4, 11b-methoxycurvularin, tenellone H, phomopene, and 1-chloro-2,4-dihydroxy-5methoxy-7-methylanthraquinone) (Segaran and Sathiavelu 2019).
Lytic bacteriophages, with their very narrow host ranges that infect very specific
target bacteria are also considered as a tool for biological control (Loc-Carrillo and
Abedon 2011). In their lytic cycle, a bacteriophage actively infects host bacteria to
multiply inside and kill the host to release progeny (Orlova 2012). This has allowed
lytic bacteriophages to be used for phage therapy for controlling many bacterial
pathogens caused disease in plants (Buttimer et al. 2017; Doffkay et al. 2015).
Effective and eco-friendly methods for the control of the devastating pathogen
Fusarium spp. are still not available but mycovirus associated hypovirulence has
been proposed to be a potential solution for biocontrol of Fusarium (Sharma et al.
2018).
Thus, the biocontrol by PGPM can be an effective means of managing biotic
stresses in addition to abiotic stresses. Some BCA for different biotic stresses with
their biocontrol mechanisms are mentioned in Table 10.1.
10.9 Conclusion and Future Prospective
Biotic stresses affect plant growth attributes, development, productivities and survivability, which stands as a foremost constraint for crop yield, food quality and
thus, global food security. One suitable alternative solution of these stresses in plants
is the development of microbial tools and techniques involving plant–microbe–soil
interaction, which can sustain plants in stress conditions by altering their physiological and biological properties. To combat biotic stress conditions, plants have
developed different mechanisms which include various pathogen recognition
mechanisms that trigger different defense responses. There are two important
types of pathogen recognition mechanisms, first, where the plant pattern recognition
receptors (PRRs) perceive pathogen-associated molecular patterns or herbivoreassociated molecular patterns (PAMPs/MAMPs/HAMPs), thereby causing a
PAMP-triggered immunity (PTI); and second, R proteins perceive effectors, thereby
causing an effector-triggered immunity (ETI), which is successful in controlling
pathogens that evade PTI.
Plant protection involves the accumulation of defense proteins both at the site of
infection and systemically in uninfected tissues and/or plants. The systemic acquired
resistance (SAR) provides long-term defense against a broad-spectrum of pathogens
and insects. Induced systemic resistance (ISR), a remarkable variety of induced
resistance, is potentiated by plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR), especially Pseudomonas spp. Both SAR and ISR convene a fitness advantage to plants in
conditions of high disease pressure towards an efficient signaling system capable of
interpreting and transporting signals produced at the plant–pathogen interface. The
SA pathway stimulated long-term resistance responses to a broad spectrum of
biotrophic and hemi-biotrophic pathogens, mediates SAR, involving the expression
of pathogenesis-related (PR) genes. Whereas, the jasmonic acid (JA) and ethylene
314
L. Thomas and I. Singh
Lytic bacteriophages, with their very narrow host ranges that infect very specific
target bacteria are also considered as a tool for biological control (Loc-Carrillo and
Abedon 2011). In their lytic cycle, a bacteriophage actively infects host bacteria to
multiply inside and kill the host to release progeny (Orlova 2012). This has allowed
lytic bacteriophages to be used for phage therapy for controlling many bacterial
pathogens caused disease in plants (Buttimer et al. 2017; Doffkay et al. 2015).
Effective and eco-friendly methods for the control of the devastating pathogen
Fusarium spp. are still not available but mycovirus associated hypovirulence has
been proposed to be a potential solution for biocontrol of Fusarium (Sharma et al.
2018).
Thus, the biocontrol by PGPM can be an effective means of managing biotic
stresses in addition to abiotic stresses. Some BCA for different biotic stresses with
their biocontrol mechanisms are mentioned in Table 10.1.
10.9 Conclusion and Future Prospective
Biotic stresses affect plant growth attributes, development, productivities and survivability, which stands as a foremost constraint for crop yield, food quality and
thus, global food security. One suitable alternative solution of these stresses in plants
is the development of microbial tools and techniques involving plant–microbe–soil
interaction, which can sustain plants in stress conditions by altering their physiological and biological properties. To combat biotic stress conditions, plants have
developed different mechanisms which include various pathogen recognition
mechanisms that trigger different defense responses. There are two important
types of pathogen recognition mechanisms, first, where the plant pattern recognition
receptors (PRRs) perceive pathogen-associated molecular patterns or herbivoreassociated molecular patterns (PAMPs/MAMPs/HAMPs), thereby causing a
PAMP-triggered immunity (PTI); and second, R proteins perceive effectors, thereby
causing an effector-triggered immunity (ETI), which is successful in controlling
pathogens that evade PTI.
Plant protection involves the accumulation of defense proteins both at the site of
infection and systemically in uninfected tissues and/or plants. The systemic acquired
resistance (SAR) provides long-term defense against a broad-spectrum of pathogens
and insects. Induced systemic resistance (ISR), a remarkable variety of induced
resistance, is potentiated by plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR), especially Pseudomonas spp. Both SAR and ISR convene a fitness advantage to plants in
conditions of high disease pressure towards an efficient signaling system capable of
interpreting and transporting signals produced at the plant–pathogen interface. The
SA pathway stimulated long-term resistance responses to a broad spectrum of
biotrophic and hemi-biotrophic pathogens, mediates SAR, involving the expression
of pathogenesis-related (PR) genes. Whereas, the jasmonic acid (JA) and ethylene
314
L. Thomas and I. Singh