Biological characteristics and plant growth-promoting and biocontrol properties of endophytic bacterium ZJ1 from Buddleja lindleyana

doi:10.11686/cyxb2023223

Abstract

Abstract:

The objective of this study was to promote the application of biological control technology in a practical setting. As determined by the dilution coating plate method， the lethal temperature for ZJ1 was 96 ℃ for 20 min and the lethal pH was ≤4 or ≥14. Biofilm can absorb metal ions in soil to improve the plant growth environment， and can help biocontrol strains to colonize the surface of plants and exert their biocontrol functions. The effect of several common metal ions on the biofilm formation of ZJ1 was evaluated using a bacterial membrane detection method. It was found that the biofilm production of ZJ1 was inhibited by 0.3% Zn²⁺， Mn²⁺， Cu²⁺， and Fe²⁺， but promoted by 0.3% Mg²⁺ or K⁺. The biofilm formation ability of ZJ1 was further measured using a quantitative 96-well microplate method， and the results showed that ZJ1 was a strong biofilm-forming strain. The results of an indoor pot experiment showed that the protective effect of a 10-fold dilution of ZJ1 fermentation broth on tomato early blight was up to 95.54%， and the therapeutic effect of a 200-fold dilution of ZJ1 fermentation broth on tomato gray mold was up to 91.99%. Considering the therapeutic and protective effects of ZJ1 against these two disease-causing organisms， the 200-fold dilution of ZJ1 fermentation broth had the best control effect. The fermentation broth of ZJ1 at 10-fold to 200-fold dilution also had a growth-promoting effect on tomato plants. Therefore， strain ZJ1 is a microbial strain with biocontrol potential.

Key words: Buddleja lindleyana, endophytic bacteria, biological characteristics, control efficacy, growth-promoting effect

Xiao-lu ZOU, Wen-jing ZHANG, Hong LYU, Nan QIN, Xiao-jun ZHAO, Hui YIN, Lu REN. Biological characteristics and plant growth-promoting and biocontrol properties of endophytic bacterium ZJ1 from Buddleja lindleyana[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2024, 33(5): 106-114.

Figures/Tables 10

References 34

1	Jump A S， Mátyás C， Peñuelas J. The altitude-for-latitude disparity in the range retractions of woody species. Trends in Ecology & Evolution， 2009， 24（12）： 694-701.
2	Karunamoorthi K， Hailu T. Insect repellent plants traditional usage practices in the Ethiopian malaria epidemic-prone setting： an ethnobotanical survey. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine， 2014， 10（22）： 1-11.
3	Bamuamba K， Gammon D W， Meyers P， et al. Anti-mycobacterial activity of five plant species used as traditional medicines in the Western Cape province. Journal of Ethnopharmacology， 2008， 117（2）： 385-390.
4	Köhl J， Kolnaar R， Ravensberg W J. Mode of action of microbial biological control agents against plant diseases： relevance beyond efficacy. Frontiers in Plant Science， 2019， 10： 845.
5	Sturz A V， Christie B R， Nowak J. Bacterial endophytes： potential role in developing sustainable systems of crop production. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences， 2000， 19（1）： 1-30.
6	Wilson D. Endophyte： the evolution of a term， and clarification of its use and definition. Oikos， 1995， 73（2）： 274-276.
7	Tan R X， Zou W X. Endophytes： a rich source of functional metabolites. Natural Product Reports， 2001， 18（4）： 448-459.
8	Ownley B H， Gwinn K D， Vega F E. Endophytic fungal entomopathogens with activity against plant pathogens： ecology and evolution. BioControl， 2010， 55（1）： 113-128.
9	Shahzad R， Waqas M， Khan A L， et al. Indoleacetic acid production and plant growth promoting potential of bacterial endophytes isolated from rice （Oryza sativa L.） seeds. Acta Biologica Hungarica， 2017， 68（2）： 175-186.
10	Gauvry E， Mathot A G， Couvert O， et al. Effects of temperature， pH and water activity on the growth and the sporulation abilities of Bacillus subtilis BSB1. International Journal of Food Microbiology， 2021， 337： 108915.
11	Mukhopadhyay R， Kumar D. Trichoderma： a beneficial antifungal agent and insights into its mechanism of biocontrol potential. Egyptian Journal of Biological Pest Control， 2020， 30： 133.
12	Zhu M L， Wang Y H， Dai Y， et al. Effects of different culture conditions on the biofilm formation of Bacillus pumilus HR10. Current Microbiology， 2020， 77（8）： 1405-1411.
13	Zhang N， Wang D D， Liu Y P， et al. Effects of different plant root exudates and their organic acid components on chemotaxis， biofilm formation and colonization by beneficial rhizosphere-associated bacterial strains. Plant and Soil， 2014， 374： 689-700.
14	Mhatre E， Monterrosa R G， Kovács Á T. From environmental signals to regulators： modulation of biofilm development in Gram-positive bacteria. Journal of Basic Microbiology， 2014， 54（7）： 616-632.
15	Pal A， Bhattacharjee S， Saha J， et al. Bacterial survival strategies and responses under heavy metal stress： a comprehensive overview. Critical Reviews in Microbiology， 2021， 48（3）： 327-355.
16	Robles-Kelly C， Rubio J， Thomas M， et al. Effect of drimenol and synthetic derivatives on growth and germination of Botrytis cinerea： evaluation of possible mechanism of action. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology， 2017， 141： 50-56.
17	You J Q， Zhang J， Wu M D， et al. Multiple criteria-based screening of Trichoderma isolates for biological control of Botrytis cinerea on tomato. Biological Control， 2016， 101： 31-38.
18	Liu S M， Che Z P， Chen G Q. Multiple-fungicide resistance to carbendazim， diethofencarb， procymidone， and pyrimethanil in field isolates of Botrytis cinerea from tomato in Henan Province， China. Crop Protection， 2016， 84： 56-61.
19	Tomazoni E Z， Pauletti G F， da silva Ribeiro R T， et al. In vitro and in vivo activity of essential oils extracted from Eucalyptus staigeriana， Eucalyptus globulus and Cinnamomum camphora against Alternaria solani Sorauer causing early blight in tomato. Scientia Horticulturae， 2017， 223： 72-77.
20	Zhou M. The realistic challenge and countermeasure analysis of the development of biological pesticide in China. Chinese Journal of Biological Control， 2021， 37（1）： 184-192.
	周蒙. 中国生物农药发展的现实挑战与对策分析. 中国生物防治学报， 2021， 37（1）： 184-192.
21	Sha Y X， Huang Z Y， Ma R. Control efficacy of Pseudomonas alcaliphila strain Ej2 against rice blast and its effect on endogenous hormones in rice. Scientia Agricultura Sinica， 2022， 55（2）： 320-328.
	沙月霞，黄泽阳，马瑞. 嗜碱假单胞菌 Ej2 对稻瘟病的防治效果及对水稻内源激素的影响. 中国农业科学， 2022， 55（2）： 320-328.
22	Zhu L Y， Cui G B， Sun W D， et al. Isolation， identification， and biocontrol activity of an endophytic strain Bacillus amyloliquefaciens CGB15 from sugarcane. Acta Microbiologica Sinica， 2022， 62（5）： 1698-1710.
	朱録媛，崔国兵，孙文达，等. 甘蔗内生解淀粉芽孢杆菌CGB15的分离、鉴定及生防活性. 微生物学报， 2022， 62（5）： 1698-1710.
23	Ren L， Zhou J B， Yin H， et al. Antifungal activity and control efficiency of endophytic Bacillus velezensis ZJ1 strain and its volatile compounds against Alternaria solani and Botrytis cinerea. Journal of Plant Pathology， 2022， 104： 575-589.
24	Ren L， Liu X F， Zhou J B， et al. Antagonism of endophytic bacteria ZJ1 from Buddleja lindleyana Fortune and identification of antifungal lipopetide metabolites. Acta Agrestia Sinica， 2021， 29（3）： 434-442.
	任璐，刘晓峰，周建波，等. 醉鱼草内生细菌ZJ1的抑菌作用及其脂肽类抑菌代谢产物鉴定. 草地学报， 2021， 29（3）： 434-442.
25	He C P， Huang Z Q， Wu W H， et al. Lethal temperature of Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. niveum and its nutrition resource of optimum carbon and nitrogen. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops， 2008， 29（5）： 648-652.
	贺春萍，黄志强，吴伟怀，等. 一株西瓜尖孢镰刀菌的致死温度和最适碳氮营养源. 热带作物学报， 2008， 29（5）： 648-652.
26	Lajhar S A， Brownlie J， Barlow R. Characterization of biofilm-forming capacity and resistance to sanitizers of a range of E. coli O26 pathotypes from clinical cases and cattle in Australia. BMC Microbiology， 2018， 18（1）： 1-15.
27	Zang R， Huang L L， Kang Z S， et al. Biological characteristics and pathogenicity of different isolates of Cytospora spp. from apple trees in Shaanxi province. Acta Phytopathologica Sinica， 2007， 37（4）： 343-351.
	臧睿，黄丽丽，康振生，等. 陕西苹果树腐烂病菌（Cytospora spp.）不同分离株的生物学特性与致病性研究. 植物病理学报， 2007， 37（4）： 343-351.
28	Jing Z Q， Guo Z J， Xu S J， et al. Screening， identification as Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain HZ-6-3 and evaluation of inhibitory activity against tomato gray mold， of a bacterial isolate. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2020， 29（2）： 31-41.
	荆卓琼，郭致杰，徐生军，等. 解淀粉芽孢杆菌HZ-6-3的筛选鉴定及其防治番茄灰霉病效果的评价. 草业学报， 2020， 29（2）： 31-41.
29	Wang F K， Zheng G B. Method for identification of resistance to early blight of tomato. Acta Phytopathologica Sinica， 1992， 22（2）： 168.
	王发科，郑贵彬. 番茄早疫病抗病性鉴定方法. 植物病理学报， 1992， 22（2）： 168.
30	Xing Y X， Wei C Y， Mo Y， et al. Nitrogen-fixing and plant growth-promoting ability of two endophytic bacterial strains isolated from sugarcane stalks. Sugar Tech， 2016， 18： 373-379.
31	Qi H Y， Wang D， Han D， et al. Unlocking antagonistic potential of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens KRS005 to control gray mold. Frontiers in Microbiology， 2023， 14： 1189354.
32	Feng B， Chen D， Jin R， et al. Bioactivities evaluation of an endophytic bacterial strain Bacillus velezensis JRX-YG39 inhabiting wild grape. BMC Microbiology， 2022， 22（1）： 1-9.
33	Sun Y F， Liu Z， Li H Y， et al. Biocontrol effect and mechanism of Bacillus laterosporus Bl13 against early blight disease of tomato. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology， 2021， 32（1）： 299-308.
	孙一凡，刘喆，李海洋，等. 侧孢芽孢杆菌Bl13对番茄早疫病防治效果及机制. 应用生态学报， 2021， 32（1）： 299-308.
34	Xie Z Y， Guo E H， Sun Y B， et al. The growth-promotion effect of Bacillus subtilis strain B1409 on tomato and pepper and its control activity against Alternaria solani and Phytophthora capsici. Journal of Plant Protection， 2018， 45（3）： 520-527.
	谢梓语，郭恩辉，孙宇波，等. 枯草芽孢杆菌B1409对番茄和辣椒的防病促生作用. 植物保护学报， 2018， 45（3）： 520-527.

发酵液浓度 Concentration of fermentation	病斑面积 Lesion area （mm²）	抑制率 Inhibition rate （%）
发酵液原液 Fermentation liquid	21.79±0.73e	98.29±0.59a
5×稀释液5× diluent	96.30±0.86d	92.40±0.44b
20×稀释液20× diluent	174.49±1.25c	86.68±0.48c
50×稀释液50× diluent	812.91±2.35b	35.83±1.18d
对照Control	1275.94±1.76a	-

发酵液浓度 Concentration of fermentation	病斑面积 Lesion area （mm²）	抑制率 Inhibition rate （%）
发酵液原液 Fermentation liquid	21.79±0.73e	98.29±0.59a
5×稀释液5× diluent	96.30±0.86d	92.40±0.44b
20×稀释液20× diluent	174.49±1.25c	86.68±0.48c
50×稀释液50× diluent	812.91±2.35b	35.83±1.18d
对照Control	1275.94±1.76a	-

处理 Treatment	治疗效果Therapeutic effect		保护效果Protection effect
处理 Treatment	病情指数 Disease index	防治效果 Control effect （%）	病情指数 Disease index	防治效果 Control effect （%）
发酵液原液Fermentation liquid	8.32±0.93b	73.12±3.01d	4.38±0.37c	84.10±1.35d
5×稀释液5× diluent	6.21±1.01c	79.94±3.25bc	3.66±0.55cd	86.71±2.40c
10×稀释液10× diluent	6.78±0.77c	78.10±2.47c	1.23±0.42e	95.54±1.47a
100×稀释液100× diluent	5.25±1.91d	83.04±6.18b	3.71±0.57cd	86.52±2.08c
200×稀释液200× diluent	3.86±0.61e	87.52±1.96a	5.47±0.52b	80.13±1.88e
50%腐霉利600×稀释液 50% procymidone 600× diluent	2.92±0.66e	90.56±2.12a	3.04±0.69d	88.96±2.65b
清水对照Water control	30.96±0.99a	-	27.54±2.19a	-

处理 Treatment	治疗效果Therapeutic effect		保护效果Protection effect
处理 Treatment	病情指数 Disease index	防治效果 Control effect （%）	病情指数 Disease index	防治效果 Control effect （%）
发酵液原液Fermentation liquid	8.32±0.93b	73.12±3.01d	4.38±0.37c	84.10±1.35d
5×稀释液5× diluent	6.21±1.01c	79.94±3.25bc	3.66±0.55cd	86.71±2.40c
10×稀释液10× diluent	6.78±0.77c	78.10±2.47c	1.23±0.42e	95.54±1.47a
100×稀释液100× diluent	5.25±1.91d	83.04±6.18b	3.71±0.57cd	86.52±2.08c
200×稀释液200× diluent	3.86±0.61e	87.52±1.96a	5.47±0.52b	80.13±1.88e
50%腐霉利600×稀释液 50% procymidone 600× diluent	2.92±0.66e	90.56±2.12a	3.04±0.69d	88.96±2.65b
清水对照Water control	30.96±0.99a	-	27.54±2.19a	-

处理 Treatment	治疗效果Therapeutic effect		保护效果Protection effect
处理 Treatment	病情指数 Disease index	防治效果 Control effect （%）	病情指数 Disease index	防治效果 Control effect （%）
发酵液原液Fermentation liquid	8.03±0.43b	80.27±1.04d	6.30±0.28b	71.13±1.28e
5×稀释液5× diluent	5.03±0.22d	87.65±0.55b	3.12±0.15d	85.72±0.69b
10×稀释液10× diluent	6.60±0.40c	83.80±0.98c	3.40±0.12d	84.44±0.56c
100×稀释液100× diluent	4.98±0.21d	87.77±0.51b	5.27±0.09c	75.83±0.42d
200×稀释液200× diluent	3.26±0.19e	91.99±0.47a	3.18±0.27d	85.43±1.25bc
50% 腐霉利600×稀释液 50% procymidone 600× diluent	3.25±0.14e	92.02±0.33a	1.43±0.10e	93.43±0.44a
清水对照Water control	40.73±0.74a	-	21.81±0.48a	-