scholarly journals History and Perspectives on the Use of Disease Resistance Inducers in Horticultural Crops

2005 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 518-529 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea B. da Rocha ◽  
Ray Hammerschmidt

A major challenge facing horticultural crop production is the need to provide field and postharvest disease control measures that help maintain high quality plant products. Producers and consumers also expect high quality produce with minimal or no pesticide residues and competitive prices. The chemical management of disease is further complicated by the development of fungicide resistance in many important pathogens. Because of these concerns, an alternative or complementary approach is the use of disease resistance inducers that activate the natural defenses of the plant. Induced disease resistance in plants has been studied in many different pathosystems for nearly a century. Resistance to plant disease can be induced systemically by prior infection with pathogens, by certain non-pathogenic microbes that colonize the surface of roots and leaves, or by chemicals. The application of resistance inducers should protect plants through the induction of defenses that are effective against a broad spectrum of pathogens. Over the last few years, a number of materials that could potentially be used as inducers of resistance in horticultural crops have been identified. Some of these materials are already commercially available. Although induced resistance is known to provide a broad spectrum of disease suppression, it may not be a complete solution because variation in the efficacy of disease resistance induction has been observed. The variation in the response may be dependent on the plant species and even cultivars, as well as variability in the spectrum of pathogens that resistance can be induced against. Induction of resistance depends on the activation of biochemical processes that are triggered in the plant, and therefore a lag time between treatment and expression of resistance occurs. This lag effect may limit the practical application of disease resistance inducers. Since the efficacy of the inducers also depends on the part of the plant that was treated, the product delivery (i.e., how the inducers would be applied in order to optimize their action) is another factor to be considered. Some studies have shown that there may be side effects on growth or yield characteristics when certain inducers are used. Understanding the biochemical interactions occurring between plants, pathogens and the inducers will provide information that may be useful for the optimization of this new approach on disease control. Approaches to integrate induced resistance with other management practices need to be investigated as a means to aid the development of sustainable disease management programs that are effective as well as economically and environmentally sound.

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 433-443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huanpeng Li ◽  
Jiaojiao Wu ◽  
Xiaofeng Shang ◽  
Miaomiao Geng ◽  
Jing Gao ◽  
...  

In Arabidopsis, both pathogen invasion and benzothiadiazole (BTH) treatment activate the nonexpresser of pathogenesis-related genes 1 (NPR1)-mediated systemic acquired resistance, which provides broad-spectrum disease resistance to secondary pathogen infection. However, the BTH-induced resistance in Triticeae crops of wheat and barley seems to be accomplished through an NPR1-independent pathway. In the current investigation, we applied transcriptome analysis on barley transgenic lines overexpressing wheat wNPR1 (wNPR1-OE) and knocking down barley HvNPR1 (HvNPR1-Kd) to reveal the role of NPR1 during the BTH-induced resistance. Most of the previously designated barley chemical-induced (BCI) genes were upregulated in an NPR1-independent manner, whereas the expression levels of several pathogenesis-related (PR) genes were elevated upon BTH treatment only in wNPR1-OE. Two barley WRKY transcription factors, HvWRKY6 and HvWRKY70, were predicted and further validated as key regulators shared by the BTH-induced resistance and the NPR1-mediated acquired resistance. Wheat transgenic lines overexpressing HvWRKY6 and HvWRKY70 showed different degrees of enhanced resistance to Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici pathotype CYR32 and Blumeria graminis f. sp. tritici pathotype E20. In conclusion, the transcriptional changes of BTH-induced resistance in barley were initially profiled, and the identified key regulators would be valuable resources for the genetic improvement of broad-spectrum disease resistance in wheat. [Formula: see text] Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .


2005 ◽  
Vol 95 (12) ◽  
pp. 1368-1373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dale Walters ◽  
David Walsh ◽  
Adrian Newton ◽  
Gary Lyon

Plants can be induced to develop enhanced resistance to pathogen infection by treatment with a variety of abiotic and biotic inducers. Biotic inducers include infection by necrotizing pathogens and plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria, and treatment with nonpathogens or cell wall fragments. Abiotic inducers include chemicals which act at various points in the signaling pathways involved in disease resistance, as well as water stress, heat shock, and pH stress. Resistance induced by these agents (resistance elicitors) is broad spectrum and long lasting, but rarely provides complete control of infection, with many resistance elicitors providing between 20 and 85% disease control. There also are many reports of resistance elicitors providing no significant disease control. In the field, expression of induced resistance is likely to be influenced by the environment, genotype, and crop nutrition. Unfortunately, little information is available on the influence of these factors on expression of induced resistance. In order to maximize the efficacy of resistance elicitors, a greater understanding of these interactions is required. It also will be important to determine how induced resistance can best fit into disease control strategies because they are not, and should not be, deployed simply as “safe fungicides”. This, in turn, will require information on the interaction of resistance elicitors with crop management practices such as appropriate-dose fungicide use.


2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-152
Author(s):  
Candace N. DeLong ◽  
Keith S. Yoder ◽  
Allen E. Cochran ◽  
Scott W. Kilmer ◽  
William S. Royston ◽  
...  

Apple (Malus × domestica Borkh.) growers require management practices that will produce high-quality fruit while minimizing the number of chemicals used for adequate disease control and horticultural practices. Certain chemicals applied for bloom thinning also have fungicidal properties and could provide protection against early season diseases in addition to crop reduction. Over 5 years, treatments of lime sulfur (LS), Regalia (an organically approved biofungicide), and JMS Stylet-Oil (JSO) were evaluated for protection against apple scab (Venturia inaequalis [Cooke.] G. Wint.), powdery mildew (Podosphaera leucotricha [Ellis & Everh.] E. S. Salmon), cedar apple rust (Gymnosporangium juniperi-virginianae Schwein.), and quince rust (Gymnosporangium clavipes [Cooke & Peck] Cooke & Peck in Peck), as well as crop load reduction and fruit finish. Both LS and Regalia reduced apple scab and cedar apple rust in four out of five test years. Treatments of Regalia applied with JSO provided disease protection and crop load reduction similar to LS applied with JSO. We provide evidence that LS and Regalia, applied as bloom thinners, can reduce chemical applications used during bloom by combining two chemical spray functions: one for disease protection and one for crop load management.


2021 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
pp. 100499
Author(s):  
Ashlee J. McCallin ◽  
Veronica A. Hough ◽  
Rachael E. Kreisler

PLoS Genetics ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. e1003766 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carine Huard-Chauveau ◽  
Laure Perchepied ◽  
Marilyne Debieu ◽  
Susana Rivas ◽  
Thomas Kroj ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 79-86
Author(s):  
V. Rangarajan ◽  
W.J. Herbst ◽  
S. Mazibuko ◽  
K.G. Clarke

2022 ◽  
Vol 292 ◽  
pp. 110624
Author(s):  
Liuyi Pan ◽  
Xurui Chen ◽  
Wei Xu ◽  
Shangshu Fan ◽  
Tian Wan ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document