In vitro Inhibition of Soilborn Phytopathogens Treated With Swine Wastewater


  •  Danielle Martinha    
  •  Cleonice Lubian    
  •  Cintia Koech    
  •  Roberto Portz    
  •  Vivian Missio    
  •  Silvio Sampaio    
  •  Jonathan Dieter    

Abstract

Swine wastewater (SWW) is a residue from pig farming that presents a high load of nutrients and organic matter. The appliance of organic matter in soil alters the microbial dynamic and may suppress soilborn phytopathogens. This study aimed at evaluating the inhibition on mycelial growth of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and Sclerotium rolfsii in vitro under SWW doses. Hereupon, three kilograms of a soil classified as red dystroferric latosol was collected and sieved. Half of it was autoclaved. SWW was incorporated at doses of 0 mL, 2.5 mL, 5 mL, 10 mL and 20 mL in both soil conditions, autoclaved and not autoclaved. Afterwards, 130 grams of each soil was separately put into Petri plates above what a thin layer (≅ 5 mL) of Water-Agar (2%) medium was carefully spread over. Above this agar layer, one disk (6 mm diameter) of pure mycelium from each fungal grown in Potato Dextrose Agar medium was individually placed on the center of each plate. Daily evaluations on mycelial growth measuring were taken and ended when mycelium in control plates (without SWW addition) reached plate borders. Results indicated that in autoclaved soil condition, the inhibition was proportional to the dose, what is to say that the higher the dose the less the mycelial growth. In not autoclaved soil there was no significant difference among treatments, suggesting stimuli on suppression effect for both pathogens caused by SWW. In addition, the confirmed potential of SWW as a suppressor of S. sclerotiorum and S. rolfsii leads to promising investigations on other phytopathogens hard to control.



This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
  • Issn(Print): 1916-9752
  • Issn(Onlne): 1916-9760
  • Started: 2009
  • Frequency: monthly

Journal Metrics

(The data was calculated based on Google Scholar Citations)

  • Google-based Impact Factor (2016): 2.28
  • h-index (December 2017): 31
  • i10-index (December 2017): 304
  • h5-index (December 2017): 22
  • h5-median (December 2017): 27

Contact