Post Harvest Fruit Bioassay of Phylloplane, Pomoplane and Endophytic Microbes against Chilli Anthracnose Pathogen, Colletotrichum capsici (Syd.) E. J. Butler&bisby
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18311/jbc/2012/3529Keywords:
Chilli Anthracnose, Colletotrichum capsici, Fruit Bioassay, Pichia guilliermondii and Bacillus Species.Abstract
Two hundred and fifty eight phylloplane/endophytic bacterial isolated from chilli leaves/fruits and one hundred pomoplane yeast isolates from vegetable/fruits were screened against Colletotrichum capsici by fruit bioassay (post harvest) method. Among the pomoplane bacterial isolates tested, Bacillus tequilensis (PMB-185) gave highest reduction (67.84%) of lesion development, where as among the phylloplane bacterial isolates, PHB-25 exhibited highest (48.65%) suppression of lesion caused by C. capsici. Among the endophytes tested, B. megaterium (ENB-86) produced the highest suppression of lesion (59.66%) and rhizospheric bacterium Pseudomonas putida (PBA-5) showed 50.68% suppression. Six bacteria exhibiting significant suppression (50.29 to 67.84%) were identified by 16s rDNA analysis and all of them belonged to Bacillus spp. including B. tequilensis (PMB-185), B. pumilus (PMB- 183), two B. subtilis (PMB-123 and ENB-24) and two B. megaterium (PMB-53 and ENB-86). Among the yeast isolates tested, the maximum reduction (72.16%) of lesion development was observed with the yeast isolate, Hanseniaspora uvarum (Y-73) which was the highest among all the antagonists tested. The results indicated that spraying of H. uvarum (Y-73) or B. tequilensis (PMB-185) on freshly harvested chilli fruits reduced post harvest fruit damage by C. capsici in chilli.Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Metrics
Metrics Loading ...
Downloads
Published
2012-04-14
How to Cite
Ramanujam, B., Hemannavar, V., Basha, H., & Rangeshwaran, R. (2012). Post Harvest Fruit Bioassay of Phylloplane, Pomoplane and Endophytic Microbes against Chilli Anthracnose Pathogen, <I>Colletotrichum capsici</I> (Syd.) E. J. Butler&bisby. Journal of Biological Control, 26(1), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.18311/jbc/2012/3529
Issue
Section
Articles