Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:43:29.593Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rhizobacteria associated with weed seedlings in different cropping systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jianmei Li  and
Robert J. Kremer
Jianmei Li
Affiliation:
Department of Soil and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rhizobacteria isolated from the rhizospheres of dominant weed species in six representative cropping systems and one native prairie ecosystem in mid-Missouri were screened for phytotoxicity on Lactuca sativa seedlings and their host plants in the laboratory. The proportions of deleterious rhizobacteria (DRB) were compared among different cropping systems to determine possible effects of crop management practices on the occurrence of DRB. Phytotoxicity screening on L. sativa seedlings revealed that an integrated crop management system with a Zea mays–Glycine max–Triticum aestivum cover crop rotation under no-tillage had the highest proportion of DRB at 25.3%, followed by an organic farming system with continuous Fragaria virginiana (strawberry) and organic amendments under minimum tillage at 22.9%. A continuous cool-season grass–legume meadow with no agrochemical inputs had the lowest proportion of DRB at 13%. Crop management practices that maintained high soil organic matter had higher proportions of DRB compared to cropping systems with lower organic matter. Phytotoxicity screening on host plants greatly reduced the proportion of rhizobacteria characterized as DRB, likely because of the high sensitivity of L. sativa seedlings to phytotoxins. Although screening on L. sativa is an effective method to detect phytotoxic rhizobacteria, our research indicates that it is essential to test selected cultures on their host weed species for accurate assessment of their occurrence in the field. Using this approach, we found that crop management practices influence the occurrence of DRB naturally associated with weed seedlings. Results suggest that crop production systems can be developed to favor soil microorganisms such as DRB that affect weed growth and thereby become important considerations in overall weed management.

Keywords

Amaranthus retroflexus L. AMARE, redroot pigweedIpomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. IPOHE, ivyleaf morningglorySetaria faberi Herrm. SETFA, giant foxtailZea mays L., cornLactuca sativa L. ‘Blackseeded simpson’, lettuceGlycine max (L.) Merr., soybeanFragaria virginiana L., strawberryTriticum aestivum L., wheatFertility managementintegrated weed managementsoil microorganismssoil organic mattercrop rotationtillageL. sativa bioassay
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 48 , Issue 6 , December 2000 , pp. 734 - 741
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Alström, S. 1987. Factors associated with detrimental effects of rhizobacteria on plant growth. Plant Soil 102:3–9.Google Scholar
Araujo, M.A.V., Mendonca-Hagler, L. C., Hagler, A. N., and van Elsas, J. D. 1996. Selection of rhizosphere-competent Pseudomonas strains as biocontrol agents in tropical soils. World J. Microbiol. Biotech. 12:589–593.Google Scholar
Bolton, H., Elliott, L. F., Papendick, R. I., and Bezdicek, D. F. 1985. Soil microbial biomass and selected soil enzyme activities: effect of fertilization and cropping practices. Soil Biol. Biochem. 17:297–302.Google Scholar
Boyetchko, S. 1996. Impact of soil microorganisms on weed biology and ecology. Phytoprotection 77:41–56.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. N., Conn, K., Sorlie, L., and Cook, F. D. 1986. Inhibition of growth in canola seedlings caused by an opportunistic Pseudomonas sp. under laboratory and field conditions. Can. J. Microbiol. 32:201–207.Google Scholar
Cherrington, C. A. and Elliott, L. F. 1987. Incidence of inhibitory pseudomonads in the Pacific Northwest. Plant Soil 101:159–165.Google Scholar
Doran, J. W. and Linn, D. M. 1994. Microbial ecology of conservation management systems. Pages 1–27 In Hatfield, J. L. and Stewart, B. A., eds. Soil Biology: Effects on Soil Quality. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
Duffy, B. K., Ownley, B. H., and Weller, D. M. 1997. Soil chemical and physical properties associated with suppression of take-all of T. aestivum by Trichoderma koningii . Phytophathology 87:1118–1124.Google Scholar
Elliott, L. F. and Stott, D. E. 1997. Influences of no-till cropping systems on microbial relationships. Adv. Agron. 60:121–147.Google Scholar
Elsherif, M. and Grossmann, F. 1990. Effects of different cropping systems on the occurrence of fluorescent pseudomonads. Phytopathology 130:65–81.Google Scholar
Fredrickson, J. K. and Elliott, L. F. 1985. Colonization of winter T. aestivum roots by inhibitory rhizobacteria. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49:1172–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallandt, E. R., Liebman, M., and Higgins, D. R. 1999. Improving soil quality: implications for weed management. J. Crop Prod. 2:95–121.Google Scholar
Harris, P. A. and Stahlman, P. W. 1996. Soil bacteria as selective biological control agents of winter annual grass weeds in winter T. aestivum . Appl. Soil Ecol. 3:275–281.Google Scholar
Höflich, G., Tauschke, M., Kühn, G., Werner, K., Frielinghaus, M., and Höhn, W. 1999. Influence of long-term conservation tillage on soil and rhizosphere microorganisms. Biol. Fertil. Soils 29:81–86.Google Scholar
Jordan, D., Kremer, R. J., Bergfield, W. A., Kim, K. Y., and Cacnio, V. N. 1995. Evaluation of microbial methods as potential indicators of soil quality in historical agricultural fields. Biol. Fertil. Soils 19:297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, A. C. 1999. Soil microorganisms for weed management. J. Crop Prod. 2:123–138.Google Scholar
Kennedy, A. C., Elliott, L. F., Young, F. L., and Douglas, C. L. 1991. Rhizobacteria suppressive to the weed downy brome. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 55:722–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, A. C. and Smith, K. L. 1995. Soil microbial diversity and the sustainability of agricultural soils. Plant Soil 170:75–86.Google Scholar
Kremer, R. J., Begonia, M.F.T., Stanley, L., and Lanham, E. T. 1990. Characterization of rhizobacteria associated with weed seedlings. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 56:1649–1655.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kremer, R. J. and Kennedy, A. C. 1996. Rhizobacteria as biocontrol agents of weeds. Weed Technol. 10:601–609.Google Scholar
Olsson, S., Alström, S., and Persson, P. 1999. Barley rhizobacterial population characterised by fatty acid profiling. Appl. Soil Ecol. 12:197–204.Google Scholar
Ramsay, A. J., Stannard, R. E., and Christensen, G. J. 1986. Effect of conversion from ryegrass pasture to T. aestivum cropping on aggregation and bacterial populations in a silt loam soil in New Zealand. Aust. J. Soil Res. 24:253–264.Google Scholar
Rovira, A. D. 1994. The effect of farming practices on the soil biota. Pages 81–87 In Pankhurst, C. E., Doube, B. M., Gupta, V.V.S.R., and Grace, P. R., eds. Soil Biota: Mangement in Sustainable Farming Systems. East Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO.Google Scholar
Rovira, A. D., Elliott, L. F., and Cook, R. J. 1990. The impact of cropping systems on rhizosphere organisms affecting plant health. Pages 389–436 In Lynch, J. M., ed. The Rhizosphere. Chichester, Great Britain: J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Sasser, M. 1990. Identification of bacteria through fatty acid analysis. Pages 199–204 In Klement, Z., Rudolph, K., and Sands, D. C., eds. Methods in Phytobacteriology. Budapest: Akadamiai Kiado.Google Scholar
Schippers, B., Bakker, A. W., and Peter, A. H.M.B. 1987. Interactions of deleterious and beneficial rhizosphere microorganisms and the effect of cropping practices. Ann. Rev. Phytopathol. 25:331–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skipper, H. D., Ogg, A. G. Jr., and Kennedy, A. C. 1996. Root biology of grasses and ecology of rhizobacteria for biological control. Weed Technol. 10:610–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smibert, R. M. and Krieg, N. R. 1994. Phenotypic characterization. Pages 607–654 In Gerhardt, P., Murray, R.G.E., Wood, W. A., and Krieg, N. R., eds. Methods for General and Molecular Bacteriology. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology.Google Scholar
Souissi, T. and Kremer, R. J. 1998. A rapid microplate callus bioassay for assessment of rhizobacteria for biocontrol of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.). Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 8:83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroo, H. F., Elliott, L. F., and Papendick, R. I. 1988. Growth, survival and toxin production of root-inhibitory pseudomonads on crop residues. Soil Biol. Biochem. 20:201–207.Google Scholar
Turco, R. F., Bischoff, M., Breakwell, D. P., and Griffith, D. R. 1990. Contribution of soil-borne bacteria to the rotation effect in Z. mays . Plant Soil 122:115–120.Google Scholar
Wardle, D. A. 1992. A comparable assessment of factors which influence microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen levels in soil. Biol. Rev. 67:321–358.Google Scholar