Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-cp4x8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-20T10:35:32.879Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Controlling Weeds with Phytopathogenic Bacteria

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David R. Johnson ,
Donald L. Wyse  and
Keith J. Jones
David R. Johnson
Affiliation:
Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul 55108
Donald L. Wyse
Affiliation:
Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul 55108
Keith J. Jones
Affiliation:
Mycogen Corporation, 5501 Oberlin Drive, San Diego, CA 92121
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Until recently, phytopathogenic bacteria have not been considered potential biological weed control candidates because they lack the ability to penetrate intact plants. This deficiency can be overcome by providing entry wounds or using surfactants. Spray application of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tagetis (5 × 108cells/ml) in aqueous buffer with a surfactant produced severe disease in Canada thistle, common ragweed, Jerusalem artichoke, sunflower, and certain other members of the Compositae under field conditions. Spray application of the bacterium without surfactant was ineffective on all reported hosts. Xanthomonas campestris pv. poannua controlled annual bluegrass in bermudagrass golf greens when applied by spray during mowing. The bacterium entered through mowing injuries, causing lethal, systemic wilt. Application of the bacterium to annual bluegrass in the absence of fresh mowing injuries failed to produce symptoms. Under field conditions, this previously unknown pathovar's host range was limited to a single subspecies of annual bluegrass, but inundative application to freshly mowed turf resulted in infection of diverse annual bluegrass biotypes. In field trials, six monthly applications resulted in greater than 70% control. The preceding examples are among the first attempts to use foliar phytopathogenic bacteria for biological weed control. Efficacy of these bacterial bioherbicides and of future biocontrol strategies employing bacteria is dependent on facilitated host penetration.

Keywords

Annual bluegrass, Poa annua ssp. annua L. (Timm) ♯3POAANCanada thistle, Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. ♯ CIRARcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. ♯ AMBELJerusalem artichoke, Helianthus tuberosus L. ♯ HELTUsunflower, Helianthus annuus L. ♯ HELANbermudagrass, Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. ♯ CYNDABioherbicidebiological controlPseudomonas syringae pv. tagetisXanthomonas campestris pv. poannuaorganosilicone
Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , September 1996 , pp. 621 - 624
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 by the 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Allen, D. J. 1974. Disease of sunflower (Helianthus annuus) in Tanga region, Tanzania. Plant Dis. Rep. 58:896–899.Google Scholar
2. Fredrickson, J. K., Elliot, L. F., and Engibous, J. C. 1987. Crop residues as substrate for host-specific inhibitory pseudomonads. Soil Biol. Biochem. 19:127–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Gulya, T. J., Urs, R., and Banttari, E. E. 1982. Apical chlorosis of sunflower caused by Pseudomonas syringae pv. tagetis . Plant Dis. 66:598–600.Google Scholar
4. Hellmers, E. 1955. Bacterial leaf spot of African marigold (Tagetes erecta) caused by Pseudomonas tagetis . (Abstr.) Phytopathology 71:221.Google Scholar
5. Johnson, D. R. and Wyse, D. L. 1991. Use of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tagetis for control of Canada thistle. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 46:14–15.Google Scholar
6. Kennedy, A. C., Elliot, 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
7. Kremer, R. J. 1987. Identity and properties of bacteria inhabiting seeds of selected broadleaf weed species. Microbial Ecol. 14:29–37.Google Scholar
8. Makowski, R.M.D. 1992. Regulating microbial pest control agents in Canada: the first mycoherbicide. Proc. Eighth Int. Symp. Biol. Control Weeds, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. p. 1–13.Google Scholar
9. Makowski, R. M. D. and Mortensen, K. 1992. The first mycoherbicide in Canada: Colletotrichum gloesporoides f. sp. malvae for round-leaved mallow control. Proc. First Int. Weed Control Congr. 2:298–300.Google Scholar
10. Mortensen, K. 1988. The potential of an endemic fungus, Colletotrichum gloesporoides, for biological control of round-leaved mallow (Malva pusilla) and velvetleaf (Abutiion theophrasti). Weed Sci. 36:473–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Rhodehamel, N. H. and Durbin, R. D. 1985. Host range of strains of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tagetis . Plant Dis. 69:589–591.Google Scholar
12. Seifers, D. L. and Stegmeier, W. D. 1983. Pseudomonas syringae pv. tagetis, causal agent of apical chlorosis isolated from sunflower in Kansas. Plant Dis. 67:1290.Google Scholar
13. Shane, W. W. and Baumer, J. S. 1984. Apical chlorosis and leafspot of Jerusalem artichoke incited by Pseudomonas syringae pv. tagetis . Plant Dis. 68:257–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Styer, D. J. and Durbin, R. D. 1982. Common ragweed: a new host of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tagetis . Plant Dis. 66:71.Google Scholar
15. Styer, D. J. and Durbin, R. D. 1982. Isolation of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tagetis from sunflower in Wisconsin. Plant Dis. 66:601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Styer, D. J., Worf, G. L., and Durbin, R. D. 1980. Occurrence in the United States of a marigold leaf spot incited by Pseudomonas tagetis . Plant Dis. 64:101–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Suslow, T. V. and Schroth, M. N. 1982. Role of deleterious rhizobacteria as minor pathogens in reducing crop growth. Phytopathology 72:111–115.Google Scholar
18. Templeton, G. E. 1982. Status of weed control with plant pathogens. p. 29–44 in Charudattan, R. and Walker, H. L., eds. Biological Control of Weeds with Plant Pathogens. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
19. Templeton, G. E., TeBeest, D. O., and Smith, R. J. Jr. 1984. Biological weed control in rice with a strain of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (Penz.) Sacc. used as a mycoherbicide. Crop Prot. 3:409–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Templeton, G. E., TeBeest, D. O., and Smith, R. J. Jr. 1979. Biological weed control with mycoherbicides. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 17:301–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Wyse, D. L. 1992. Future of weed science research. Weed Technol. 6:162–165.Google Scholar
22. Zidack, N. K., Backman, P. A., and Shaw, J. J. 1992. Promotion of bacterial infection of leaves by an organosilicone surfactant: implications for biological weed control. Biol. Control 2:111–117.Google Scholar