Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Arbuscular Mycorrhiza-Associated Rhizobacteria and Biocontrol of Soilborne Phytopathogens

Written By

Meenakshi Singh, Manjari Mishra, Devendra Kumar Srivastava and Pradeep Kumar Singh

Submitted: June 12th, 2019 Reviewed: August 20th, 2019 Published: May 13th, 2020

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.89266

From the Edited Volume

Biostimulants in Plant Science

Edited by Seyed Mahyar Mirmajlessi and Ramalingam Radhakrishnan

Chapter metrics overview

791 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


The mutualistic symbiosis of most land plants with arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi has been shown to favor mineral and water nutrition and to increase resistance to abiotic and biotic stresses. The main mechanisms involved in the control of the disease symptoms and intraradical proliferation of soilborne phytopathogens are due to root colonization with AM fungi. The role of the rhizobacteria is shown to be specifically associated with extraradical network of the AM and mycorrhizosphere. The mycorrhizosphere can form a favorable environment for microorganisms which have potentiality to act antagonistic to pathogen abundance. It makes an additional advantage in identifying rhizobacteria from AM fungi structures or mycorrhizosphere, which often lead to the isolation of organisms having strong properties of antagonism on various soilborne pathogens. The ability of AM fungi to control soilborne diseases is mainly related to their capacity to stimulate the establishment of rhizobacteria against the favorable environment of pathogen within the mycorrhizosphere prior to the root infection. Recent advancement in scientific research has provided more clear picture in understanding the mechanisms involved in AM fungi/rhizobacteria interactions. Herein, this chapter includes the mechanisms of the AM fungi-mediated biocontrol, interactions between AM-associated bacteria and AM fungus extraradical network, AM-associated bacteria and biocontrol activities and unfavorable zone to pathogen development: the mycorrhizosphere.


  • AM-associated bacteria (AMB)
  • arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi
  • biocontrol
  • mycorrhizosphere
  • soilborne pathogens

1. Introduction

A majority of land plants in nature are growing symbiotically in relationship with AM fungi. This relationship is well established with the roots of these plants. Soil exploration by the external mycelium of AM fungi increases the nutrient absorptive root surface area and thus favors the host plant in access to nutrients and water [1, 2]. Moreover, as the largest component of the soil microbial biomass [3, 4], AM fungi form widespread mycelial networks within the soil atmosphere, and hyphae harbour important sites for interactions with other soilborne microorganisms. The constricted zone adjacent to soil-living roots is called the rhizosphere [5]. It is characterized by increased microbial activity and by a specific microbial community structure [6, 7]. Along with root-AM fungi associations, factors influencing the community structure and the biomass of soil microorganisms lead to the establishment of a zone called mycorrhizosphere [8, 9, 10, 11, 12]. The zone of soil influenced by only AM fungi is called mycosphere. In the mycorrhizosphere, AM fungi structures and various rhizobacteria (AM fungi-associated rhizobacteria or AMB, e.g. Paenibacilli, Bacilli and Pseudomonas spp.) are generally identified by classical culture-dependent methods [13, 14]. It includes phospholipid fatty acid analysis (PLFA) [15] and polymerase chain reaction-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (PCR-DGGE) [13, 16, 17] which reinforce the hypothesis that AM fungi structures constitute important nutrient-rich niches for soilborne microorganisms. Glomeribacter gigasporarum (a new taxon of Burkholderiaceae) was even described as a Gram-non-cultivable (obligatory) bacterial endosymbiont of spore vacuoles, mycelium and intraradical hyphae of Gigaspora margarita [18]. Glomeribacter gigasporarum described in detail shows to be widespread within Gigasporaceae; it transmitted vertically and contains nitrogen fixation genes [19, 20, 21], while in Gigaspora margarita, it has been suggested and observed that this AM fungus might fix nitrogen and then deliver it to the symbiotic plant through the associated bacterial population [22]. The effects of this on host plant physiology can be recognized in mycorrhizal root colonization because of the consequence of the activity of specifically AM fungi-associated rhizobacteria.

The beneficial effects of AM fungi on the host plant physiology, in the decrease of intraradical and mycorrhizosphere population and in the decrease of disease symptoms of soilborne pathogens were reported in many biological systems, probably due to synergistic mechanisms [23, 24, 25]. The use of chemical pesticides are now avoided and not advocated in fields due to its risks to human health and the environment, and thus the implementation of sustainable agriculture has become essential in crop industry. The perception of the mechanisms involved in the AM fungi-mediated biocontrol will allow to maximize the performance of management of such sustainable agroecosystems and thus authorize the use of AM fungi and its benefits [26]. The main mechanisms involved in the biological control of diseases induced by soilborne phytopathogens start after root colonization with AM fungi especially due to its association with rhizobacteria which constitutes major element for this biocontrol.


2. Mechanisms of the AM fungi-mediated biocontrol

Reduction in the detrimental effects of soilborne pathogens after root colonization with AM fungi was described a long time ago [27, 28] and has been observed on various fungi, stramenopiles, nematodes and bacteria [12, 29]. Carlsen et al. [30] reported the total check of infectivity caused by Pythium ultimum on clover plants cv. Sonja by using Glomus mosseae as a symbiotic relation partner. For the biological control of pathogen, AM fungus or AM fungi/plant taxa association, conditions of culture, level of root colonization, time of AM fungus or pathogen inoculation and harvest, the mechanisms hypothesized, etc. should be involved [12, 23, 24, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35]. The disease symptoms induced by pathogens can systemically be reduced in non-mycorrhizal roots of plants grown in AM fungi-inoculated split-root systems [36]. Various hypotheses have been suggested in an endeavor to elucidate the AM fungi-mediated biocontrol of soilborne phytopathogens. The fact that pathogen-induced symptoms are systemically regulated by AM fungi colonization is related to the establishment of induced systemic resistance (ISR) [37]. ISR is a resistance mechanism induced or acquired in plants which were already undergone for pretreatment with a variety of organisms and compounds [e.g. superoxide dismutases (SOD) and peroxidases, pathogenesis-related type 1 proteins (PR-1 proteins)].

Further, higher concentrations of phenolic acids could be detectable in plants which are colonized with AM fungi species subjected for biocontrol activities. Accumulation of jasmonic acid involved in the rhizobacteria-mediated ISR in mycorrhizal roots could be related to the systemic pathogen biocontrol [38, 39]. Cordier et al. [40] identified local cell wall modifications (callose accumulation around arbuscule-containing cortical cells of tomato roots). The synthesis of constitutive and additional isoforms of defense-related enzymes (e.g. chininases, chitosanases, β-1,3-glucanases, peroxidases and SOD) has also been locally detected in mycorrhizal roots [41, 42, 43]. The level of production of these enzymes or flavonoids was reported to be unrelated to the capacity of biocontrol of the AM fungi species [30, 44]. The transcript profiling and real-time quantitative PCR used to explore the transcriptional changes triggered by AM fungus colonization revealed a complex pattern of local and systemic changes in gene expression in roots of Medicago truncatula [45], and transcripts for defense-related proteins were reported to expressed locally. Furthermore, increase in concentrations of defense-related compounds such as rosmarinic acid, caffeic acids, phenolics and essential oils has not been recorded in colonization with Glomus mosseae which was reported for its role in protecting basil plants against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. basilica. It highlights and indicates the role of other possible mechanisms in the AM fungus-mediated biocontrol activity which differs to stimulation of systemic and localized plant defense mechanisms [46].

The most commonly documented response to AM fungi colonization is an increase in phosphorus nutrition to the host plants which subsequently imparts more dynamic and more resistant properties against pathogen invasion. However, AM fungi-mediated biocontrol is unrelated to the soil phosphorus (P) availability and to the phosphorus status in plant tissues, thus possibly more dependent on other mechanisms [46, 47, 48, 49].

Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi normally compete for space and nutrients with soilborne pathogens within the zone of mycorrhizosphere and the host roots. Larsen and Bodker [50], using signature fatty acid profiles, demonstrated the decrease in biomass and energy reserves of both Glomus mosseae and Aphanomyces euteiches co-occupying pea roots; however Phytophthora nicotianae and Glomus mosseae never reported to occupy simultaneously in the same tomato root tissues [40]. A reduction in the extent of mycorrhizal colonization by different plant pathogens has been reported [51, 52, 53, 54] indicating the possible occurrence of competitive interactions. The AM fungus is often inoculated before the attack of pathogen in order to favor biocontrol efficiency [54]. However, Fusarium solani f. sp. phaseoli genomic DNA quantified using quantitative real-time PCR was significantly reduced not only in the mycorrhizosphere and mycosphere but also in the bulk soil of a compartmentalized soil-root system which was inoculated with Glomus intraradices, whereas the AM fungus genomic DNA was not significantly modified by the pathogens in the soil [55]. Reduction in Fusarium solani f. sp. phaseoli growth as well as decrease in root rot symptoms as a result of colonization with Glomus intraradices could not be attributed to the competition for resources and habitat between the two fungi but mostly to the biotic or abiotic characteristic factors of the established mycorrhizosphere.

The extraradical network formed by Glomus intraradices around the roots of the plants has been reported to show a decrease in the growth of nematodes (e.g. Radopholus similis and Pratylenchus coffeae) and conidial formation of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. chrysanthemi. In vitro aseptic conditions and the above-stated negative impacts are not important to affect the developmental stages of all nematodes, and it is also unrelated to the mycelial or spore densities of AM fungus [56, 57, 58]. Additionally, in the presence of the AM fungi, significant increase in spore germination and hyphal growth by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. chrysanthemi was also reported, and thus, direct inhibition of pathogen by AM fungi structures could not properly be explained for biocontrol [56].

In vitro results of impact studies of the exudates of extraradical AM fungi network or by the mycorrhizal roots on pathogens are in contradiction. Crude extracts from the extraradical network of Glomus intraradices is clearly reported for the reduced germination of conidia of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. chrysanthemi [59]. Similarly, inhibition in sporulation of pathogen Phytophthora fragariae is reported with exudates of strawberry roots which were colonized by Glomus etunicatum and Glomus monosporum [60]. During the harvest, compared to the exudates of non-AM-inoculated tomato roots, the exudates from in vitro grown AM (Glomus intraradices)-inoculated roots were reported either repulsive or more attractive for the zoospores of Phytophthora nicotianae [61].

Another example can be seen in the exudates of tomato roots which are reported to double the microconidia germination of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici in the presence of AM fungi Glomus mosseae compared to the exudates from non-mycorrhizal roots [54, 62]. The direct impact of exudates from mycorrhizal plants in the AM fungus-mediated biocontrol activity can directly be measured in soil conditions by quantification of the capacity of root infection by the pathogen [63]. Application of root exudates of tomato plants which are colonized with Glomus intraradices or Glomus mosseae has not been reported for any positive impact on another tomato plant for the control of pathogen Phytophthora nicotianae, while direct inoculation of these AM fungi (i.e. Glomus intraradices or Glomus mosseae) significantly reduced or controlled the growth of pathogen Phytophthora nicotianae in these other tomato plants. Thus, it suggests that exudates from one’s mycorrhizal plant will not directly or indirectly inhibit the capacity of pathogen intraradical proliferation on other plants.

From the above it is evident that none of the cited mechanisms is involved in the AM fungus-mediated biocontrol, but it has been shown to happen in every plant-fungi system. These mechanisms might act in synergistic way with each other, with one mechanism becoming preponderant depending on the environmental conditions and the plant cultivar-pathogen/AM fungus strain. However, the mechanism related to the capacity of interaction of AM fungi with other soil microorganisms can significantly be attributed as one of the main reasons involved in the control of soilborne diseases.


3. Interactions between AM-associated bacteria and AM fungus extraradical network

The bacterial communities associated with various AM fungal inoculum or spores have been reported to differ from one another based on their association as one found in mycorrhizal isolate and others largely encountered in the mycosphere [15]. The species assemblages of cultivable bacteria from surface-disinfected spores of Glomus mosseae and Glomus intraradices were influenced both by fungal and plant species where ‘spore type’ is the important factor. This specificity of interaction in AM fungal species is usually hypothesized to be related to spore size and surface roughness. Under sterile conditions the bacterial adherence to spores or hyphae of AM fungi was demonstrated to be species-specific or depends on bacterial isolate and the fungal vitality [64]. The association competence of rhizobacteria to AM fungal surfaces could be dependent on their ability to form biofilms [65].

The roots colonized with Gigaspora margarita and its extraradical hyphae demonstrate that extracellular polysaccharides are involved in the in vitro association of Pseudomonas fluorescens CHAO to these biological surfaces [66]. Pseudomonas fluorescens CHAO have the abilities to form light spots, while two mucoid mutants of this strain by increased production of acidic extracellular polysaccharides formed a large number of clusters on non-mycorrhizal carrot roots, and mutants of Azospirillum brasilense and Rhizobium leguminosarum affected in extracellular polysaccharide production were strongly impaired in the capacity to attach to mycorrhizal root [67]. Strains of Burkholderia on Gigaspora decipiens were able to colonize the interior of the spores, and it demonstrates that AM fungal colonization does not occur on AM surfaces only through the biofilm formation [68]. Saprophytic activity of the bacteria was also observed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) observations of Glomus geosporum spores [69]. The growth of Pseudomonas chlororaphis was also stimulated in presence of crude extracts, containing AM fungus exudates and mycelial compounds of AM fungi from the extraradical network of in vitro grown Glomus intraradices [59].

Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi can stimulate the growth of rhizobacteria by providing nutritional resource through the release of exudates. Exudates collected from tomato roots which were colonized by Glomus fasciculatum were reported to attract Azotobacter chroococcum and Pseudomonas fluorescens more strongly than those collected from non-colonized roots [70]. According to Toljander et al. [71], a bacterial community extracted from soil was significantly affected after 48 h when inoculated with exudates produced by AM fungus mycelia in comparison to a control composed of culture medium.

The reduction in exudation through defoliation of pea plants did not change the PCR-DGGE profile of rhizosphere bacteria, while missing and supplementary bands were observed from the rhizosphere of plants which were pre-colonized with Glomus intraradices [72]. PCR-DGGE analysis reported to show no effect on the bacterial community structure of tomato rhizosphere which was treated with pre-colonized (with Glomus intraradices or G. mosseae) root exudates however direct colonization of root with these AM fungi-induced significant changes [24]. The rhizobacterial community structure modification by AM fungal colonization is usually related poorly to exudate liberation by mycorrhizal roots or by the AM fungal mycelium, and importantly it may be dependant on their physical presence or on direct species-specific interactions [24]. It has been noticed that the impact of AM fungus colonization on other soil microorganisms is negative. The overall decrease of microbial activity described after root colonization with AM fungi has been proposed to be due to competition for substrates [73]. In association with cucumber, Glomus intraradices possess negative effect on the population of Pseudomonas fluorescens DF57. This negative effect was reported in both rhizosphere and in mycosphere [74].


4. AM-associated bacteria and biocontrol activities

Most of AM-associated bacteria (AMB) described so far in detail showed antagonistic characteristics towards soilborne pathogens or behaved as mycorrhization helper [16]. Similar studies have been performed by various researchers in aiming to identify AMB with biocontrol activities. A bacterial strain of Paenibacillus sp. B2 has been isolated from the mycorrhizosphere of Glomus mosseae and identified by phylogeny of its 16S rRNA gene sequence and analytical profile index (API) system. It has been found that it acts antagonistic to various soilborne pathogens under in vitro conditions and reduces necrosis in tomato roots (necrosis caused by Phytophthora nicotianae) [75]. This isolate (i.e. bacteria) displayed cellulolytic, proteolytic, chitinolytic and pectinolytic activities and was reported for antibiotic polymyxin B1 and two other polymyxin-like compounds [76, 77, 78]. Moreover, its presence resulted in disorganization of cell walls and/or cell contents of Phytophthora nicotianae and Fusarium oxysporum as observed in electron microscope. It also increases the root and shoot fresh weights of mycorrhized tomato plants and stimulated Glomus mosseae to colonize tomato roots [75].

Under compartmentalized growth system, Mansfeld-Giese et al. [78] identified Paenibacillus polymyxa and P. macerans from the three different regions, namely mycorrhizosphere, hyphosphere (root-free soil and sand compartments) and from a root-free sand compartment. It was found to be closely associated with Glomus intraradices. All Paenibacilli strains tested from these AM fungi influenced soil zones and helped in preventing pre-emergence damping-off (caused by Pythium aphanidermatum) [79]. Out of 18 cultivable isolates from surface-disinfected spores of Glomus mosseae, 14 isolates were identified. These identified isolates were mainly composed of Bacillus simplex, B. niacini, B. drententis, Paenibacillus spp. and Methylobacterium sp. which were reported to show antagonism to various soilborne pathogens (e.g. Phytophthora nicotianae, Fusarium solani, Fusarium oxysporum, etc.) [80]. Bacteria isolated from surface-decontaminated spores of Glomus intraradices and Glomus mosseae which were extracted from rhizospheres of Festuca ovina and Leucanthemum vulgare were classified within two phylogenetic clusters: one corresponding to Proteobacteria and the other corresponding to Actinobacteria and Firmicutes [14]. Under dual culture in vitro assays, bacteria from both clusters were reported antagonistic to Rhizoctonia solani. Further, selected bacteria, two isolates of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, three isolates of Pseudomonas spp., one isolate each of Bacillus subtilis and Arthro bacterilicis, were reported to act as antagonistic to Erwinia carotovora var. carotovora, Verticillium dahliae, Phytophthora infestans and Rhizoctonia solani. In vitro studies revealed that these isolates are responsible for producing siderophores and proteases and thus decrease the weight of rotten potato tissues [81]. The ability of AM fungi to specifically harbor and then to stimulate rhizobacteria with biocontrol properties suggests that these bacteria can directly reduce pathogen development within the mycorrhizosphere and they can strongly contribute to the biocontrol of soilborne diseases.


5. Unfavorable zone to pathogen development: the mycorrhizosphere

The mycorrhizosphere has been hypothesized to comprise of favorable surroundings for the growth and development of microorganisms which works antagonistic to soilborne pathogens proliferation. Undeniably, co-culture of the non-mycorrhizal species (e.g. Dianthus caryophyllus) with the mycorrhizal species (e.g. Tagetes patula) in the presence of AM fungi (e.g. Glomus intraradices) clearly reduces the disease caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. dianthi in the plant Dianthus caryophyllus. It occurs in a manner which differs in providing nutrition to plants and thus suggests a decline in the pathogen development within the mycorrhizosphere [82]. Moreover, a reduction in the number of infection loci in tomato roots (pre-colonized with Glomus mosseae and also inoculated with Phytophthora nicotianae zoospores) infers that the pathogen may be affected prior to root penetration in the mycorrhizosphere [83].

The mycorrhizosphere influenced by the rhizobacteria + AM fungus + root tripartite associations presents specific characteristics, in which individual factor influences the others’ growth and health. Remarkably in the presence of glycoproteins such as glomalin, AM fungi favor the formation of aggregates which provide stable microsites favorable to root and microbe establishment [84, 85]. The AM fungi extraradical network also constitutes specific microsites which favor the growth of some bacteria. Among different plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria, P-solubilizing and N-fixing bacteria has been reported for more efficient synergistic interaction with AM fungi. Increased P and N availability to the plants promotes its growth and probably favors its capacity to counteract pathogen impact [11, 86, 87, 88].

Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria can also display biocontrol properties and impact pathogen proliferation through direct liberation of toxic compounds or by competing for space and nutrients, reduction of Fe and Mn availability, modification of the plant hormone balance and stimulation of plant defense mechanisms [89, 90]. A synergistic or additive impact by dual inoculation of AM fungi with rhizobacteria in controlling pathogens reflects the dependence of biocontrol properties on the combinations of bacterial and fungal species used, nutritional status in soil and probably other environmental conditions [87].

Reduction in gall formation and nematode multiplication (which are usually responsible for causing root rot in chick pea) was significantly reported in the tomato plants when its roots were inoculated together with Glomus intraradices and bacteria Pseudomonas striata and Rhizobium sp. [91]. Similar positive reports have been recorded when dual inoculation of Glomus mosseae with Pseudomonas fluorescens was done [92]. Jaderlund et al. [93] reported the interactions of two plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria, namely, Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25 and Paenibacillus brasilensis PB177, with AM fungi Glomus mosseae and Glomus intraradices, respectively; he investigated it on winter wheat which was infested with Microdochium nivale and concluded that this interactions are species-specific between fungi and bacteria. From the above and several other studies, it is clear that microbial antagonist to pathogens, and fungi-plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria, do not exert any negative effect against AM fungi [87]. Thus, such mycorrhization helper bacteria (MHB) are important in promoting mycorrhizal development and may even increase AM fungi impact on pathogens.


6. Conclusion

The competence of AM fungi to control disease symptoms and the intraradical and rhizosphere proliferation of soilborne pathogens is multifaceted and influenced by different mechanisms possibly acting in a synergetic way with each other. Among these mechanisms, the capacity of extraradical network of AM fungi to stimulate beneficial microorganisms is possibly a strongly responsible factor involved. Different bacteria with high capacities of antagonistic activities against several soilborne pathogens have been reported within AM fungal extraradical structures and in the mycorrhizosphere of several AM fungi species. The AM fungi-mediated biocontrol activities can not solely be due to the AM fungus function but also related strongly to the capacity of the AM fungi to constitute an environment which favors the establishment of rhizobacteria with potential biocontrol abilities.



PKS, and MS thank the SERB, Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, for awarding Fast Track Young Scientist and for the financial assistance.


  1. 1. Rhodes LH, Gerdemann JW. Phosphate uptake zones of mycorrhizal and non-mycorrhizal onions. New Phytologist. 1975;75:555-561
  2. 2. Smith SE, Read DJ. Mycorrhizal Symbiosis. San Diego, London: Academic Press; 2008
  3. 3. Kabir Z, Ohalloran IP, Fyles JW, Hamel C. Seasonal changes of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi as affected by tillage practices and fertilization: Hyphal density and mycorrhizal root colonization. Plant and Soil. 1997;192:285-293
  4. 4. Olsson PA, Thingstrup I, Jakobsen I, Baath F. Estimation of the biomass of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in a linseed field. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 1999;31:1879-1887
  5. 5. Hiltner L. Uber neuereer Fahrungen und probleme auf demgebiet der bodenbakteruiligie und unterbes ondererberuck sichtiguang der grundungung und brache (in German). Arbeiten der Deutschen Landwirtschaftlichen Gesellschaft. 1904;98:59-78
  6. 6. Duineveld BM, Kowalchuk GA, Keijzer A, Veen JAV. Analysis of bacterial communities in the rhizosphere of Chrysanthemum via denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis of PCR-amplified 16S rRNA as well as DNA fragments coding for 16S rRNA. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2001;67:172-178
  7. 7. Kim JS, Dungan RS, Kwon SW, Weon HY. The community composition of root-associated bacteria of the tomato plant. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2006;22:1267-1273
  8. 8. Linderman RG. Mycorrhizal interactions with the rhizosphere microflora: The mycorrhizosphere effect. Phytopathology. 1988;78:366-371
  9. 9. Marschner P, Crowley DE, Lieberei R. Arbuscular mycorrhizal infection changes the bacterial 16S rDNA community composition in the rhizosphere of maize. Mycorrhiza. 2001;11:297-302
  10. 10. Marschner P, Timonen S. Interactions between plant species and mycorrhizal colonization on the bacterial community composition in the rhizosphere. Applied Soil Ecology. 2005;28:23-36
  11. 11. Lioussanne L, Beauregard MS, Hamel C, Jolicoeur M, St-Arnaud M. Interactions between arbuscular mycorrhiza and soil microorganisms. In: Khasa D, Piche Y, Coughlan A, editors. Advances in Mycorrhizal Biotechnology: A Canadian Perspective. Ottawa ON: NRC Press; 2009
  12. 12. Singh PK, Vyas D. Biocontrol of plant diseases and sustainable agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, India Section B. 2009;79(II):110-128
  13. 13. Lioussanne L. Roles des modifications de la microflore bacterienne et de lexudation racinaire de la tomatepar la symbiose mycorhizi ennedans le biocontrole sur le Phytophthora nicotianae. Doctoral thesis. University of Montreal, Montreal [In French]. 2007
  14. 14. Bharadwaj DP, Lundquist PO, Persson P, Alstrom S. Evidence for specificity of cultivable bacteria associated with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal spores (multitrophic interactions in the rhizosphere). FEMS Microbiology Ecology. 2008;65:310-322
  15. 15. Rillig MC, Lutgen ER, Ramsey PW, Klironomos JN, Gannon JE. Microbiota accompanying different arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal isolates influence soil aggregation. Pedobiologia. 2005;49:251-259
  16. 16. Xavier LJC, Germida JJ. Bacteria associated with Glomus clarum spores influence mycorrhizal activity. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2003;35:471-478
  17. 17. Roesti D, Ineichen K, Braissant O, Redecker D, Wiemken A, Aragno M. Bacteria associated with spores of the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi Glomus geosporum and Glomus constrictum. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2005;71:6673-6679
  18. 18. Bianciotto V, Bonfante P. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: A specialised niche for rhizospheric and endocellular bacteria. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 2002;81:365-371
  19. 19. Bonfante P. Plants, mycorrhizal fungi and endobacteria: A dialog among cells and genomes. Biology Bulletin. 2003;204:215-220
  20. 20. Jargeat P, Cosseau C, Olah B, Jauneau A, Bonfante P, Batut J, et al. Isolation, free-living capacities, and genome structure of Candidatusglomeribacter gigasporarum, the endocellular bacterium of the mycorrhizal fungus Gigaspora margarita. Journal of Bacteriology. 2004;186:6876-6884
  21. 21. Bianciotto V, Genre A, Jargeat P, Lumini E, Becard G, Bonfante P. Vertical transmission of endobacteria in the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Gigaspora margarita through generation of vegetative spores. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2004;70:3600-3608
  22. 22. Minerdi D, Fani R, Gallo R, Boarino A, Bonfante P. Nitrogen fixation genes in an endosymbiotic Burkholderia strain. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2001;67:725-732
  23. 23. St-Arnaud M, Hamel C, Vimard B, Caron M, Fortin JA. Altered growth of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. chrysanthemi in an in vitro dual culture system with the vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus glomus intraradices growing on Daucus carota transformed roots. Mycorrhiza. 1995;5:431-438
  24. 24. Lioussanne L, Jolicoeur M, St-Arnaud M. The effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, of root exudates from mycorrhizal plants and of the soilborne pathogen Phytophthora nicotianae on the bacterial community structure of tomato rhizosphere. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2009;42:473-483
  25. 25. Singh M, Srivastava DK, Singh PK. Synergistic effect of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici in intercropping with tomato. Indian Phytopathology (In Press). 2019
  26. 26. Gosling P, Hodge A, Goodlass G, Bending GD. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and organic farming. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2006;113:17-35
  27. 27. Gerdemann JW. Vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhiza and plant growth. Annual Review of Phytopathology. 1968;6:397-418
  28. 28. Gerdemann JW. Vesicular-Arbuscular Mycorrhiza. Academic Press; 1974
  29. 29. Whipps JM. Prospects and limitations for mycorrhizas in biocontrol of root pathogens. Canadian Journal of Botany. 2004;82:1198-1227
  30. 30. Carlsen SCK, Understrup A, Fomsgaard IS, Mortensen AG, Ravnskov S. Flavonoids in roots of white clover: Interaction of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and a pathogenic fungus. Plant and Soil. 2008;302:33-43
  31. 31. Harrier LA, Watson CA. The potential role of arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi in the bioprotection of plants against soil-borne pathogens in organic and/or other sustainable farming systems. Pest Management Science. 2004;60:149-157
  32. 32. Avis TJ, Gravel V, Antoun H, Tweddell RJ. Multifaceted beneficial effects of rhizosphere microorganisms on plant health and productivity. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2008;40:1733-1740
  33. 33. Vierheilig H, Steinkellner S, Khaosaad T, Garcia-Garrido GM. The biocontrol effect of mycorrhization on soilborne fungal pathogens and the auto regulation of AM symbiosis: One mechanism, two effects? In: Varma A, editor. Mycorrhiza: Genetics and Molecular Biology–Eco-Function–Biotechnology–Eco-Physiology–Structure and Systematic. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2008. pp. 307-320
  34. 34. Akhtar MS, Siddiqui MA. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi as potential bioprotectants against plant pathogens. In: Siddiqui ZA, Akhtar S, Futai K, editors. Mycorrhizae: Sustainable Agriculture and Forestry. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2009. pp. 61-98
  35. 35. Lioussanne L, Jolicoeur M, St-Arnaud M. Role of root exudates and rhizosphere microflora in the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi-mediated biocontrol of Phytophthora nicotianae in tomato. In: Varma A, Kharkwal AC, editors. Symbiotic Fungi: Principles and Practice. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2009. pp. 141-158
  36. 36. Khaosaad T, Garcia-Garrido JM, Steinkellner S, Vierheilig H. Take-all disease is systemically reduced in roots of mycorrhizal barley plants. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2007;39:727-734
  37. 37. Pozo MJ, Azcon-Aguilar C. Unravelling mycorrhiza-induced resistance. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 2007;10:393-398
  38. 38. Hause B, Maier W, Miersch O, Kramell R, Strack D. Induction of jasmonate biosynthesis in arbuscular mycorrhizal barley roots. Plant Physiology. 2002;130:1213-1220
  39. 39. Hause B, Mrosk C, Isayenkov S, Strack D. Jasmonates in arbuscular mycorrhizal interactions. Phytochemistry. 2007;68:101-110
  40. 40. Cordier C, Gianinazzi S, Gianinazzi-Pearson V. Colonisation patterns of root tissues by Phytophthora nicotianae var. Parasitica related to reduced disease in mycorrhizal tomato. Plant and Soil. 1996;185:223-232
  41. 41. Pozo MJ, Dumas-Gaudot E, Slezack S, Cordier C, Asselin A, Gianinazzi S, et al. Induction of new chitinase isoforms in tomato roots during interactions with Glomus mosseae and/or Phytophthora nicotianae var parasitica. Agronomie. 1996;16:689-697
  42. 42. Pozo MJ, Azcon-Aguilar C, Dumas-Gaudot E, Barea JM. Chitosanase and chitinase activities in tomato roots during interactions with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi or Phytophthora parasitica. Journal of Experimental Botany. 1998;49:1729-1739
  43. 43. Pozo MJ, Azcon-Aguilar C, Dumas-Gaudot E, Barea JM. Beta-1,3-glucanase activities in tomato roots inoculated with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and/or Phytophthora parasitica and their possible involvement in bioprotection. Plant Science. 1999;141:149-157
  44. 44. Pozo MJ, Cordier C, Dumas-Gaudot E, Gianinazzi S, Barea JM, Azcon-Aguilar C. Localized versus systemic effect of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on defence responses to Phytophthora infection in tomato plants. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2002;53:525-534
  45. 45. Liu JY, Maldonado-Mendoza I, Lopez-Meyer M, Cheung F, Town CD, Harrison MJ. Arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis is accompanied by local and systemic alterations in gene expression and an increase in disease resistance in the shoots. Plant Journal. 2007;50:529-544
  46. 46. Toussaint JP, Kraml M, Nell M, Smith SE, Smith FA, Steinkellner S, et al. Effect of Glomus mosseae on concentrations of rosmarinic and caffeic acids and essential oil compounds in basil inoculated with Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. basilici. Plant Pathology. 2008;57:1109-1116
  47. 47. Trotta A, Varese GC, Gnavi E, Fusconi A, Sampo S, Berta G. Interactions between the soilborne root pathogen Phytophthora nicotianae var. Parasitica and the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Glomus mosseae in tomato plants. Plant and Soil. 1996;185:199-209
  48. 48. Yao MK, Tweddell RJ, Desilets H. Effect of two vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on the growth of micropropagated potato plantlets and on the extent of disease caused by Rhizoctonia solani. Mycorrhiza. 2002;12:235-242
  49. 49. St-Arnaud M, Elsen A. Interaction of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi with soil-borne pathogens and nonpathogenic rhizosphere micro-organisms. In: Declerck S, Strullu SG, Fortin JA, editors. In vitro Culture of Mycorrhizas. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2005. pp. 217-231
  50. 50. Larsen J, Bodker L. Interactions between pea root-inhabiting fungi examined using signature fatty acids. New Phytologist. 2001;149:487-493
  51. 51. Davis RM, Menge JA. Influence of Glomus fasciculatus and soil phosphorus on Phytophthora root rot of citrus. Phytopathology. 1980;70:447-452
  52. 52. Baath E, Hayman DS. Plant growth responses to vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae XIV. Interactions with Verticillium wilt on tomato plants. New Phytologist. 1983;95:419-426
  53. 53. Krishna KR, Bagyaraj DJ. Interaction between Glomus fasciculatum and Sclerotium rolfsii in peanut. Canadian Journal of Botany. 1983;61:2349-2351
  54. 54. Singh PK, Singh M, Vyas D. Effect of root exudates of mycorrhizal tomato plants on microconidia germination of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici than root exudates from non-mycorrhizal tomato plants. Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection. 2010;43:1495-1503
  55. 55. Filion M, St-Arnaud M, Jabaji-Hare SH. Quantification of Fusarium solani f. sp. phaseoli in mycorrhizal bean plants and surrounding mycorrhizosphere soil using real-time polymerase chain reaction and direct isolations on selective media. Phytopathology. 2003;93:229-235
  56. 56. St-Arnaud M, Hamel C, Vimard B, Caron M, Fortin JA. Inhibition of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. dianthi in the non-VAM species Dianthus caryophyllus by co-culture with Tagetes patula companion plants colonized by Glomus intraradices. Canadian Journal of Botany. 1997;75:998-1005
  57. 57. Elsen A, Declerck S, Waele DD. Effects of Glomus intraradices on the reproduction of the burrowing nematode (Radopholus similis) in dixenic culture. Mycorrhiza. 2001;11:49-51
  58. 58. Elsen A, Declerck S, Waele DD. Use of root organ cultures to investigate the interaction between Glomus intraradices and Pratylenchus coffeae. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2003;69:4308-4311
  59. 59. Filion M, St-Arnaud M, Fortin JA. Direct interaction between the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Glomus intraradices and different rhizosphere microorganisms. New Phytologist. 1999;141:525-533
  60. 60. Norman JR, Hooker JE. Sporulation of Phytophthora fragariae shows greater stimulation by exudates of non-mycorrhizal than by mycorrhizal strawberry roots. Mycological Research. 2000;104:1069-1073
  61. 61. Lioussanne L, Jolicoeur M, St-Arnaud M. Mycorrhizal colonization with Glomus intraradices and development stage of transformed tomato roots significantly modify the chemotactic response of zoospores of the pathogen Phytophthora nicotianae. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2008;40:2217-2224
  62. 62. Scheffknecht S, Mammerler R, Steinkellner S, Vierheilig H. Root exudates of mycorrhizal tomato plants exhibit a different effect on microconidia germination of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici than root exudates from non-mycorrhizal tomato plants. Mycorrhiza. 2006;16:365-370
  63. 63. Lioussanne L, Jolicoeur M, St-Arnaud M. The growth of the soilborne pathogen Phytophthora nicotianae is reduced in tomato roots colonized with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi but unaffected by application of root exudates collected from corresponding mycorrhizal plants. Mycorrhiza. 2009;19:443-448
  64. 64. Toljander JF, Artursson V, Paul LR, Jansson JK, Finlay RD. Attachment of different soil bacteria to arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal extraradical hyphae is determined by hyphal vitality and fungal species. FEMS Microbiology Letters. 2006;254:34-40
  65. 65. Rudrappa T, Biedrzycki ML, Bais HP. Causes and consequences of plant-associated biofilms. FEMS Microbiology Ecology. 2008;64:153-166
  66. 66. Bianciotto V, Bandi C, Minerdi D, Sironi M, Tichy HV, Bonfante P. An obligately endosymbiotic mycorrhizal fungus itself harbors obligately intracellular bacteria. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1996;62:3005-3010
  67. 67. Bianciotto V, Andreotti S, Balestrini R, Bonfante P, Perotto S. Extracellular polysaccharides are involved in the attachment of Azospirillum brasilense and Rhizobium leguminosarum to arbuscular mycorrhizal structures. European Journal of Histochemistry. 2001;45:39-49
  68. 68. Levy A, Chang BJ, Abbott LK, Kuo J, Harnett G, Inglis TJJ. Invasion of spores of the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Gigaspora decipiens by Burkholderia spp. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2003;69:6250-6256
  69. 69. Roesti D, Ineichen K, Braissant O, Redecker D, Wiemken A, Aragno M. Bacteria associated with spores of the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi Glomus geosporum and Glomus constrictum. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2005;71:6673-6679
  70. 70. Sood SG. Chemotactic response of plant-growth promoting bacteria towards roots of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal tomato plants. FEMS Microbiology Ecology. 2003;45:219-227
  71. 71. Toljander JF, Lindahl BD, Paul LR, Elfstrand M, Finlay RD. Influence of arbuscular mycorrhizal mycelial exudates on soil bacterial growth and community structure. FEMS Microbiology Ecology. 2007;61:295-304
  72. 72. Vestergard M, Henry F, Rangel-Castro JI, Michelsen A, Prosser JI, Christensen S. Rhizosphere bacterial community composition responds to arbuscular mycorrhiza, but not to reductions in microbial activity induced by foliar cutting. FEMS Microbiology Ecology. 2008;64:78-89
  73. 73. Raiesi F, Ghollarata M. Interactions between phosphorus availability and an AM fungus (Glomus intraradices) and their effects on soil microbial respiration, biomass and enzyme activities in a calcareous soil. Pedobiologia. 2006;50:413-425
  74. 74. Ravnskov S, Nybroe O, Jakobsen I. Influence of an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus on Pseudomonas fluorescens DF57 in rhizosphere and hyphosphere soil. New Phytologist. 1999;142:113-122
  75. 75. Budi SW, van Tuinen D, Martinotti G, Gianinazzi S. Isolation from the Sorghum bicolour mycorrhizosphere of a bacterium compatible with arbuscular mycorrhiza development and antagonistic towards soilborne fungal pathogens. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1999;65:5148-5150
  76. 76. Budi SW, van Tuinen D, Arnould C, Dumas-Gaudot E, Gianinazzi-Pearson V, Gianinazzi S. Hydrolytic enzyme activity of Paenibacillus sp. strain B2 and effects of the antagonistic bacterium on cell integrity of two soil-borne pathogenic fungi. Applied Soil Ecology. 2000;15:191-199
  77. 77. Selim S, Negrel J, Govaerts C, Gianinazzi S, van Tuinen D. Isolation and partial characterization of antagonistic peptides produced by Paenibacillus sp. strain B2 isolated from the sorghum mycorrhizosphere. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2005;71:6501-6507
  78. 78. Mansfeld-Giese K, Larsen J, Bodker L. Bacterial populations associated with mycelium of the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Glomus intraradices. FEMS Microbiology Ecology. 2002;41:133-140
  79. 79. Li B, Ravnskov S,Xie G, Larsen J. Biocontrol of Pythium damping-off in cucumber by arbuscular mycorrhiza-associated bacteria from the genus Paenibacillus. BioControl. 2007;52:863-875
  80. 80. Lioussane L. Review. The role of the arbuscular mycorrhiza-associated rhizobacteria in the biocontrol of soilborne phytopathogens. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research. 2010;8(S1):S51-S61
  81. 81. Bharadwaj DP, Lundquist PO, Alstrom S. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal spore-associated bacteria affect mycorrhizal colonization, plant growth and potato pathogens. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2008;40:2494-2501
  82. 82. St-Arnaud M, Vujanovic V. Effect of the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis on plant diseases and pests. In: Hamel C, Plenchette C, editors. Arbuscular Mycorrhizae in Crop Production. NY: Haworth’s Food Products Press; 2007. pp. 67-122
  83. 83. Vigo C, Norman JR, Hooker JE. Biocontrol of the pathogen Phytophthora parasitica by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi is a consequence of effects on infection loci. Plant Pathology. 2000;49:509-514
  84. 84. Rillig MC, Mummey DL. Mycorrhizas and soil structure. New Phytologist. 2006;171:41-53
  85. 85. Singh PK, Singh M, Tripathi BN. Glomalin: an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal soil protein. Protoplasma. 2013;250:663-669
  86. 86. Johansson JF, Paul LR, Finlay RD. Microbial interactions in the mycorrhizosphere and their significance for sustainable agriculture. FEMS Microbiology Ecology. 2004;48:1-13
  87. 87. Barea JM, Pozo MJ, Azcon R, Azcon-Aguilar C. Microbial co-operation in the rhizosphere. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2005;6:1761-1778
  88. 88. Artursson V, Finlay RD, Jansson JK. Interactions between arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and bacteria and their potential for stimulating plant growth. Environmental Microbiology. 2006;8:1-10
  89. 89. Nehl DB, Allen SJ, Brown JF. Deleterious rhizosphere bacteria: An integrating perspective. Applied Soil Ecology. 1997;5:1-20
  90. 90. Bowen GD, Rovira AD. The rhizosphere and its management to improve plant growth. Advances in Agronomy. 1999;66:1-102
  91. 91. Akhtar MS, Siddiqui ZA. Biocontrol of a root rot disease complex of chickpea by Glomus intraradices, Rhizobium sp. and Pseudomonas striata. Crop Protection. 2008;27:410-417
  92. 92. Siddiqui ZA, Mahmood I. Effect of a plant growth promoting bacterium, an AM fungus and soil types on the morphometrics and reproduction of Meloidogyne javanica on tomato. Applied Soil Ecology. 1998;8:77-84
  93. 93. Jaderlund L, Arthurson V, Granhall U, Jansson JK. Specific interactions between arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and plant growth-promoting bacteria: as revealed by different combinations. FEMS Microbiology Letters. 2008;287:174-180

Written By

Meenakshi Singh, Manjari Mishra, Devendra Kumar Srivastava and Pradeep Kumar Singh

Submitted: June 12th, 2019 Reviewed: August 20th, 2019 Published: May 13th, 2020