Open access

Biological Control of Root Pathogens by Plant- Growth Promoting Bacillus spp.

Written By

Hernández F.D. Castillo, Castillo F. Reyes, Gallegos G. Morales, Rodríguez R. Herrera and C. Aguilar

Submitted: June 14th, 2012 Published: March 14th, 2013

DOI: 10.5772/54229

Chapter metrics overview

4,194 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

1. Introduction

At the present time, among the most important factors limiting production of different crops are soil-borne plant pathogens [1]. Which include the genera Pythium, Rhizoctonia, Fusarium, Verticillium, Phytophthora spp, Sclerotinia, Sclerotium, and Rosellinia [2]. By this reason, different methods have been used to control these pathogens [3]. Cultural practices and chemical control using synthetic fungicides are the most used control methods [4], however, use of some of these synthetic products has caused various problems due to environmental pollution, with consequences such as toxicity to humans, as well as resistance of certain pathogens to these fungicides [5]. An alternative to reduce the effect of these plant pathogens is the use of antagonistic microorganisms such as: some species of the genusBacillus which is recognized as one of the most effective biological control agent because of their properties on pathogens growth inhibition [6-7]. Biological control has many advantages as an alternative in the integrated management of diseases such as little or no harmful side effects, rare cases of resistance, long-term control, completely or substantially eliminates the use of synthetic pesticides, cost / benefit ratio very favorable; prevents secondary diseases, not symptoms of poisoning and can be used as part of integrated disease management [8]. Generally, the mode of action of Bacillus is antibiosis by producing extracellular hydrolytic enzymes which decompose polysaccharides, nucleic acids, other way are: production of antibiotics such as bacitracin, polymyxin, and gramicidin, [9-11], competition to occupy an ecological niche and metabolize root exudates on pathogens affecting their growth [12-13]. Also, activating plant resistance induction when installed in the roots and leaves which induces plant to produce phytoalexins which give resistance against attack by fungi, bacteria and pathogenic nematodes [14], reducing in these ways disease incidence.

Advertisement

2. Overview of Bacillus

The genus Bacillus Cohn was established in 1872, initially with two prominent forming endospores species: Bacillus anthracis and B. subtilis, actually, this genus has suffered considerable taxonomic changes, until early 1900, taxonomists not only restricted the genus to endospore forming bacteria, having that the number of species assigned to this genus were 146 in the 5th edition of Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology. Subsequent comparison studies by Smith et al. and Gordon et al. over 1114 strains of aerobic bacteria forming endospores (PGPR) helped to reduce this number to 22 well-defined species same as reported in the 8th edition of Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology [15]. Bacillales is the order to which Bacillaceae family belongs within the genus Bacillus. This genus is characterized by having a rod shape within the group of Gram positive [16-17], and is therefore classified as strict aerobes or facultative anaerobes [18] and integrated by 88 species [15]. A feature associated with this genus is that it forms a type of cell called endospore as a response to adverse growth conditions which distorts the structure of the cell. This spore form is resistant to high temperatures and current chemical disinfectants [19]. This genus is abundant in various ecological niches which include soil, water and air [18, 20], it is also found as food contaminants. Generally, Bacillus species used in bio-control are mobile, with peritrichous flagella, but yet some species are of interest in human medicine (B. anthracis) which are characterized as being stationary [21].

2.1. Ecology and habits

Distribution and habitat of Bacillus are very diverse; some species have been isolated from soil micro-flora adjacent to plants rhizosphere, water, air and food as contaminants [18, 20]. Eco-physiological criteria commonly used to group different species such as vertebrate pathogens, insect pathogens, antibiotics producer, nitrogen-fixing, denitrifying, thermophilic, psychotropic halophilic, alkali and acidifies rows. For example B. thuringiensis is considered an insect pathogen and is used as a bio-pesticide, it has been isolated from soil, and abundantly found worldwide [22-24], in soil remains largely in the form of endospores [25], particles of dust in suspension [26], insect bodies sick or dead [27], also is found in stored products [28-29], food [30], marine sediments [32], and even as opportunistic human pathogen [33]. Furthermore, Bacillus species are found abundantly in plant leaves [34-38]. In conclusion, the Bacillus genus has a cosmopolitan distribution (Table 1).

Organism Reference strain isolated from Common habitats and comments
B. acidocaldarius Hot springs Acid hot springs and soils, enrichment from neutral soils have failed.
B. alcalophilus Human feces soil, water, dung
B. alvei Honeybee larvae suffering from European foulbrood Soil, this specie is a saprophyte but common in bees with European foulbrood
B. aminovorans Soil
B. amyloliquefaciens Soil soil, industrial amylase fermentations
B. amylolyticus Soil
B. aneurinolyticus human feces
B. azotofixans Soil soil, rhizosphere of various grasses
B. azotoformans Soil Soil
B. apiaries Dead larvae of honeybee
B. badius Human feces Dust, coastal waters, soil
B. benzoevarans Soil Soil
B. brevis Soil Foods, soil, seawater, and sediments
B. cereus Soil soil, foods, especially dried foods, spices, and milk; seawater and sediments
B. circulans Soil Widespread in soil and decomposing vegetables; medicated creams, Relatively scarce in soil.
B. cirroflagellosus marine mud
B. coagulans evaporated milk Beet sugar, canned foods, especially vegetables; medicated creams, relatively scarce in soil.
B. epiphytus marine phytoplankton
B. fastidiosus Soil soil, poultry litter
B. firmus Soil soil, seawater and marine sediments, salt marshes
B. freudenreichii Soil, river water, and sewage
B. globisporus Soil soil, mud, and water
B. insolitus Soil soil, mud, water and frozen foods
B. laevolacticus Rhizosphere of ditch crowfoot rhizosphere of plants
B. larvae honeybee larvae suffering from American foulbrood Infected brood and honey combs. Presumable in soil around hives of bees
B. laterosporas Soil soil, water, dead honeybee larvae, rumen of animals
B. lentimorbus hemolymph of larvae of Japanese beetle causes milky disease of scarabaeidae larvae
B. lentus Soil Seawater, marine sediments, salt marshes and soil. Spices including black and red pepper
B. lecheniformis Soil soil, marine and freshwaters; foods, particularly dried foods, spices and cocoa beans, compost, rumen of cattle
B. macerans unknown foods and vegetables, compost
B. macquariensis soil from Macquarie island Unknown
B. macroides cow dung decaying material
B. marinus seawater Unknown
B. megaterium Soil soil including desert soil, seawater and marine sediments, cocoa bean, dried foods and spices
B. pacificus sand from seashore Seawater
B. pantothenticus Soil generally considered to be a soil inhabitant but also isolated from pharmaceutical products
B. pasteutii Soil soil, water, sewage, urinals
B. polymyxa Soil widely distributed in soil, decomposing plant matter and water
B. popilliae Commercial spore dust causes milky disease of scarabaeidae larvae
B. psychrophilus Soil soil, water, mud, frozen foods vegetables
B. pulvifaciens dead larvae of honeybee Unknown
B. pumilus Soil Ubiquitous in soil. Also found in seawater and marine sediments. Common in dried foods.
B. racemilactius rhizosphere of wild lettuce rhizosphere of plants
B. schlegelii sediments of eutrophic lake Unknown
B. sphaericus Soil soil, marine and freshwaters sediments and foods
B. stearothermoplilus unknown soil, foods including milk, canned foods and sugar beet, dried foods
B. subtilis Soil soil, marine and freshwater and sediments, foods including spices, cocoa, pulses, seeds and bread
B. thermoglucosidasius Soil Unknown
B. thiaminolyticus Human feces Unknown
B. thuringiensis Pathogenic for lepidopteran larvae, common in soil.
B. xerothermodurans Soil Unknown

Table 1.

Sources and common habitats of aerobic endospore forming bacteria of Bacillus genus, [39].

2.2. Importance how antifungal agents

Many species of Bacillus including B. subtilis, B. licheniformis, B. pumilus, B. amyloliquefaciens, B. cereus, B. mycoides and B. thuringiensis, are known to suppress growth of several fungal pathogens such as Rhizoctonia, Fusarium, Sclerotinia, Sclerotium, Gaeummanomyces, Nectria, Pythium, Phytophthora and Verticillium [20, 40-43]. The main property of antagonist bacterial strains is production of antifungal antibiotics [44-45], which seem to play a major role in biological control of plant pathogens [6, 44, 46-49] and post-harvest spoilage fungi [50]. Many of these antifungal substances have been characterized and identified as peptide antibiotics [51]. Antifungal peptides produced by Bacillus species: iturins [20, 52-53] are: mycosubtilins [54-55], bacillomycins [56-57], surfactins [58-59], fungistatins [60-61], and subsporins [62-63]. Most of these antibiotics are cyclic peptides composed entirely of amino acids, but some may contain other residues. However, a few antibiotic peptides are linear such as rhizocticins [64]. Bacillus spp. produces also a range of other metabolites including chitinases and other cell wall-degrading enzymes [65-68], and volatiles compounds [68-70] which elicit plant resistance mechanisms [14, 71].

The amount of antibiotics produced by bacilli class was approaching 167 [45], being 66 derived from B. subtilis, 23 from B. brevis and the remaining antibiotic peptides are produced by other species of Bacillus. The main antibiotic producers of this genus are B. brevis (gramicidin, tyrothricin) [72], B. licheniformis (bacitracin), B. polymyxa (polymyxin, colistin), B. pumilus (pumulin), B. subtilis (polymyxin, difficidin, subtilin, mycobacillin, bacitracin), B. cereus (cerexin, zwittermicin), B. circulans (circulin), B. laterosporus (laterosporin) [14, 68-71].

2.3. Collection and isolation of Bacillus

Traditional tools for determining composition of the soil bacterial community and diversity are based largely on in vitro culture methods. Typically, solid organic medium is inoculated with dilutions of a suspension of soil, then incubated and the colonies obtained are purified further sub culturing into another medium [73]. Heat treatment or pasteurization is the most used technique for selecting spores. These techniques are very powerful because they are selective to remove all non-spore forming microorganisms, and are very efficient for obtaining populations of bacteria from spores, recommended temperatures oscillate between 65 to 70 ° C for 15 minutes [74-75]. However, heat treatment has to be adapted to certain species because endospores of some strains of bacteria are more resistant to heat than others, while incubation time used can vary from 3 to 30 min [76]. It is recommended to start heating at a relatively low temperature (70 or 75 ° C) and gradually increasing to achieve an optimum temperature [77]. To isolate endospores, some authors have taken advantage of spore tolerance to diverse stress conditions, for example, Koransky et al. [78] concluded that treatment with ethanol (50%) for 1 h is an effective technique to selectively isolate spore- forming bacteria, as effective as heat treatment to 80 ° C for 15 minutes. Patel et al. [79] confirmed this finding by isolating Bacillus strains from food residues, both by heating at 65 ° C for 45 minutes and incubation with ethanol. Soil drying may also be used as a selective method to isolation by striking desiccation tolerance of spores, which can therefore survive for long periods of time under these conditions. Drying treatment is probably more gentle that heating or ethanol incubation. Eman et al. [80] reported that vegetative cells were killed by addition of chloroform (1% v / v) however; this technique has not been validated. An interesting selection process, which is different from classical heat treatment was developed by Travers et al. [81] for isolation of Bacillus thuringiensis, which makes use of ethyl (ethyl selection), B. thuringiensis is selectively inhibited by sodium acetate (0.25 M), while most unwanted spore-forming species allowed to germinate. Then all non-sporulating bacteria were eliminated by heat treatment at 80 ° C for 3 min. Subsequently, surviving spores are germinated on enriched agar medium. Even if some other species of Bacillus are also selected by this method, such as B. sphaericus and B. cereus, this technique is commonly used for studying the diversity worldwide of B. thuringiensis [22, 77]. A modification to the method promotes greater sporulation spore production by stimulating shock before applying stress. For example, some authors suggest suspending one gram of soil in 50 mL of sporulation medium after incubation at 37 ° C under stirring for 48 hours before killing vegetative cells by heat treatment [80], while others proposed in soil suspensions incubate the culture broth at different temperatures for 5 days to allow better maturation of spores [77].

2.4. Biochemical identification

Biochemical test were the traditional method for bacteria identification to specie level, after that, strains are located at the genus taxonomically, based on characteristics of colony growth in artificial medium, form cell unit, presence, number and orientation of locomotive units, Gram stain, spore form and specific environmental conditions of growth and finally the specific use of carbon sources (biochemical tests) gave its metabolic diversity (Table 2 and 3).

B. amylolique-faciens B. pumilus B. subtilis B. licheniformis B. thuringiensis B. cereus B. mycoides B. fastidiosus B. firmus B. lentus B. megaterium B. bodius B. antracis
Cell diameter"/>1.0 um - - - - + + + + - - + - +
Parasporal crystals - - - - d - - - - - - - -
Anaerobic growth - - - + + + + - - - - - +
Voges Proskauer test + - + + d + + NG - - - - +
egg yolk lecithin’s - - - - + + + - - - - - +
growth in lysozyme - d d d + + + ND - - - - +
Acid from
d-glucose + + + + + + + NG + + + - +
l- arabinose d + + + - - - NG - + d - -
d-xylose D + + + - - - NG - + d - -
d-mannitol + + + + - - - NG + + d - -
hydrolysis of
Starch + - + + + + + - + + + - +
Casein + + + + + + + - + d + + +
nitrate reduction + - + + + + + - d d d - +
degradation of tyrosine - - - - ND + ND - d - d + d
Growth in 7% NaCl + + + + + d d - + d d ND +
Growth at
10°C ND + d - d d d + d ND + - -
50°C d d d + - - - - - - - + -
55°C ND - - + - - - - - - - - -
Utilization of
Citrate d + + + + + d - - - + - D
Propionate ND - - + ND ND ND - - - ND - ND

Table 2.

Differential characteristics of Bacillus species with ellipsoidal spores (Group I), [39]. += 90 or more of strains positive catalase; - = 10 or more of strains negative catalese; d= substancial proportion of specie differ; ND= Not done; NG= no growth.

2.5. Molecular identification

Bacillus species with diverse physiological traits require development of biochemical tests for identification [82]. But advances in chromatographic analysis using whole cell fatty acid methyl esters (FAME) profiles allows doing this technique sufficiently sensitive and reliable for grouping Bacillus to specie level [83-84]. Identification has become even more sensitive, by analysis of ribosomal DNA regions (16S rDNA) sequencing [85-87], and sequence analysis of gyrase B (gyrB) which has proved immensely valuable information for phylogenetic analysis of bacteria [88-90]. Using 16S rDNA sequence, have been identified 5 groups within the genus Bacillus, where group 1 (group B subitilis) comprises species B. amyloliquefaciens, B. subtilis, B. pumilus and B. licheniformis [9, 39, 91].

Test Bsy Ba Bl B1 B3 B9 B13
Gram staining +z + + + + + +
Flagella staining + + + + + + +
RYU Test - - - - - - -
Oxidase - - - - - - -
Catalase + + + + + + +
Oxidation + + - + - + +
Fermentation + + + + + + +
Motility + + + + + + +
Spore Posicion
Terminal - - - - - - -
Central + + + + + + +
Subterminal - - - - - - -
Colony Growth:
45ºC + + + + + + +
65ºC - + - + - - -
pH Growth at 5.7 + + + + + + +
NaCl Growth:
7% + + + + + + +
5% + - + - + + +
3% + - + - + + +
citrate utilization + + + + + + +
Anaerobic growth in
glucoseglucose
- + + + + + +
Glucose
Acidic Forms:
Arabinose + + + + + + +
Manitol + - + - + + +
Xylose + + + nd nd nd nd
Voges-Proskauer + + + + + + +
Hydrolysis starch + + + + + + +

Table 3.

Results on identification of Bacillus isolates B1, B3, B9 and B13 by biochemical tests, [9], and Bs = Bacillus subtilis, Ba = B. amyloliquefaciens; Bl = B. licheniformis. Positive test Z = +; negative = -, nd = not determined. [9].

2.6. Antifungal effect in vitro, greenhouse and field

Bacillus species have been reported also as growth promoters of certain crops [92], and with antifungal properties, for example B. amyloliquefaciens has been reported as a specie with antifungal activity against Colletotrichum dematium, Colletotrichum lagenarium, Rosellinia necatrix, Pyricularia oryzae, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris and Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria in vitro and in vivo [93-95]; antagonistic to Botrytis elliptica, under greenhouse conditions [96]; antagonistic to Botrytis cinerea in postharvest [97], in the biological control of Rhizoctonia solani, Fusarium spp. and Pythium spp. [98], as well as inductor of resistance mechanisms in plants [99]. Bacillus licheniformis is reported as a fungicide against a variety of pathogens, both as a preventive and curative particularly leaf spots and blights, and a growth-promoting bacteria with production likely gibberellins [100]. Bacillus subtilis is the most studied and has been reported as growth promoter and antagonistic to a variety of pathogens such as Phytophthora cactorum, Sclerotium cepivorum, Fusarium oxysporum, Rhizoctonia solani, Alternaria carthami, Phytophthora capsici, and Fusarium solani among others, in different cultures and evaluated in vitro, greenhouse and field level [101-103], so that Bacillus strains can be using as an alternative in biological control for management plant disease.

2.6.1. In vitro studies

Results of in vitro research using Bacillus spp. as biocontrol agent against various soil pathogens, have reported positive responses through observing a negative effect on pathogen growth (Figure 1), per example against Alternaria dauci and Rhizoctonia solani, foliage and soil pathogens, respectively. In the Table 4 and 5, are showed some effect on pathogen mycelia inhibition by action of Bacillus, up to 50% compared to treatment control. Furthermore, in the case of A. dauci, greater control was observed with biocontrol agents compared to chemical treatment.

Treatments Mycelia Inhibition (%)
Strain Bacillus B3* 35.55 a
Strain Bacillus B9 40.44 ab
Strain Bacillus B15 29.44 ab
L. tridentata extract (4000 ppm) 22.22 b
L. tridentata extract (2000 ppm) 11.11 c
Witness 1 0 d

Table 4.

In vitro mycelia inhibition of Rhizoctonia solani with Bacillus spp. strains and Larrea tridentata extract. * Summated dozes of Bacillus strains were 1x106 cfu / ml, 1 without agrochemicals, [46]. Values in the same column followed by different letters are significantly at p <0.05.

Treatments Mycelia inhibitions (%)
Strain Bacillus B1* 53.44ª
Strain Bacillus B3 48.44b
Strain Bacillus B9 40.31c
Strain Bacillus B13 46.25b
Strain Bacillus B15 0f
Strains Bacillus Mix 0f
Q-L 2000-2000 ppm 14.06d
Q-L 2000-1000 4.06e
Q-L 1000-2000 1.88ef
Q-L 1000-1000 0f
Witness1 0f

Table 5.

In vitro mycelia growth inhibition of Alternaria dauci by Bacillus spp. and chitosan-Larrea (Q-L) suspensions. * Strains of Bacillus subtilis. Values in the same column followed by different letters are significantly at p <0.05, [44].

Figure 1.

Effect B. subtilis in inhibition of mycelia growth of Fusarium sp., Alternaria dauci and Rhizoctonia solani.

2.6.2. Greenhouse studies

Results under greenhouse conditions, present good evidence of Bacillus as biocontrol source for pathogens involved in diseases of root and plant foliage, to cause a decrease in disease development in both incidence and severity. In table 6 is showed that application of Bacillus on carrot foliage allowed a control of A. dauci incidence up to 25%, which represents a control to 2 times more than the chemical treatment used for its control.

Incidence Severity
Treatments %
Strain Bacillus B1 25d 0.5 de
Strain Bacillus B3 0e 0 e
Strain Bacillus B9 25d 0.5 de
Strain Bacillus B13 25d 0.5 de
Strain Bacillus B15 50c 1 d
Strains Bacillus Mix 50c 1 d
Q-L 2000-2000 ppm 50c 3 c
Fungicides synthetics Mix* 75b 4.24 b
Witness 100ª 6.75 a

Table 6.

Product effect of Bacillus based biological products and chemicals on incidence and severity of Alternaria dauci on carrot plants under greenhouse conditions. * Chlorothalonil, iprodione, propiconazole, thiabendazole and fluazinam, [44].

Likewise Bacillus use has favored not only reduction of symptoms and therefore incidence, but also helps to promote plant growth, which is expressed in greater plant height, as shown in Figure 2, there is an increase in tomato plants height by effect of a microcapsule formulation of Bacillus applied in the management of disease caused by F. oxysporum and R. solani, in contrast to the use of synthetic chemicals [104].

Figure 2.

Average fruit yield of tomato plants cv. Floradade under greenhouse conditions subjected to different treatments with microcapsules containing strains of Bacillus subtilis, a chemical control (TQ) and a blank (TA).

2.6.3. Field experience

Most research has been conducted in laboratory or greenhouse, and virtually no field-level assessments have been reported. A study carried out using Bacillus spp. for control of diseases caused by soil fungi including: F. oxysporum, R. solani and P. capsici in pepper and tomato crops allowed control of diseases incidence as seen in Table 7, use of Bacillus at transplanting can reduce disease incidence in contrast to traditional treatments (fungicide application) as Folpat, Captan, Mancozeb much as 64% and 72% compared to untreated control with the most efficient strain, only 36 and 40 respectively with less efficient biological treatment.

Harvest 1 B/TT B/T Harvest 2 B/TT B/T Harvest 3 B/TT B/T
Treatments Incidence % Incidence % Incidence %
Bacillus B1 2.71 a 36 33 10.87 c 33 19 19.59 c 34 20
Bacillus B2 2.71 a 36 33 13.04 c 39 23 28.80 c 50 30
Bacillus B9 3.80 a 50 47 11.41 c 34 20 20.65 c 36 21
Bacillus B13 4.89 a 64 60 11.41 c 34 20 25.54 c 44 26
Bacillus Mix 3.25 a 43 40 15.76 c 48 28 20.11 c 35 21
Traditional treatment 7.61 a 100 93 33.13 b 100 59 57.61 b 100 60
Control 8.15 a 107 100 55.97 a 169 100 96.74 a 168 100

Table 7.

Effect of Bacillus and commercial products on root rot incidence in Capsicum annum at different harvest times, [9]. Variance analysis used transformed data by arcsine. B/TT= Bacillus vs traditional treatments; B/T = Bacillus vs Control [9].

Furthermore, the suppressive effect was maintained over time or among harvest times, this indicates that Bacillus strains suppressed disease caused by soil fungi and maintained their remedial effect through harvest times as seen in Table 8 where disease incidence and severity was lower than that offered by the traditional treatment performed by the farmer.

Treatments Incidence Severity
%
Strain Bacillus B1 2.1 c 2.35 b
Strain Bacillus B3 3.05 ac 3.10 ab
Strain Bacillus B9 3.00 ac 3.05 ab
Strain Bacillus B13 2.75 bc 2.85 b
Strains Bacillus mix 2.90 ac 3.00 ab
Treatments Fungicides 3.5 ab 3.25 ab
Witness 3.85 a 3.85 a

Table 8.

Effect of four strains of Bacillus and commercial products on severity of wilt and root rot by Fusarium spp., Rhizoctonia solani and Phytophthora capsici, on pepper (Capsicum annum) using scales to wilt and root rot, [9].

In the case of tomato same behavior was observed for disease development with respect to the presence of Bacillus, Table 9.

Treatments Incidence (%) Severity
Bacillus B1 0.0 d 0.0 c
Bacillus J1 0.0 d 0.0 c
Bacillus M2 12.0.c 1.5 c
B1J1M2 Mix 0.0 b 0.0 c
QT* 27.0 b 3.5 b
AT** 75.0 a 5.0 a
CV (%) 10.4 1.2

Table 9.

Disease incidence and severity at harvest time of tomato plants cv. Florade subjected to different treatments with microcapsules containing strains of Bacillus subtilis. *Chemical control treatments; ** Absolute control treatment, Values with same letters area not statistically different (Tukey, p<0.01). [104].

The application in field of Bacillus sp on melon crops (Figure 3) for the management of disease caused by F. oxysporum, showed an effect in reducing disease incidence in 41% compared to the conventional chemical treatment (TA), and increases in yields of 26.5% higher than TA, however there were no significant differences in the brix degrees, consistency of fruit, but an increase in 12% in the number of fruits and 20% in the length guide, leaves and stem diameter was observed [105].

Figure 3.

Treatments effect with Bacillus subtilis in fields on melon crops with high incidence of Fusarium oxysporum.

2.7. Effect on plant development and growth

The effects obtained by applying Bacillus as fungicide were positive for crop development, because Bacillus stimulated biomass production, increased number of flowers and fruiting mooring, as seen in Table 10, where Bacillus was applied, plants had an increase in height, flowering and fruiting compared to traditional crop management through use of synthetic agrochemicals. It is noteworthy that use only at the time of transplantation Bacillus and 20 days after the second application, which is manifested by loss of effect at 84 days, but yet still persists pathogen control, before such situation should be applied in successive moments to keep a Bacillus greater crop protection coverage.

56 days 84 days
Height Flowers Fruits Height Flowers Fruits Frutos
Treatments (cm) (No.) (No.) (cm) (No.) (No.)
Bacillus B1 39.95 ab 3.60 a 1.25 a 61.20 ab 13.35 a 6.00 a
Bacillus B3 42.75 a 3.60 a 1.05 a 60.05 ab 10.70 a 5.05 a
Bacillus B9 41.20 ab 3.05 a 1.05 a 59.40 ab 9.59 a 4.50 a
Bacillus B13 43.75 a 3.50 a 1.35 a 66.40 a 14.35 a 4.90 a
Bacillus mix 40.90 ab 3.15 a 1.40 a 63.55 ab 12.10 a 6.00 a
Traditional treatments 35.30 ab 2.75 a 0.60 a 58.10 ab 10.45 a 5.95 a
Control 32.80 b 2.65 a 0.55 a 55.55 b 12.00 a 5.00 a

Table 10.

Effect of Bacillus strains on pepper (Capsicum annuum) cv. Caballero development, at 56 and 84 days after inoculation under field conditions. [9].

In a similar way, positive effects of Bacillus application were observed on crop yield, by prevent soil pathogen attack. In Table 11, is showed that application of Bacillus increased pepper yields in contrast to the traditional crop management by up to 74% cumulative assessment in three harvest times.

Treatment Cut 1
(kg)
B/TT
(%)
Cut 2
(kg)
B/TT
(%)
Cut 3
(kg)
B/TT
(%)
Yield (kg) B/TT
(%)
Bacillus B1 4.38 a 100 4.01 a 150 6.69 a 421 15.10 a 174
Bacillus B3 3.32 ab 76 3.05 ab 114 4.01 b 252 10.39 b 120
Bacillus B9 2.73 ab 62 2.40 ab 90 4.04 b 254 9.17 b 106
Bacillus B13 3.79 ab 86 3.41 ab 127 4.01 b 252 11.16 ab 129
Bacillus mix 3.14 ab 72 2.80 ab 104 4.30 b 270 10.25 b 118
Traditional Treatments 4.39 a 100 2.68 ab 100 1.59 c 100 8.67 b 100
Control 1.79 b 41 1.71 b 64 0.57 c 36 4.08 c 47

Table 11.

Effect of Bacillus strains on pepper (Capsicum annuum) cv. Caballero development at 99, 113 and 146 days after inoculation under field conditions. B / TT = Bacillus vs. traditional treatment, [9].

Bacillus favors growth of different plant parts such as stems and leaf area (Tables 12 and 13, Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Effect of Bacillus subtilis in the biomass production of pepper plants (root). Treatments Bacillus and treatments without Bacillus.

Treatments Height (cm) Leaf area (cm2)
Bacillus B1 119.47 a 6857.01 b
Bacillus J1 118.65 a 7762.92 a
Bacillus M2 102.95 b 5393.32 b
Mixture B1J1M2 121.05 a 7022.90 a
*TQ 99.05 b 4007.51 c
**TA 98.9 b 4302.63 bc
CV (%) 3.11 9.29

Table 12.

Height and leaf area of tomato plants cv. Floradade subjected to different treatments with microencapsulated strains of Bacillus subtilis. *: Chemical control treatment; **Absolute control treatment, Values with same letters are not statistically different (Tukey, p≤0.01), [104].

Treatments Leaves Stems Roots
Bacillus B1 116.41 a 30.31 ab 31.28 c
Bacillus J1 107.57 a 31.92 ab 38.76 b
Bacillus M2 87.67 b 27.90 b 32.04 c
Mixture B1J1M2 94.51 b 34.69 a 96.63 a
*TQ 1 c 28.06 b 33.38 bc
**TA 26.21 d 14.57 c 13.92 d
CV (%) 6.54 8.32 6.97

Table 13.

Biomass (g) production of tomato plants cv. Floradade subjected to different treatments with microcapsules containing strains of Bacillus subtilis. *Chemical control treatment; **: Absolute control treatment. Values with same letters are not statistically different (Tukey, p≤0.01), [104].

Advertisement

3. Conclusions

Use and application of biological control agents, such as Bacillus spp. prevents negative effects of pathogen attack on crops, providing an attractive option for sustainable agriculture due to their stimulating effects on plant growth, biomass production and its potential to increase plant production. In this chapter are mentioned clear and efficient biocontrol of plant pathogenic fungi by Bacillus strains, as evidence of lower disease incidence and severity. For that reason, it is suggested that B. subtilis can be incorporated to integrated management disease, where these strain may be used as biocontrol agent as well as biofertilizer.

Advertisement

Acknowledgments

F.C.R., wants to thank to CONACYT for all financial support during his postgraduate studies.

References

  1. 1. Velásquez, V.R., Medina A.M.M., Luna R.J.J. (2001). Sintomatología y géneros de patógenos asociados con las pudriciones de la raíz del chile (Capsicum annuum L.) en el norte centro de México. Revista Mexicana de Fitopatología, 19:175-181.
  2. 2. Sosa A., Baro Y. Gonzales M. 2008. Aislamiento, identificación y caracterización de cepas de Bacillus spp. Con potencialidades para el control biológico de los géneros Rhizoctonia, Sclerotium y Pythium. Taller Latinoamericano de Biocontrol de Fitopatógenos, 2, Ciudad de La Habana, Cuba, 22-29 v. 14(1) p. 63.
  3. 3. Ristaino, J. B. (1991). Influence of rainfall, drip irrigation, and inoculum density on the development of Phytophthora root and crown rot epidemics and yield in bell pepper. Phytopathology, 81(8):922-929.
  4. 4. Parra, G, Ristaino, J. (2001). Resistance to Mefenoxam and Metalaxyl among field isolates of Phytophthora capsici causing Phytophthora Blight of bell pepper. Plant Disease 85(10):1069-1075.
  5. 5. Hernández-Castillo F.D., Carvajal C.R., Guerrero E., Sánchez A., Gallegos G., Lira-Saldivar R.H. (2005). Susceptibilidad a fungicidas de grupos de anastomosis del hongo Rhizoctonia solani Khün colectados en zonas paperas de Chihuahua, México. International Journal of Experimental Botany, 74(1):259-269.
  6. 6. Schisler, D. A., Slininger, P. J., Behle, R. W., Jackson, M. A. (2004). Formulation of Bacillus spp. for biological control of plant diseases. Phytopathology, 94(11):1267- 1271.
  7. 7. Sid A.A., Ezziyyani, M., Pérez-Sanchez, C., Candela, M.E., (2003). Effect of chitin on biological control activity of Bacillus spp. and Trichoderma harzianum against root rot disease in pepper (Capsicum annuum) plants. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 109( 6):633-637.
  8. 8. Guédez, C., Castillo, C., Cañizales, L., Olivar, R. (2008). Biological control a tool for sustaining and sustainable development. Control Biológico 7(13):50–74.
  9. 9. Cruz, R., Hernández-Castillo, F.D., Gallegos-Morales, G., Rodríguez-Herrera, R., Aguilar-González, C.N., Padrón- Corral, E., Reyes-Valdés, M.H. (2006). Bacillus spp. como biocontrol en un suelo infestado con Fusarium spp., Rhizoctonia solani Kühn y Phytophthora capsici Leonian y su efecto en el desarrollo y rendimiento del cultivo de chile (Capsicum annuum L.). Revista Mexicana de Fitopatología, 24(2):105-114.
  10. 10. AL-Janabi, A.A.H.S. (2006). Identification of bacitracin produced by local isolate of Bacillus licheniformis. African Journal of Biotechnology, 5(18):1600-1601.
  11. 11. Li, J., Yang, Q., Zhao, L., Zhang, S., Wang, Y., Zhao X., (2009). Purification and characterization of a novel antifungal protein from Bacillus subtilis strain B29. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 10(4):264–272.
  12. 12. Doornbos, R.F., Loon, L. C., Bakker, P. A. H. M. (2012). Impact of root exudates and plant defense signaling on bacterial communities in the rhizosphere. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 32:227–243.
  13. 13. Suarez-López F., (2010). Evaluación de microorganismos promotores de crecimiento en jitomate (L. esculentum L.) bajo condiciones de invernadero. Tesis de Licenciatura, Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro, Buenavista, Saltillo, Coahuila.
  14. 14. Kloepper, J. W., Ryu, C.-M., Zhang, S. (2004). Induced systemic resistance and promotion of plant growth by Bacillus spp. Phytopathology, 94(11):1259-1266.
  15. 15. Fritze, D. (2004). Taxonomy of the genus Bacillus and related genera: the aerobic endospore-forming bacteria. Phytopathology, 94(11):1245-1248.
  16. 16. Rashid, M. H., Mori M., Sekiguchi J. (1995). Glucosam inidase of Bacillus subtilis: cloning, regulation, primary structure and biochemical characterization. Microbiology, 141(10):2391-2404.
  17. 17. Beneduzi, A., Passaglia, L.M.P. (2011). Genetic and phenotypic diversity of plant growth promoting Bacilli, in Bacteria in Agrobiology: Plant Growth Responses, Dinesh K. Maheshwari (Ed), Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. USA. Pp.1-14
  18. 18. Longan N.A., Halket, G. (2011). Developments in the taxonomy of aerobic, endospores-forming bacteria, in: Endospore-forming soil Bacteria. Longan and De Vos (Eds). Espirnger-Verlag, German.
  19. 19. Collins, D. P., Jacobsen, B. J. (2003). Optimizing a Bacillus subtilis isolate for biocontrol of sugar beet Cercospora leaf spot. Biol. Control, 26(2):153-161.
  20. 20. Zhang, J. X., Xue, A. G., Tambong, J. T. (2009). Evaluation of seed and soil treatments with novel Bacillus subtilis strains for control of soybean root rot caused by Fusarium oxysporum and F. graminearum. Plant Dis. 93(12):1317-1323.
  21. 21. Driks, A. 2004. The Bacillus spore coat. Phytopathology, 94(11):1249-1251.
  22. 22. Martin, P. A., Travers, R. S. (1989). Worldwide abundance and distribution of Bacillus thuringiensis isolates. Appl Environ Microbiol., 55(10):2437-2442.
  23. 23. [23] Bernhard, K., Jarrett, P., Meadows, M., Butt, J., Ellis, D. J., Roberts, G. M., Pauli, S., Rodgers, P., Burges, H. D. (1997). Natural isolates of Bacillus thuringiensis: worldwide distribution, characterization, and activity against insect pests. J Invertebr Pathol., 70(1):59-68.
  24. 24. Armengol, G., Escobar, M. C., Maldonado, M. E., Orduz, S. (2007). Diversity of Colombian strains of Bacillus thuringiensis with insecticidal activity against dipteran and lepidopteran insects. J Appl Microbiol., 102(1):77-88.
  25. 25. Yara, K., Kunimi, Y., Iwahana, H. (1997). Comparative studies of growth characteristic and competitive ability in Bacillus thuringiensis and Bacillus cereus in soil. Appl Entomol Zool., 32(4):625-634.
  26. 26. Borrego, S.F., Perdomo, I., J. de la Paz, Gómez de Saravia, S.G., Guiamet, P.S. (2011). Relevamiento microbiológico del aire y de materiales almacenados en el Archivo Histórico del Museo de La Plata, Argentina y en el Archivo Nacional de la República de Cuba. Revista del Museo de La Plata, 18(19):1-18.
  27. 27. Porcar, M., Caballero, P. (2000). Molecular and insecticidal characterization of a Bacillus thuringiensis strain isolated during a natural epizootic. J Appl Microbiol., 89(2):309-316.
  28. 28. Meadows, M. P., Ellis, D. J., Butt, J., Jarrett, P., Burges, H. D. (1992). Distribution, frequency, and diversity of Bacillus thuringiensis in an animal feed mill. Appl Environ Microbiol., 58(4):1344-1350.
  29. 29. Kaelin, P., Gadani, F. (2000). Occurrence of Bacillus thuringiensis on cured tobacco leaves. Curr Microbiol., 40(3):205-209.
  30. 30. Damgaard, P. H., Larsen, H. D., Hansen, B. M., Bresciani, J., Jorgensen, K. (1996). Enterotoxin-producing strains of Bacillus thuringiensis isolated from food. Lett Appl Microbiol., 23(3):146-150.
  31. 31. Akhurst, R. J., Lyness, E. W., Zhang, Q. Y., Cooper, D. J., Pinnock, D. E. (1997). A 16S rRNA gene oligonucleotide probe for identification of Bacillus thuringiensis isolates from sheep fleece. J Invertebr Pathol., 69(1):24-30.
  32. 32. Maeda, M., Mizuki, E., Nakamura, Y., Hatano, T., Ohba, M. (2000). Recovery of Bacillus thuringiensis from marine sediments of Japan. Curr Microbiol., 40(6):418-422.
  33. 33. Damgaard, P. H., Granum, P. E., Bresciani, J., Torregrossa, M. V., Eilenberg, J., Valentino, L. (1997a). Characterization of Bacillus thuringiensis isolated from infections in burn wounds. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol., 18(1):47-53.
  34. 34. Damgaard, P. H., Hansen, B. M., Pedersen, J. C., Eilenberg, J. (1997b). Natural occurrence of Bacillus thuringiensis on cabbage foliage and in insects associated with cabbage crops. J Appl Microbiol., 82(2):253-258.
  35. 35. Rizali, A., Asano, S., Sahara, K., Bando, H., Lay, B. W., Hastowo, S., Iizuka, T. (1998). Novel Bacillus thuringiensis serovar aizawai strains isolated from mulberry leaves in Indonesia. Appl Entomol Zool., 33(1):111-114.
  36. 36. Kaur, S., Singh, A. (2000). Natural occurrence of Bacillus thuringiensis in leguminous phylloplanes in the New Delhi region of India. World J Microbiol Biotechnol., 16(7):679-682.
  37. 37. Nair, J. R., Singh, G., Sekar, V. (2002). Isolation and characterization of a novel Bacillus strain from coffee phyllosphere showing antifungal activity. J Appl Microbiol., 93(5):772-780.
  38. 38. Collier, F. A., Elliot, S. L., Ellis, R. J. (2005). Spatial variation in Bacillus thuringiensis/cereus populations within the phyllosphere of broad-leaved dock (Rumex obtusifolius) and surrounding habitats. FEMS Microbiol Ecol., 54(3):417-425.
  39. 39. Priest, F.G. 1989. Isolation and identification of aerobic endospore-forming bacteria, in; Bacillus. Harwood, C.R. (Ed). Plenum press, USA. 27-56 pp.
  40. 40. Basurto-Cadena M. G. L., Vázquez-Arista M., García-Jiménez J., Salcedo-Hernández R., Bideshi D. K, Barboza-Corona J. E. (2012). Isolation of a new Mexican strain of Bacillus subtilis with antifungal and antibacterial activities. The Scientific World Journal, Vol. 2012. 7 pages Doi:10.1100/2012/384978.
  41. 41. Carrillo C, Teruel JA, Aranda FJ and Ortiz A. (2003). Molecular mechanism of membrane permeabilization by the peptide antibiotic surfactin. Biochim. Biophys. Acta., 16(11):91- 97.
  42. 42. Nalisha, I., Muskhazli, M., Nor Farizan, T. (2006). Production of Bioactive Compounds by Bacillus subtilis against Sclerotium rolfsii. Malaysian Journal of Microbiology, 2(2):19-23.
  43. 43. Haleem Khan, A. A, Naseem, Rupa, L., Prathibha, B. (2011). Screening and potency evaluation of antifungal from soil isolates of Bacillus subtilis on selected fungi. Advanced Biotech., 10(7):35-37.
  44. 44. Hernández, C.F.D., Aguirre, A.A., Lira, S.R.H., Guerrero, R.E., Gallegos, M.G. (2006). Biological efficiency of organic biological and chemical products against Alternaria dauci Kühn and its effects on carrot crop. International Journal of Experimental Botany, 75:91-101.
  45. 45. Bottone, E.J., Peluso, R.W. (2003). Production by Bacillus pumilus (MSH) of an antifungal compound that is active against Mucoraceae and Aspergillus species: preliminary report. J Med Microbiol., 52(1):69-74.
  46. 46. Hernández Castillo F. D., Lira Saldivar, R.H., Cruz Chávez L., Gallegos Morales G., Galindo Cepeda M.E., Padrón Corral E., Hernández Suárez M. 2008. Antifungal potential of Bacillus spp. strains and Larrea tridentata extract against Rhizoctonia solani on potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) crop. International Journal of experimental 77(1):241-252.
  47. 47. Raupach, G. S., Kloepper, J. W. (1998). Mixtures of plant growth-promoting Rhizobacteria enhance biological control of multiple cucumber pathogens. Phytopathology, 88(11):1158-1164.
  48. 48. Martin F. N., Bull C. T. (2002). Biological approaches for control of root pathogens of strawberry. Phytopathology, 92(12):1356-1362.
  49. 49. McSpadden G. B. B., Driks A. (2004). Overview of the Nature and Application of Biocontrol Microbes: Bacillus spp. Phytopathology, 94(11):1244-1244.
  50. 50. Klich, M.A., Arthur, K.S., Lax A.R., Blang, J.M. (1994). Iturin A: a potential new fungicide for soared grains. Mycopathologia, 127:123-127.
  51. 51. Katz E., Demain A.L. (1977). The peptide antibiotics of Bacillus: chemistry, biogenesis, and possible functions. Bacteriol. Rev., 41:449-474.
  52. 52. Romero, D., de Vicente A., Rakotoaly, R. H., Dufour, S. E., Veening, J-W, Arrebola, E., Cazorla, F.M., Kuipers, O.P., Paquot, M., Pérez-García, A. (2007). The iturin and fengycin families of lipopeptides are key factors in antagonism of Bacillus subtilis toward Podosphaera fusca. Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions, 20(4):430-440.
  53. 53. Zeriouh, H., Romero, D., García-Gutiérrez, L., Cazorla, F.M., de Vicente, A. and Pérez-García, A. (2011). The iturin-like lipopeptides are essential components in the biological control arsenal of Bacillus subtilis against bacterial diseases of cucurbits. Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions, 24(12):1540-1552.
  54. 54. Leclère V., Béchet, M., Adam A., Guez, J.S., Wathelet, B., Ongena, M., Thonart, P., Gancel, F., Chollet-Imbert, M. and Jacques, P. (2005). Mycosubtilin Overproduction by Bacillus subtilis BBG100 Enhances the Organism's Antagonistic and Biocontrol Activities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71(8):4577-4584
  55. 55. Besson F, Michel G. (1990). Mycosubtilins B and C: minor antibiotics from mycosubtilin-producer Bacillus subtilis. Microbios. 62(251):93-9.
  56. 56. Moyne, A.-L., Shelby, R., Cleveland, T.E., Tuzun, S. (2001). Bacillomycin D: an iturin with antifungal activity against Aspergillus flavus. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 90:622-629.
  57. 57. Besson F.F., Peypoux G., Michel G., Delcambe L. (1977). The structure of Bacillomycin L, an antibiotic from Bacillus subtilis. Eur. J. Biochem., 77:61-67.
  58. 58. Kluge, B., Vater, J., Salnikow, J., Eckart, K. (1988). Studies on the biosynthesis of surfactin, a lipopeptide antibiotic from Bacillus subtilis ATCC 21332. FEBS Letters, Vol. 231(1):107-110.
  59. 59. Al-Ajlani, M.M, Sheikh, M.A, Ahmad, Z., Hasnain, S. (2007). Production of surfactin from Bacillus subtilis MZ-7 grown on pharmamedia commercial medium. Microbial Cell Factories, Vol. 6, No. 17, (Jun, 2007), pp. (doi: 10.1186/1475-2859-6-17), ISSN 1475-2859
  60. 60. Rezuanul Islam, Md., Yong Tae Jeong, Yong Se Lee, Chi Hyun Song. (2012). Isolation and identification of antifungal compounds from Bacillus subtilis C9 inhibiting the growth of plant pathogenic fungi. Mycobiology, 40(1):59–66.
  61. 61. Hassi M, David S, Haggoud A, El Guendouzi S, El Ouarti A, Souda SI, Iraqui M. (2012).In vitro and intracellular antimycobacterial activity of a Bacillus pumilus strain. African Journal of Microbiology Research 6(10):2299-2304.
  62. 62. SadfI, N., Chérif, M., Hajlaoui, M.R., Boudabbous, A., Bélanger R. (2002). Isolation and partial purification of antifungal metabolites produced by Bacillus cereus. Ann. Microbiol., 52:323-337.
  63. 63. Schallmey, M., Singh, A, Owen P. W. (2004) Developments in the use of Bacillus species for industrial production. Can. J. Microbiol. 50: 1–17.
  64. 64. Kugler, M., Loef¯er, W., Rapp, C., Kern, A., Jung, G. (1990). Rhizocticin A, an antifungal phosphono-oligopeptide of Bacillus subtilis ATCC 6633: biological properties. Archives of Microbiology, 153(3):276-281.
  65. 65. Priest, F.G. (1977). Extracellular enzyme synthesis in the genus Bacillus. Bacteriol. Rev. 41(3):711-753.
  66. 66. Pelletier A., Sygusch J., 1990. Purification and characterization of three chitosanase activities from Bacillus megaterium P1. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 56(4):844-848.
  67. 67. Pleban, S., Chernin L., Shet I., 1997. Chitinolytic activity of an endophytic strain of Bacillus cereus. Letters in Applied Microbiology, 25(1):284-288.
  68. 68. Sadfi, N., Chérif, M., Fliss, I., Boudabbous, A., H. Antoun, (2001). Evaluation of Bacillus isolates from salty soils and Bacillus thuringiensis strains for the biocontrol of Fusarium dry rot of potato tubers. Journal of Plant Pathology, 83:101–118.
  69. 69. Fiddman, P.J., Rossall, S. (1993). The production of antifungal volatiles by Bacillus subtilis. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 74:119-126.
  70. 70. Essghaier, B., Hedi, A., Hajlaoui, M.R., Boudabous A., Sadfi-ZouaouI, N. (2012). In vivo and in vitro evaluation of antifungal activities from a halotolerant Bacillus subtilis strain J9. African Journal of Microbiology Research 6(19):4073-4083.
  71. 71. Kumar, A., Prakash, A., Johri, B.N. (2011).Bacillus as PGPR in crop ecosystem, in: Bacteria in agrobiology: Crop ecosystem. D.K. Maheshwari (ed). Springer-Verlang Berlin 37-59 pp.
  72. 72. Zhang Y, Jiang L, Ren F, Yang J., Guo H. (2012). Response surface methodology analysis to improve production of tyrothricin in Bacillus brevis. African Journal of Biotechnology 11(47):10744-10752.
  73. 73. Mandic-Mulec, I., Prosser, J. I. 2011. Diversity of endospore-forming bacteria in soil: characterization and driving mechanisms, in endospore-forming soil bacteria, Longan and De Vos (Eds), German, pp. 31-59.
  74. 74. Emberger, O. 1970. Cultivation methods for the detection of aerobic spore-forming bacteria. Zentralbl Bakteriol Parasitenkd Infektionskr Hyg 125 (6):555–565.
  75. 75. Barbeau, B., Boulos, L., Desjardins, R., Coallier, J., Prévost, M.,Duchesne D. (1997). A modified method for the enumeration of aerobic spore-forming bacteria. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 43(10):976-980.
  76. 76. Jara, S., Madueli, P., Orduz, S., 2006. Diversity of Bacillus thuringiensis strains in the maize and bean phylloplane and their respective soils in Colombia. J App Microbiol., 101(1):117-124.
  77. 77. Berge, O., Mavingui, P., Heulin, T. 2011. Heat treatment (exploring diversity of cultivable aerobic endospore-forming bacteria: from pasteurization to procedures without heat shock selection, in: Endospore-forming Soil Bacteria, Longan and De Vos (Eds), German, pp. 89-113.
  78. 78. Koransky, J.R., Allen, S.D., Dowell, V.R. (1978). Use of ethanol for selective isolation of spore forming microorganisms. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 35(4):762–765.
  79. 79. Patel, A.K., Ahire, J.J., Pawar, S.P., Chaudhari, B.L., Chincholkar, S.B. 2009. Comparative accounts of probiotic characteristics of Bacillus spp. isolated from food wastes. Food Res Int., 42(4):505–510.
  80. 80. Eman, A.H.M, Mikiko, A., Ghanem, K.M., Abdel-Fattah, Y.R., Nakagawa, Y., El-Helow, E.R. 2006. Diversity of Bacillus genotypes in soil samples from El-Omayed biosphere reserve in Egypt. J Cult Collect. 5(1):78–84.
  81. 81. Travers, R.S., Martin, P.A., Reichelderfer, C.F. 1987. Selective process for efficient isolation of soil Bacillus spp. Appl Environ Microbiol., 53(6):1263–1266.
  82. 82. Parvathi A., Krishna, K., Jose, J., Joseph, N., Nair S. (2009). Biochemical and molecular characterization of Bacillus pumilus isolated from coastal environment in Cochin, India. Braz. J. Microbiol., 40(2):269-275.
  83. 83. Dworzanski, J.P., Berwald, L., Meuzelaar, H.L. C. (1990). Pyrolytic methylation-gas chromatography of whole bacterial cells for rapid profiling of cellular fatty acids. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 56(6):1717-1724.
  84. 84. Logan, N.A., Forsyth, G., Lebbe, L., Goris, J., Heyndrickx, M., Balcaen, A.,Verhelst, A., Falsen, E., Ljungh, A., Hansson, H.B., De Vos, P. (2002). Polyphasic identification of Bacillus and Brevibacillus strains from clinical, dairy and industrial specimens and proposal of Brevibacillus invocatus sp. nov.. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol., 52(3):953-966.
  85. 85. Woese CR. 1987. Bacterial Evolution. Microbiol Rev, 51(2):221-271.
  86. 86. Ash, C.; Farrow, J.A.; Dorsch, M.; Stackebrandt, E.; Collins, M.D. (1991). Comparative analysis of Bacillus anthracis, Bacillus cereus, and related species on the basis of reverse transcriptase sequencing of 16S rRNA. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol., 41(3):343-346.
  87. 87. Wattiau, P., Renard, M.E., Ledent, P., Debois, V., Blackman, G., Agathos, S. N. (2001). A PCR test to identify Bacillus subtilis and closely related species and its application to the monitoring of wastewater biotreatment. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 56( 5-6):816-819.
  88. 88. Wang, L.T., Lee, F.L., Tai, C.J., Kasai, H. (2007). Comparison of gyrB gene sequences, 16S rRNA gene sequences and DNA–DNA hybridization in the Bacillus subtilis group. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol, 57(8):1846-1850.
  89. 89. Lihua Lia, Jincai Mab, Yan Lia, Zhiyu Wangc, Tantan Gaoa, Qi Wanga. (2012). Screening and partial characterization of Bacillus with potential applications in biocontrol of cucumber Fusarium wilt. Crop Protection, 35(1):29–35.
  90. 90. Yamamoto, S.; Harayama, S. (1995). PCR amplification and direct sequencing of gyrB genes with universal primers and their application to the detection and taxonomic analysis of Pseudomonas putida strains. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 61(3):1104-1109.
  91. 91. Castillo, F., Hernández, D., Gallegos, G., Méndez, M., Rodríguez, R., Reyes A.,. Aguilar, C.N. (2010). In vitro antifungal activity of plant extracts obtained with alternative organic solvents against Rhizoctonia solani Kühn, Industrial Crops and Products, 32(3):324–328.
  92. 92. Van Veen, J.A., Oberbeek, L.S., and Elsas, J.D. 1997. Fate and activity of microorganisms introduced into soil. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 61(2):121-135.
  93. 93. [93] Nava-Díaz, C., Kleinhenz, M.D., Doohan, D.J., Lewis, M.L., Miller, S.A. 1994. Bacillus spp. with potential as biological control agents. Phytopathology, 94:74-80.
  94. 94. Wulff, E.G., Mguni, C.M., Mansfeld-Giese, K., Fels, J., Lübeck, M., Hockenhull, J. 2002. Biochemical and molecular characterization of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, B. subtilis and B. pumilus isolates with distinct antagonistic potential against Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris. Plant Pathology, 51(5):574-584.
  95. 95. Yoshida, S., Hiradate, S., Tsukamoto, T., Hatakeda, K., Shirata, A. (2001). Antimicrobial activity of culture filtrate of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens RC-2 isolated from mulberry leaves. Phytopathology, 91(2):181-187.
  96. 96. Chiou, A.L., Wu, W.S. 2001. Isolation, identification and evaluation of bacterial antagonists against Botrytis elliptica on Lily. Journal of Phytopathology, 149:319-324.
  97. 97. Mari, M., Guizzardi, M., Pratella, G.C. 1996. Biological control of gray mold in pears by antagonistic bacteria. Biological Control, 7(1):30-37.
  98. 98. Harris, A.R., Adkins, P.G. 1999. Biological control of damping-off disease caused by Rhizoctonia solani and Pythium spp. Biological Control 15:10-18.
  99. 99. Zehnder, G.W., Yao, C., Murphy, J.F., Sikora, E.R., Kloepper, J.W. (2000). Induction of resistance in tomato against cucumber mosaic cucumovirus by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. BioControl, 45(1):127-137.
  100. 100. Lucas-García, J.A., Probanza, A., Ramos, B., Ruíz-Palomino, M., Gutiérrez-Mañero, F.J. 2004. Effect of inoculation of Bacillus licheniformis on tomato and pepper. Agronomie, 24(4):169-176.
  101. 101. García-Camargo, J. y Díaz-Partida, A. 1991. Bacillus subtilis como antagonista de Fusarium oyxsporum f. sp. niveum y su eficiencia en el control del marchitamiento de la sandía en invernadero. Memorias del XVIII Congreso Nacional de la Sociedad Mexicana de Fitopatología. Puebla de los Angeles, Puebla, México. Resumen, p. 182.
  102. 102. Virgen-Calleros, G., Vázquez-Vázquez, J.L., Anguiano- Ruvalcaba, G.L., Olalde-Portugal, V., Hernández- Delgadillo, R. 1997. Aislamiento de bacterias de la rizósfera de Capsicum annuum L. antagónicas al desarrollo de Phytophthora capsici Leo. Revista Mexicana de Fitopatología, 15:43-47.
  103. 103. Yuen, G.Y., Schroth, M.N., McCain, A.H. (1985). Reduction of Fusarium wilt of carnation with suppressive and antagonistic bacteria. Plant Disease, 69(12):1071-1075.
  104. 104. Hernández, S. M., Hernández-Castillo, F.D, Gallegos-Morales, G., Lira-Saldivar, R.H., Rodríguez-Herrera, R., Cristóbal N. Aguilar. 2011. Biocontrol of soil fungi in tomato with microencapsulates containing Bacillus subtilis. American Journal of Agricultural and Biological Sciences, 6(2):89-195.
  105. 105. Suárez, A. F. (2011). Manejo de productos biológicos y químicos para el control de Fusarium oxysporum y su efecto en el cultivo de melón (Cucumis melo L.) en Coahuila, México. Tesis de licenciatura UAAAN, saltillo, Coah, Mexico, pag 55.

Written By

Hernández F.D. Castillo, Castillo F. Reyes, Gallegos G. Morales, Rodríguez R. Herrera and C. Aguilar

Submitted: June 14th, 2012 Published: March 14th, 2013