma-Based Formulations for Biological Control. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2023, 107, 5595–5612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Watanabe, S.; Kato, H.; Kumakura, K.; Ishibashi, E.; Nagayama, K. Properties and Biological Control Activities of Aerial and Submerged Spores in Trichoderma Asperellum SKT-1. J. Pestic. Sci. 2006, 31, 375–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Zhou, Y.; Yang, L.; Wang, J.; Guo, L.; Huang, J. Synergistic Effect between Trichoderma virens and Bacillus velezensis on the Control of Tomato Bacterial Wilt Disease. Horticulturae 2021, 7, 439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sentosa, F.B.; Sutarman; Nurmalasari, I.R. The Effect of Trichoderma and Onion Extract on the Success of Grafting in Mango Seedlings. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 819, 012008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gullino, M.L.; Albajes, R.; Nicot, P.C. (Eds.) Integrated Pest and Disease Management in Greenhouse Crops; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; ISBN 978-3-030-22303-8. [Google Scholar]
  60. Ons, L.; Bylemans, D.; Thevissen, K.; Cammue, B.P. Combining Biocontrol Agents with Chemical Fungicides for Integrated Plant Fungal Disease Control. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Dey, A. Liquid Biofertilizers and Their Applications: An Overview. In Environmental and Agricultural Microbiology; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2021; pp. 275–292. ISBN 978-1-119-52589-9. [Google Scholar]
  62. Singh, D.; Thapa, S.; Geat; Mehriya, M.; Rajawat, M.V. Biofertilizers: Mechanisms and Application; Elsevier, Woodhead Publishing: Delhi, India, 2021; pp. 151–166. ISBN 978-0-12-821667-5. [Google Scholar]
  63. Faria, M.; Martins, I.; Souza, D.A.; Mascarin, G.M.; Lopes, R.B. Susceptibility of the Biocontrol Fungi Metarhizium Anisopliae and Trichoderma asperellum (Ascomycota: Hypocreales) to Imbibitional Damage is Driven by Conidial Vigor. Biol. Control 2017, 107, 87–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Melin, P.; Håkansson, S.; Schnürer, J. Optimisation and Comparison of Liquid and Dry Formulations of the Biocontrol Yeast Pichia Anomala J121. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2007, 73, 1008–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Borges, D.F.; Lopes, E.A.; Moraes, A.R.F.; Soares, M.S.; Visôtto, L.E.; Oliveira, C.R.; Valente, V.M.M. Formulation of Botanicals for the Control of Plant-Pathogens: A Review. Crop Prot. 2018, 110, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Teixidó, N.; Usall, J.; Torres, R. Insight into a Successful Development of Biocontrol Agents: Production, Formulation, Packaging, and Shelf Life as Key Aspects. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Cumagun, C.J.R. Advances in Formulation of Trichoderma for Biocontrol. In Biotechnology and Biology of Trichoderma; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 527–531. ISBN 978-0-444-59576-8. [Google Scholar]
  68. Rhodes, D.J. Formulation of Biological Control Agents. In Exploitation of Microorganisms; Jones, D.G., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1993; pp. 411–439. ISBN 978-94-011-1532-2. [Google Scholar]
  69. Oancea, F.; Raut, I.; Şesan, T.E.; Cornea, P.C. Dry Flowable Formulation of Biostimulants Trichoderma Strains. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2016, 10, 494–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Meng, X.; Yu, J.; Yu, M.; Yin, X.; Liu, Y. Dry Flowable Formulations of Antagonistic Bacillus Subtilis Strain T429 by Spray Drying to Control Rice Blast Disease. Biol. Control 2015, 85, 46–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. López-Bucio, J.; Pelagio-Flores, R.; Herrera-Estrella, A. Trichoderma as Biostimulant: Exploiting the Multilevel Properties of a Plant Beneficial Fungus. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 196, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Vemmer, M.; Patel, A.V. Review of Encapsulation Methods Suitable for Microbial Biological Control Agents. Biol. Control 2013, 67, 380–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Lahlali, R.; Ezrari, S.; Radouane, N.; Kenfaoui, J.; Esmaeel, Q.; El Hamss, H.; Belabess, Z.; Barka, E.A. Biological Control of Plant Pathogens: A Global Perspective. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Paulo, F.; Santos, L. Design of experiments for microencapsulation applications: A review. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2017, 77, 1327–1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Benita, S. Microencapsulation: Methods and Industrial Applications, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2005; ISBN 978-1-4200-2799-0. [Google Scholar]
  76. Vinceković, M.; Jalšenjak, N.; Topolovec-Pintarić, S.; Đermić, E.; Bujan, M.; Jurić, S. Encapsulation of Biological and Chemical Agents for Plant Nutrition and Protection: Chitosan/Alginate Microcapsules Loaded with Copper Cations and Trichoderma viride. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, 64, 8073–8083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Cao, L.; Lu, W.; Mata, A.; Nishinari, K.; Fang, Y. Egg-Box Model-Based Gelation of Alginate and Pectin: A Review. Carbohydr. Polym. 2020, 242, 116389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Ekanayake, S.A.; Godakumbura, P.I. Synthesis of a Dual-Functional Nanofertilizer by Embedding ZnO and CuO Nanoparticles on an Alginate-Based Hydrogel. ACS Omega 2021, 6, 26262–26272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Ponnusamy, P.G.; Mani, S. Material and Environmental Properties of Natural Polymers and Their Composites for Packaging Applications—A Review. Polymers 2022, 14, 4033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Riseh, R.S.; Hassanisaadi, M.; Vatankhah, M.; Soroush, F.; Varma, R.S. Nano/Microencapsulation of Plant Biocontrol Agents by Chitosan, Alginate, and Other Important Biopolymers as a Novel Strategy for Alleviating Plant Biotic Stresses. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2022, 222, 1589–1604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Hahn, S.; Hennecke, D. What Can We Learn from Biodegradation of Natural Polymers for Regulation? Environ. Sci. Eur. 2023, 35, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. de Oliveira, J.L. 1—Nano-Biopesticides: Present Concepts and Future Perspectives in Integrated Pest Management. In Advances in Nano-Fertilizers and Nano-Pesticides in Agriculture; Jogaiah, S., Singh, H.B., Fraceto, L.F., de Lima, R., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2021; pp. 1–27. ISBN 978-0-12-820092-6. [Google Scholar]
  83. El-Saadony, M.T.; Saad, A.M.; Soliman, S.M.; Salem, H.M.; Ahmed, A.I.; Mahmood, M.; El-Tahan, A.M.; Ebrahim, A.A.M.; El-Mageed, T.A.A.; Negm, S.H.; et al. Plant Growth-Promoting Microorganisms as Biocontrol Agents of Plant Diseases: Mechanisms, Challenges and Future Perspectives. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 923880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Priya, A.K.; Alagumalai, A.; Balaji, D.; Song, H. Bio-Based Agricultural Products: A Sustainable Alternative to Agrochemicals for Promoting a Circular Economy. RSC Sustain. 2023, 1, 746–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Barratt, B.I.P.; Moran, V.C.; Bigler, F.; van Lenteren, J.C. The statUS of Biological Control and Recommendations for Improving Uptake for the Future. BioControl 2018, 63, 155–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. de Oliveira, J.L.; Campos, E.V.R.; Fraceto, L.F. Recent Developments and Challenges for Nanoscale Formulation of Botanical Pesticides for Use in Sustainable Agriculture. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2018, 66, 8898–8913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Ghosh, S.K. Functional Coatings and Microencapsulation: A General Perspective; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006; pp. 1–28. [Google Scholar]
  88. Batista, D.P.C.; de Oliveira, I.N.; Ribeiro, A.R.B.; Fonseca, E.J.S.; Santos-Magalhães, N.S.; de Sena-Filho, J.G.; Teodoro, A.V.; Grillo, L.A.M.; de Almeida, R.S.; Dornelas, C.B. Encapsulation and release of Beauveria bassiana from alginate–bentonite nanocomposite. RSC Adv. 2017, 7, 26468–26477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Locatelli, G.O.; dos Santos, G.F.; Botelho, P.S.; Finkler, C.L.L.; Bueno, L.A. Development of Trichoderma sp. Formulations in Encapsulated Granules (CG) and Evaluation of Conidia Shelf-Life. Biol. Control 2018, 117, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. John, R.P.; Tyagi, R.; Brar, S.; Surampalli, R.; Prévost, D. Bio-Encapsulation of Microbial Cells for Targeted Agricultural Delivery. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2011, 31, 211–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Lalaymia, I.; Cranenbrouck, S.; Draye, X.; Declerck, S. Preservation at Ultra-Low Temperature of In Vitro Cultured Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Via Encapsulation–Drying. Fungal Biol. 2012, 116, 1032–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Lopes, A.R.d.O.; Locatelli, G.O.; Barbosa, R.d.M.; Lobo Junior, M.; Moura Mascarin, G.; Lamenha Luna Finkler, C. Preparation, characterization and cell viability of encapsulated Trichoderma asperellum in alginate beads. J. Microencapsul. 2020, 37, 270–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Mancera-López, M.E.; Izquierdo-Estévez, W.F.; Escalante-Sánchez, A.; Ibarra, J.E.; Barrera-Cortés, J. Encapsulation of Trichoderma Harzianum Conidia As a Method of Conidia Preservation at Room Temperature and Propagation in Submerged Culture. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2019, 29, 107–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Maruyama, C.R.; Bilesky-José, N.; de Lima, R.; Fraceto, L.F. Encapsulation of Trichoderma harzianum Preserves Enzymatic Activity and Enhances the Potential for Biological Control. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020, 8, 225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Jurić, S.; Jurić, M.; Jambrak, A.R.; Vinceković, M. Tailoring Alginate/Chitosan Microparticles Loaded with Chemical and Biological Agents for Agricultural Application and Production of Value-Added Foods. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 4061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Solak, A.O.; Dyankova, S.M. Composite Films from Sodium Alginate and High Methoxyl Pectin—Physicochemical Properties and Biodegradation in Soil. Ecol. Balk. 2014, 6, 25–34. [Google Scholar]
  97. Adzmi, F.; Meon, S.; Musa, M.H.; Yusuf, N.A. Preparation, Characterisation and Viability of Encapsulated Trichoderma harzianum UPM40 in Alginate-Montmorillonite Clay. J. Microencapsul. 2012, 29, 205–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Anis, M.; Zaki, M.J.; Dawar, S. Development of a Na-Alginate-Based Bioformulation and Its Use in the Management of Charcoal Rot of Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Pak. J. Bot. 2012, 44, 1167–1170. [Google Scholar]
  99. Ramos, L.D.; Chavez, S.; Rodríguez-Aguilera, J.C.; Smet, F. Developing a Novel Method for the Screening of Fungal Germinated Spores Using Hydrogel Microencapsulation and Large Particle Flow Cytometry. COPAS™ QUICK TECH NOTES, Spain, 2013. Available online: https://www.unionbio.com/documents/QTN020__Screening_libraries_of_fungal_spores_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2024).
  100. Topolovec-Pintarić, S.; Žutić, I.; Đermić, E. Enhanced Growth of Cabbage and Red Beet by Trichoderma Viride. Acta Agric. Slov. 2013, 101, 87–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Szczech, M.; Maciorowski, R. Microencapsulation Technique with Organic Additives for Biocontrol Agents. J. Hortic. Res. 2016, 24, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Jurić, S.; Đermić, E.; Topolovec-Pintarić, S.; Bedek, M.; Vinceković, M. Physicochemical Properties and Release Characteristics of Calcium Alginate Microspheres Loaded with Trichoderma Viride Spores. J. Integr. Agric. 2019, 18, 2534–2548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Jurić, S.; Šegota, S.; Vinceković, M. Influence of Surface Morphology and Structure of Alginate Microparticles on the Bioactive Agents Release Behavior. Carbohydr. Polym. 2019, 218, 234–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Anuar, I.M.; Sulong, K.K.; Ghani, H.A.; Wahab, M. Alginate Encapsulation of Trichoderma Harzianum against Brown Spot Disease on Rice (Oryzae sativa) In Vivo Assays. Food Res. 2020, 4, 138–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Adzmi, F. Development of Alginate-Montmorillonite-Starch with Encapsulated Trichoderma harzianum and Evaluation of Conidia Shelf Life. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2021, 26, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Braga, A.B.A.C.; Costa, C.J.M.; Ribeiro, E.J.; Zotarelli, M.F.; Santos, L.D. Evaluation of the Microencapsulation Process of Conidia of Trichoderma Asperellum by Spray Drying. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2022, 53, 1871–1880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Brondi, M.; Florencio, C.; Mattoso, L.; Ribeiro, C.; Farinas, C. Encapsulation of Trichoderma Harzianum with Nanocellulose/Carboxymethyl Cellulose Nanocomposite. Carbohydr. Polym. 2022, 295, 119876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Shahiri Tabarestani, M. Evaluation of Antifungal Effect of Biodegradable Nano Encapsulated Extract of Trichoderma harzianum. J. Iran. Plant Prot. Res. 2022, 36, 183–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Qi, Q.; Fan, C.; Wu, H.; Sun, L.; Cao, C. Preparation of Trichoderma asperellum Microcapsules and Biocontrol of Cucumber Powdery Mildew. Microbiol. Spectr. 2023, 11, e0508422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Sowmya, V.; Maruthi, P.; Devi, G.U.; Rajanikant, P.; Kannan, C. Encapsulation of Native Strains of Bioagents Trichoderma asperellum and Pseudomonas putida Using Different Biopolymers. Int. J. Plant Soil Sci. 2023, 35, 521–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Cruz-Barrera, M.; Izquierdo-García, L.F.; Gómez-Marroquín, M.; Santos-Díaz, A.; Uribe-Gutiérrez, L.; Moreno-Velandia, C.A. Hydrogel Capsules as New Delivery System for Trichoderma Koningiopsis Th003 to Control Rhizoctonia Solani in Rice (Oryza sativa). World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2024, 40, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Lotfalinezhad, E.; Taheri, A.; Razavi, S.E.; Sanei, S.J. Preparation and Assessment of Alginate-Microencapsulated Trichoderma harzianum for Controlling Sclerotinia Sclerotiorum and Rhizoctonia Solani on Tomato. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2024, 259, 129278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Løvschall, K.B.; Velasquez, S.T.R.; Kowalska, B.; Ptaszek, M.; Jarecka, A.; Szczech, M.; Wurm, F.R. Enhancing Stability and Efficacy of Trichoderma Bio-Control Agents Through Layer-by-Layer Encapsulation for Sustainable Plant Protection. Adv. Sustain. Syst. 2024, 2300409, 2366–7486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Velázquez-Gutiérrez, S.K.; Alpizar-Reyes, E.; Cruz-Olivares, J.; Barrera-Pichardo, J.F.; Rodríguez-Huezo, M.E.; Pérez-Alonso, C. Ionic Gelation Encapsulation of Sesame Oil with Sodium Alginate-Nopal Mucilage Blends: Encapsulation Efficiency and Oxidative Stability. Rev. Mex. Ing. Quimica 2020, 19, 349–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Choukaife, H.; Doolaanea, A.A.; Alfatama, M. Alginate Nanoformulation: Influence of Process and Selected Variables. Pharmaceuticals 2020, 13, 335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Rhein-Knudsen, N.; Ale, M.T.; Ajalloueian, F.; Meyer, A.S. Characterization of Alginates from Ghanaian Brown Seaweeds: Sargassum spp. and Padina spp. Food Hydrocoll. 2017, 71, 236–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Zazzali, I.; Calvo, T.R.A.; Ruíz-Henestrosa, V.M.P.; Santagapita, P.R.; Perullini, M. Effects of pH, Extrusion Tip Size and Storage Protocol on the Structural Properties of Ca(II)-alginate Beads. Carbohydr. Polym. 2019, 206, 749–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Benko, B.; Haramija, F.; Vinceković, M.; Toth, N.; Uher, S.F.; Žutić, I. Lettuce Yield and Nutritive Value as Affected by a Biopolymer Microparticles Application. Acta Hortic. 2021, 1320, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Mikula, K.; Izydorczyk, G.; Skrzypczak, D.; Mironiuk, M.; Moustakas, K.; Witek-Krowiak, A.; Chojnacka, K. Controlled Release Micronutrient Fertilizers for Precision Agriculture—A Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 712, 136365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Global Market Insights Inc. Biocontrol Agents Market Size, Share & Report, 2024–2032. 2024. Available online: https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/biocontrol-agents-market (accessed on 10 June 2024).
  121. S&P Global Inc. Biological Control Agents Strategic Report 2022. IHS Markit®: Biological Control Agents. Biopesticides and Related BCAs. 2022. Available online: https://commodityinsights.spglobal.com/biological_control_agents-2022.html (accessed on 10 June 2024).
  122. Yao, X.; Guo, H.; Zhang, K.; Zhao, M.; Ruan, J.; Chen, J. Trichoderma and Its Role in Biological Control of Plant Fungal and Nematode Disease. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1160551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Sood, M.; Kapoor, D.; Kumar, V.; Sheteiwy, M.S.; Ramakrishnan, M.; Landi, M.; Araniti, F.; Sharma, A. Trichoderma: The “Secrets” of a Multitalented Biocontrol Agent. Plants 2020, 9, 762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Hakim, S.; Alshammari, W.; Alshammari, N.; Salih, Z.; Sm, H.; Sulieman, A.M. Capability of Trichoderma Viride to Produce Cellulolytic and Pectolytic Enzymes How to Cite. Adv. Life Sci. B 2023, 10, 491–496. [Google Scholar]
  125. Ghazanfar, M.; Raza, M.; Raza, W.; Qamar, M. Trichoderma as potential biocontrol agent, its exploitation in agriculture: A review. Plant Prot. 2018, 2, 109–135. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Known mechanisms for Trichoderma used in biological control and plant defense.
Figure 1. Known mechanisms for Trichoderma used in biological control and plant defense.
Agriengineering 06 00138 g001
Figure 2. General production techniques of Trichoderma formulations.
Figure 2. General production techniques of Trichoderma formulations.
Agriengineering 06 00138 g002
Figure 3. Distribution of Trichoderma strain encapsulation efforts in the world.
Figure 3. Distribution of Trichoderma strain encapsulation efforts in the world.
Agriengineering 06 00138 g003
Table 1. Examples of reported fungal and bacterial BCAs since 2020.
Table 1. Examples of reported fungal and bacterial BCAs since 2020.
BCA GroupBCA SpeciesPathogen GroupPathogen SpeciesDiseaseCrop(s)Reference
Aerobic Gram-negative antagonistic bacteriumPseudomonas protegensAerobic Gram-negative endophytic bacteriumPantoea ananatisMaize white spotZea mays[12]
Aerobic facultative Gram-negative bacteriumLysobacter antibioticusObligate aerobic Gram-negative bacteriumXanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzicolaBacterial leaf streakOryza sativa L.[11]
Aerobic Gram-positive antagonistic bacteriumBacillus amyloliquefaciensAerobic Gram-negative endophytic bacteriumRalstonia solanacearumTobacco bacterial wiltNicotiana tabacum Linne[13]
Aerobic Gram-positive antagonistic bacteriumBacillus subtilisEpiphytic fungus

Insect
Stagonospora nodorum Berk.

Schizaphis graminum Rond. (pest)
Glume blotchT. aestivum[14]
Aerobic Gram-positive antagonistic bacteriumBacillus thuringiensisEndophytic mycoparasitic fungus

Insect
Sclerotinia sclerotiorum

Plutella xylostella (pest)
SclerotinioseBrassica campestris L.[15]
Aerobic Gram-positive antagonistic bacteriumBacillus thuringiensisNematodeAphelenchoides besseyiRice white tipOryza sativa L.[16]
Aerobic Gram-positive antagonistic bacteriumStreptomyces antibioticusEndophytic fungusNeoscytalidium dimidiatumStem cankerDelonix regia[17]
Aerobic chemoorganotropic Gram-negative symbiotic bacterium

Aerobic Gram-positive antagonistic bacterium
Rhizobium sp.

Bacillus subtilis
Aerobic Gram-negative endophytic bacterium


Epiphytic fungus
Pseudomonas syringae

Alternaria solani
Leaf diseasesSolanum lycopersicum L.[18]
Endophytic fungusAureobasidium pullulansEndophytic oomycete

Endophytic mycoparasitic antagonistic fungus
Phytophthora cactorum

Botrytis cinerea Pers
Crown rot
Root rot
Grey mold
Fragaria × ananassa duch.[19]
Endophytic fungusInduratia spp.Endophytic fungus

Endophytic mycoparasitic fungus

Endophytic fungus
Colletotrichum lindemuthianum

Sclerotinia sclerotiorum

Pseudocercospora griseola
Anthracnose
White mold
Angular leaf spot
Phaseolus vulgaris L.[20]
Entomopathogenic fungusBeauveria bassianaEndophytic fungus

Endophytic mycoparasitic antagonistic fungus

Insect
Alternaria alternata

Botrytis cinerea

Macrosiphum euphorbiae (pest)
Spots/Rot on fruitsSolanum lycopersicum L.[21]
Entomopathogenic fungusLecanicillium araneicolaInsectAphis craccivora (pest)Viral vector of barley yellow
dwarf virus, papaya ring spot virus, and watermelon mosaic virus
Fruits and cereals[22]
Mycoparasitic antagonistic/nematicide fungusTrichoderma spp.Aerobic Gram-negative endophytic bacterium

Obligate aerobic Gram-negative bacterium

Nematode
Ralstonia solanacearum

Xanthomonas campestris

Meloidogyne incognita (pest)
Bacterial leaf spot
Bacterial wilt
Root-Knot nematode
Solanum lycopersicum L.[23]
Mycoparasitic antagonistic fungusTrichoderma asperellumEndophytic fungusFusarium oxysporumFusarium wiltStevia rebaudiana[24]
Mycoparasitic antagonistic fungus

Mycoparasitic antagonistic fungus
Trichoderma longibrachiatum

Trichoderma asperelloides
Endophytic fungusMagnaporthiopsis maydisLate wiltZea mays L.[25]
Mycoparasitic antagonistic fungusTrichoderma sp.Mycoparasitic antagonistic fungusBotrytis cinereaGrey moldPrunus mume[26]
Mycoparasitic antagonistic fungusTrichoderma asperellumEpiphytic fungusSclerotium cepivorumWhite rotAllium cepa L.[27]
Mycoparasitic antagonistic fungusConiothyrium minitans
Trichoderma spp.
Endophytic fungusSclerotinia sclerotiorumHead rotBrassica oleracea var. oleracea[28]
Mycoparasitic antagonistic fungi

Mycorrizae consortium
Trichoderma harzianum

Claroideoglomus claroideum
Claroideoglomus etunicatum
Funneliformis geosporum
Funneliformis mosseae
Glomus micro-aggregatum
Rhizophagus intraradices
Endophytic fungus

Endophytic fungus
Fusarium oxysporum

Verticillium dahliae
Tomato wiltSolanum lycopersicon esculentum Mill.[29]
Table 2. Properties of microparticles designed for biological control applications.
Table 2. Properties of microparticles designed for biological control applications.
Type of ParticleSynthesis MethodMaterials UsedMicroorganismState of the InoculumApplicationsCountryReference
BeadsExtrusion/ionic gelationMontmorillonite, sodium alginate, glycerol, CaCl2T. harzianum (UPM40)Conidial suspension grown on PDA mediumAgricultural applications as a delivery system for the biocontrol agentMalaysia[98]
Seed coatingAdhesion and dryingSodium alginateT. viride, T. reseiNot mentionedManagement of charcoal rot in sunflowers (Helianthus Annuus L.)Pakistan[99]
MicroparticlesIonic gelationSodium alginateT. reseeiNot mentionedSelección de esporas/mejoramiento genético.Spain, Belgium[100]
BeadsDroplets/ionic gelationSodium alginate, talc powder calcium gluconateT. virideLiquefied biomass and PDA culture mediumEnhanced growth of cabbage and red beetCroatia[101]
MicroparticlesWater-in-oil emulsification/ionic gelationAlginate, chitosan, peat, skim milkT. virens (TRS106)Conidial suspension grown on malt extract agar mediumBiological control of F. oxysporum wilt in tomatoesPoland[102]
MicrocapsulesIonic gelation/polyelectrolyte complexationSodium alginate, chitosan, copper sulfate pentahydrateT. virideFiltered biomass cultured in PDB liquid mediumPlant nutrition and protectionCroatia[76]
GranulesIonic gelationSodium alginate, soluble starch, citric pectinTrichoderma sp.Pulverized microorganism obtained from solid-state fermentationControl biológicoBrazil[89]
MicroparticlesIonic gelationSodium alginate, calcium chlorideT. virideFiltered biomass cultured in PDB liquid mediumAgricultural applications as a delivery system of bioagentCroatia[103]
MicroparticlesIonic gelation/polyelectrolyte complexationSodium alginate, medium molecular weight chitosan, calcium chloride, eosinT. virideFiltered biomass cultured in PDB liquid mediumAgricultural applications as a delivery system of bioagentCroatia[104]
MicroparticlesIonic gelationSodium alginate, calcium chlorideT. harzianumPulverized microorganism obtained from solid-state fermentationBiological control of S. sclerotiorum for applications in agricultureBrazil[95]
BeadsIonic gelationSodium alginate, calcium chlorideT. harzianumConidial suspension grown on PDA mediumBiological control of B. oryzaet in riceMalaysia[105]
BeadsExtrusion/ionic gelationSodium alginate, montmorillonite, starchT. harzianum (UPMC243)Conidial suspension grown on PDA mediumEvaluation of conidia shelf lifeMalaysia[106]
MicrocapsulesSpray dryingMaltodextrin DE20T. asperellumPulverized microorganism obtained from solid-state fermentationAgricultural applications as a delivery system of bioagentBrazil[107]
BeadsIonic gelationCellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) and carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), calcium chloride (CaCl2)T. harzianum (LQC-99)Conidial suspension grown on PDA mediumAgricultural applications as a delivery system of bioagentBrazil[108]
MicrocapsulesIonic gelationChitosan, tripolyphosphateT. harzianumExtraction of fungi secondary metabolitesBiological control of Macrophomina phaseolina and growth promoterIran[109]
MicroparticlesExtrusion/ionic gelationSodium alginate (SA), calcium chloride (CaCl2)T. asperellumConidial suspension grown on PDA mediumBiocontrol of cucumber powdery mildewChina[110]
Microparticles/microcapsulesIonic gelation and spray dryingMaltodextrin, sodium alginate, carboxy methyl cellulose (CMC), gum arabic, gelatin, calcium chlorideT. asperellum (TAIK 1)Not mentionedMaintaining soil health, promoting plant growth, and reducing disease incidence by creating unfavorable conditions for pathogensIndia[111]
BeadsIonic gelationAlginate, Amidated pectinpectina amidada, calcium gluconate, plant based biochar, polydextroseT. koningiopsis (Th003)Conidial suspension grown on PDA mediumBiological control of sheath blight caused by R. solani in rice. Colombia[112]
MicroparticlesIonic gelationSodium alginate, calcium chlorideT. harzianum (Ah90)Conidial suspension grown on PDA mediumBiological control of S. sclerotiorum and Rhizoctonia solani in tomatoesIran[113]
MicrocapsulesLayer-by-layer (LbL) encapsulationCationic lignin, lignosulfonateT. atroviride (TRS14), T. simmonsii (TRS75), T. gamsii TRS123)Not mentionedBiological control of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici in tomato and improve spore stability Germany and Netherlands[114]
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Vindas-Reyes, E.; Chacón-Cerdas, R.; Rivera-Méndez, W. Trichoderma Production and Encapsulation Methods for Agricultural Applications. AgriEngineering 2024, 6, 2366-2384. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering6030138

AMA Style

Vindas-Reyes E, Chacón-Cerdas R, Rivera-Méndez W. Trichoderma Production and Encapsulation Methods for Agricultural Applications. AgriEngineering. 2024; 6(3):2366-2384. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering6030138

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vindas-Reyes, Erick, Randall Chacón-Cerdas, and William Rivera-Méndez. 2024. "Trichoderma Production and Encapsulation Methods for Agricultural Applications" AgriEngineering 6, no. 3: 2366-2384. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering6030138

APA Style

Vindas-Reyes, E., Chacón-Cerdas, R., & Rivera-Méndez, W. (2024). Trichoderma Production and Encapsulation Methods for Agricultural Applications. AgriEngineering, 6(3), 2366-2384. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering6030138

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop