园艺学报 ›› 2023, Vol. 50 ›› Issue (5): 1118-1129.doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2022-0048
贺旭1, 韩剑1,2, 盛强3, 罗明1,2,*(), 包慧芳4, 黄伟3
收稿日期:
2022-11-09
修回日期:
2023-01-23
出版日期:
2023-05-25
发布日期:
2023-05-31
通讯作者:
*(E-mail:luomingxjau@sina.com)基金资助:
HE Xu1, HAN Jian1,2, SHENG Qiang3, LUO Ming1,2,*(), BAO Huifang4, HUANG Wei3
Received:
2022-11-09
Revised:
2023-01-23
Published:
2023-05-25
Online:
2023-05-31
摘要:
以前期从植物酵素液中初筛出的梨火疫病菌(Erwinia amylovora)拮抗细菌为供试菌株,采用打孔抑菌圈法、共培养法复筛出对梨火疫病菌具有强抑菌活性的贝莱斯芽孢杆菌(Bacillus velezensis)FX1菌株。FX1菌株的除菌发酵滤液对梨火疫病菌的抑菌圈直径为26.11 mm,与梨火疫病菌共培养的抑菌率为99.99%。比较不同方法提取的FX1菌株发酵滤液粗提物的抑菌活性,结果显示:酸沉淀法和硫酸铵饱和沉淀法得到的粗提物具有显著的抑菌作用,酸沉淀法提取物抑菌活性更强。利用特异性引物在FX1菌株中扩增检测到脂肽类(bmyB、fenD、ituC、srfAA、srfAB、bioA、yngG和yndJ)和抑菌蛋白类(TasA)抑菌物质合成相关基因,表明该菌株可能具有合成脂肽类和抑菌蛋白类物质的能力。利用库尔勒香梨(Korla Fragrant Pear)离体花序和杜梨(Pyrus betulaefolia)盆栽苗测定FX1菌株抑菌物质的防病效果显示,喷施FX1菌株脂肽类物质粗提液、除菌发酵滤液和菌体发酵液对香梨花序3 ~ 5 d的保护性防效分别为79.07%、56.85%和50.02%;对杜梨苗7 ~ 15 d的保护性防效分别为72.64%、72.85%和71.54%,均达到了与农用链霉素(82.33%)接近的效果,治疗性防效分别为61.59%、52.02%和56.03%。B. velezensis FX1菌株的胞外抑菌物质对梨火疫病具有较好的预防和治疗作用,有进一步深入研究和开发应用的潜力。
中图分类号:
贺旭, 韩剑, 盛强, 罗明, 包慧芳, 黄伟. 梨火疫病拮抗细菌FX1及其抑菌物质的防病作用[J]. 园艺学报, 2023, 50(5): 1118-1129.
HE Xu, HAN Jian, SHENG Qiang, LUO Ming, BAO Huifang, HUANG Wei. Screening of Antagonistic Bacterium FX1 Against Erwinia amylovora and Its Control Effect of the Antibacterial Substances on Fire Blight[J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2023, 50(5): 1118-1129.
菌株 Strain | 分离来源 Sampling source | 抑菌圈直径/mm The inhibition zone diameters | 共培养Co-culture | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
梨火疫病菌E. amylovora | 抑菌率/% Inhibitive rate | ||||
OD600 | 活菌数/(CFU · mL-1) Number of viable bacteria | ||||
FX68 | 西瓜Watermelon | 14.10 ± 0.92 g | 1.792 | (1.75 ± 1.15)× 109 a | 58.92 ± 0.04 c |
FJ13 | 苹果Apple | 14.18 ± 1.08 g | 1.778 | (5.55 ± 2.70)× 108 b | 86.97 ± 0.05 b |
FX25 | 香葱Scallion | 14.57 ± 0.83 g | 1.727 | (7.69 ± 1.83)× 107 c | 98.19 ± 0.00 a |
FX69 | 西瓜Watermelon | 14.68 ± 1.75 g | 1.715 | (7.50 ± 0.56)× 107 c | 98.23 ± 0.00 a |
FJ20 | 苹果Apple | 20.75 ± 0.93 f | 1.564 | (7.45 ± 2.75)× 107 c | 98.25 ± 0.01 a |
SN37 | 香梨Banana | 20.96 ± 0.72 f | 1.516 | (4.95 ± 0.05)× 107 c | 98.84 ± 0.00 a |
FX52 | 牛奶Milk | 21.37 ± 2.12 ef | 1.480 | (4.00 ± 0.56)× 107 c | 99.06 ± 0.00 a |
FN10 | 苹果Apple | 21.91 ± 2.29 def | 1.447 | (1.50 ± 0.42)× 107 c | 99.64 ± 0.00 a |
FN7 | 瓜类Melons | 22.05 ± 1.47 def | 1.414 | (1.20 ± 3.53)× 107 c | 99.71 ± 0.01 a |
HN89 | 香梨Banana | 22.16 ± 0.37 def | 1.402 | (9.50 ± 0.00)× 106 c | 99.77 ± 0.01 a |
FN9 | 苹果Apple | 22.42 ± 0.59 cdef | 1.367 | (8.20 ± 0.28)× 106 c | 99.81 ± 0.00 a |
FX59 | 蒲公英Dandelion | 23.48 ± 0.00 bcde | 1.333 | (7.10 ± 0.70)× 106 c | 99.83 ± 0.01 a |
FX43 | 大葱Leek | 23.69 ± 2.15 bcd | 1.332 | (6.50 ± 2.82)× 106 c | 99.85 ± 0.01 a |
FX70 | 西瓜Watermelon | 23.70 ± 0.56 bcd | 1.312 | (4.87 ± 0.14)× 106 c | 99.89 ± 0.00 a |
FX51 | 牛奶Milk | 23.72 ± 0.79 bcd | 1.303 | (3.65 ± 1.20)× 106 c | 99.91 ± 0.01 a |
FX42 | 大葱Leek | 23.76 ± 2.15 bcd | 1.265 | (3.60 ± 0.70)× 106 c | 99.92 ± 0.00 a |
FN12 | 瓜类Melons | 23.82 ± 1.14 bcd | 1.239 | (3.15 ± 0.21)× 106 c | 99.93 ± 0.02 a |
FX74 | 西瓜Watermelon | 24.06 ± 0.64 abcd | 1.233 | (2.95 ± 0.21)× 106 c | 99.93 ± 0.00 a |
FX41 | 大葱Leek | 24.61 ± 0.91 abc | 1.224 | (1.70 ± 0.00)× 106 c | 99.96 ± 0.01 a |
FN11 | 苹果Apple | 25.31 ± 0.65 ab | 1.202 | (5.85 ± 0.77)× 105 c | 99.98 ± 0.01 a |
FX72 | 西瓜Watermelon | 25.37 ± 1.94 ab | 1.181 | (3.50 ± 1.06)× 105 c | 99.99 ± 0.00 a |
FX1 | 香葱Scallion | 26.11 ± 0.40 a | 1.116 | (3.20 ± 0.42)× 105 c | 99.99 ± 0.01 a |
E. amylovora | 1.801 | (4.26 ± 0.90)× 109 a |
表1 拮抗菌株除菌发酵滤液对梨火疫病菌的抑菌圈直径及其与病原菌共培养的抑菌率
Table 1 The results of filtered fermentation broth of the tested antagonistic bacteria strains against Erwinia amylovora
菌株 Strain | 分离来源 Sampling source | 抑菌圈直径/mm The inhibition zone diameters | 共培养Co-culture | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
梨火疫病菌E. amylovora | 抑菌率/% Inhibitive rate | ||||
OD600 | 活菌数/(CFU · mL-1) Number of viable bacteria | ||||
FX68 | 西瓜Watermelon | 14.10 ± 0.92 g | 1.792 | (1.75 ± 1.15)× 109 a | 58.92 ± 0.04 c |
FJ13 | 苹果Apple | 14.18 ± 1.08 g | 1.778 | (5.55 ± 2.70)× 108 b | 86.97 ± 0.05 b |
FX25 | 香葱Scallion | 14.57 ± 0.83 g | 1.727 | (7.69 ± 1.83)× 107 c | 98.19 ± 0.00 a |
FX69 | 西瓜Watermelon | 14.68 ± 1.75 g | 1.715 | (7.50 ± 0.56)× 107 c | 98.23 ± 0.00 a |
FJ20 | 苹果Apple | 20.75 ± 0.93 f | 1.564 | (7.45 ± 2.75)× 107 c | 98.25 ± 0.01 a |
SN37 | 香梨Banana | 20.96 ± 0.72 f | 1.516 | (4.95 ± 0.05)× 107 c | 98.84 ± 0.00 a |
FX52 | 牛奶Milk | 21.37 ± 2.12 ef | 1.480 | (4.00 ± 0.56)× 107 c | 99.06 ± 0.00 a |
FN10 | 苹果Apple | 21.91 ± 2.29 def | 1.447 | (1.50 ± 0.42)× 107 c | 99.64 ± 0.00 a |
FN7 | 瓜类Melons | 22.05 ± 1.47 def | 1.414 | (1.20 ± 3.53)× 107 c | 99.71 ± 0.01 a |
HN89 | 香梨Banana | 22.16 ± 0.37 def | 1.402 | (9.50 ± 0.00)× 106 c | 99.77 ± 0.01 a |
FN9 | 苹果Apple | 22.42 ± 0.59 cdef | 1.367 | (8.20 ± 0.28)× 106 c | 99.81 ± 0.00 a |
FX59 | 蒲公英Dandelion | 23.48 ± 0.00 bcde | 1.333 | (7.10 ± 0.70)× 106 c | 99.83 ± 0.01 a |
FX43 | 大葱Leek | 23.69 ± 2.15 bcd | 1.332 | (6.50 ± 2.82)× 106 c | 99.85 ± 0.01 a |
FX70 | 西瓜Watermelon | 23.70 ± 0.56 bcd | 1.312 | (4.87 ± 0.14)× 106 c | 99.89 ± 0.00 a |
FX51 | 牛奶Milk | 23.72 ± 0.79 bcd | 1.303 | (3.65 ± 1.20)× 106 c | 99.91 ± 0.01 a |
FX42 | 大葱Leek | 23.76 ± 2.15 bcd | 1.265 | (3.60 ± 0.70)× 106 c | 99.92 ± 0.00 a |
FN12 | 瓜类Melons | 23.82 ± 1.14 bcd | 1.239 | (3.15 ± 0.21)× 106 c | 99.93 ± 0.02 a |
FX74 | 西瓜Watermelon | 24.06 ± 0.64 abcd | 1.233 | (2.95 ± 0.21)× 106 c | 99.93 ± 0.00 a |
FX41 | 大葱Leek | 24.61 ± 0.91 abc | 1.224 | (1.70 ± 0.00)× 106 c | 99.96 ± 0.01 a |
FN11 | 苹果Apple | 25.31 ± 0.65 ab | 1.202 | (5.85 ± 0.77)× 105 c | 99.98 ± 0.01 a |
FX72 | 西瓜Watermelon | 25.37 ± 1.94 ab | 1.181 | (3.50 ± 1.06)× 105 c | 99.99 ± 0.00 a |
FX1 | 香葱Scallion | 26.11 ± 0.40 a | 1.116 | (3.20 ± 0.42)× 105 c | 99.99 ± 0.01 a |
E. amylovora | 1.801 | (4.26 ± 0.90)× 109 a |
图1 不同方法提取的FX1菌株发酵滤液活性物质对梨火疫病菌的抑菌活性 1、5:无菌水对照;2:酸沉淀粗提液;3、6:甲醇溶剂对照;4:硫酸铵饱和沉淀粗提液。
Fig. 1 The antibacterial activity of the crude extracted from the FX1 strain filtered fermentation broth by using different methods against Erwinia amylovora 1,5:Sterile water control;2:Crude extrac of acid precipitation;3,6:Methanol solvent control; 4:Crude extract of ammonium sulfates saturation precipitation.
处理Treatment | 稀释倍数Dilution ratio | 3 d | 5 d | 平均防效/% Mean of the control efficacy | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
花腐率/% Flower rot rate | 防效/% Control efficacy | 花腐率/% Flower rot rate | 防效/% Control efficacy | |||
发酵液Fermentation broth | — | 18.74 ± 0.11 bcde | 61.50 ± 0.23 cde | 52.11 ± 0.07 b | 38.54 ± 0.08 c | 50.02 ± 11.48 abc |
除菌发酵滤液 Filtered fermentation broth | — | 16.59 ± 0.02 cdef | 65.94 ± 0.05 bcd | 44.30 ± 0.08 bc | 47.76 ± 0.10 bc | 56.85 ± 9.09 abc |
5 | 22.96 ± 0.02 bcde | 52.84 ± 0.04 cde | 44.61 ± 0.06 bc | 47.40 ± 0.07 bc | 50.12 ± 2.72 abc | |
10 | 23.49 ± 0.02 bcd | 51.77 ± 0.05 cde | 44.87 ± 0.04 bc | 47.09 ± 0.05 bc | 49.43 ± 2.34 abc | |
50 | 27.21 ± 0.09 bc | 44.12 ± 0.18 de | 45.30 ± 0.09 bc | 46.58 ± 0.11 bc | 45.35 ± 1.23 bc | |
100 | 29.18 ± 0.08 b | 40.09 ± 0.17 e | 58.52 ± 0.09 b | 30.99 ± 0.11 c | 35.54 ± 4.55 c | |
脂肽类物质粗提液 Crude extract of lipopeptide | — | 4.89 ± 0.02 g | 89.95 ± 0.04 ab | 26.98 ± 0.02 d | 68.18 ± 0.03 a | 79.07 ± 10.89 ab |
5 | 5.26 ± 0.04 fg | 89.20 ± 0.08 ab | 33.07 ± 0.06 cd | 61.00 ± 0.08 ab | 75.10 ± 14.10 ab | |
10 | 5.86 ± 0.04 fg | 87.96 ± 0.10 ab | 33.43 ± 0.08 cd | 60.57 ± 0.09 ab | 74.27 ± 13.70 ab | |
50 | 11.51 ± 0.05 efg | 76.36 ± 0.10 abc | 44.53 ± 0.01 bc | 47.49 ± 0.01 bc | 61.93 ± 14.44 abc | |
100 | 12.05 ± 0.01 defg | 75.26 ± 0.02 abc | 45.42 ± 0.09 bc | 46.44 ± 0.10 bc | 60.85 ± 14.41 abc | |
农用链霉素 Agricultural streptomycin | 4 000 | 3.18 ± 0.01 g | 93.47 ± 0.01 a | 23.04 ± 0.03 d | 72.83 ± 0.03 a | 83.15 ± 10.32 a |
H2O对照 Control | 48.68 ± 0.09 a | 84.82 ± 0.07 a |
表2 FX1发酵液、除菌发酵滤液及其脂肽类粗提液对香梨离体花序梨火疫病的防效
Table 2 The control efficacy of fermentation broth,filtered fermentation broth and lipopeptide crude extract of the strain FX1 to Erwinia amylovora on detached flower of the pear
处理Treatment | 稀释倍数Dilution ratio | 3 d | 5 d | 平均防效/% Mean of the control efficacy | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
花腐率/% Flower rot rate | 防效/% Control efficacy | 花腐率/% Flower rot rate | 防效/% Control efficacy | |||
发酵液Fermentation broth | — | 18.74 ± 0.11 bcde | 61.50 ± 0.23 cde | 52.11 ± 0.07 b | 38.54 ± 0.08 c | 50.02 ± 11.48 abc |
除菌发酵滤液 Filtered fermentation broth | — | 16.59 ± 0.02 cdef | 65.94 ± 0.05 bcd | 44.30 ± 0.08 bc | 47.76 ± 0.10 bc | 56.85 ± 9.09 abc |
5 | 22.96 ± 0.02 bcde | 52.84 ± 0.04 cde | 44.61 ± 0.06 bc | 47.40 ± 0.07 bc | 50.12 ± 2.72 abc | |
10 | 23.49 ± 0.02 bcd | 51.77 ± 0.05 cde | 44.87 ± 0.04 bc | 47.09 ± 0.05 bc | 49.43 ± 2.34 abc | |
50 | 27.21 ± 0.09 bc | 44.12 ± 0.18 de | 45.30 ± 0.09 bc | 46.58 ± 0.11 bc | 45.35 ± 1.23 bc | |
100 | 29.18 ± 0.08 b | 40.09 ± 0.17 e | 58.52 ± 0.09 b | 30.99 ± 0.11 c | 35.54 ± 4.55 c | |
脂肽类物质粗提液 Crude extract of lipopeptide | — | 4.89 ± 0.02 g | 89.95 ± 0.04 ab | 26.98 ± 0.02 d | 68.18 ± 0.03 a | 79.07 ± 10.89 ab |
5 | 5.26 ± 0.04 fg | 89.20 ± 0.08 ab | 33.07 ± 0.06 cd | 61.00 ± 0.08 ab | 75.10 ± 14.10 ab | |
10 | 5.86 ± 0.04 fg | 87.96 ± 0.10 ab | 33.43 ± 0.08 cd | 60.57 ± 0.09 ab | 74.27 ± 13.70 ab | |
50 | 11.51 ± 0.05 efg | 76.36 ± 0.10 abc | 44.53 ± 0.01 bc | 47.49 ± 0.01 bc | 61.93 ± 14.44 abc | |
100 | 12.05 ± 0.01 defg | 75.26 ± 0.02 abc | 45.42 ± 0.09 bc | 46.44 ± 0.10 bc | 60.85 ± 14.41 abc | |
农用链霉素 Agricultural streptomycin | 4 000 | 3.18 ± 0.01 g | 93.47 ± 0.01 a | 23.04 ± 0.03 d | 72.83 ± 0.03 a | 83.15 ± 10.32 a |
H2O对照 Control | 48.68 ± 0.09 a | 84.82 ± 0.07 a |
处理 Treatment | 稀释倍数Dilution ratio | 7 d | 15 d | 平均防效/% Mean of the control efficacy | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
病情指数 Disease index | 防效/% Control efficacy | 病情指数 Disease index | 防效/% Control efficacy | |||
发酵液Fermentation broth | — | 4.34 ± 1.17 de | 80.27 ± 0.05 ab | 12.28 ± 1.43 cd | 62.80 ± 0.04 ab | 71.54 ± 8.74 ab |
除菌发酵滤液 Filtered fermentation broth | — | 4.17 ± 0.83 de | 81.05 ± 0.04 ab | 11.67 ± 1.67 cd | 64.65 ± 0.05 ab | 72.85 ± 8.20 ab |
5 | 5.40 ± 1.80 cde | 75.47 ± 0.08 abc | 17.25 ± 10.34 bc | 47.73 ± 0.31 abc | 61.60 ± 13.87 ab | |
10 | 6.51 ± 2.06 cde | 70.42 ± 0.09 abc | 17.25 ± 6.03 bc | 47.73 ± 0.18 abc | 59.08 ± 11.35 ab | |
50 | 6.59 ± 2.44 cde | 70.03 ± 0.11 abc | 20.44 ± 6.00 bc | 38.05 ± 0.18 bc | 54.04 ± 15.99 ab | |
100 | 7.22 ± 2.08 cd | 67.17 ± 0.09 bc | 20.56 ± 3.42 bc | 37.71 ± 0.10 bc | 52.44 ± 14.73 ab | |
脂肽类物质粗提液 Crude extract of lipopeptide | — | 4.21 ± 0.58 de | 80.85 ± 0.03 ab | 11.74 ± 1.24 cd | 64.42 ± 0.04 ab | 72.64 ± 8.22 ab |
5 | 4.72 ± 0.28 de | 78.54 ± 0.01 abc | 16.39 ± 1.39 bcd | 50.34 ± 0.04 abc | 63.81 ± 13.47 ab | |
10 | 8.52 ± 2.86 bc | 61.26 ± 0.13 cd | 16.46 ± 6.54 bcd | 50.12 ± 0.20 abc | 55.69 ± 5.57 ab | |
50 | 8.61 ± 0.28 bc | 60.86 ± 0.01 cd | 18.61 ± 3.06 bc | 43.60 ± 0.09 bc | 52.23 ± 8.63 ab | |
100 | 11.43 ± 0.00 b | 48.05 ± 0.00 d | 25.71 ± 0.00 ab | 22.08 ± 0.00 c | 35.07 ± 12.99 b | |
农用链霉素 Agricultural streptomycin | 4 000 | 3.36 ± 1.19 e | 84.73 ± 0.05 a | 6.63 ± 0.73 d | 79.92 ± 0.02 a | 82.33 ± 2.41 a |
H2O对照 Control | 22.00 ± 0.05 a | 33.00 ± 0.16 a |
表3 FX1发酵液、除菌发酵液及其脂肽类物质粗提液对杜梨苗梨火疫病的保护性防效
Table 3 The protective control efficacy of fermentation broth,filtered fermentation broth and lipopeptide crude extract of the strain FX1 to Erwinia amylovora on birch pear seedling
处理 Treatment | 稀释倍数Dilution ratio | 7 d | 15 d | 平均防效/% Mean of the control efficacy | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
病情指数 Disease index | 防效/% Control efficacy | 病情指数 Disease index | 防效/% Control efficacy | |||
发酵液Fermentation broth | — | 4.34 ± 1.17 de | 80.27 ± 0.05 ab | 12.28 ± 1.43 cd | 62.80 ± 0.04 ab | 71.54 ± 8.74 ab |
除菌发酵滤液 Filtered fermentation broth | — | 4.17 ± 0.83 de | 81.05 ± 0.04 ab | 11.67 ± 1.67 cd | 64.65 ± 0.05 ab | 72.85 ± 8.20 ab |
5 | 5.40 ± 1.80 cde | 75.47 ± 0.08 abc | 17.25 ± 10.34 bc | 47.73 ± 0.31 abc | 61.60 ± 13.87 ab | |
10 | 6.51 ± 2.06 cde | 70.42 ± 0.09 abc | 17.25 ± 6.03 bc | 47.73 ± 0.18 abc | 59.08 ± 11.35 ab | |
50 | 6.59 ± 2.44 cde | 70.03 ± 0.11 abc | 20.44 ± 6.00 bc | 38.05 ± 0.18 bc | 54.04 ± 15.99 ab | |
100 | 7.22 ± 2.08 cd | 67.17 ± 0.09 bc | 20.56 ± 3.42 bc | 37.71 ± 0.10 bc | 52.44 ± 14.73 ab | |
脂肽类物质粗提液 Crude extract of lipopeptide | — | 4.21 ± 0.58 de | 80.85 ± 0.03 ab | 11.74 ± 1.24 cd | 64.42 ± 0.04 ab | 72.64 ± 8.22 ab |
5 | 4.72 ± 0.28 de | 78.54 ± 0.01 abc | 16.39 ± 1.39 bcd | 50.34 ± 0.04 abc | 63.81 ± 13.47 ab | |
10 | 8.52 ± 2.86 bc | 61.26 ± 0.13 cd | 16.46 ± 6.54 bcd | 50.12 ± 0.20 abc | 55.69 ± 5.57 ab | |
50 | 8.61 ± 0.28 bc | 60.86 ± 0.01 cd | 18.61 ± 3.06 bc | 43.60 ± 0.09 bc | 52.23 ± 8.63 ab | |
100 | 11.43 ± 0.00 b | 48.05 ± 0.00 d | 25.71 ± 0.00 ab | 22.08 ± 0.00 c | 35.07 ± 12.99 b | |
农用链霉素 Agricultural streptomycin | 4 000 | 3.36 ± 1.19 e | 84.73 ± 0.05 a | 6.63 ± 0.73 d | 79.92 ± 0.02 a | 82.33 ± 2.41 a |
H2O对照 Control | 22.00 ± 0.05 a | 33.00 ± 0.16 a |
处理 Treatment | 稀释倍数Dilution | 7 d | 15d | 平均防效/% Average efficacy | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
病情指数 Disease index | 防效/% Control efficacy | 病情指数 Disease index | 防效/% Control efficacy | |||
发酵液 Fermentation broth | 1 | 6.67 ± 0.00 c | 70.57 ± 0.00 ab | 18.33 ± 11.14 abc | 41.49 ± 0.36 ab | 56.03 ± 14.54 abc |
除菌发酵滤液 Filtered fermentation broth | 1 | 8.89 ± 3.14 bc | 60.78 ± 0.14 abc | 17.78 ± 8.31 abc | 43.26 ± 0.27 ab | 52.02 ± 8.76 abc |
除菌发酵滤液 | 5 | 9.68 ± 4.96 bc | 57.28 ± 0.22 abc | 20.16 ± 2.53 abc | 35.67 ± 0.08 b | 46.48 ± 10.81 abc |
Filtered fermentation broth | 10 | 10.00 ± 1.63 bc | 55.88 ± 0.07 bc | 21.33 ± 4.99 abc | 31.91 ± 0.16 b | 43.90 ± 11.99 abc |
50 | 13.33 ± 14.40 abc | 41.18 ± 0.64 cd | 22.22 ± 8.31 abc | 29.07 ± 0.27 b | 35.13 ± 6.06 bc | |
100 | 19.67 ± 3.68 ab | 31.40 ± 0.13 d | 25.67 ± 4.92 ab | 18.09 ± 0.16 b | 24.75 ± 6.66 c | |
脂肽类物质粗提液 Crude extract of lipopeptide | 1 | 6.00 ± 2.83 c | 73.53 ± 0.12 ab | 15.78 ± 5.34 bc | 49.65 ± 0.17 ab | 61.59 ± 11.94 ab |
5 | 9.00 ± 6.48 bc | 61.80 ± 0.27 abc | 16.67 ± 2.36 abc | 46.81 ± 0.08 ab | 54.30 ± 7.50 abc | |
10 | 10.00 ± 4.08 bc | 55.88 ± 0.18 bc | 20.00 ± 10.80 abc | 36.17 ± 0.34 b | 46.03 ± 9.86 abc | |
50 | 10.28 ± 4.53 bc | 54.65 ± 0.20 bc | 20.22 ± 3.81 abc | 35.46 ± 0.12 b | 45.06 ± 9.60 abc | |
100 | 10.33 ± 4.64 bc | 54.41 ± 0.20 bc | 20.33 ± 3.68 abc | 35.11 ± 0.12 b | 44.76 ± 9.65 abc | |
农用链霉素 Agricultural streptomycin | 4 000 | 4.33 ± 0.47 c | 80.88 ± 0.02 a | 8.67 ± 0.94 c | 72.34 ± 0.03 a | 76.61 ± 4.24 a |
H2O对照 Control | 22.67 ± 3.77 a | 31.33 ± 3.40 a |
表4 FX1发酵液、除菌发酵液及脂肽类物质粗提液对杜梨苗梨火疫病的治疗性防效
Table 4 The therapeutic control efficacy of fermentation broth,filtered fermentation broth and lipopeptide crude extract of the strain FX1 to Erwinia amylovora on birch pear seedling
处理 Treatment | 稀释倍数Dilution | 7 d | 15d | 平均防效/% Average efficacy | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
病情指数 Disease index | 防效/% Control efficacy | 病情指数 Disease index | 防效/% Control efficacy | |||
发酵液 Fermentation broth | 1 | 6.67 ± 0.00 c | 70.57 ± 0.00 ab | 18.33 ± 11.14 abc | 41.49 ± 0.36 ab | 56.03 ± 14.54 abc |
除菌发酵滤液 Filtered fermentation broth | 1 | 8.89 ± 3.14 bc | 60.78 ± 0.14 abc | 17.78 ± 8.31 abc | 43.26 ± 0.27 ab | 52.02 ± 8.76 abc |
除菌发酵滤液 | 5 | 9.68 ± 4.96 bc | 57.28 ± 0.22 abc | 20.16 ± 2.53 abc | 35.67 ± 0.08 b | 46.48 ± 10.81 abc |
Filtered fermentation broth | 10 | 10.00 ± 1.63 bc | 55.88 ± 0.07 bc | 21.33 ± 4.99 abc | 31.91 ± 0.16 b | 43.90 ± 11.99 abc |
50 | 13.33 ± 14.40 abc | 41.18 ± 0.64 cd | 22.22 ± 8.31 abc | 29.07 ± 0.27 b | 35.13 ± 6.06 bc | |
100 | 19.67 ± 3.68 ab | 31.40 ± 0.13 d | 25.67 ± 4.92 ab | 18.09 ± 0.16 b | 24.75 ± 6.66 c | |
脂肽类物质粗提液 Crude extract of lipopeptide | 1 | 6.00 ± 2.83 c | 73.53 ± 0.12 ab | 15.78 ± 5.34 bc | 49.65 ± 0.17 ab | 61.59 ± 11.94 ab |
5 | 9.00 ± 6.48 bc | 61.80 ± 0.27 abc | 16.67 ± 2.36 abc | 46.81 ± 0.08 ab | 54.30 ± 7.50 abc | |
10 | 10.00 ± 4.08 bc | 55.88 ± 0.18 bc | 20.00 ± 10.80 abc | 36.17 ± 0.34 b | 46.03 ± 9.86 abc | |
50 | 10.28 ± 4.53 bc | 54.65 ± 0.20 bc | 20.22 ± 3.81 abc | 35.46 ± 0.12 b | 45.06 ± 9.60 abc | |
100 | 10.33 ± 4.64 bc | 54.41 ± 0.20 bc | 20.33 ± 3.68 abc | 35.11 ± 0.12 b | 44.76 ± 9.65 abc | |
农用链霉素 Agricultural streptomycin | 4 000 | 4.33 ± 0.47 c | 80.88 ± 0.02 a | 8.67 ± 0.94 c | 72.34 ± 0.03 a | 76.61 ± 4.24 a |
H2O对照 Control | 22.67 ± 3.77 a | 31.33 ± 3.40 a |
[1] | Chen Chen, Chen Juan, Hu Bai-shi, Bai Yi-zhen, Jiang Ying-hua, Liu Feng-quan. 2007. Potential distribution of Erwinia amylovora in China and invasion risk assessment. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 40 (5):940-947. (in Chinese) |
陈晨, 陈娟, 胡白石, 白艺珍, 姜英华, 刘凤权. 2007. 梨火疫病菌在中国的潜在分布及入侵风险分析. 中国农业科学, 40 (5):940-947. | |
[2] | Chen Long, Wu Xing-li, Yan Xiao-gang, Wei Bing-dong, Zhang Fang-yu. 2020. The clasification,secondary metabolites and application of Bacillus velezensis. Acta Ecologiae Animalis Domastici, 41 (1):1-8. (in Chinese) |
陈龙, 吴兴利, 闫晓刚, 魏炳栋, 张芳毓. 2020. 贝莱斯芽孢杆菌的分类、次级代谢产物及应用. 家畜生态学报, 41 (1):1-8. | |
[3] | Chen Zhi-yi. 2015. Research and application of bio-fungicide with Bacillus spp. Chinese Journal of Biological Control, 31 (5):723-732. (in Chinese) |
陈志谊. 2015. 芽孢杆菌类生物杀菌剂的研发与应用. 中国生物防治学报, 31 (5):723-732.
doi: 10.16409/j.cnki.2095-039x.2015.05.012 |
|
[4] |
Doolotkeldieva T, Bobushova S, Schuster C, Konurbaeva M, Leclerque A. 2019. Isolation and genetic characterization of Erwinia amylovora bacteria from Kyrgyzstan. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 155 (2):677-686.
doi: 10.1007/s10658-019-01790-3 |
[5] | Djaimurzina A, Umiralieva Z, Zharmukhamedova G, Born Y, Bühlmann A, Rezzonico F. 2014. Detection of the causative agent of fire blight - Erwinia amylovora(Burrill)Winslow et al.—in the Southeast of Kazakhstan. Acta Horticulturae,(1056):129-132. |
[6] |
Fan B, Wang C, Song X F, Ding X L, Wu L M, Wu H J, Gao X W, Borriss R. 2018. Bacillus velezensis FZB 42 in 2018:the gram-positive model strain for plant growth promotion and biocontrol. Front Microbiol, 9:2491.
doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02491 URL |
[7] | Hu Bai-shi. 2000. Pest risk analysis and detection technology of Erwinia amylovora[Ph. D. Dissertation]. Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural University. (in Chinese) |
胡白石. 2000. 梨火疫病菌的风险分析及检测技术研究[博士论文]. 南京: 南京农业大学. | |
[8] |
Jock S, Wensing A, Pulawska J, Drenova N, Dreo T, Geider K. 2013. Molecular analyses of Erwinia amylovora strains isolated in Russia,Poland,Slovenia and Austria describing further spread of fire blight in Europe. Microbiological Research, 168 (7):447-454.
doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2013.01.008 URL |
[9] |
Joshi R, McSpadden Gardener B B. 2006. Identification and characterization of novel genetic markers associated with biological control Activities in Bacillus subtilis. Phytopathology, 96 (2):145-154.
doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-96-0145 URL |
[10] |
Kim W S, Hildebrand M, Jock S, Geider K. 2001. Molecular comparison of pathogenic bacteria from pear trees in Japan and the fire blight pathogen Erwinia amylovora. Microbiology, 147 (11):2951-2959.
doi: 10.1099/00221287-147-11-2951 URL |
[11] | Lan Bao-feng, Wang Rui, He Shuang, Zhou Li-qin, Meng Jian-zong. 2022. Optimization and analysis of crude extraction of bacteriostatic substances from Bacillus amyloliquefaciens. China brewing, 41 (6):195-199. (in Chinese) |
兰宝锋, 王睿, 何双, 周礼芹, 蒙健宗. 2022. 解淀粉芽孢杆菌抑菌物质粗提取的优化及分析. 中国酿造, 41 (6):195-199. | |
[12] |
Liu G Q, Kong Y Y, Fan Y J, Geng C, Peng D H, Sun M. 2017. Whole-genome sequencing of Bacillus velezensis LS69,a strain with a broad inhibitory spectrum against pathogenic bacteria. Journal of Biotechnology, 249:20-24.
doi: 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2017.03.018 URL |
[13] | Liu Qian-qian, Yu Yang-yang, Song Jun-xian, Hu Bai-shi, Fan Jia-qin, Liu Quan-feng. 2010. Functional characterization of cyclic adenosine monphosphate(cAMP)recptor protein gene(crp)from Erwinia amylovora. Journal of Agricultural Biotechnology, 18 (5):827-835. (in Chinese) |
刘倩倩, 于洋洋, 宋俊贤, 胡白石, 范加勤, 刘权凤. 2010. 梨火疫菌(Erwinia amylovora)环腺苷酸受体蛋白基因(crp)的功能分析. 农业生物技术学报, 18 (5):827-835. | |
[14] | Lu Yanhong, Hao Jinhui, Luo Ming, Huang Wei, Sheng Qiang, Wang Ning, Zhan Faqiang, Long Xuanqi, Bao Huifang. 2021. Screening of antagonistic bacteria against Erwinia amylovora and its control effect in greenhouse. Microbiology China, 48 (10):3690-3699. (in Chinese) |
鲁晏宏, 郝金辉, 罗明, 黄伟, 盛强, 王宁, 詹发强, 龙宣杞, 包慧芳. 2021. 梨火疫病拮抗菌筛选及温室防效测定. 微生物学通报, 48 (10):3690-3699. | |
[15] | Myung I S, Yun M J, Kin G D, Lee Y K. 2016. First report of fire blight caused by Erwinia amylovora on Chinese quince in South Korea. Plant Disease, 100 (12):2521-2521. |
[16] |
Mercier J, Lindow S E. 1996. A method involving ice nucleation for the identification of microorganisms antagonistic to Erwinia amylovora on pear flowers. Phytopathology, 86 (9):940-945.
doi: 10.1094/Phyto-86-940 URL |
[17] |
Mikiciński A, Sobiczewski P, Pulawska J, Maciorowski R. 2016. Control of fire blight(Erwinia amylovora)by a novel strain 49M of Pseudomonas graminis from the phyllosphere of apple(Malus spp.). European Journal of Plant Pathology, 145 (2):265-276.
doi: 10.1007/s10658-015-0837-y URL |
[18] | Sun Li-jun, Lu Zhao-xin, Bie Xiao-mei, Lü Feng-xia, Fang Zhuan-ji. 2008. Influence of medium on antimicrobial lipopeptide production by Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ES-2. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 41 (10):3389-3398. (in Chinese) |
孙力军, 陆兆新, 别小妹, 吕凤霞, 方传记. 2008. 培养基对解淀粉芽孢杆菌ES-2菌株产抗菌脂肽的影响. 中国农业科学, 41 (10):3389-3398. | |
[19] |
van der Zwet T, Zoller B G. 1988. Controlling fire blight of pear and apple by accurate prediction of the blossom blight phase. Plant Disease, 72 (6):464-471.
doi: 10.1094/PD-72-0464 URL |
[20] | van der Ploeg R, Monteferrante C G, Piersma S, Barnett J P, Kouwen T R H M, Robinson C, van Dij J M. 2012. High-salinity growth conditions promote Tat-independent secretion of Tat substrates in Bacillus subtilis. Applied & Environmental Microbiology, 78 (21):7733-7744. |
[21] | Vanneste J L. 1996. Honey bees and epiphytic bacteria to control fire blight,a bacterial disease of apple and pear. Biocontrol News & Information, 17:67N-78N. |
[22] | Wei Dan-dan, Miao Wei-guo, Sun Qian-qian, Wu Guo-liang, Liu Wen-bo, Jin Peng-fei. 2018. Analysis of the active components of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens HAB-2 against Colletotrichum gloeosporioides. Journal of Fruit Science, 35 (10):1253-1261. (in Chinese) |
韦丹丹, 缪卫国, 孙茜茜, 邬国良, 刘文波, 靳鹏飞. 2018. 解淀粉芽孢杆菌HAB-2抑制杧果炭疽菌的活性成分分析. 果树学报, 35 (10):1253-1261. | |
[23] |
Wilson M, Lindow S E. 1993. Iteractions between the blological control agent pseudomonas fluorescens A506 and Erwinia amylovora in pear blossoms. Phytopathology, 83 (1):117-123.
doi: 10.1094/Phyto-83-117 URL |
[24] | Xu Linyun, Gulizzier · Manhemuti, Han Jian, Jiang Ping, Huang Wei, Luo Ming. 2021. Screening of endophytic antagonistic bacteria of fragrant pear and their biocontrol potential against pear fire blight. Acta Phytophy-lacica Sinica, 41 (1):132-141. (in Chinese) |
徐琳赟, 古丽孜热 · 曼合木提, 韩剑, 蒋萍, 黄伟, 罗明. 2021. 香梨内生拮抗细菌的筛选及对梨火疫病的生防潜力. 西北植物学报, 41 (1):132-141. | |
[25] | Xu Man-lin. 2005. Antagonistic mechanism of Bacillus sp. on plant pathogeny and cloning,experssion of antibiotic protein gene TasA[M. D. Dissertation]. Fuzhou: Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University. (in Chinese) |
许曼琳. 2005. 芽孢杆菌(Bacillus sp.)的抑菌作用和抗菌蛋白基因TasA的克隆和表达[硕士论文]. 福州: 福建农林大学. | |
[26] | Zhang De-feng, Gao Yan-xia, Wang Ya-jun, Liu Chun, Shi Cun-bin. 2020. Advances in taxonomy,antagonistic function and application of Bacillus velezensis. Microbiology China, 47 (11):3634-3649. (in Chinese) |
张德锋, 高艳侠, 王亚军, 刘春, 石存斌. 2020. 贝莱斯芽孢杆菌的分类、拮抗功能及其应用研究进展. 微生物学通报, 47 (11):3634-3649. | |
[27] | Zhao You-fu, Lin Wei. 1995. A preliminary study on the possible distribution area of pear fire blight by applying GIS. Plant Quarantine,(6):321-326. (in Chinese) |
赵友福, 林伟. 1995. 应用地理信息系统对梨火疫病可能分布区的初步研究. 植物检疫,(6):321-326. |
[1] | 史洪丽, 李腊, 郭翠梅, 余婷婷, 简伟, 杨星勇. 番茄灰霉病生防菌株TL1的分离、鉴定及其生防能力分析[J]. 园艺学报, 2023, 50(1): 79-90. |
[2] | 杜玉玲, 杨凡, 赵娟, 刘书琪, 龙超安. 新鱼腥草素钠对柑橘指状青霉的抑菌作用[J]. 园艺学报, 2023, 50(1): 145-152. |
[3] | 陈思杰, 张涛, 贾宝森, 杜娟, 闫思远, 顾沛雯. 深色有隔内生真菌对枸杞根腐病菌抑菌活性[J]. 园艺学报, 2022, 49(7): 1519-1531. |
[4] | 李新宇1,2,李 磊1,陈利达1,石延霞1,柴阿丽1,谢学文1,*,李宝聚1,*. 番茄匍柄霉叶斑病拮抗细菌的筛选与鉴定[J]. 园艺学报, 2020, 47(4): 741-748. |
[5] | 吕前前, 赵兴刚, 王东东, 冒 霞, 左存武, 杨江山, . 解淀粉芽孢杆菌BaA-007鉴定及其对苹果腐烂病的抑制作用[J]. 园艺学报, 2020, 47(10): 1895-1904. |
[6] | 李嘉维,徐兰依,王冬霜,吕丽洁,陈晓萌,张冬冬*. 枣炭疽病菌拮抗芽孢杆菌的筛选鉴定及其抑菌物质分析[J]. 园艺学报, 2019, 46(12): 2406-2414. |
[7] | 王春伟,王 燕*,张曦倩,董 田,温智浩,刘倩茹,李田丽,王怡惠,王赛风,张作刚,王建明,王美琴*. 拮抗细菌菌株YJ15的分离鉴定、发酵条件优化及对越橘灰霉病的防效[J]. 园艺学报, 2018, 45(10): 1905-1916. |
[8] | 殷 洁,袁 玲*. 寡雄腐霉菌剂对辣椒疫病的防治及促生效应[J]. 园艺学报, 2017, 44(12): 2327-2337. |
[9] | 石玉莹1,宋海慧1,苗 爽1,宫 超2,王 慧2,黄海锋2,陈秀玲1,张淑梅3,*,王傲雪1,2,*. 番茄灰霉病和叶霉病拮抗细菌WXCDD51的筛选鉴定及其生防促生作用[J]. 园艺学报, 2017, 44(10): 1925-1936. |
[10] | 孙平平,贾晓辉,崔建潮,佟 伟,王文辉*. 梨灰霉病拮抗放线菌L-30的筛选、鉴定及作用机制研究[J]. 园艺学报, 2016, 43(12): 2335-2346. |
[11] | 纪兆林1,贺惠文1,周慧娟2,韩 峰1,童蕴慧1,叶正文2,徐敬友1,*. 地衣芽孢杆菌W10及其抗菌蛋白对桃褐腐病的抑制作用[J]. 园艺学报, 2015, 42(10): 1879-1888. |
[12] | 柯红娇, 王勇, 卫甜, 谷春, 刘红霞, 郭坚华. 成团泛菌 Ljb-2 对番茄黄化曲叶病毒病的田间防效初步研究[J]. 园艺学报, 2014, 41(5): 985-993. |
[13] | 申顺善1,赵玉华1,张利敬1,常淑娴1,王晶晶1,朴凤植2,*. 绿针假单胞菌HG28-5对辣椒疫病的抑制活性及其根际定殖特性的研究[J]. 园艺学报, 2013, 40(8): 1574-1582. |
[14] | 张 璐;丁延芹;杜秉海;魏 珉;王秀峰. 黄瓜枯萎病病原拮抗细菌DS-1菌株鉴定及其生防效果研究[J]. 园艺学报, 2010, 37(4): 575-580. |
[15] | 李潞滨;李术娜;李 佳;王 倩;朱宝成;彭镇华. 大花惠兰根腐病拮抗细菌ZL7-5菌株的筛选与鉴定[J]. 园艺学报, 2008, 35(11): 1647-1652. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||
版权所有 © 2012 《园艺学报》编辑部 京ICP备10030308号-2 国际联网备案号 11010802023439
编辑部地址: 北京市海淀区中关村南大街12号中国农业科学院蔬菜花卉研究所 邮编: 100081
电话: 010-82109523 E-Mail: yuanyixuebao@126.com
技术支持:北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司