Assessment of the Potential of Trichoderma spp. Strains Native to Bagua (Amazonas, Peru) in the Biocontrol of Frosty Pod Rot (Moniliophthora roreri)
by
, ,
Santos Leiva
1,*
,
Manuel Oliva
1, 
Elgar Hernández
1, 
Beimer Chuquibala
1,
Karol Rubio
1,*,
Flor García
2 and
Magdiel Torres de la Cruz
3 1
Instituto de Investigación para el Desarrollo Sustentable de Ceja de Selva, Universidad Nacional Toribio Rodríguez de Mendoza de Amazonas, Chachapoyas 01001, Peru
2
Facultad de Ingeniería y Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional Toribio Rodríguez de Mendoza de Amazonas, Chachapoyas 01001, Peru
3
División Académica de Ciencias Biológicas, Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco, Villahermosa 86039, Mexico
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2020, 10(9), 1376; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10091376
Submission received: 22 August 2020
/
Revised: 5 September 2020
/
Accepted: 10 September 2020
/
Published: 12 September 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biological Control of Plant Disease)
Abstract
:The use of native Trichoderma strains has been proposed as a sustainable alternative to control cocoa diseases. The aim of this study was to assess indigenous Trichoderma strains from Bagua Province, Peru, with reference to their antagonistic characteristics in vitro and their potential for in vitro biocontrol against frosty pod rot (FPR) disease. A total of 199 strains were assessed for in vitro mycoparasitism, antibiosis, and potential antagonism. The effect of four strains was evaluated in vitro using epidemiological variables, yield, and efficacy at two sites (Copallín and La Peca). Significant differences (p < 0.05) were reported for all variables evaluated in vitro and in vitro. Mycoparasitism ranged from 32% to 100%, antibiosis from 33.36% to 57.92%, and potential antagonism from 42.36% to 78.64%. All strains were found to affect the in vitro-assessed parameters in addition to enhancing the productive yield. The efficiency ranged from 38.99% to 71.9% in Copallín, and 45.88% to 51.16% in La Peca. The CP24-6 strain showed the highest potential for biocontrol under field conditions when considering its effect on both sites.
1. Introduction
In Peru, cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) is the second largest perennial crop with a total of 144,200 hectares. In the region of Amazonas, this crop is one of the most representative. The province of Bagua is one of the major areas for cultivation of native fine-flavor cocoa in the region and covers 2124 hectares [1]. In 2012, 56% of the national cocoa production was reported as common cocoa and 44% as fine-flavor cocoa [1]. In 2018, the cocoa cultivation area in Peru reached 199,000 hectares [2].
The amount of land area sown with cocoa has significantly grown due to the increased demand in Latin America due the quality and safety of the beans. However, cocoa production is constantly being threatened by fungal diseases which undermine the quantity and quality of crops.
One of the most important cocoa diseases is frosty pod rot (FPR), also known as moniliasis, caused by the fungus Moniliophthora roreri (Cif and Par (Evans et al.)) [3,4]. This phytopathogen infects only pods at any stage of development; however, young pods are more susceptible [5]. M. roreri infection results in induction of internal necrosis, premature ripening, and irregular brown or chocolate-colored spots; fungal mycelia (white stroma) growing on the brown spots have highly infective spore masses and cause significant losses in production, in some cases, more than 75% [3,6,7].
FPR has been controlled using various strategies, such as through cultural actions that have included the removal of mummified pods and the complete removal of pods during low production (purging), periodic removal of diseased pods (every seven days), timely harvesting, pruning to rehabilitate cacao trees, sucker removal, weed control, drainage management, shade regulation, and maintenance pruning [6,8,9,10,11,12]. Likewise, in chemical control, the use of rational application of fungicides has been recommended, where copper hydroxide, flutolanil, azoxystrobin, trifloxystrobin, tebuconazole, and propiconazole have demonstrated field efficiency against FPR [9,12,13]. In genetic control, the use of cocoa clones with resistance to M. roreri has been recommended; ICS-95 and CATIE R6, for instance, have been identified as resistant genotypes [14]. One frequently explored strategy involves the use of fungi with an antagonistic effect on M. roreri as biological control agents [15]. Several studies adopting this approach have reported the isolating several species of the genus Trichoderma that have demonstrated antagonism against M. roreri [16,17]. Generally, T. harzianum and T. virens isolates have shown high biocontrol potential against FPR [18,19,20].
According to Infante et al. [21], different biocontrol mechanisms are involved in the biocontrol activity of the diverse species and strains of Trichoderma, including competition for space and nutrients, mycoparasitism, and antibiosis. However, some studies report that among the various Trichoderma strains, there is variability in the expression of these biocontrol mechanisms, which necessitates in vitro and in vitro characterization to allow for the selection of isolates with greater potential for the control of phytopathogenic fungi [20,21].
With this in mind, the aim of this research was to characterize strains of Trichoderma native to Bagua Province, Amazonas, with respect to their in vitro antagonistic characteristics and potential for in vitro biocontrol of FPR.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Acquisition of Microorganisms
In the present study, 199 native Trichoderma spp. strains from Bagua Province were assessed. The native strains of Trichoderma spp. are part of a study of Trichoderma species diversity. These strains were obtained from soil collected in the rhizosphere of T. cacao grown in plantations of native fine-flavor cocoa from the districts of Aramango, Imaza, Copallín, and La Peca in the province of Bagua in the region of Amazonas, Peru (Table 1). The dilution method was used to obtain the strains [22]; and they then were submitted to determine the growth rate at 25 °C with a photoperiod of 12-h fluorescent light and 12-h darkness within 4 days. The presence of Trichoderma was noted by the existence of green conidia patches or cushions [23,24,25,26]. Cultures grown were taken to new petri dishes, thus obtaining monosporic culture [27]. They were finally identified morphologically using the codes of Chaverri et al. [28], Gams and Bissett [29], Kraus et al. [30], Park et al. [31], Samuels et al. [32], and Samuels et al. [33] (Appendix A).
Only a strain of Moniliophthora roreri was used for the in vitro experiments. This strain was isolated from native fine-flavor cocoa pods from La Peca District, Bagua Province.
Both strains of Trichoderma and Moniliophthora roreri are currently part of the fungi collection of the Laboratory of Plant Health Research (LABISANV) of the Research Institute for the Sustainable Development of Ceja de Selva (INDES-CES), National University Toribio Rodriguez of Mendoza.
2.2. In vitro Experiments
Mycoparasitism was evaluated using the pre-colonized petri dishes method according to Evans et al. [18]. For this purpose, a 5-mm diameter punching of 10-day-old M. roreri colonies was placed at the edge of a 90-mm diameter petri dish containing Potato Dextrose Agar (PDA) medium. These dishes were incubated for 25 days at 30 ± 1 °C in darkness. Once the fungus colonized the medium, a 2.5 × 0.5-cm punching of Trichoderma inoculum, obtained from the edge of a four-day-old colony, was placed at the side opposite to the M. roreri inoculum. These dishes were incubated for 15 days under the same conditions as for pre-colonization. After incubation, 10 samples of 5 mm diameter were extracted from the dish, initiating the cutting of the inoculum on the side where M. roreri was placed and in the direction of the Trichoderma inoculum. The punching was disinfected in each cut and the samples obtained were placed in petri dishes with PDA medium; five samples were sown per dish, in the order in which they were cut. The dishes with the samples were incubated at 30 ± 1 °C in the dark and evaluated for seven days before characterizing the growth of Trichoderma or M. roreri. The percentage of mycoparasitism was recorded using the following formula:
where:
PP = (TG × 100)/N
- PP = parasitism (%);
- TG = Trichoderma growth;
- N = number of samples taken from each replicate.
Likewise, antibiosis was evaluated using the paired culture method according to Holmes et al. [34]. For this experiment, a punching of 5 mm in diameter of 10-day-old M. roreri was taken from a petri dish and placed at the edge of a PDA petri dish. The inoculated plates were incubated and kept in the dark for 7 days at 30 ± 1 °C to allow the colony to establish. Subsequently, a punching 5 mm in diameter was extracted from a four-day-old Trichoderma colony and placed at the side opposite to M. roreri. The inoculated petri dishes were incubated at 30 ± 1 °C under dark conditions. Five repetitions per strain and five control petri dishes were established. The control sample 5 consisted of seven-day-old non-confronted M. roreri colonies. Radial growth of M. roreri was recorded daily until one of the Trichoderma strains had mycelial contact with M. roreri. The percentage of mycelial growth inhibition was calculated using Abbott’s formula [35]:
where:
PA = [(RG − RGT)/RG] × 100
- PA = antibiosis (%);
- RG = radial growth of non-confronted M. roreri (mm);
- RGT = radial growth of M. roreri-confronted Trichoderma (mm).
Parasitism and antibiosis percentage data were used to determine the potential antagonism following the formula used by Reyes–Figueroa et al. [20]:
where:
PA = (TM + TA)/2
- PA = potential antagonism;
- TM = Trichoderma mycoparasitism against M. roreri (%);
- TA = Trichoderma antibiosis against M. roreri (%).
2.3. Field Experiments
Two 25-year-old cocoa plantations were selected for evaluating the effect of Trichoderma strains against FPR under field conditions. These plantations are dominated by native “criollo” cacao germoplasm.
One cocoa farm was located in Lluhuana Village in the district of Copallín in Bagua Province, Amazonas Region, at 835 m.a.s.l. and UTM coordinates 787662/9370405. The second cocoa farm was located in La Tranquilla Village in the La Peca District of the same province as above, at 1060 m.a.s.l., and the UTM coordinates 786024/9377170. In each plantation, 15 experimental subplots (5 treatments with 3 repetitions each) were established, each consisting of 64 trees in a square of 8 × 8 trees. The treatments were applied to all of the trees in the plot, of which 16 central trees were evaluated in a square of 4 × 4 trees according to Bateman et al. [9]. The subplots were established in a random blocks design with three repetitions, including for the control group.
In each plot, maintenance pruning, weed control, and a “purge” that consisted of the total removal of residual pods of the previous productive cycle were carried out with the purpose of preparing the plot for the evaluation of Trichoderma. Subsequently, new pod populations of 8–12 cm were identified and labeled according to generation.
Based on the results of mycoparasitism, antibiosis, in vitro antagonism potential, high mass propagation capacity in solid substrate, and high conidium viability, CP10-3, CP53-2, CP24-6, and CP38-2 strains were therefore selected for further field trials.
The strains were multiplied in mass individually, and using rice as matrix and solid substrate [36], the concentration and viability of conidia were quantified; incubation took place at 25 °C ±2, at 12-h fluorescent light and 12-h darkness. Posterior, the biosolution was prepared by adding to the rice substrate, which contained the quantified conidia of Trichoderma, 100 mm of agricultural oil, to be subsequently dissolved in pure water at a pH of 6.5. Following a blank test per tree, conidia inoculum was applied at a dose of 1 × 109 conidia mL–1 using a 20-L “Jacto” brand spray at a rate of 0.2 L per cocoa tree. The spraying was done at intervals of 15 days throughout the production cycle (5 months), starting at the peak flowering stage [37]. The incidence of cocoa pods with RPF symptoms was quantified using the following formula:
where:
I = [DP/TP] × 100
- I: Incidence (%);
- DP: Number of damaged pods;
- TP: Total pods.
The severity of external damage to infected pods was measured and recorded as the percentage (0–100%) of pod surface covered by necrotic spots. Each infected pod was examined to determine the severity of the infection, and it was then reported as an average was per tree and per treatment.
Trichoderma strains’ effect was determined using two epidemiological variables, namely crop yield and treatment efficacy (E). The former was estimated in kg of dry cocoa beans; here we took into account the change in mass during processing (dry weight is 40% of the fresh weight of the equivalent material); as a result of this, kg of dry cocoa ha−1 year, for a density of about 833 plants ha−1 was obtained for each plot. On the other hand, efficiency of the treatment was calculated using the following formula [35]:
where:
E= ((FIWoT-FIWT)/FIWoT) × 100
- E = efficiency (%);
- FIWoT = % of final incidence without application of Trichoderma spp.;
- FIWT = % of final incidence with application of Trichoderma spp.
2.4. Statistical Analyses
Data on mycoparasitism, antibiosis, and potential antagonism were analyzed under a completely random design. Prior to analysis, mycoparasitism, antibiosis, and potential antagonism data were transformed to the arcsine square root of the ratio. The data were subjected to ANOVA with Infostat software. The mean separation test (Scott Knott, α = 0.05) was applied when the F test was significant for treatments.
In the same way, field experiment data were analyzed under a completely random blocks design. Prior to analysis, incidence, severity, and efficiency data were transformed to the arcsine square root of the ratio. The data were subjected to ANOVA with Infostat software. The mean separation test (Scott Knott, α = 0.05) was applied when the F test was significant for treatments.
The in vitro experiments had 199 treatments and the field experiments had four treatments plus a control treatment.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. In Vitro Mycoparasitism of Trichoderma spp. Against FPR
Trichoderma strains showed significant differences (p < 0.05) in parasitism against M. roreri, which ranged from 32% to 100% (Table 2). Fungi of the genus Trichoderma have strong parasitic activity, as shown by several studies that isolated species such as T. asperellum, T. harzianum, and T. virens [17,18,19]. However, this parasitic activity can be very variable even among strains of the same species, as reported by studies such as those of Reyes–Figueroa et al. [20] in Mexico and Bailey et al. [17]. Reyes–Figueroa et al. [20] found variability in parasitism of Trichoderma strains from the cocoa agroecosystem in Tabasco, Mexico, with values ranging from 0% to 100%, and they reported variability among strains of the same species. Bailey et al. [17], also using the method of pre-colonized plates, found differences in the parasitism of 15 strains of Trichoderma isolated from pods and stems of Theobroma species. All strains examined in the present study had some parasitism; however, it should be noted that 25 of them reached 100% parasitic activity according to the method used, which demonstrates the strong activity of the studied strains (Table 2).
3.2. In Vitro Antibiosis of Trichoderma spp. Against FPR
There were significant differences (p < 0.05) in the antibiosis of Trichoderma strains against M. roreri. All strains showed antibiosis values ranging from 33.36% to 57.92%. Strains CP7-1, CP24-6, CP23-1, CP35-1, and CP13-4 showed the highest antibiosis values, while strains CP27-1, CP24-8, and CP11-3 showed the lowest values (Table 3).
The highest values for antibiosis are similar to those reported by Reyes–Figueroa et al. [20] who found strains with 55.5% antibiosis; however, these authors reported strains with lower antibiosis levels than those found in this research. The antibiotic action of Trichoderma strains has also been reported for M. perniciosa, the causative agent of cocoa witches’ broom [17].
According to Sivasithamparam and K. Ghisalberti [38], Howell [39], and Vinale et al. [40], Trichoderma exerts an antibiosis mechanism through volatile and non-volatile metabolites such as 6 pentyl-α-pyrone, isonitrile, harzianolide, trichodermine atroviridina, alameticine, suzucacilline, glyovirine, heptelidic acid, viridine, azapylone, butenolide, viridiole, gliotoxin, 1-hydroxy-3-methylanthraquinone, 1,8-dihydroxy-3-methyl-anthraquinone, koninginine, trichoviridine, and harzianic acid.
3.3. In Vitro Potential Antagonism of Trichoderma spp. Against FPR
There were significant differences (p < 0.05) in the potential antagonism values for the Trichoderma strains against M. roreri (Table 3). The values for antagonism ranged between 42.36% and 78.643%. Strains CP24-6, CP10-3, CP42-4, and CP28-1 had the highest values while strains CP51-3, CP13-2, and CP7-4 had the lowest (Table 4).
Antibiosis and mycoparasitism are important antagonistic interactions when considering the selection of Trichoderma as a biological control agent [41]. Several studies have identified the antagonistic activity of Trichoderma fungi based on their antibiosis and parasitism; however, the use of both simultaneously as a source for assessing antagonistic potential was first presented by Reyes–Figueroa et al. [20]. In our research, we used their proposed formula and reported strains with higher potential antagonism than found in their report.
3.4. Field Responses of Trichoderma spp. Against FPR
Trichoderma strains demonstrated an effect on the epidemic intensity of FPR, affecting the final incidence and severity of damage. In the plot located in Copallín District, there were significant differences (p < 0.05) between treatments in terms of final incidence of cocoa FPR, damage severity, yield, and efficiency of strains (Table 5). The highest incidence was reported in the control treatment (15.2%); in addition, this treatment showed the lowest yield. The final incidence of each strain was variable; the lowest incidence was found in the plot treated with strain CP10-3, and the second lowest final incidence on the plot treated with the strain CP24-6, though these differences were not found to be significant. The lowest damage severity was presented in the plot treated with strain CP24-6, although no significant differences were reported with plots treated with other strains. Although there were no differences in yield between strains, the highest adjusted productive yield was found in the plot treated with CP24-6 followed by CP10-3. However, CP10-3 showed the highest control effectiveness with 71.9%, followed by CP24-6 (Table 5).
In the plot located in La Peca District, significant differences (p < 0.05) were found between treatments according to the four evaluated parameters (Table 5). In the same way as the Copallín plot, all Trichoderma strains affected the final incidence and damage severity parameters, thus showing a protective effect over cocoa pods during the production process. The control treatment presented the highest incidence (20.32%) and the lowest adjusted yield. In this site, strain CP53-2 showed the lowest final incidence of FPR, the highest efficiency, and the highest yield. As for Copallín, there were no differences between strains in La Peca with respect to yield. The CP10-3 strain did not show the same behavior shown in the Copallín plot; however, the CP24-6 strain showed the highest values in the evaluated parameters.
In this study, in vitro assessment made it possible to preselect promising strains for biological control. In vitro assessment demonstrated that the CP24-6 strain had the highest biocontrol potential under field conditions when considering its effect in both localities; this strain was also outstanding in parasitism, antibiosis, and potential antagonism under in vitro conditions, while the CP10-3 strain was the most effective only in Copallín. It is important to mention that the CP10-3 strain was isolated in the district of Imaza at 284 m.a.s.l. and evaluated at 835 m.a.s.l. in Copallín and 1060 m.a.s.l. in La Peca. On the other hand, CP24-6 was isolated in Copallín at 820 m.a.s.l. According to Krauss and Soberanis [37], native antagonistic fungi are better adapted to local conditions. In our study, the observed efficacy of Trichoderma spp. in field conditions is in agreement with this conclusion from Krauss and Soberanis [37] who evaluated mixtures of different strains of Trichoderma in the field. All of them showed efficiency, reducing FPR significantly and increasing production both in terms of the percentage of healthy pods and absolute production. On the other hand, Krauss et al. [42] evaluated Clonostachys byssicola, C. rosea, and Trichoderma spp. as biological control agents against FPR in field conditions. Although all treatments showed biocontrol efficacy, Trichoderma spp. was the most efficient and gave an increase in yield of 34% with respect to the control sample.
4. Conclusions
The native strains of Trichoderma spp., from the province of Bagua, Amazonas, demonstrated intraspecific variability in terms of mycoparasitism and antibiosis against FPR disease. As demonstrated using in vitro experiments, all assessed strains affected the parameters of the epidemic process in addition to improving the productive yield. The CP24-6 strain presented the greatest biocontrol potential under field conditions when considering its effect on evaluations at the two sites. In the cocoa agroecosystem of Bagua Province, fungi of the genus Trichoderma have antagonistic activity against FPR disease, supporting the concept that good sites for identifying antagonists are places close to the site of infection. In addition, the variability in the assessed characteristics of the strains confirms the importance of using both an in vitro and in vitro evaluation in selection. To summarize, the results reveal the potential of the native Trichoderma strains in the development of biological formulations for FPR control.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, S.L. and M.O.; methodology, S.L., M.O., and M.T.d.l.C.; formal analysis, K.R. and M.T.d.l.C.; investigation, E.H., B.C., S.L., and F.G.; data curation, K.R.; writing—original draft preparation, M.T.d.l.C. and K.R.; writing—review and editing, S.L., M.O., and F.G.; supervision, S.L.; project administration, S.L.; funding acquisition, S.L., M.O., and F.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by “National Institute of Agrarian Innovation of Peru”, grant number 004-2016-INIA-PNIA-UPMSI/IE” and “The APC was funded by SNIP project N° 352641-CEINCACAO”.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Figure A1.
15-day old Trichoderma colonies in potato dextrose agar (PDA) medium. (A) CP 10-3; (B) CP53-2; (C) CP24-6; (D) CP38-2.
Figure A1.
15-day old Trichoderma colonies in potato dextrose agar (PDA) medium. (A) CP 10-3; (B) CP53-2; (C) CP24-6; (D) CP38-2.
Figure A2.
Trichoderma spp. conidia observed under the microscope. (A) CP 10-3; (B) CP53-2; (C) CP24-6; (D) CP38-2.
Figure A2.
Trichoderma spp. conidia observed under the microscope. (A) CP 10-3; (B) CP53-2; (C) CP24-6; (D) CP38-2.
Figure A3.
In vitro antagonism tests for: (A) CP 10-3; (B) CP53-2; (C) CP24-6; (D) CP38-2. From left to right 3, 7, and 12-day-old cultures. In each dish, on the left FPR strain, and on the right Trichoderma strain.
Figure A3.
In vitro antagonism tests for: (A) CP 10-3; (B) CP53-2; (C) CP24-6; (D) CP38-2. From left to right 3, 7, and 12-day-old cultures. In each dish, on the left FPR strain, and on the right Trichoderma strain.
References
- INEI. IV Censo Nacional Agropecuario; Punto&Grafía: Lima, Peru, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Ministerio de Agricultura y Riego. Análisis de La Cadena Productiva Del Cacao, Con Enfoque En Los Pequeños Productores de Limitado Acceso Al Mercado; DGPA–DEEIA: Lima, Peru, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Phillips-Mora, W.; Ortiz, C.F.; Aime, M.C. Fifty years of Frosty Pod Rot in Central America: Chronology of its spread and impact from Panama to Mexico. In Proceedings of the 15th International Cocoa Research Conference, San Jose, Costa Rica, 9–14 October 2006; Volume I, pp. 1039–1047. [Google Scholar]
- Díaz-Valderrama, J.R.; Leiva-Espinoza, S.T.; Aime, C. The history of cacao and its diseases in the Americas. Phytopathology 2020, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Griffith, G.W.; Nicholson, J.; Nenninger, A.; Birch, R.N.; Hedger, J.N. Witches’ brooms and frosty pods: Two major pathogens of cacao. N. Z. J. Bot. 2003, 41, 423–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torres de la Cruz, M.; Ortiz García, C.F.; Téliz Ortiz, D.; Mora Aguilera, A.; Nava Díaz, C. Temporal progress and integrated management of frosty pod rot (Moniliophthora roreri) of cocoa in Tabasco, Mexico. J. Plant Pathol. 2011, 93, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Enríquez, G. Cacao Orgánico: Guía Para Los Productores Ecuatorianos; Instituto Nacional Autónomo de Investigaciones Agropecuarias: Quito, Ecuador, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Soberanis, W.; Ríos, R.; Arévalo, E.; Zúñiga, L.; Cabezas, O.; Krauss, U. Increased frequency of phytosanitary pod removal in cacao (Theobroma cacao) increases yield economically in eastern Peru. Crop Prot. 1999, 18, 677–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bateman, R.P.; Hidalgo, E.; García, J.; Arroyo, C.; Ten Hoopen, G.M.; Adonijah, V.; Krauss, U. Application of chemical and biological agents for the management of frosty pod rot (Moniliophthora roreri) in Costa Rican cocoa (Theobroma cacao). Ann. Appl. Biol. 2005, 147, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gidoin, C.; Avelino, J.; Deheuvels, O.; Cilas, C.; Bieng, M.A.N. Shade tree spatial structure and pod production explain frosty pod rot intensity in cacao agroforests, Costa Rica. Phytopathology 2014, 104, 275–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ortíz-García, C.F.; Torres-de la Cruz, M.; del Hernández-Mateo, S.C. Comparación de dos sistemas de manejo del cultivo del cacao, en presencia de Moniliophthora roreri, En México. Rev. Fitotec. Mex. 2015, 38, 191–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leandro-Muñoz, M.E.; Tixier, P.; Germon, A.; Rakotobe, V.; Phillips-Mora, W.; Maximova, S.; Avelino, J. Effects of microclimatic variables on the symptoms and signs onset of Moniliophthora roreri, causal agent of moniliophthora pod rot in cacao. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0184638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hidalgo, E.; Bateman, R.; Krauss, U.; Ten Hoopen, M.; Martínez, A. A Field investigation into delivery systems for agents to control Moniliophthora roreri. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2003, 109, 953–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillips-Mora, W.; Castillo, J.; Krauss, U.; Rodríguez, E.; Wilkinson, M.J. Evaluation of cacao (Theobroma cacao) clones against seven colombian isolates of Moniliophthora roreri from four pathogen genetic groups. Plant Pathol. 2005, 54, 483–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krauss, U.; Soberanis, W. Rehabilitation of diseased cacao fields in Peru through shade regulation and timing of biocontrol measures. Agrofor. Syst. 2001, 53, 179–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crozier, J.; Arroyo, C.; Morales, H.; Melnick, R.L.; Strem, M.D.; Vinyard, B.T.; Collins, R.; Holmes, K.A.; Bailey, B.A. The influence of formulation on Trichoderma biological activity and frosty pod rot management in Theobroma cacao. Plant Pathol. 2015, 64, 1385–1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bailey, B.A.; Bae, H.; Strem, M.D.; Crozier, J.; Thomas, S.E.; Samuels, G.J.; Vinyard, B.T.; Holmes, K.A. Antibiosis, mycoparasitism, and colonization success for endophytic Trichoderma isolates with biological control potential in Theobroma cacao. Biol. Control 2008, 46, 24–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evans, H.C.; Holmes, K.A.; Thomas, S.E. Endophytes and mycoparasites associated with an indigenous forest tree, Theobroma gileri, in ecuador and a preliminary assessment of their potential as biocontrol agents of cocoa diseases. Mycol. Prog. 2003, 2, 149–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krauss, U.; Martijn ten Hoopen, G.; Hidalgo, E.; Martínez, A.; Stirrup, T.; Arroyo, C.; García, J.; Palacios, M. The effect of cane molasses amendment on biocontrol of frosty pod rot (Moniliophthora roreri) and black pod (Phytophthora spp.) of cocoa (Theobroma cacao) in Panama. Biol. Control 2006, 39, 232–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reyes-Figueroa, O.; Ortiz-García, C.F.; De La Cruz, M.T.; Lagunes-Espinoza, L.D.C.; Valdovinos-Ponce, G. Especies de Trichoderma del agroecosistema cacao con potencial de biocontrol sobre Moniliophthora roreri. Rev. Chapingo Ser. Ciencias. y del Ambient. 2016, 22, 149–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Infante, D.; Martínez, B.; González, N.; Reyes, Y. Mecanismos de acción de Trichoderma frente a hongos fitopatógenos. Rev. Protección Veg. 2009, 24, 14–21. [Google Scholar]
- Nelson, P.E.; Toussoun, T.A.; Marasas, W.F.O. Fusarium Species: An Illustrated Manual for Identification; Pennsylvania State University Press: University Park, PA, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
- Rifai, M.A. A Revision of the genus Trichoderma. Mycol. Pap. 1969, 116, 1–56. [Google Scholar]
- Samuels, G.J. Trichoderma: Systematics, the sexual state, and ecology. Phytopathology 2006, 96, 195–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schuster, A.; Schmoll, M. Biology and biotechnology of Trichoderma. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2010, 87, 787–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Torres-De La Cruz, M.; Ortiz-García, C.F.; Bautista-Muñoz, C.; Ramírez-Pool, J.A.; Ávalos-Contreras, N.; Cappello-García, S.; De La Cruz-Pérez, A. Diversidad de Trichoderma en el agroecosistema cacao del estado de Tabasco, México. Rev. Mex. Biodivers. 2015, 86, 947–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Estrada, V.; Vélez, A.; López, J. Estandarización de una metodología para obtener cultivos monospóricos del hongo Beauveria bassiana. Cenicafé 1997, 48, 59–65. [Google Scholar]
- Chaverri, P.; Castlebury, L.A.; Overton, B.E.; Samuels, G.J. Hypocrea/Trichoderma: Species with conidiophores elongations and green conidia. Mycologia 2003, 95, 1100–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gams, W.; Bissett, J. Morphology and Identification of Trichoderma. In Trichoderma and Gliocladium; Kubicek, C.P., Hamman, G.F., Eds.; Taylor and Francis: London, UK, 2002; pp. 3–34. [Google Scholar]
- Kraus, G.F.; Druzhinina, I.; Gams, W.; Bissett, J.; Zafari, D.; Szakacs, G.; Koptchinski, A.; Prillinger, H.; Zare, R.; Kubicek, C.P. Trichoderma brevicompactum Sp. Nov. Mycologia 2004, 96, 1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Park, M.S.; Bae, K.S.; Yu, S.H. Two new species of Trichoderma associated with green mold of oyster mushroom cultivation in Korea. Mycobiology 2006, 34, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Samuels, G.J.; Dodd, S.L.; Lu, B.; Petrini, O.; Schroers, H.; Druzhinina, I.S. The Trichoderma koningii aggregate species. Stud. Mycol. 2006, 56, 67–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Samuels, G.J.; Lieckfeldt, E.; Nirenberg, H.I. Trichoderma asperellum, a new species with waited conidia, and redescription of T. viride. Sydowia 1999, 51, 71–88. [Google Scholar]
- Holmes, K.A.; Schroers, H.; Thomas, S.E.; Evans, H.C.; Samuels, J. Taxonomy and biocontrol potential of a new species of Trichoderma from the Amazon Basin of South America. Mycol. Prog. 2004, 3, 199–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbott, W.S. A Method of Computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. J. Econ. Entomol. 1925, 18, 265–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hebbar, K.P.; Lumsden, R.D. Formulation and Fermentation of Biocontrol Agents of Cocoa Fungal Pathogens: Example of Trichoderma Species. In Research Methodology in Biocontrol of Plant Diseases with Special Reference to Fungal Diseases of Cocoa; Krauss, U., Hebbar, P., Eds.; CATIE: Turrialba, Costa Rica, 1999; pp. 63–68. [Google Scholar]
- Krauss, U.; Soberanis, W. Effect of fertilization and biocontrol application frequency on cocoa pod diseases. Biol. Control 2002, 24, 82–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sivasithamparam, K.; Ghisalberti, L. Secondary metabolism in Trichoderma and Gliocladium. In Trichoderma and Gliocladium; Harman, G.E., Kubicek, C.P., Eds.; Taylor and Francis Group: London, UK, 1998; pp. 139–191. [Google Scholar]
- Howell, C.R. Mechanisms employed by Trichoderma species in the biological control of plant diseases: The History and evolution of current concepts. Plant Dis. 2003, 87, 4–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Vinale, F.; Marra, R.; Scala, F.; Ghisalberti, E.L.; Lorito, M.; Sivasithamparam, K. Major secondary metabolites produced by two commercial Trichoderma strains active against different phytopathogens. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2006, 43, 143–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Monte, E. Understanding Trichoderma: Between biotechnology and microbial ecology. Int. Microbiol. 2001, 4, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krauss, U.; Hoopen, M.; Hidalgo, E.; Martínez, A.; Arroyo, C.; García, J.; Portuguez, A.; Sánchez, V. Manejo integrado de la moniliasis (Moniliophthora roreri) del cacao (Theobroma cacao) en Talamanca, Costa Rica. Agrofor. Am. 2003, 10, 52–58. [Google Scholar]
Table 1.
Native Trichoderma spp. strains from soils of the province of Bagua, evaluated in vitro against Moniliophthora roreri, the causal agent of frosty pod rot in Peru.
Table 1.
Native Trichoderma spp. strains from soils of the province of Bagua, evaluated in vitro against Moniliophthora roreri, the causal agent of frosty pod rot in Peru.
| District | UTM Coordinates | Altitude (m.a.s.l.) | Strains |
|---|---|---|---|
| Copallín | 787460/ 9371158 | 894 | CP19-1; CP19-2; CP19-3 |
| 787010/ 9371871 | 931 | CP20-1; CP20-2; CP20-3 | |
| 786828/ 9373275 | 873 | CP22-1; CP22-2; CP22-3 | |
| 786287/ 9373896 | 962 | CP23-1; CP23-2; CP23-3; CP23-4; CP23-5 | |
| 786771/ 9371113 | 820 | CP24-1; CP24-2; CP24-3; CP24-4; CP24-5; CP24-6; CP24-7; CP24-8 | |
| 787395/ 9369923 | 785 | CP43-1; CP43-2; CP43-3; CP43-4; CP43-5 | |
| 787524/ 9369984 | 801 | CP44-1 | |
| 787575/ 9370291 | 825 | CP46-1 | |
| 787663/ 9370405 | 835 | CP49-1; CP49-2 | |
| 787574/ 9370503 | 846 | CP50-1 | |
| 787682/ 9370679 | 850 | CP51-1; CP51-2; CP51-3 | |
| 787695/ 9370824 | 855 | CP52-1; CP52-2 | |
| 787375/ 9371358 | 905 | CP53-1; CP53-2; CP53-3 | |
| 787315/ 9371220 | 898 | CP54-1 | |
| 787414/ 9371086 | 890 | CP55-1; CP55-2; CP55-3; CP55-4 | |
| 787465/ 9371110 | 894 | CP56-1 | |
| 787440/ 9371333 | 913 | CP57-1; CP57-2; CP57-3; CP57-4 | |
| 787398/ 9371399 | 915 | CP59-1; CP59-2 | |
| La Peca | 781248/ 9377461 | 657 | CP14-1; CP14-2; CP14-3; CP14-4; CP14-5; CP14-6; CP14-7 |
| 782400/ 9382298 | 1001 | CP39-1; CP39-2; CP39-3; CP39-4 | |
| 781206/ 9377452 | 647 | CP15-1; CP15-2 | |
| 785913/ 9373121 | 1063 | CP16-1; CP16-2; CP16-3; CP16-4; CP16-5; CP16-6; CP16-7; CP16-8; CP16-9; CP16-10; CP16-11; CP16-12; CP16-13; CP16-14 | |
| 783389/9380375 | 887 | CP17-1; CP17-2; CP17-3; CP17-4; CP17-5; CP17-6; CP17-7 | |
| 782893/ 9380404 | 897 | CP18-1; CP18-2; CP18-3 | |
| 787237/ 9376536 | 1111 | CP25-1 | |
| 786802/ 9377593 | 1137 | CP27-1 | |
| 785718/ 9377204 | 1026 | CP28-1; CP28-2; CP28-3; CP28-4; CP28-5 | |
| La Peca | 785213/ 9377128 | 1011 | CP29-1; CP29-2; CP29-3 |
| 785501/ 9377143 | 1033 | CP30-1 | |
| 782448/ 9377142 | 737 | CP32-1; CP32-2; CP32-3 | |
| 782412/ 9377183 | 731 | CP33-1; CP33-2; CP33-3 | |
| 782353/ 9377313 | 714 | CP34-1; CP34-2; CP34-3; CP34-4 | |
| 782410/ 9377234 | 724 | CP35-1; CP35-2; CP35-3 | |
| 783488/ 9377494 | 764 | CP36-1; CP36-2; CP36-3 | |
| 783926/ 9380799 | 958 | CP37-1; CP37-2 | |
| 783122/ 9381573 | 981 | CP38-1; CP38-2 | |
| 786176/ 9378005 | 1011 | CP42-1; CP42-2; CP42-3; CP42-4; CP42-5 | |
| Aramango | 783111/ 9399062 | 515 | CP1-1; CP1-2; CP1-3; CP1-4; CP1-5; CP1-6 |
| 786053/ 9398435 | 874 | CP61-1; CP61-2; CP61-3; CP61-4 | |
| 786017/ 9398414 | 891 | CP62-1; CP62-2 | |
| 786355/ 9398229 | 949 | CP63-1; CP63-2 | |
| 785646/ 9398424 | 859 | CP64-1 | |
| Imaza | 794828/ 9437021 | 315 | CP4-1; CP4-2; CP4-3; CP4-4; CP4-5 |
| 793717/ 9421156 | 341 | CP6-1; CP6-2; CP6-3; CP6-4; CP6-5; CP6-6; CP6-7 | |
| 800851/ 9427309 | 284 | CP7-1; CP7-2; CP7-3; CP7-4; CP7-5; CP7-6; CP7-7 | |
| 801104/ 9427855 | 286 | CP9-1; CP9-2; CP9-5 | |
| 800750/ 9427725 | 279 | CP8-1; CP8-2; CP8-3; CP8-4 | |
| 800999/ 9427257 | 284 | CP10-1; CP10-2; CP10-3; CP10-4; CP10-5; CP10-6 | |
| 794520/ 9422160 | 320 | CP11-1; CP11-2; CP11-3; CP11-4; CP11-5; CP11-6; CP11-7; CP11-8; CP11-9 | |
| 800705/ 9427717 | 278 | CP12-1; CP12-2; CP12-3; CP12-4; CP12-5 | |
| 801103/ 9427282 | 286 | CP13-1; CP13-2; CP13-3; CP13-4; CP13-5; CP13-6 | |
| 800945/ 9427291 | 285 | CP31-1; CP31-2; CP31-3; CP31-4; CP31-5 | |
| 794808/ 9436976 | 314 | CP5-1; CP5-2 |
Table 2.
Mycoparasitism of 199 native strains of Trichoderma from Bagua Province, Amazonas, Peru, evaluated over Moniliophthora roreri (± = standard error; average with the same letters are not statistically different (Scott Knott, α = 0.05)).
Table 2.
Mycoparasitism of 199 native strains of Trichoderma from Bagua Province, Amazonas, Peru, evaluated over Moniliophthora roreri (± = standard error; average with the same letters are not statistically different (Scott Knott, α = 0.05)).
| Strain | Mycoparasitism | Strain | Mycoparasitism | Strain | Mycoparasitism | Strain | Mycoparasitism |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CP18-2 | 100 ± 0a | CP32-2 | 92 ± 4.9a | CP14-4 | 84 ± 9.8b | CP7-5 | 80 ± 6.32b |
| CP18-3 | 100 ± 0a | CP31-1 | 92 ± 8a | CP20-3 | 84 ± 7.48b | CP7-3 | 80 ± 11b |
| CP24-6 | 100 ± 0a | CP19-3 | 92 ± 8a | CP14-7 | 84 ± 7.48b | CP7-6 | 80 ± 8.94b |
| CP25-1 | 100 ± 0a | CP36-1 | 92 ± 4.9a | CP23-4 | 84 ± 7.48b | CP57-3 | 80 ± 11b |
| CP17-7 | 100 ± 0a | CP35-2 | 92 ± 4.9a | CP23-3 | 84 ± 7.48b | CP57-2 | 80 ± 8.94b |
| CP17-1 | 100 ± 0a | CP34-3 | 92 ± 4.9a | CP23-2 | 84 ± 7.48b | CP22-2 | 80 ± 6.32b |
| CP17-2 | 100 ± 0a | CP34-2 | 92 ± 4.9a | CP16-8 | 84 ± 7.48b | CP64-1 | 80 ± 11b |
| CP17-4 | 100 ± 0a | CP12-5 | 92 ± 4.9a | CP16-7 | 84 ± 7.48b | CP8-3 | 80 ± 8.94b |
| CP17-5 | 100 ± 0a | CP16-3 | 92 ± 8a | CP16-6 | 84 ± 7.48b | CP19-1 | 80 ± 12.6b |
| CP28-1 | 100 ± 0a | CP61-3 | 92 ± 4.9a | CP20-1 | 84 ± 11.7b | CP7-1 | 80 ± 8.94b |
| CP37-2 | 100 ± 0a | CP1-4 | 92 ± 3.74a | CP19-2 | 84 ± 4b | CP6-7 | 80 ± 8.94b |
| CP42-4 | 100 ± 0a | CP1-6 | 92 ± 4.9a | CP12-2 | 84 ± 7.48b | CP52-2 | 80 ± 12.6b |
| CP43-3 | 100 ± 0a | CP4-1 | 92 ± 4.9a | CP13-5 | 84 ± 4b | CP23-1 | 80 ± 8.94b |
| CP53-2 | 100 ± 0a | CP61-4 | 92 ± 4.9a | CP11-3 | 84 ± 11.2b | CP57-4 | 76 ± 9.8b |
| CP33-2 | 100 ± 0a | CP62-2 | 92 ± 4.9a | CP13-6 | 84 ± 4b | CP8-2 | 76 ± 7.48b |
| CP28-3 | 100 ± 0a | CP12-4 | 92 ± 4.9a | CP13-4 | 84 ± 7.48b | CP11-5 | 76 ± 9.8b |
| CP28-5 | 100 ± 0a | CP42-3 | 92 ± 4.9a | CP1-1 | 84 ± 9.8b | CP11-4 | 76 ± 7.48b |
| CP29-1 | 100 ± 0a | CP24-7 | 88 ± 7.35a | CP12-3 | 84 ± 7.48b | CP11-2 | 76 ± 11.7b |
| CP32-1 | 100 ± 0a | CP8-4 | 88 ± 8a | CP24-8 | 84 ± 9.8b | CP63-1 | 76 ± 11.7b |
| CP13-1 | 100 ± 0a | CP14-6 | 88 ± 8a | CP24-3 | 84 ± 7.48b | CP6-2 | 76 ± 11.7b |
| CP10-4 | 100 ± 0a | CP24-5 | 88 ± 8a | CP24-2 | 84 ± 9.8b | CP31-2 | 76 ± 7.48b |
| CP16-5 | 100 ± 0a | CP5-2 | 88 ± 4.9a | CP6-4 | 84 ± 7.48b | CP31-3 | 76 ± 7.48b |
| CP10-3 | 100 ± 0a | CP1-3 | 88 ± 8a | CP4-4 | 84 ± 7.48b | CP1-5 | 76 ± 9.8b |
| CP16-14 | 100 ± 0a | CP6-1 | 88 ± 8a | CP55-3 | 84 ± 7.48b | CP31-4 | 76 ± 7.48b |
| CP14-5 | 100 ± 0a | CP31-5 | 88 ± 8a | CP52-1 | 84 ± 4b | CP49-2 | 76 ± 7.48b |
| CP27-1 | 98 ± 2a | CP9-1 | 88 ± 4.9a | CP7-2 | 84 ± 7.48b | CP59-2 | 76 ± 9.8b |
| CP33-3 | 96 ± 4a | CP57-1 | 88 ± 8a | CP38-2 | 82 ± 11.1b | CP55-4 | 76 ± 7.48b |
| CP32-3 | 96 ± 4a | CP59-1 | 88 ± 8a | CP16-2 | 80 ± 8.94b | CP56-1 | 76 ± 11.7b |
| CP38-1 | 96 ± 4a | CP61-1 | 88 ± 5.83a | CP13-3 | 80 ± 8.94b | CP55-1 | 76 ± 7.48b |
| CP36-2 | 96 ± 4a | CP24-1 | 88 ± 8a | CP43-5 | 80 ± 8.94b | CP24-4 | 72 ± 10.2b |
| CP16-13 | 96 ± 4a | CP42-1 | 88 ± 12a | CP16-1 | 80 ± 6.32b | CP11-8 | 72 ± 12b |
| CP16-11 | 96 ± 4a | CP37-1 | 88 ± 8a | CP5-1 | 80 ± 8.94b | CP51-2 | 72 ± 10.2b |
| CP22-1 | 96 ± 4a | CP39-4 | 88 ± 8a | CP10-1 | 80 ± 11b | CP53-3 | 72 ± 8b |
| CP11-7 | 96 ± 4a | CP16-10 | 88 ± 8a | CP53-1 | 80 ± 8.94b | CP62-1 | 72 ± 10.2b |
| CP29-2 | 96 ± 4a | CP11-6 | 88 ± 4.9a | CP46-1 | 80 ± 8.94b | CP6-5 | 72 ± 10.2b |
| CP28-4 | 96 ± 4a | CP17-6 | 88 ± 8a | CP15-1 | 80 ± 8.94b | CP6-3 | 68 ± 8b |
| CP17-3 | 96 ± 4a | CP16-12 | 88 ± 8a | CP50-1 | 80 ± 12.6b | CP8-1 | 68 ± 13.6b |
| CP12-1 | 96 ± 4a | CP6-6 | 88 ± 4.9a | CP42-2 | 80 ± 11b | CP23-5 | 68 ± 8b |
| CP30-1 | 96 ± 4a | CP35-1 | 88 ± 4.9a | CP4-2 | 80 ± 8.94b | CP63-2 | 68 ± 4.9b |
| CP29-3 | 96 ± 4a | CP34-4 | 88 ± 8a | CP1-2 | 80 ± 6.32b | CP43-1 | 68 ± 12b |
| CP14-3 | 96 ± 4a | CP35-3 | 88 ± 8a | CP39-3 | 80 ± 11b | CP51-1 | 68 ± 10.2b |
| CP16-9 | 96 ± 4a | CP4-5 | 88 ± 8a | CP11-9 | 80 ± 6.32b | CP20-2 | 64 ± 11.7b |
| CP28-2 | 96 ± 4a | CP22-3 | 88 ± 8a | CP43-2 | 80 ± 6.32b | CP43-4 | 64 ± 11.7b |
| CP9-5 | 92 ± 4.9a | CP15-2 | 86 ± 6.78a | CP16-4 | 80 ± 8.94b | CP49-1 | 64 ± 13.3b |
| CP9-2 | 92 ± 4.9a | CP4-3 | 84 ± 4b | CP42-5 | 80 ± 11b | CP11-1 | 56 ± 4c |
| CP39-2 | 92 ± 4.9a | CP36-3 | 84 ± 7.48b | CP14-1 | 80 ± 8.94b | CP44-1 | 48 ± 15c |
| CP18-1 | 92 ± 8a | CP61-2 | 84 ± 7.48b | CP55-2 | 80 ± 6.32b | CP51-3 | 44 ± 7.48c |
| CP34-1 | 92 ± 4.9a | CP10-2 | 84 ± 11.7b | CP54-1 | 80 ± 11b | CP13-2 | 36 ± 11.7c |
| CP10-5 | 92 ± 4.9a | CP39-1 | 84 ± 11.7b | CP14-2 | 80 ± 6.32b | CP7-4 | 32 ± 13.6c |
| CP33-1 | 92 ± 4.9a | CP10-6 | 84 ± 11.7b | CP7-7 | 80 ± 11b |
Table 3.
Antibiosis of 199 native strains of Trichoderma from Bagua Province, Amazonas, Peru, evaluated over Moniliophthora roreri (± = standard error; average with the same letters are not statistically different (Scott Knott, α = 0.05)).
Table 3.
Antibiosis of 199 native strains of Trichoderma from Bagua Province, Amazonas, Peru, evaluated over Moniliophthora roreri (± = standard error; average with the same letters are not statistically different (Scott Knott, α = 0.05)).
| Strain | Antibiosis | Strain | Antibiosis | Strain | Antibiosis | Strain | Antibiosis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CP7-1 | 57.92 ± 4.43a | CP15-2 | 52.91 ± 1.57 ª | CP35-3 | 51.367 ± 0.327a | CP50-1 | 48.47 ± 2.37 ª |
| CP24-6 | 57.27 ± 1.47a | CP16-5 | 52.907 ± 0.341 ª | CP31-2 | 51.32 ± 2.56a | CP62-1 | 48.44 ± 3.44 ª |
| CP23-1 | 56.69 ± 4.99a | CP8-3 | 52.88 ± 2.12 ª | CP33-3 | 51.25 ± 1.3a | CP9-2 | 48.34 ± 1.82 ª |
| CP35-1 | 56.12 ± 2.38a | CP39-4 | 52.87 ± 1.43 ª | CP59-1 | 51.2 ± 2.53a | CP53-3 | 48.33 ± 2.14 ª |
| CP13-4 | 56.03 ± 3.28a | CP16-2 | 52.77 ± 1.77 ª | CP16-11 | 51.166 ± 0.7a | CP55-3 | 48.31 ± 1.21 ª |
| CP38-2 | 55.843 ± 0.522a | CP35-2 | 52.76 ± 2.58 ª | CP6-2 | 51.087 ± 0.418a | CP4-1 | 48.2 ± 1.66 ª |
| CP11-4 | 55.77 ± 1.55a | CP7-5 | 52.75 ± 1.62 ª | CP7-6 | 51.07 ± 1.85a | CP17-1 | 48.17 ± 1.74 ª |
| CP14-7 | 55.765 ± 0.49a | CP7-4 | 52.71 ± 1.67a | CP28-4 | 51.02 ± 1.12a | CP53-1 | 48.12 ± 1.97 ª |
| CP10-6 | 55.46 ± 2.74a | CP17-3 | 52.66 ± 1.06a | CP13-2 | 50.886 ± 0.594a | CP10-1 | 47.934 ± 0.909a |
| CP10-3 | 55.361 ± 0.684a | CP1-6 | 52.6 ± 1.29a | CP11-9 | 50.885 ± 0.879a | CP62-2 | 47.71 ± 2.46 ª |
| CP24-7 | 55.182 ± 0.249a | CP6-3 | 52.584 ± 0.551a | CP14-3 | 50.88 ± 1.99a | CP56-1 | 47.59 ± 1.8 ª |
| CP36-3 | 54.94 ± 3.08a | CP8-2 | 52.58 ± 1.67a | CP22-2 | 50.86 ± 1.73a | CP31-3 | 47.39 ± 2.05 ª |
| CP61-1 | 54.836 ± 0.551a | CP39-1 | 52.477 ± 0.995a | CP34-3 | 50.81 ± 3.33a | CP1-2 | 46.92 ± 8.09b |
| CP16-7 | 54.8 ± 1.18a | CP38-1 | 52.43 ± 1.25a | CP5-2 | 50.81 ± 1.27a | CP20-2 | 46.85 ± 2.56b |
| CP42-2 | 54.76 ± 1.89a | CP4-3 | 52.423 ± 0.383a | CP32-3 | 50.727 ± 0.828a | CP55-1 | 46.74 ± 2.64b |
| CP31-4 | 54.68 ± 2.29a | CP16-10 | 52.39 ± 1.47a | CP6-1 | 50.697 ± 0.473a | CP57-2 | 46.25 ± 1.62b |
| CP19-1 | 54.43 ± 1.26a | CP16-1 | 52.364 ± 0.914a | CP8-4 | 50.67 ± 2.22a | CP23-3 | 46.12 ± 3.44b |
| CP61-3 | 54.28 ± 1.51a | CP24-3 | 52.35 ± 1.42a | CP29-1 | 50.62 ± 2.12a | CP1-3 | 45.95 ± 3.73b |
| CP15-1 | 54.173 ± 0.567a | CP6-5 | 52.26 ± 1.25a | CP18-3 | 50.599 ± 0.598a | CP52-2 | 45.91 ± 2.83b |
| CP43-4 | 54.15 ± 1.58a | CP37-2 | 52.26 ± 1.44a | CP12-1 | 50.49 ± 1.36a | CP51-1 | 45.63 ± 2.14b |
| CP61-2 | 54.14 ± 1.4a | CP17-4 | 52.222 ± 0.803a | CP63-1 | 50.48 ± 2.25a | CP52-1 | 45.46 ± 1.22b |
| CP64-1 | 54.122 ± 0.831a | CP5-1 | 52.221 ± 0.886a | CP9-1 | 50.3 ± 1.26a | CP51-3 | 45.3 ± 1.65b |
| CP42-4 | 54.03 ± 2.42a | CP13-3 | 52.22 ± 1.82a | CP33-1 | 50.208 ± 0.898a | CP55-2 | 45.18 ± 1.69b |
| CP42-1 | 54.01 ± 2.5a | CP16-4 | 52.22 ± 1a | CP29-3 | 50.201 ± 0.861a | CP43-5 | 45.09 ± 2.95b |
| CP11-7 | 53.99 ± 1.18a | CP30-1 | 52.197 ± 0.682a | CP34-2 | 50.15 ± 0.925a | CP23-2 | 44.92 ± 2.91b |
| CP36-2 | 53.98 ± 1.03a | CP18-1 | 52.191 ± 0.933a | CP43-3 | 50.04 ± 6.41a | CP20-3 | 44.7 ± 3.47b |
| CP51-2 | 53.96 ± 1.13a | CP37-1 | 52.15 ± 2.04a | CP16-14 | 50.02 ± 1.05a | CP4-2 | 44.47 ± 2.22b |
| CP16-3 | 53.886 ± 0.825a | CP29-2 | 52.144 ± 0.917a | CP11-5 | 49.983 ± 0.636a | CP22-1 | 44.2 ± 3.4b |
| CP42-3 | 53.88 ± 2.2a | CP10-2 | 52.13 ± 3.86a | CP46-1 | 49.98 ± 4.72a | CP59-2 | 43.82 ± 1.92b |
| CP39-3 | 53.78 ± 2.2a | CP31-5 | 52.12 ± 1.02a | CP49-2 | 49.97 ± 2.9a | CP43-2 | 43.33 ± 2.3b |
| CP11-2 | 53.65 ± 1.54a | CP11-6 | 52.083 ± 0.768a | CP6-6 | 49.9 ± 1.31a | CP1-4 | 43.035 ± 0.929b |
| CP16-13 | 53.593 ± 0.595a | CP10-5 | 52.051 ± 0.913a | CP19-3 | 49.821 ± 0.736a | CP57-4 | 42.96 ± 2.56b |
| CP28-1 | 53.59 ± 1.95a | CP34-1 | 52.03 ± 1.14a | CP13-6 | 49.82 ± 1.88a | CP22-3 | 42.89 ± 1.17b |
| CP16-6 | 53.59 ± 1.92a | CP33-2 | 52.008 ± 0.622a | CP25-1 | 49.733 ± 0.668a | CP23-4 | 42.6 ± 2.51b |
| CP36-1 | 53.57 ± 2.03a | CP32-2 | 51.961 ± 0.704a | CP28-5 | 49.669 ± 0.902a | CP4-5 | 42.48 ± 3.98b |
| CP13-1 | 53.45 ± 1.55a | CP13-5 | 51.91 ± 1.3a | CP18-2 | 49.65 ± 2.49a | CP24-2 | 42.36 ± 1.7b |
| CP24-1 | 53.33 ± 3.08a | CP31-1 | 51.889 ± 0.591a | CP55-4 | 49.65 ± 1.35a | CP23-5 | 41.91 ± 2.8c |
| CP63-2 | 53.27 ± 1.52a | CP6-4 | 51.79 ± 0.595a | CP11-8 | 49.65 ± 1.32a | CP57-1 | 41.52 ± 1.26c |
| CP14-4 | 53.234 ± 0.976a | CP28-3 | 51.75 ± 1.12a | CP9-5 | 49.637 ± 0.989a | CP57-3 | 41.51 ± 2.27c |
| CP61-4 | 53.2 ± 1.76a | CP7-2 | 51.71 ± 1.49a | CP7-7 | 49.38 ± 1.37a | CP49-1 | 41.37 ± 3.13c |
| CP7-3 | 53.15 ± 2.52a | CP14-6 | 51.67 ± 1.57a | CP39-2 | 49.37 ± 1.05a | CP19-2 | 41.15 ± 3.22c |
| CP42-5 | 53.121 ± 0.785a | CP17-7 | 51.665 ± 0.747a | CP1-5 | 49.31 ± 1.83a | CP24-5 | 40.99 ± 2.13c |
| CP14-5 | 53.099 ± 0.342a | CP34-4 | 51.659 ± 0.533a | CP8-1 | 49.07 ± 1.03a | CP1-1 | 40.41 ± 3.47c |
| CP16-8 | 53.044 ± 0.928a | CP24-4 | 51.57 ± 1.33a | CP12-2 | 49.058 ± 0.869a | CP4-4 | 40.34 ± 1.59c |
| CP28-2 | 53.013 ± 0.52a | CP16-12 | 51.53 ± 1.32a | CP54-1 | 48.95 ± 1.15a | CP43-1 | 39.4 ± 3.42c |
| CP12-4 | 53.011 ± 0.451a | CP10-4 | 51.506 ± 0.953a | CP44-1 | 48.72 ± 2.87a | CP53-2 | 38.206 ± 0.85c |
| CP17-2 | 53.01 ± 0.682a | CP16-9 | 51.48 ± 1.07a | CP6-7 | 48.71 ± 0.867a | CP27-1 | 36.13 ± 1.16d |
| CP20-1 | 52.99 ± 1.06a | CP12-5 | 51.456 ± 0.645a | CP11-1 | 48.69 ± 1.91ª | CP24-8 | 35.16 ± 5.7d |
| CP32-1 | 52.946 ± 0.834a | CP14-2 | 51.449 ± 0.962a | CP17-5 | 48.678 ± 0.897ª | CP11-3 | 33.36 ± 1.13d |
| CP14-1 | 52.93 ± 1.42a | CP17-6 | 51.425 ± 0.637a | CP12-3 | 48.54 ± 1.25ª |
Table 4.
Potential antagonism of 199 native strains of Trichoderma from Bagua Province, Amazonas, Peru, evaluated over Moniliophthora roreri (± = standard error; average with the same letters are not statistically different (Scott Knott, α = 0.05).
Table 4.
Potential antagonism of 199 native strains of Trichoderma from Bagua Province, Amazonas, Peru, evaluated over Moniliophthora roreri (± = standard error; average with the same letters are not statistically different (Scott Knott, α = 0.05).
| Strain | Potential Antagonism | Strain | Potential Antagonism | Strain | Potential Antagonism | Strain | Potential Antagonism |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CP24-6 | 78.64 ± 0.735a | CP10-5 | 72.03 ± 2.75a | CP39-1 | 68.24 ± 5.53 ª | CP53-1 | 64.06 ± 5.16b |
| CP10-3 | 77.68 ± 0.342a | CP34-1 | 72.01 ± 2.25a | CP4-3 | 68.21 ± 1.87 ª | CP10-1 | 63.97 ± 5.88b |
| CP42-4 | 77.01 ± 1.21a | CP32-2 | 71.98 ± 2.71a | CP24-3 | 68.17 ± 3.17 ª | CP31-2 | 63.66 ± 3.92b |
| CP28-1 | 76.79 ± 0.962a | CP31-1 | 71.94 ± 4.02a | CP10-2 | 68.06 ± 6.99 ª | CP6-2 | 63.54 ± 5.9b |
| CP13-1 | 76.72 ± 0.773a | CP12-5 | 71.73 ± 2.58a | CP13-5 | 67.95 ± 1.94 ª | CP1-2 | 63.46 ± 5.24b |
| CP14-5 | 76.55 ± 0.171a | CP24-7 | 71.59 ± 3.71a | CP6-4 | 67.89 ± 3.49 ª | CP23-4 | 63.3 ± 3.14b |
| CP17-2 | 76.51 ± 0.341a | CP61-1 | 71.42 ± 2.94a | CP7-2 | 67.85 ± 3.56 ª | CP63-1 | 63.24 ± 5.62b |
| CP32-1 | 76.47 ± 0.417a | CP34-3 | 71.4 ± 2.54a | CP1-4 | 67.52 ± 1.78 ª | CP24-2 | 63.18 ± 4.23b |
| CP16-5 | 76.45 ± 0.787a | CP33-1 | 71.1 ± 2.69a | CP42-2 | 67.38 ± 5.42 ª | CP57-2 | 63.13 ± 4.66b |
| CP37-2 | 76.13 ± 0.719a | CP34-2 | 71.08 ± 2.76a | CP19-1 | 67.21 ± 6.5 ª | CP11-5 | 62.99 ± 5.01b |
| CP17-4 | 76.11 ± 0.502a | CP42-1 | 71 ± 6.99a | CP15-1 | 67.09 ± 4.64a | CP49-2 | 62.98 ± 2.91b |
| CP33-2 | 76 ± 0.311a | CP19-3 | 70.91 ± 3.92a | CP27-1 | 67.07 ± 1.12a | CP51-2 | 62.98 ± 4.86b |
| CP28-3 | 75.87 ± 0.561a | CP9-5 | 70.82 ± 2.49a | CP64-1 | 67.06 ± 5.81a | CP52-2 | 62.95 ± 6.37b |
| CP17-7 | 75.83 ± 0.373a | CP39-2 | 70.68 ± 2.84a | CP1-3 | 66.97 ± 3.14a | CP55-4 | 62.82 ± 3.58b |
| CP10-4 | 75.75 ± 0.476a | CP24-1 | 70.67 ± 4.1a | CP13-6 | 66.91 ± 2.07a | CP1-5 | 62.65 ± 5.66b |
| CP29-1 | 75.31 ± 1.06a | CP39-4 | 70.43 ± 4.6a | CP39-3 | 66.89 ± 5.63a | CP55-2 | 62.59 ± 3.89b |
| CP18-3 | 75.3 ± 0.299a | CP16-10 | 70.19 ± 3.36a | CP7-3 | 66.57 ± 6.19b | CP19-2 | 62.58 ± 2.68b |
| CP43-3 | 75.02 ± 3.21a | CP9-2 | 70.17 ± 2.19a | CP42-5 | 66.56 ± 5.81b | CP43-5 | 62.54 ± 4.73b |
| CP16-14 | 75.01 ± 0.523a | CP22-1 | 70.1 ± 1.67a | CP12-2 | 66.53 ± 3.83b | CP4-2 | 62.23 ± 4.79b |
| CP11-7 | 75 ± 2.28a | CP4-1 | 70.1 ± 2.95a | CP14-1 | 66.47 ± 4.62b | CP1-1 | 62.2 ± 5.69b |
| CP36-2 | 74.99 ± 1.84a | CP37-1 | 70.07 ± 4.39a | CP8-3 | 66.44 ± 5.03b | CP4-4 | 62.17 ± 4.4b |
| CP25-1 | 74.87 ± 0.334a | CP31-5 | 70.06 ± 3.94a | CP16-2 | 66.39 ± 4.5b | CP6-5 | 62.13 ± 4.59b |
| CP28-5 | 74.83 ± 0.451a | CP11-6 | 70.04 ± 2.37a | CP7-5 | 66.37 ± 2.49b | CP56-1 | 61.79 ± 5.82b |
| CP18-2 | 74.82 ± 0.662a | CP13-4 | 70.02 ± 4.79a | CP12-3 | 66.27 ± 3.17b | CP24-4 | 61.78 ± 4.97b |
| CP16-13 | 74.8 ± 2.26a | CP14-7 | 69.88 ± 3.76a | CP16-1 | 66.18 ± 2.93b | CP31-3 | 61.69 ± 4.61b |
| CP28-2 | 74.51 ± 2.18a | CP62-2 | 69.86 ± 1.81a | CP55-3 | 66.15 ± 3.64b | CP43-2 | 61.67 ± 3.41b |
| CP17-5 | 74.34 ± 0.449a | CP14-6 | 69.84 ± 3.5a | CP5-1 | 66.11 ± 4.45b | CP55-1 | 61.37 ± 4.66b |
| CP17-3 | 74.33 ± 1.88a | CP34-4 | 69.83 ± 3.93a | CP13-3 | 66.11 ± 4.36b | CP11-8 | 60.82 ± 5.51b |
| CP38-1 | 74.22 ± 2.38a | CP16-12 | 69.77 ± 3.73a | CP16-4 | 66.11 ± 4.67b | CP57-3 | 60.76 ± 5.8b |
| CP30-1 | 74.1 ± 1.82a | CP10-6 | 69.73 ± 5.65a | CP11-4 | 65.89 ± 4.23b | CP63-2 | 60.63 ± 2.37b |
| CP17-1 | 74.09 ± 0.87a | CP17-6 | 69.71 ± 4.01a | CP14-2 | 65.72 ± 2.78b | CP6-3 | 60.29 ± 3.89b |
| CP29-2 | 74.07 ± 1.79a | CP35-3 | 69.68 ± 4.1a | CP7-6 | 65.54 ± 4.52b | CP62-1 | 60.22 ± 5.94b |
| CP16-9 | 73.74 ± 2.23a | CP59-1 | 69.6 ± 3.54a | CP22-3 | 65.44 ± 4.01b | CP53-3 | 60.16 ± 3.63b |
| CP33-3 | 73.63 ± 1.51a | CP36-3 | 69.47 ± 3.81a | CP11-9 | 65.44 ± 2.79b | CP59-2 | 59.91 ± 4.15b |
| CP16-11 | 73.58 ± 2.01a | CP15-2 | 69.45 ± 3.51a | CP22-2 | 65.43 ± 3.54b | CP24-8 | 59.58 ± 5.66b |
| CP28-4 | 73.51 ± 1.91a | CP5-2 | 69.4 ± 2.96a | CP31-4 | 65.34 ± 4.17b | CP57-4 | 59.48 ± 5.75b |
| CP14-3 | 73.44 ± 2.08a | CP16-7 | 69.4 ± 3.91a | CP4-5 | 65.24 ± 4.79b | CP43-4 | 59.08 ± 5.17b |
| CP32-3 | 73.36 ± 2.28a | CP6-1 | 69.35 ± 4a | CP23-3 | 65.06 ± 4.56b | CP11-3 | 58.68 ± 5.86b |
| CP12-1 | 73.24 ± 2.52a | CP8-4 | 69.33 ± 2.94a | CP46-1 | 64.99 ± 5.96b | CP8-1 | 58.54 ± 6.95b |
| CP61-3 | 73.14 ± 2.98a | CP9-1 | 69.15 ± 2.33a | CP11-2 | 64.83 ± 6.22b | CP51-1 | 56.82 ± 4.66b |
| CP29-3 | 73.1 ± 1.89a | CP53-2 | 69.1 ± 0.425a | CP57-1 | 64.76 ± 3.42b | CP20-2 | 55.42 ± 6.47c |
| CP16-3 | 72.94 ± 4.33a | CP61-2 | 69.07 ± 3.43a | CP52-1 | 64.73 ± 1.75b | CP23-5 | 54.95 ± 2.67c |
| CP42-3 | 72.94 ± 3.34a | CP7-1 | 68.96 ± 5.09a | CP7-7 | 64.69 ± 6.1b | CP43-1 | 53.7 ± 6.33c |
| CP36-1 | 72.79 ± 1.68a | CP6-6 | 68.95 ± 2.53a | CP24-5 | 64.49 ± 3.82b | CP49-1 | 52.68 ± 7.04c |
| CP61-4 | 72.6 ± 3a | CP38-2 | 68.92 ± 5.5a | CP54-1 | 64.47 ± 5.37b | CP11-1 | 52.35 ± 2.15c |
| CP12-4 | 72.51 ± 2.42a | CP16-6 | 68.79 ± 3.67a | CP23-2 | 64.46 ± 2.47b | CP44-1 | 48.36 ± 7.06c |
| CP35-2 | 72.38 ± 1.38a | CP14-4 | 68.62 ± 4.62a | CP6-7 | 64.35 ± 4.32b | CP51-3 | 44.65 ± 4.49c |
| CP1-6 | 72.3 ± 2.65a | CP16-8 | 68.52 ± 4.02a | CP20-3 | 64.35 ± 4.14b | CP13-2 | 43.44 ± 5.63c |
| CP18-1 | 72.1 ± 4.19a | CP20-1 | 68.49 ± 6.03a | CP8-2 | 64.29 ± 3.73b | CP7-4 | 42.36 ± 6.69c |
| CP35-1 | 72.06 ± 3.15a | CP23-1 | 68.35 ± 6.81a | CP50-1 | 64.23 ± 6.69b |
Table 5.
Effect of four native strains of Trichoderma on epidemiological parameters of frosty pod rot (FPR), production yield, and respective efficiency. (y Averages with same letters are not statistically different (Tukey, α = 0.05); z values not calculated due to the character of Abbott’s formula).
Table 5.
Effect of four native strains of Trichoderma on epidemiological parameters of frosty pod rot (FPR), production yield, and respective efficiency. (y Averages with same letters are not statistically different (Tukey, α = 0.05); z values not calculated due to the character of Abbott’s formula).
| Site | Treatment | Incidence y (%) | Severity (%) | Efficiency (%) | Yield (kg/ha) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Copallín | Control | 15.2a | 52.5a | --- z | 826.39b |
| CP10-3 | 4.05c | 30.43b | 71.9a | 1095.0ab | |
| CP53-2 | 8.05bc | 30.6b | 44.53bc | 952.94ab | |
| CP24-6 | 5.62bc | 27.36b | 61.42ab | 1115.0a | |
| CP38-2 | 8.77b | 35.1b | 38.99c | 969.94ab | |
| F = 13.52 p = 0.0005 | F = 11.04 p = 0.001 | F = 14.29 p = 0.0014 | F = 3.97 p = 0.035 | ||
| La Peca | Control | 20.32a | 51.43a | --- | 449.33b |
| CP10-3 | 10.32b | 32.05b | 49.23a | 866.0a | |
| CP53-2 | 9.94b | 33.35b | 51.16a | 873.33 ª | |
| CP24-6 | 10.96b | 28.63b | 45.88a | 787.0a | |
| CP38-2 | 10.58b | 34.10b | 47.79a | 823.67 ª | |
| F = 28.47 p < 0.0001 | F = 31.17 p < 0.0001 | F = 0.5 p = 0.69 | F = 10.57 p = 0.0013 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Leiva, S.; Oliva, M.; Hernández, E.; Chuquibala, B.; Rubio, K.; García, F.; Torres de la Cruz, M. Assessment of the Potential of Trichoderma spp. Strains Native to Bagua (Amazonas, Peru) in the Biocontrol of Frosty Pod Rot (Moniliophthora roreri). Agronomy 2020, 10, 1376. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10091376
AMA Style
Leiva S, Oliva M, Hernández E, Chuquibala B, Rubio K, García F, Torres de la Cruz M. Assessment of the Potential of Trichoderma spp. Strains Native to Bagua (Amazonas, Peru) in the Biocontrol of Frosty Pod Rot (Moniliophthora roreri). Agronomy. 2020; 10(9):1376. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10091376
Chicago/Turabian StyleLeiva, Santos, Manuel Oliva, Elgar Hernández, Beimer Chuquibala, Karol Rubio, Flor García, and Magdiel Torres de la Cruz. 2020. "Assessment of the Potential of Trichoderma spp. Strains Native to Bagua (Amazonas, Peru) in the Biocontrol of Frosty Pod Rot (Moniliophthora roreri)" Agronomy 10, no. 9: 1376. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10091376
APA StyleLeiva, S., Oliva, M., Hernández, E., Chuquibala, B., Rubio, K., García, F., & Torres de la Cruz, M. (2020). Assessment of the Potential of Trichoderma spp. Strains Native to Bagua (Amazonas, Peru) in the Biocontrol of Frosty Pod Rot (Moniliophthora roreri). Agronomy, 10(9), 1376. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10091376
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
