Department of Plant Pathology

Permanent URI for this community

https://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/26

Browse

Browsing Department of Plant Pathology by Subject "Antagonistic fungi"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Suppression of Botrytis cinerea by antagonists in living, moribund and dead grapevine tissue
    (Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2001-12) Volkmann, Anette (Anette Sigrid); Holz, G.; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of AgriSciences. Dept. of Plant Pathology.
    ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Several attempts have been made to reduce Botrytis cinerea grey mould in vineyards and in storage by means of biological control. However, the so called "silver bullet" approach in utilising a single antagonist, has its limitations when compared with synthetic fungicides. Often the antagonist has a limited spectrum of activity and the duration of its effectiveness is less than that provided by synthetic fungicides. Furthermore, antagonists are more likely to be effective in preventing initial infection rather than resumption of latent infection. Therefore, due to the various infection sites in grape bunches utilised by B. cinerea and the fact that the pathogen can remain latent in the grapevine tissue, it may be possible to obtain effective control of the pathogen by integrating fungicides and different biological control agents each aimed at a different site in grape bunches, protecting the bunch at the various phenological stages of growth and under different micro climatic conditions. In this study the potential of three fungal antagonists (Glioc/adium roseum, Uloc/adium atrum and Trichoderma harzianum) and one yeast (Trichosporon pullulans) to colonise different sites in grape bunches, and to reduce B. cinerea infection, was investigated in commercial vineyards. As the biological control agents were used in an integrated system, the effect of various fungicides frequently applied to local vineyards on the organisms was also investigated. Fungicide trials were conducted taking into account two possible scenarios. Firstly, the possible effect of fungicides applied to the vineyard after an application of the biological control agent or shortly before the application of the biocontrol agent. This entailed exposing the biocontrol agents to relatively low concentrations of the active ingredient of the fungicides, similar to the residue levels to which these organisms would be exposed under field conditions. Secondly, the possibility of applying the organisms and the fungicides at the same time by making use of spray tank mixtures. This meant exposing the biocontrol agents to relatively high doses of the active ingredient of the various fungicides. Mycelial growth and germination tests were performed on agar in Petri dishes to determine the effect of fungicides. It was assumed that if the fungicide effectively inhibits the antagonist at 2.5 !-lg a.Uml, the fungicide and antagonist can not be used in an integrated programme. Based on this criterium, T harzianum can not be applied to vineyards with penconazole, mancozeb/metalaxyl, pyrifenox or mancozeb. In addition T harzianum can not be applied as tank mixtures with iprodione. However, T harzianum can be used in conjunction with pyrimethanil, folpan, iprodione, fosetyl-Al and copperhydroxide, provided the chemicals and the antagonist are applied alternately. Gliocladium roseum can not be applied in a tank mixture with pyrimethanil and penconazole, but can be used on grapevine in conjunction with penconazole, pyrifenox, pyrimethanil, iprodione and fosetyl-Al. Ulocladium atrum can not be applied with pyrimethanil and iprodione. Ulocladium atrum can be applied in conjunction with penconazole, pyrifenox, pyrimethanil, iprodione, fosetyl-Al and mancozeb. The fungus can be applied in a tank mixture with penconazole and pyrifenox. The antagonists were applied as conidial suspensions to bunches at various phenological stages in commercial vineyards planted with the wine grape cultivar Chardonnay in the Stellenbosch region, or the table grape cultivar Dauphine planted in Paarl region. Bunches were collected 2 wk after application, surface-sterilised and used for determining antagonist colonisation and B. cinerea infection at specific sites in the bunches. In Chardonnay, the antagonists colonised the different sites, but colonisation during the three seasons was inconsistent and sporadic. Ulocladium atrum and G. roseum colonised floral debris to a degree in the 1996 season. However, in the 1997 season these two antagonists did not develop from floral debris. Trichoderma harzianum colonised floral debris extensively in the 1996 season. In the 1997 season colonisation by T harzianum dropped, but unlike G. roseum and U atrum, T harzianum occurred at a low level in flowers. Ulocladium atrum only colonised bunches during bloom, and was not found in bunches monitored from pea-size stage to véraison. This finding suggests that the saprophyte colonised moribund and dead flower parts occurring in bunches during full bloom to the pre-pea size stage, and is not likely to be found in living tissue. Gliocladium roseum colonised grape berries and pedicels to some degree and T harzianum colonised these grape parts extensively. Botrytis cinerea occurred inconsistently and at low frequencies in the different sites in bunches. It was therefore not possible to comment on the effectivity of the various antagonists in the three seasons during which the trials were performed. However, it was noted that, during the peasize stage in 1996, when high levels of B. cinerea were recorded, T harzianum controlled these infections in the pedicels more effectively than any other treatment.