Next Article in Journal
Purpose in Corporate Governance: The Path towards a More Sustainable World
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of Sustainable Intellectual Capital on Sustainable Performance: A Case Study
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Potentiality of Formulated Bioagents from Lab to Field: A Sustainable Alternative for Minimizing the Use of Chemical Fungicide in Controlling Potato Late Blight

1
Plant Bacteriology and Biotechnology Laboratory, Department of Plant Pathology, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh 2202, Bangladesh
2
Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE), Khamarbari, Dhaka 1215, Bangladesh
3
Centre for Agriculture and Agro-Industry of Hainaut Province (CARAH), 7822 Ath, Belgium
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(8), 4383; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084383
Submission received: 10 February 2022 / Revised: 9 March 2022 / Accepted: 13 March 2022 / Published: 7 April 2022

Abstract

:
Late blight of potato caused by an oomycete, Phytophthora infestans (Mont.) De Bary limits the production of potato worldwide. Late blight management has been based on chemical fungicide application, and the repeated use of these fungicides introduces new and more aggressive genotypes, which can rapidly overcome host resistance. Therefore, innovative and effective control measures are needed if fungicide use is to be reduced or eliminated. Some potential formulated bacterial bioagents viz. Pseudomonas putida (BDISO64RanP) and Bacillus subtilis (BDISO36ThaR), and fungal bioagents viz. Trichoderma paraviridicens (BDISOF67R) and T. erinaceum (BDISOF91R), were evaluated for their performance in controlling late blight of potato under growth chamber and field conditions. Both artificial inoculation and field experiments revealed that eight sprays of these bacterial (P. putida and B. subtilis) and fungal (T. erinaceum) bioagents were found to be most effective at reducing late blight severity by 99% up until 60 days after planting (DAP), whereas these bioagents were found to be partially effective until 70 DAP, reducing late blight severity by 46 to 60% and 58 to 60% in the field and growth chamber conditions, respectively. However, these bioagents can reduce the spray frequencies of Curzate M8 by 50% (four sprays instead of eight) when applied together with this fungicide. Economic analysis revealed that T6 (eight sprays of formulated P. putida + B. subtilis + four sprays of Curzate M8) and T16 (eight sprays of formulated P. putida, B. subtilis, and T. erinaceum + four sprays of Curzate M8) performed better in consecutive two years, applying less fungicidal spray compared to T1 (eight sprays of Curzate M8 (Positive control)), which indicated that the return ranged, by Bangladeshi Currency (Taka), from 0.85 to 0.90 over the investment of Bangladeshi Currency (Taka) 1.00 in these treatments, and these results together highlight the possibility of using bioagents in reducing late blight of potato under a proper warning system to reduce the application frequency of chemical fungicide.

1. Introduction

Late blight caused by P. infestans (Mont.) De Bary restricts the yield of potato notably in cool temperature regions globally. P. infestans (Mont.) De Bary is an oomycete that is well recognized for its explosive expansion when environmental circumstances are adequate and host plants are vulnerable to infection [1]. In 2019, Bangladesh produced 9.7 million tonnes of potato on 0.5 million ha, which represents 2.6% of the world production [2]. The yield of potatoes in Bangladesh in 2019 as calculated by the FAO [2] was 20.6 t/ha, which was lower compared to the potential yield and to the yield of other potato growing countries of the world. Recently, Bangladesh exported 45,000 tonnes of fresh potato in the world market in 2019–2020, as the production exceeded the demand [3]. The annual consumption of potato per capita also increased and reached 25.66 kg in 2016 from 23.65 kg in 2010, bringing the growth rate to 8.5% during only a six-year period [4]. The estimated losses in the world’s economy vary from 3 to 5 billion dollars annually due to the investment cost for the production of potatoes destroyed by late blight [5,6]. In Bangladesh, the late blight disease of potatoes has caused a big drop in yields, which has been estimated to be between 25% and 57% [7]. The genome structure of P. infestans allows itself to adapt by fostering genetic diversity [8,9].
As potato late blight may quickly cause large economic losses, potato growers must apply synthetic fungicides to plant surfaces almost weekly before sporangia appear [10]. However, the heavy use of synthetic pesticides causes serious concerns for human health and also affects the environment, as well as favoring the development of fungicide resistant P. infestans genotypes [11,12], due to the fast development in the number of physiological races that can overcome a set of resistance genes (R1–R11) [13]. At the same time, two counter-balancing factors have also developed: societal pressure for reducing pesticide use on crops and acreage of organically-grown food crops—potato and tomato included [14,15,16]. For many years, copper-based fungicides (e.g., Bordeaux combination, fixed-copper hydroxide, copper oxide, and copper oxychloride) have been used to suppress late blight in organic potato and tomato cultivation. Organic fields in Brazil [15], USA [17] and Japan (Maff Notification no. 59, 2000) may employ these chemicals (www.maff.go.jp/soshiki/syokuhin/hinshitu/organic/engyukihow.pd accessed on 22 January 2022). Currently, in the European Union, only 6 kg of elemental copper per ha per year is allowed in organic production [16]. As soon as reliable alternatives to manage late blight are available, a complete ban of copper compounds should take place [18]. On the other hand, the misuse of pesticides has resulted in a severe danger to food safety and to the natural environment [19]. Fungicides have been widely used to treat late blight and for the emergence of novel pathogen genotypes [20]. Randall et al. [21] reported field isolates insensitive to phenylamide-based chemicals, including metalaxyl and insensitive strains exhibiting cross-resistance to multiple phenylamide compounds. In the meanwhile, in 2020, EU countries decided to ban mancozeb, the last cheap contact fungicide of the dithiocarbamates family, because of its reproductive toxicity and endocrine disruptive action (regulation (EU) 2020/2087). It was largely used in potato late blight control, and is one of the two or three most common pesticides in use worldwide, with a history of 60 years since its introduction in 1962.
Several biopesticides and biofungicides products have already been registered for the treatment of late blight or have been pending registrations [22,23]. However, these products have elicited mixed results and, as of yet, have not demonstrated sufficient and consistent levels of late blight suppression in order to significantly curb the heavy use of synthetic and copper-based fungicides [22]. A tremendous increase in the application of pesticides, especially fungicides, has led to a number of health problems, including reproductive problems [24,25], genetic damage [26], neurological disorders [27], increases in bladder cancer [28], and even breast cancer [29], because farmers are directly and indirectly exposed to pesticides. So, to minimize or eliminate fungicide usage, such as in organic potato cultivation, creative and effective control strategies are required. To safeguard potato crops from the most dangerous foliar disease, researchers are searching for non-chemical alternatives.
Several genera of microorganisms show an anti-oomycete activity, such as Bacillus [30,31], Penicillium [32], Pseudomonas [33,34], Fusarium [35,36], and Trichoderma [37,38,39,40]. The use of bacteria as bio-control agents for the treatment of potato late blight has recently gained popularity in recent years, with numerous research finding promising outcomes [41,42,43,44,45,46]. Among the bacterial antagonists, many belong to the genus Bacillus and there are several other major genera of smaller practical value than Bacillus [47]. Endosporic and enzymatic components of B. subtulis have been found to be very potent against numerous fungal infections. Potato associated cyanogenic Pseudomonas spp. displays a volatile-mediated high potential against P. infestans [48,49]. In addition to supplying biofungicides as effective alternatives to synthetic fungicides, bacteria have an enormous potential for agricultural advantages such as secreting plant growth regulating hormones, fixing atmospheric nitrogen, and enhancing phosphorus nutrition [34]. Unlike synthetic fungicides, numerous microorganisms may also have the capacity to increase their hostile activity against plant pathogens over time by effectively colonizing plant surfaces [50]. Plant growth reduction is caused by drought stress [51], heavy metals [52], weed infestation [53], salt stress [54], and several adverse environmental states. PGPM may alter plant performance directly by producing chemicals that enhance plant growth, boost nutrient availability, and absorption under biotic stress, and trigger plant defense responses, or indirectly by suppressing plant infections [55]. Surprisingly, biocontrol agents (BCAs), including microorganisms and their secondary metabolites, were shown to be promising as efficient and environmentally friendly alternatives to chemicals [19,56]. Because disease symptoms occur early in the growth stage, chemical control programs should use prediction models and eco-friendly plant protection methods to minimize the fungicide dose and lengthen the treatment intervals [57].
Two new native fungal isolates identified from the rice rhizosphere and bacterial isolates identified from potato phylloplane and rhizosphere have been used in this study. We assessed their efficacy for controlling the late blight of potato, but P. infestans is a polycyclic pathogen that can hardly be completely controlled with bioagents only. The effects of fungicide application have numerous hazards to mankind and the environment, and apart from that, many fungicides are banned in developed countries due to their toxic effects to human beings and animals. Thus, in this study, we focused on the use of both fungicides and native formulated bioagents, considered as a novel approach in reducing the application frequency of chemical fungicide, to minimize the impact of late blight severity on potato yield.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Culture and Growth Condition for Bacterial and Fungal Bioagents

The cultures of bacterial bioagents were maintained in Luria−Bartani (LB) medium [58] and fungal bioagents were maintained in potato dextrose agar (PDA) medium. Two bacterial isolates viz. P. putida (BDISO64RanP) and B. subtilis (BDISO36ThaR) were isolated from potato phylloplane and rhizosphere identified previously by sequencing 16SrDNA [59] and were grown on the LB agar medium during the experimental period. Two fungal strains viz. T. paraviridicens (BDISOF67R) and T. erinaceum (BDISOF91R) (Islam et al., unpublished data) isolated from the rice rhizosphere were identified with ITS primer and were cultured on the PDA medium.

2.2. In Vitro Antagonist Test in the Laboratory

In order to test the efficacy of different bioagents against P. infestans in vitro, the growth inhibition of P. infestans by different bio-agents was compared with the controls (positive and negative) (Figure 1). For the bacteria, the bioagents were sub cultured for one week after being removed from −80 °C and then, overnight, the culture of B. subtilis/P. putida was inoculated in a triangle on pea agar plates. Then, 5 mm disc of P. infestans (9 days old) were placed at the center of the triangularly inoculated bacterial plates. In the control plates, only a 5 mm disc of P. infestans (9 days old) was inoculated. The radial growth inhibition of P. infestans was assessed at two to three weeks after inoculation by measuring the radial growth of P. infestans in the dual and control plates. The percent radial mycelial growth inhibition was calculated as follows:
%   Radial   growth   inhibition   = R 1 R 2 × 100   R 1
where R1 = radial growth of P. infestans in the control plates and R2 = radial growth of P. infestans in the dual culture plates.
For fungal bioagents, a dual culture method was used to analyze whether T. paraviridescens/T. erinaceum inhibits the growth of P. infestans [60]. Trichoderma isolates were maintained in PDA strains at 4–8 °C for a short period of time. Briefly, a 5 mm diameter mycelial plug of P. infestans (9 days old) was placed on one side of a petri dish (9 cm diameter) containing pea agar and was pre-incubated at 18 °C for 2 days to initiate growth. Later, a 5 mm diameter disc of T. paraviridescens/T. erinaceum (7 days old) was placed 6 cm away from the pathogen on the dual plates, whereas a sterile PDA disc was placed in the control plates. The assay was done twice with five replications and the radial growth of the pathogen was measured 4 days after incubation at 18 °C. The percent radial mycelial growth inhibition (I) was calculated as follows [59]:
I = [(C − T)/C] × 100
where C is the radial growth measurement of the pathogen in the control plates and T is radial growth of the pathogen in the dual plates.

2.3. Experimental Location and Design

The efficacy of some selected formulated bio-agents was evaluated in both the plant growth chamber (18 °C and RH 90%) and field conditions. Plant growth chamber experiments were conducted at the Professor Golam Ali Fakir Seed Pathology Centre, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh. The growth chamber was equipped with an air cooler and sprinkling watering system, and sensors to maintain temperature (18–20 °C and adjust humidity (85–90%) two to three times in a day. Field experiments were conducted in the same farmer’s field, Sutia Khali, Mymensingh Sadar, Mymensingh, from 2018–2021. Pot experiments were conducted in a plant growth chamber with completely randomized design (CRD) and field experiments were with randomized complete block design (RCBD) by maintaining three replications. The plot size for field experiments was 3 × 2 m2. The row to row distance was 60 cm, while the plant to plant distance was 20 cm.

2.4. Treatment Design and Combination

We assessed the efficacy of two bacterial (viz; P. putida and B. subtilis) and two fungal (T. paraviridescens and T. erinaceum) bioagents compared to the chemical fungicide (Curzate M8) in a different combination. Treatment combinations were T0 (water (negative control), T1 (foliar spray of formulation of T. paraviridescens), T2 (foliar spray of formulation of T. erinaceum), T3 (foliar spray of formulation of P. putida), T4 (foliar spray of formulation of B. subtilis), T5 (foliar spray of formulation of T. paraviridescens and P. putida), T6 (foliar spray of formulation of T. erinaceum and P. putida), T7 (foliar spray of formulation of T. paraviridescens and B. subtilis), T8 (foliar spray of formulation of T. erinaceum and B. subtilis), T9 (foliar spray of formulation of T. paraviridescens, T. erinaceum, P. putida, and B. subtilis), T10 (foliar spray of Curzate M8 (Cymoxanil + Mancozeb), and T11 (foliar spray of formulation of T. paraviridescens, T. erinaceum, P. putida, and B. subtilis with T10).
According to the results of the previous experiments on the efficacy of the two formulated bacterial and two fungal bioagents in reducing late blight severity of potato under growth chamber conditions and field conditions during 2018–2019, we selected two bacterial (viz; P. putida and B. subtilis) and one fungal (viz. T. erinaceum) bioagents that were found to be effective for the total growth inhibition of late blight pathogen. The next step was to compare treatments (A) exclusively based on the current number of sprays of chemical fungicide; (B) based on the same number of sprays, but applying single or mixed bioagents; and (C) the same as (B), but reinforced by one to four additional sprays with chemical fungicide. Thus, the efficacy of these bioagents in reducing the application frequency of chemical fungicides for controlling late blight of potato was evaluated in the following treatments: T0 = water (negative control), T1 = eight sprays of Curzate M8 (positive control), T2 = eight sprays of formulated P. putida + B. subtilis, T3 = T2 + one spray of Curzate M8, T4 = T2 + two sprays of Curzate M8, T5 = T2 + three sprays of Curzate M8, T6 = T2 + four sprays of Curzate M8, T7 = Eight sprays of formulated T. erinaceum, T8 = T7 + one spray of Curzate M8, T9 = T7 + two sprays of Curzate M8, T10 = T7 + three sprays of Curzate M8, T11 = T7 + four sprays of Curzate M8, T12 = Eight sprays of formulated P. putida, B. subtilis and T. erinaceum, T13 = T12 + one spray of Curzate M8, T14 = T12 + two sprays of Curzate M8, T15 = T12 + three sprays of Curzate M8, and T16 = T12 + four sprays of Curzate M8.

2.5. Growing Potato for Field Experiments

Land was fertilized with cow dung (7.5 t/ha), DAP (260 kg/ha), MOP (260 kg/ha), Gypsum (120 kg/ha), zinc (7.5 kg/ha), boron (7.5 kg/ha), magnesium (45 kg/ha), furadan (7.5 kg/ha), and urea (120 kg/ha) just before the final land preparation. Apparently disease free and uniform tubers of a popular potato cultivar (Diamant, a variety showing susceptibility under severe outbreak) were cut into pieces with at least one bud and were left for 24 h for suberization. Then, the suberized tuber pieces were treated by drenching with the formulated bioagents (0.4% w/v) and the treated tubers were left for at least 1 h for adherence. Treated and non-treated tuber pieces were planted in the pots filled with prepared soils, which were then kept in the net house until two days before the inoculation. For field experiments, the treated and non-treated tuber pieces were planted in respective experimental plots. Two top dressings of urea (120 kg/ha) were applied at 33 and 60 DAP along with two irrigations at 27 and 60 DAP. Weeding was performed at 25 DAP followed by earthen up at 33 and 43 DAP.

2.6. Talc-Based Formulation of Selected Bacterial and Fungal Bioagents

First, 500 g talc powder, 5 g CMC (Carboxy methyl cellulose), and 7.5 g CaCO3 were mixed at 121 °C for 30 min. To formulate the bioagents, the bacteria were cultured for 24 h on LB media. The bacteria were then cultured in LB broth for 6 h. They were then centrifuged and resuspended in 200 mL peptone broth with bactopeptone. This broth culture was shaken for 2 h more. Then, 5 mL of sterile 100% glycerol was added in a 200 mL culture. These cultures (5 × 108 CFU/mL) were added to 500 g powdered talc in the tray. The formulations were then air dried overnight in a laminar flow hood and later the formulations were powdered with hand wearing gloves and mask. The formulated bacterial antagonists were packed in plastic bags. For fungal bioagents, a mycelial disc (5 mm diameter) for each isolate was inoculated in 100 mL PDB broth. Conidia production was counted after 7 days and the mycelial mat along with conidia from PDB was mixed thoroughly with previously autoclaved talcum powder pretreated with 0.5% CMC (5 g CMC dissolved in 100 mL water mixed with 1 kg talcum powder). The mixture was then air-dried in a laminar flow hood and was kept in plastic bags, accordingly.

2.7. Artificial Inoculation of P. infestans

Inoculum was prepared from Petri plate cultures of the P. infestans isolates on pea agar with β-sitosterol (50 mg/L) grown until the maximum vegetative growth stage; on the day before inoculation, the mycelia were smashed with a sterile test tube and the plates were left at 18 °C in an incubator (VELP SCIENTIFICA) overnight for the production of sporangia. The sporangia were harvested by washing them off the plates with Sato’s solution [61] and the concentration was determined by counting with a hemocytometer and was adjusted to 104 sporangia/mL of Sato’s solution. The viability of the formulated bioagents was more than four months.

2.8. Application of Formulated Bacterial and Fungal Bioagents

In case of net house experiments in the growth chamber, formulated biagents and Curzate M8 were sprayed four times on plants before inoculation at 34, 41, 48, and 53 DAP and 2, 4, 7, and 9 days after inoculation, i.e., 57, 59, 62, and 64 DAP, whereas the inoculation was done at 55 DAP. In the case of field experiments, the chemical fungicide (s) and formulated bioagents were sprayed at 34, 41, 48, 53, 57, 62, 69, and 75 DAP over the potato plant surface when applied alone. However, in case of combined application with chemical fungicides, one chemical spray at 53 DAP; two chemical sprays at 53 and 57 DAP; three chemical sprays at 53, 57, and 62 DAP; and finally, four chemical sprays at 48, 53, 57, and 62 DAP were applied together. The formulated bacterial and fungal bioagents were sprayed (0.4% w/v) two days after fungicide application to avoid the interactions effects with chemical fungicide. The application concentration of each bioagent was reduced to half in case of the combined application of two bioagents, and one third when three bioagents were applied together.

2.9. Assessment of Late Blight Incidence and Severity

Ten potato plants were randomly selected and tagged for data collection. Late blight incidence and severity were recorded for Net house experiments at 61 and 65 DAP for field experiments at 48, 59, and 71 DAP, following the formula and the scales mentioned bellow. Parameters for field experiments were (i) plant height at 34, 52, and 71 DAP; (ii) number of plants per hill at the time of harvest; (iii) number of tubers per plant; and (iv) yield.
Late   blight   incidence   % =   Number   of   late   blight   infected   plants Total   number   of   plants   examined × 100
The late blight severity scale followed was by James [62]. Briefly, 1 = 0% blight (no disease observed), 2 = 0.1% blight (a few scattered plants blighted; no more than 1 or 2 spots in 12-yard radius), 3 = 1% blight (up to 10 spots per plant; or general light infection), 4 = 5% blight (about 50 spots per plant; up to 1 in 10 leaflets infected), 5 = 25% blight (nearly every leaflet infected, but plants retain normal form; plants may smell of blight; field looks green although every plant is affected), 6 = 50% blight (every plant affected and about 50% of leaf area destroyed), 7 = 75% blight (about 75% of leaf area destroyed; field appears neither predominantly brown or green), 8 = 95% blight (only a few leaves on plants, but stems green), and 9 = 100% blight (all leaves dead, stems dead or dying).

2.10. Economic Analyses of Formulated Bioagents

The benefit−cost ratio (BCR) was calculated for each treatment according to the method of Mondal et al. [63]. The cost−benefit analysis compared the profitability of each treatment based on the gross returns and costs. Each treatment’s gross and net returns were computed as follows. Gross return (TK/ha) = tuber Yield (kg/ha) × price (TK/kg); net return (TK/ha) = gross return (TK/ha) − cost of production plus treatment cost (TK/ha); the BCR was calculated as shown below:
BCR   =   A × C B B
where A = selling price (Tk./kg), B = cost of cultivation + treatment cost (Tk./ha), and C = yield (kg/ha).

2.11. Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using the MStatC statistical program. Means were compared using Duncan’s multiple range test (DMRT).
Experimental procedures are presented in Chart 1.

3. Results

3.1. Development of an Eco-Friendly Sustainable Management Alternative against Late Blight of Potato Using Potential Formulated Bio-Agents under Field Conditions

The present study was designed to develop an eco-friendly sustainable management alternative against potato late blight using some potential formulated bio-agents under both growth chamber and field condition. Experiments were conducted in both a net house with artificial inoculation and in the field with natural infection conditions to compare the efficacy of the selected formulated bacterial and fungal bio-agents for controlling late blight of potato. Before using those with chemical fungicide (Curzate M8), the interactions effect of different bacterial and fungal bioagents were studied. The results showed that no interactions effect was observed among the bioagents. However, the growth of both bacterial bioagents (P. putida and B. subtilis) and fungal bioagent (T. paraviridescens and T. erinaceum) were slightly delayed due to CurzateM8 (Supplementary Figure S1). Thus, the bioagents were applied after two days of Curzate M8 application.

3.2. In Vitro Growth Inhibition and Morphological Changes of P. infestans by Bacterial and Fungal Bioagents

The in vitro antagonistic assay of B. subtilis and P. putida with P. infestans revealed that the growth of P. infestans was inhibited by 93.99% over the control (Figure 2). On the other hand, T. paraviridicens and T. erinaceum inhibited the growth of P. infestans by 46 and 51.5%, respectively, over the control (Figure 3). Considering the morphological changes, we observed the deformation of mycelial structures when bioagents were applied against P. infestans in a duel culture method in the laboratory (Figure 1).

3.3. Efficacy of Formulated Two Bacterial and Two Fungal Bioagents in Reducing Late Blight Severity of Potato under Artificial Inoculation Conditions

The minimum severity (3.67% and 5.00%) was recorded in T11 at 61 and 65 DAP, respectively, in 2018–2019 compared to the control and treatments, as T0 showed maximum severity at both 61 and 65 DAP. However, for T1 to T10, all exhibited statistically similar data in both 61 and 65 DAP, except T5 in the 65 DAP. Considering the percent reduction of severity at 65 DAP, T11 showed the best (92.69%) result, followed by T9 (72.44%), T10 (71.87%), and T2 (70.47%) compared to the other treatments (Table 1).

3.4. Assessment of Field Potential of Formulated Two Bacterial and Two Fungal Bioagents in Reducing Late Blight Infection and Severity under Field Conditions

The performance of the treatments on the percent of infected plants and late blight severity was recorded at three different time point viz. 48, 59, and 71 DAP in 2018–2019. Maximum (74.36%) and no plant infection were found in T8 and T11, respectively, while at 59 and 71 DAP, 100% infection was calculated, with almost all treatments possessing statistically identical data except T9 (95.00), T10 (64.96%), and T11 (29.91%). Regarding the percentage of late blight severity at 48 DAP, no infected plant was found in T10 and T11 and maximum severity was recorded in T5 (2.84%), and the others were calculated as a moderate rate of severity. At 59 DAP, minimal severity was recorded in T11 (2.43%), followed by T10 (3.37%) showing statistically identical data. These treatments performed better compared to all other treatments. In the case of 71 DAP, the minimum (10.33%) severity was recorded in T11 followed by T10 (21.30%), which was statistically similar and performed better among all of the other treatments. Considering the percent reduction of late blight severity over the control, the highest reduction was found when applied with T11 (89.16%) followed by T10 (77.50%), T9 (27.07%), and T2 (16.71%) (Table 2).

3.5. Economic Analysis of Formulated Two Bacterial and Two Fungal Bioagents Used for Reducing Late Blight Infection and Severity under Field Conditions

The benefit−cost ratio (BCR) was calculated based on the data obtained from formulated bacterial and fungal bioagents during 2018–2019 for each of the treatments, and is tabulated in Table 3. The results from the table of the cost−benefit analysis revealed that all treatments provided BCR lower than 1, except T10 (0.45) and T11 (0.50), which previously recorded significant results in the reduction of severity over the control. The maximum gross return (Tk. 321,760.00/ha) and the net return (106,660.00 Tk./ha) were obtained from the treatment T11. Thus, the highest BCR was calculated from treatment T11 (0.50) followed by T10 (0.45). The results indicated that a return of Tk. of 0.45 and 0.50 was obtained over the investment of Tk. 1.00 in case of T10 (0.45) and T11 (0.50) (Table 3), respectively.

3.6. Field Potential of Formulated Two Bacterial and One Fungal Bioagents in Reducing the Application of Chemical Fungicides for Controlling Potato Late Blight under Growth Chamber Conditions

Based on the findings obtained from 2019–2020, the minimum severity (0.40%) was recorded in T16 at 61 DAP, followed by T15 (0.70%), T11 (1.70%), T10 (1.73%), T14 (2.03%), T9 (2.03%), and T1 (2.33%), which performed better than the control. According to 65 DAP, the same treatment with T16 showed the lowest severity (10.00%), followed by T15 (10.33%), T14 (10.33%), T1 (10.33%), and T6 (12.67%) exhibiting statistically significant data, while other treatments showed insignificant outcomes including the control. With regards to the percent reduction of late blight severity over the control, at 65 DAP, T16 (90.00%) resulted in the highest reduction, followed by T15 (89.67%), T14 (89.67%), and T11 (85.00%) compared to all of the other treatments applied, including T1 (88.33%) (Table 4).

3.7. Efficacy of Formulated Two Bacterial and One Fungal Bioagents for Reducing the Application Frequency of Chemical Fungicides for Controlling Potato Late Blight Severity under Field Conditions

In 2019–2020, T1 performed the best, showing the lowest severity (0.007%), followed by T13 (0.050%), T6 (0.683%), T16 (0.083%), and T15 (0.140%). At 71 DAP, minimum severity was obtained from T1 (0.45%) followed by T16 (1.86%), T6 (2.76%), T13 (0.050%), and T15 (6.07%), showing identical statistical interference, whereas at both 59 and 71 DAP, all other treatments showed a moderate to higher level of severity, except T16, T13, T6, T15, and T1. However, in case of a reduction of late blight severity over the control at 71 DAP, T1 (99.54%) showed the highest reduction, followed by T16 (98.13%), T15 (97.38%), T6 (97.20%), and T11 (94.67%), which were much more fruitful combination than the control and other treatments (Table 5).
Considering 2020–2021, as in the previous year, T16 revealed lowest level (6.67%) of severity, followed by T15 (8.33%), T14 (11.67%), T11 (11.67%), and T1 (11.67%), compared to the control (T0), which showed 88.33% of severity at 61 DAP. At 65 DAP, similarly, T16, T15, and T14 were also effective, revealing only 0.70%, 1.00%, and 2.03% severity, respectively, compared to T1 (2.33%). As found by percent reduction of late blight severity over control, at 65 DAP, T16 (93.33%) performed best followed by T15 (91.67%), T14 (88.33%), T1 (88.33%), and T11 (86.67%) compared to all of the other treatments, including the control (Table 6). Overall, in these two years, the treatments (T16, T15, T14, T11, and T1) performed better considering all of the parameters at 61 and 65 DAP.
During 2020–2021, at 59 DAP, the lowest severity was recorded in T1(0.03%), followed by T16 (0.16%), T15 (0.37%), T6 (0.40%), and T11 (0.43%), and at 71 DAP, minimum severity (0.89%) was calculated in T1 followed by T16 (3.80%), T6 (5.27%), T11 (6.07%), and T15 (12.87%), showing statistically identical data, while maximum severity (0.020%, 44.93% and 99.16%) was found in T0 at 48, 59, and 71 DAP, respectively. With regards to the percent reduction of late blight severity over the control at 71 DAP, the highest percent reduction of late blight was observed in T1 (99.10%), followed by T16 (96.17%), T6 (94.68%), and T11 (93.88%), compared to the rest of the treatments (Table 7 and Supplementary Figure S2). Overall, in these two years, treatments T16, T15, T11, T6, and T1 performed better considering all of the parameters at 48, 59, and 71 DAP.

3.8. Economic Analysis of Formulated Two Bacterial and One Fungal Bioagents Used for Reducing the Application Frequency of Fungicide for Controlling Late Blight of Potato

During 2019–2020 and 2020–2021, the average cost−benefit analysis revealed that the highest (Tk. 395,111.11/ha) gross return was obtained from treatment T16, followed by T6 (Tk. 390,222.23/ha), T1 (379,200.00/ha), and T11 (Tk. 374,888.89/ha). Thus, the highest BCR (0.90) was calculated from treatments T16 and T6 (0.88), which performed better than T1 (0.85). BCR results indicated a return ranging from Taka 0.85 to 0.90 over the investment of Taka 1.00 in these treatments in those two years. In both years, treatments (T16, T6, T11, and T1) performed better in the field conditions, reducing the fungicide application frequency to mitigate late blight severity, as those treatments also performed better in the cost−benefit analysis (Table 8).

3.9. Detailed Economic Analysis of the Improved Management of Late Blight Using Bioagents during 2019–2020 and 2020–2021

Bangladesh has been producing 9.7 million tonnes potato on 0.5 million hectares of land, as mentioned earlier. Farmers are spending 6500 million Tk of their total expenditures on fungicides per year with conventional approaches (eight sprays of Curzate M8 (positive control)). Conversely, if we could apply two improved management approaches with bioagents 1 ((T2) + four sprays of Curzate M8) and 2 ((T12) + four sprays of Curzate M8), then the total expenditures for fungicides could be drastically reduced to 3250 million Tk. Among the three approaches, improved management with bioagents 1 and 2 showed better economic returns compared to the farmers’ approach. Cultivation of potato with improved management approaches with bioagents 1 and 2 were satisfactory, because farmers benefited from a 7.19% and 10.98% increase in their income for one hectare of land, respectively. With regards to the country’s economic impact within two years, 9361.5 million Tk was the total increase of the country’s return when applying improved management with bioagents 2 and 6135 million dollars from improved management with bioagents 1. Approximately 0.3 million farm families are closely engaged with potato production. In our detailed analysis, we observed that the income of an individual farm family was raised 31.21 thousand Tk when we applied improved management with bioagents 2, which indicated that the use of bioagents with chemical fungicide to minimize the late blight severity had a tremendous economic and social impact on our country. Thus, farmers will likely be willing to accept this technology, as several factors are closely associated with their income return from one hectare of potato land (Table 9).

4. Discussion

Managing late blight using eco-friendly methods is always challenging under high disease pressure in severe environments. Biological management in this country is more relevant due to the detrimental effect of chemicals on the environment and human health. In this study, it was observed that bacterial species belonging to the genera Pseudomonas and Bacillus are were able to inhibit the growth of P. infestans in vitro by 94% over the control. These results are in accordance with the findings of [42]. They observed the best antagonistic activity of Pseudomonas and Bacillus against P. infestans, as they produced a wide range of antibiotics, chemical surfactants, and biosurfactants. The antagonist B. subtilis B5 strain effectively inhibited P. infestans growth [43]. The route of action seems to be the ability of B subtilis strains to create mycotoxins that suppress P. infestans growth and stimulate peroxidase activity [44]. Elliott et al. [45] noted that Companion® and Serenade® are marketed B. subtilis biocontrol agents that reduce P. infestans. Bacillus strains might control P. infestans directly by reducing mycelial development, cyst germination, or motile zoospore swimming by creating antifungal chemicals that suppress the pathogen, or indirectly by stimulating active oxygen burst, nitrogen synthesis, callose accumulation, and lignification [64,65,66]. In our study, we also observed alteration of mycelia growth and morphological changes with the spore formation when formulated bioagents were applied in an in vitro condition. The metabolite of the biosurfactant producing bacterium, P. aeruginosa has shown high efficacy against P. infestans under in vitro conditions [67]. Pseudomonas and Bacillus isolates were antagonistic to P. infestans. Twenty-three effective microorganisms (spore-forming and non-spore-forming bacteria, yeasts, and fungi) isolated from potato phyllosphere on P. infestans growth were investigated in dual cultures, including their patterns of inhibition [68]. PCA (Phenazine-1-carboxylic) promotes biofilm development, allowing PCA-producing Pseudomonas spp. to bind to plant roots and act as biocontrol agents [69]. Pseudomonas biocontrol of P. infestans was previously shown to suppress sporangia and zoospore germination, implying the existence of several undiscovered antioomycete determinants. By up and down regulating the gene expression in P. infestans, Roquigny et al. [46] showed that Pseudomonas spp.-produced Phenazine-1-carboxylic PCA is involved in growth inhibition in P. infestans.
Bacterial (P. putida and B. subtilis) and fungal (T. erinaceum) bioagents were found to be effective at reducing late blight severity by 99% until 60 DAP, whereas these bioagents were found to be partially effective until 70 DAP, and reduced late blight severity by 46% when applied together under high disease pressure conditions. The use of these bacterial and fungal bioagents in combination with four sprays of chemical fungicide (Curzate M8) could reduce late blight severity up to 98% and could reduce the application frequencies of fungicide by 50% in both net house and field conditions; generally, all farmers of Bangladesh have been using at least eight sprays of chemical fungicides, which might be raised up to 16 sprays depending on the weather conditions, per hectare of land, whether late blight severity is present or not, thus, we have standardized it (8 sprays) based on the field surveys in our experiment to evaluate the reduction of spray frequency of chemical fungicide with bioagents. Furthermore, the cost−benefit analysis revealed that treatments T10 and T11 showed a better performance in terms of BCR in 2018–2019, as well as treatmentsT6 and T16 in 2019–2020 and 2020–2021, respectively, compared to other treatments applied. Yan et al. [70] observed that B. velezensis reduced late blight severity by 40.79% and 37.67% in a two-year field trial. They found that a low fungicide concentration and a high concentration of B. velezensis SDTB038 could reduce potato late blight. In addition, B. velezensis SDTB038 may successfully suppress the infection of potato leaves by P. infestans, making it a promising biological fungicide against potato late blight. Compared to untreated plants, the B. subtilis 26D strain reduced P. infestans mycelium growth and reduced late blight symptoms by 35%, respectively. Sorokan et al. [71] explained that B. strains induced systemic resistance to P. infestans through the activation of the transcription of PR genes in potato plants. The development of ectoenzymes and antifungal medicines like surfactin and iturinA gives B. subtilis strains a broad range of antifungal action. Antifungal metabolite-induced mycelium damage is thought to be mostly osmotic cell stress. In intimate contact with phytopathogenic fungus, the bacteria aggressively move towards fungal hyphae, kill them, and feed on them [72]. These observations are highly similar in accordance with our observations of the morphological deformation of P. infestans in a dual culture method. Wang et al. [73] highlighted that B. subtilis WL-2 and IturinA produced by B. subtilis WL-2 have great potential as candidates for inhibiting P. infestans mycelium growth and controlling potato late blight. B. subtilis 30B-B6 was shown to significantly decrease late blight severity [74]. As revealed by [48], P. infestans is very sensitive to bacterial volatiles such as 1-undecene generated by potato-associated Pseudomonas strains. It was shown that several potato-associated Pseudomonas strains could effectively suppress extremely pathogenic P. infestans isolates by inhibiting mycelial growth of all P. infestans isolates when co-cultured with the most active Pseudomonas strain (R47) [49]. Tomar et al. [67] in another study observed that five isolates of bacteria were found to be effective against P. infestans out of 95 tested as biocontrol agents. Both P. aeruginosa-1 and -3 had 62.22% and 46.42% inhibition after 72 h, respectively. P. aeruginosa-1 culture supernatant and bacterial cell suspension exhibited 10.42%, 9.94%, and 17.96% disease severity in potato plants, respectively, compared to 53.96% in the control. Zhang et al. [9] observed in greenhouse and field trials that the combined application of Rhodopseudomonas palustris GJ-22 and Curzate resulted in better disease control than the use of either agent alone. They highlighted the potentialities of the combined application of R. palustris strain GJ-22 and Curzate to control potato late blight in a more environment friendly way by a reduced level of harmful chemical fungicides application. In this study, we observed that T. paraviridescens and T. erinaceum reduced the late blight severity in both net house and field conditions. Kariukiet al. [28] observed the inhibitory action of T. asperellum and T. harzianum on the P. infestans mycelial growth and the suppression of late blight disease in the greenhouse experiment. Elsherbiny et al. [75] reported that Trichoderma VOCs suppressed the mycelial development of P. infestans cultured on laboratory media by 80% and on potato tubers by 93.1%. Electron microscopy demonstrated substantial morphological and ultrastructural malformations in T. atroviride VOC-treated hyphae, including cell deformation, collapse, and organelle disintegration. Purwantisari et al. [76] reported T. viride induced resistance in potato plants against late blight. Cwalina-Ambroziak et al. [77] found that using an integrated chemical and biological approach decreased the symptoms of P. infestans infections. Trichoderma’s rhizosphere competence and competitive ability could be a factor in its biocontrol roles against P. infestans [66]. This is because Trichoderma uses many mycoparasitic strategies, which are direct methods for biological control that work by parasitizing, detecting, growing, and colonizing pathogens. These strategies include the detection of pathogens through chemotropism; the lysis of the pathogen’s cell wall, the pathogen’s hyphal penetration by appresorial formation; and the production of toxins [78]. Considering the detailed economic analysis, improved management with bioagents 1 and 2 performed better compared to the farmers’ conventional approach in terms of economic return, and income of per farm family was raised up to 31.21 thousand Tk as well, which indicated that using these bioagents had a positive economic impact on farmer income and on the country. Farmers benefitted while using the improved management with bioagents, which significantly focused the acceptability of these bioagents among stakeholders, consumers, and farmers. These findings support our observation on the potentiality of the combined use of bacterial and fungal bioagents with Curzate M8 to reduce late blight severity almost at the same level as the conventional eight sprays of Curzate M8 did. This was observed with either single or combined use of bacterial (P. putida and B. subtilis) and fungal (T. erinaceum) bioagents. Therefore, the possibility of using formulated bacterial and fungal bioagents could be an alternative for reducing the application of chemical fungicides for controlling late blight of potato and producing export quality organic potato in the country.

5. Conclusions

Bacterial (P. putida and B. subtilis) and fungal (T. erinaceum) bioagents were found to be effective at reducing late blight severity by 99% until 60 DAP, whereas these bioagents were found to be partially effective until 70 DAP and reduced late blight severity by 46% when applied together under field conditions. The use of these bacterial and fungal bioagents in combination with four sprays of chemical fungicide (Curzate M8) could reduce late blight severity by up to 98% and could reduce the application frequencies of fungicide by 50% in both net house and field conditions. However, the possibility of the commercial formulation and application of these bioagents needs to be investigated with a proper late blight forecasting system. Proper warning systems shed light on when and how many times chemical fungicides need to be applied in the future.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su14084383/s1. Supplementary Figure S1: Interactions effect of bacterial and fungal bioagents with Curzate M8 used for controlling late blight of potato. Supplementary Figure S2: Efficacy of some selected bacterial and fungal bioagents in reducing the frequency of fungicides application for controlling late blight severity of potato under field condition.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.R.I.; methodology, M.R.I., M.H.I., M.M.M., M.J., M.I.H. and S.I.; software, M.H.I. and M.M.M.; validation, M.R.I. and M.H.I.; formal analysis, M.H.I., M.M.M. and M.I.H.; investigation, M.R.I. and M.H.I.; resources, M.R.I.; data curation, M.H.I., M.M.M., S.I. and M.J.; writing—original draft preparation, M.H.I. and M.M.M., writing—review and editing, M.R.I., M.H.I., M.M.M., M.Z.A. and F.J.B.S.; visualization, M.R.I., M.H.I. and M.M.M.; supervision, M.R.I.; project administration, M.R.I.; funding acquisition, M.R.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research grant was carried out with the financial support from Bangladesh Academy of Sciences (BAS)-United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to Md. Rashidul Islam (grant no. BAS-USDA PALS CR-38).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge BAS (Bangladesh Academy of Sciences (BAS)-United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mizubuti, E.S.G.; Fry, W.E. Potato late blight. In The Epidemiology of Plant Diseases, 2nd ed.; Cooke, B.M., Jones, D.G., Kaye, B., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006; pp. 445–471. [Google Scholar]
  2. FAOSTAT. Countries by Commodity. Available online: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#rankings/countries_by_commodity (accessed on 22 January 2022).
  3. Hortex Foundation. Brief on Potato Export in Bangladesh; Horticulture Export Development Foundation (HortexFoundation), Ministry of Agriculture: Dhaka, Bangladesh. Available online: https://www.hortex.org/ (accessed on 3 November 2020).
  4. HIES (Household Income and Expenditure Survey-2016). Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Yearbook of Agricultural Statistics; Statistics and Informatics Division (SID), Ministry of Planning, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2016.
  5. Judelson, H.S.; Blanco, F.A. The spores of Phytophthora: Weapons of the plant destroyer. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2005, 3, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Haldar, K.; Kamoun, S.; Hiller, N.L.; Bhattacharje, S.; van Ooij, C. Common infection strategies of pathogenic eukaryotes. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2006, 4, 922–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Ali, M.S.; Dey, T.K. Pathological research on tuber crops in Bangladesh. In Proceedings of the Workshopon Transfer Technology of CDP Crops under Research-Extension Linkage Programme, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 22–27 October 1994; pp. 159–165. [Google Scholar]
  8. Leesutthiphonchai, W.; Vu, A.L.; Ah-Fong, A.M.V.; Judelson, H.S. How Does Phytophthora infestans Evade Control Effects? Modern Insight into the Late Blight Disease. Phytopathology 2018, 108, 916–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Zhang, X.; Li, X.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Tan, X.; Su, P.; Zhang, D.; Liu, Y. Integrated control of potato late blight with a combination of the photosynthetic bacterium Rhodopseudomonas palustris strain GJ-22 and fungicides. Biol. Control 2020, 65, 635–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hadwiger, L.A.; McDonel, H.; Glawe, D. Wild yeast strains as prospective candidates to induce resistance against potato late blight (Phytophthora infestans). Am. J. Potato Res. 2015, 92, 379–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Saville, A.; Graham, K.; Grunwald, N.J.; Myers, K.; Fry, W.E.; Ristaino, J.B. Fungicide sensitivity of U.S. genotypes of Phytophthora infestans to six oomycete-targeted compounds. Plant Dis. 2015, 99, 659–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Garron, C.A.; Davis, K.C.; Ernst, W.R. Near-field air concentrations of pesticides in potato agriculture in Prince Edward Island. Pest Manag. Sci. 2009, 65, 688–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Fukue, Y.; Akino, S.; Osawa, H.; Kondo, N. Races of Phytophthora infestans isolated from potato in Hokkaido. Japan. J. Gen. Plant Pathol. 2018, 84, 276–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Obach, B.K. Theoretical interpretations of the growth in organic agriculture: Agricultural modernization or an organic treadmill? Soc. Nat. Resour. 2007, 20, 229–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bettiol, W.; Ghini, R.; Galvão, J.A.H.; Siloto, R.C. Organic and conventional tomato cropping systems. Sci. Agric. 2004, 61, 253–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Ghorbani, R.; Wilcockson, S.J.; Giotis, C.; Leifert, C. Potato late blight management in organic agriculture. Outlooks Pest Manag. 2004, 15, 176–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Koenig, R.L.; Baker, B. US National Organic Program Standards: Implications for Researchers; The American Phytopathological Society: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Duncan, J.M. Breeding to tackle blight without copper or GM. Nature 2003, 425, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Meena, K.R.; Kanwar, S.S. Lipopeptides as the antifungal and antibacterial agents: Applications in food safety and therapeutics. Biomed Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 473050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Kato, M.; Mizubuti, E.S.G.; Goodwin, S.B.; Fry, W.E. Sensitivity to protectant fungicides and pathogenic fitness of clonal lineages of Phytophthora infestans in the United States. Phytopathology 1997, 87, 973–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Randall, E.; Young, V.; Sierotzki, H.; Scalliet, G.; Birch, P.R.; Cooke, D.E.; Csukai, M.; Whisson, S.C. Sequence diversity in the large subunit of RNA polymerase I contributes to Mefenoxam insensitivity in Phytophthora infestans. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2014, 15, 664–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Glover, B.; Syrovy, L.; Prasad, R. Late Blight Control Alternatives: Resistant Varieties and Organic Fungicides; ES Cropconsult Ltd.: Surrey, BC, Canada, 2011; Available online: http://www.certifiedorganic.bc.ca/programs/osdp/I-108%20Final%20Report%20V2.pdf (accessed on 22 January 2022).
  23. Reuters. Bayer Crop Science to Buy Biofungicide Maker AgraQuest. 2012. Available online: https://www.reuters.com/article/bayer-agraquest-idUSL6E8I40NN20120704 (accessed on 22 January 2022).
  24. Abell, A.; Ernst, E.; Bonde, J.P. Semen quality and sexual hormones in greenhouse workers. Scand. J. Work. Environ. Health 2000, 26, 492–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Abell, A.; Juul, S.; Bonde, J.P.E. Time to pregnancy among female greenhouse workers. Scand. J. Work. Environ. Health 2000, 26, 131–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Lander, F.; Knudsen, L.E.; Gamborg, M.O.; Järventaus, H.; Norppa, H. Chromosome aberrations in pesticide-exposed greenhouse workers. Scand. J. Work. Environ. Health 2000, 26, 436–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Baldi, I.; Gruber, A.; Rondeau, V.; Lebailly, P.; Brochard, P.; Fabrigoule, C. Neurobehavioral effects of long-term exposure to pesticides: Results from the 4-year follow-up of the PHYTONER Study. Occup. Environ. Med. 2011, 68, 108–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Boulanger, M.; Tual, S.; Lemarchand, C.; Guizard, A.V.; Velten, M.; Marcotullio, E.; Lebailly, P. Expositions professionnelles en agriculture et risque de cancer de la vessie: Résultats de la cohorte Agrican. Arch. Des Mal. Prof. L’environnement 2016, 77, 497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lemarchand, C.; Tual, S.; Boulanger, M.; Levêque-Morlais, N.; Perrier, S.; Clin, B.; Lebailly, P. Breast cancer risk among postmenopausal women in the agriculture and cancer cohort. Occup. Environ. Med. 2016, 73, A27. [Google Scholar]
  30. Silva, H.S.A.; Romeiro, R.S.; Carrer, R.; Pereira, J.L.A.; Mizubuti, E.S.G.; Mounteer, A. Induction of systemic resistance by Bacillus cereus against tomato foliar diseases under field conditions. J. Phytopathol. 2004, 152, 371–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lourenco, V.; Maffia, L.A.; Romeiro, R.D.; Mizubuti, E.S.G. Biocontrol of tomato late blight with the combination of epiphytic antagonists and rhizobacteria. Biol. Control 2006, 38, 331–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Jindal, K.K.; Singh, H.; Meeta, M. Biological control of Phytophthora infestans on potato. Indian J. Plant Phytol. 1988, 6, 59–62. [Google Scholar]
  33. Slininger, P.J.; Schisler, D.A.; Eirjcsson, L.D.; Brandt, T.L.; Frazier, M.J.; Woodell, L.K.; Olsen, N.L.; Kleinkopf, G.E. Biological control of post-harvest late blight of potatoes. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2007, 17, 647–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zakharchenko, N.S.; Kochetkov, V.V.; Buryanov, Y.I.; Boronin, A.M. Effect of rhizosphere bacteria Pseudomonas aureofacienson the resistance of micropropagated plants to phytopathogens. Appl. Biochem. Microbiol. 2011, 47, 661–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kim, H.Y.; Choi, G.J.; Lee, H.B.; Lee, S.W.; Lim, H.K.; Jang, K.S.; Son, S.W.; Lee, S.O.; Cho, K.Y.; Sung, N.D.; et al. Some fungal endophytes from vegetable crops and their antioomycet eactivities against tomato late blight. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2007, 44, 332–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Carabet, A.F.; Grozea, I.; Chirita, R.; Badea, A.M. Biological control of late blight (Phytophthora infestans (Mont.) de Bary) in tomatoes with mycoextracts from Fusariumculmorum and Fusariumgraminearum. Commun. Agric. Appl. Biol. Sci. 2008, 73, 257–262. [Google Scholar]
  37. Chowdappa, P.; Kumar, S.M.; Lakshmi, M.J. Growth stimulation and induction of systemic resistance in tomato against early and late blight by Bacillus subtilis OTPB1 or Trichoderma harzianum OTPB3. Biol. Control. 2013, 65, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Fatima, K.; Noureddine, K.; Henni, J.E.; Mabrouk, K. Antagonistic effect of Trichoderma harzianum against Phytophthora infestans in the North-west of Algeria. Int. J. Agron. Agric. Res. 2015, 6, 44–53. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kariuki, W.G.; Mungai, N.W.; Otaye, D.O.; Thuita, M.; Muema, E.; Korir, H.; Masso, C. Antagonistic Effects of Biocontrol Agents Against Phytophthora infestans and Growth Stimulation in Tomatoes. Afr. Crop Sci. J. 2020, 28, 55–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Thapa, S.; Sotang, N.; Limbu, A.K.; Joshi, A. Impact of Trichoderma sp. in Agriculture: A Mini-Review. J. Biol. Today’s World 2020, 9, 227. [Google Scholar]
  41. Bengtsson, T.; Holefors, A.; Liljeroth, E.; Hultberg, M.; Andreasson, E. Biosurfactants have the potential to induce defence against Phytophthora infestansin potato. Potato Res. 2015, 58, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Banat, I.M.; Makkar, R.S.; Cameotra, S.S. Potential commercial applications of microbial surfactants. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2000, 53, 495–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Ajay, S.; Sunaina, V. Direct inhibition of Phytophthora infestans, the casual organisms of late blight of potato by Bacillus antagonists. Potato J. 2005, 32, 179–180. [Google Scholar]
  44. Kumbar, B.; Mahmood, R.; Nagesha, S.N.; Nagaraja, M.S.; Prashant, D.G.; Zablon, O. Field application of Bacillus subtilis isolates for controlling late blight disease of potato caused by Phytophthora infestans. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2019, 22, 13–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Elliott, M.; Shamoun, S.F.; Sumampong, G.; James, D.; Masri, S.; Varga, A. Evaluation of several commercial biocontrol products on European and North American populations of Phytophthora ramorum. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2009, 19, 1007–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Roquigny, R.; Novinscak, A.; Arseneault, T.; Joly, D.L.; Filion, M. Transcriptome alteration in Phytophthora infestansin response to phenazine-1-carboxylic acid production by Pseudomonas fluorescens strain LBUM223. BMC Genom. 2018, 19, 474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Verschuere, L.; Rombaut, G.; Sorgeloos, P. Probiotic bacteria as biological control agents in aquaculture. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2000, 64, 655–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. De Vrieze, M.; Gloor, R.; Codina, J.M.; Torriani, S.; Gindro, K.L.; Haridon, F.; Bailly, A.; Weisskopf, L. Biocontrol Activity of Three Pseudomonas in a Newly Assembled Collection of Phytophthora infestans isolates. Phytopathology 2019, 109, 1555–1565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Hunziker, L.; Bönisch, D.; Groenhagen, U.; Bailly, A.; Schulz, S.; Weisskopf, L. Pseudomonas strains naturally associated with potato plants produce volatiles with high potential for inhibition of Phytophthora infestans. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2015, 81, 821–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Wharton, P.S.; Kirk, W.W.; Schafer, R.L.; Tumbalam, P. Evaluation of biological seed treatments in combination with management practices for the control of seed-borne late blight in potato. Biol. Control 2012, 63, 326–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zahir, Z.A.; Munir, A.; Asghar, H.N.; Shaharoona, B.; Arshad, M. Effectiveness of rhizobacteria containing ACC deaminase for growth promotion of peas (Pisumsativum) under drought conditions. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2008, 18, 958–963. [Google Scholar]
  52. Kumar, K.V.; Srivastava, S.; Singh, N.; Behl, H.M. Role of metal resistant plant growth promoting bacteria in ameliorating fly ash to the growth of Brassica juncea. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 170, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Babalola, O.O.; Sanni, A.I.; Odhiambo, G.D.; Torto, B. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria do not pose any deleterious effect on cowpea and detectable amounts of ethylene are produced. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2007, 23, 747–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Egamberdieva, D. Plant growth promoting properties of rhizobacteria isolated from wheat and pea grown in loamy sand soil. Turk. J. Biol. 2008, 32, 9–15. [Google Scholar]
  55. Oubaha, B.; Ezzanad, A.; Bolívar-Anillo, H.J. Plant beneficial microbes controlling late blight pathogen, Phytophthora infestans. In Agro-Economic Risks of Phytophthora and an Effective Biocontrol Approach; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  56. Jiang, J.Z.; Liang, T.Y.; Wang, H.Y.; Wang, X.Z. Screening of antagonistic Pseudomonas fluorescens against Phytophthora infestansand disease control in vitro. J. Agric. Univ. Hebei 2013, 36, 72–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Andreu, A.B.; Guevara, M.G.; Wolski, E.A.; Daleo, G.R.; Caldiz, D.O. Enhancement of natural disease resistance in potatoes by chemicals. Pest Manag. Sci. 2006, 62, 162–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Bertani, G. Lysogeny at mid-twentieth century: P1, P2, and other experimental systems. J. Bacteriol. 2004, 186, 595–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Islam, M.R.; Uddin, M.N.; Evana, V.R.; Islam, M.N.; Islam, M.H.; Haque, M.M. Plant growth–promoting rhizobacteria controlling late blight pathogen, Phytophthora infestans. In New and Future Developments in Microbial Biotechnology and Bioengineering; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 105–124. [Google Scholar]
  60. Sivakumar, D.; Wijeratnam, W.R.S.; Wijesundera, R.L.C.; Marikar, F.M.T.; Abeyesekere, M. Antagonistic effect of Trichoderma harzianumon post-harvest pathogens of Rambutan (Naphelium lappaceum). Phytoparasitica 2000, 28, 240–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Sato, N. Effect of some inorganic salts and hydrogen ion concentration on indirect germination of the sporangia of Phytophthora infestans. Annu. Phytopathol. Soc. Jpn. 1994, 60, 441–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. James, C. A Manual of Assessment Keys for Plant Diseases; Canada Department of Agriculture: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1971.
  63. Mondal, N.A.; Asaduzzaman, S.M.; Malaker, P.K.; Rouf, M.A.; Huq, M.I. Evalution of fungicides against Bipolaris sorokiniane leaf blight of wheat (Triticum aestivum). Ann. Bangladesh Agric. 1994, 4, 37–40. [Google Scholar]
  64. Chowdhury, S.P.; Hartmann, A.; Gao, X.; Borriss, R. Biocontrol mechanismby root-associated Bacillus amyloliquefaciens FZB42—A review. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 780–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Lu, X.; Zhou, D.M.; Chen, X.; Zhang, J.F.; Huang, H.W.; Wei, L.H. Isolation and characterization of Bacillus altitudinis JSCX-1 as a new potential biocontrol agent against Phytophthora sojae in soybean. Plant Soil 2017, 416, 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Liu, D.; Li, K.; Hu, J.; Wang, W.; Liu, X.; Gao, Z. Biocontrol and Action Mechanism of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens and Bacillus subtilis in Soybean Phytophthora Blight. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 2908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Tomar, S.; Singh, B.P.; Khan, M.A.; Kumar, S.; Sharma, S.; Lal, M. Identification of Pseudomonas aeruginosastrain producing biosurfactant with antifungal activity against Phytophthora infestans. Potato J. 2013, 40, 155–163. [Google Scholar]
  68. Stephan, D.; Koch, E. Screening of plant extracts, microorganisms and commercial prepartions for biocontrol of Phytophthora infestans on detached potato leaves. OBC WPRS Bull. 2002, 25, 341–394. [Google Scholar]
  69. Mavrodi, D.V.; Blankenfeldt, W.; Thomashow, L.S. Phenazine coumpounds in fluorescent Pseudomonas spp. biosynthesis and regulation. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2006, 13, 417–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Yan, H.; Qiu, Y.; Yang, S.; Wang, Y.; Wang, K.; Jiang, L.; Wang, H. Antagonistic activity of Bacillus velezensis SDTB038 against Phytophthora infestans in potato. Plant Dis. 2020, 105, 1738–1747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Sorokan, A.; Benkovskaya, G.; Burkhanova, G.; Blagova, D.; Maksimov, I. Endophytic Strain Bacillus subtilis 26DCryChSProducing Cry1Ia Toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis Promotes Multifaceted Potato Defense against Phytophthora infestans (Mont.) de Bary and Pest Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say. Plants 2020, 9, 1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Pavlova, M.; Asaturova, A.; Allakhverdian, V.; Sidorova, T. Physiological and biochemical aspects of the fungicidal action of promising biocontrol Bacillus subtilis strains against phytopathogenic fungi Fusarium and Pyrenophora. BIO Web Conf. 2020, 21, 00016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Wang, Y.; Zhang, C.; Liang, J.; Wu, L.; Gao, W.; Jiang, J. Iturin A Extracted From Bacillus subtilisWL-2 Affects Phytophthora infestans via Cell Structure Disruption, Oxidative Stress, and Energy Supply Dysfunction. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 536083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Caulier, S.; Gillis, A.; Colau, G.; Licciardi, F.; Liépin, M.; Desoignies, N.; Modrie, P.; Legrève, A.; Mahillon, J.; Bragard, C. Versatile Antagonistic Activities of Soil-Borne Bacillus spp. and Pseudomonas spp. against Phytophthora infestans and Other Potato Pathogens. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Elsherbiny, E.A.; Amin, B.H.; Aleem, B.; Kingsley, K.L.; Bennett, J.W. Trichoderma Volatile Organic Compounds as a Biofumigation Tool against Late Blight Pathogen Phytophthora infestans in Postharvest Potato Tubers. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020, 68, 8163–8171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Purwantisari, S.; Priyatmojo, A.; Sancayaningsih, R.P.; Kasiamdari, R.S.; Budihardjo, K. The Resistance of Potatoes by Application of Trichoderma viride Antagonists Fungus. E3S Web Conf. 2018, 73, 06014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Cwalina-Ambroziak, B.; Damszel, M.M.; Głosek-Sobieraj, M. The effect of biologicaland chemical control agents on thehealth status of the very early potato cultivar Rosara. J. Plant Prot. Res. 2015, 55, 389–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. El-Hasan, A.; Walker, F.; Schöne, J.; Buchenauer, H. Detection of viridiofungin A and other antifungal metabolites excreted by Trichoderma harzianum active against different plant pathogens. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2009, 124, 457–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Growth inhibition of P. infestans by bioagents with the control. (A) Negative control, (B) positive control (Curzate M8), (C) mycelia of P. infestans, (D) pure culture of P. putida, (E) growth inhibition of P. infestans by P. putida, (F) deformation of mycelial structure of P. infestans by P. putidaunder stereo binocular microscope, (G) pure culture of B. subtilis, (H) growth inhibition of P. infestans by B. subtulis, (I) deformation of mycelial structure of P. infestans by Bacillus subtilis under stereo binocular microscope, (J) pure culture of T. erinacium, (K) growth inhibition of P. infestans by T. erinacium, and (L) deformation of mycelial structure of P. infestans by T. erinacium under stereo binocular microscope.
Figure 1. Growth inhibition of P. infestans by bioagents with the control. (A) Negative control, (B) positive control (Curzate M8), (C) mycelia of P. infestans, (D) pure culture of P. putida, (E) growth inhibition of P. infestans by P. putida, (F) deformation of mycelial structure of P. infestans by P. putidaunder stereo binocular microscope, (G) pure culture of B. subtilis, (H) growth inhibition of P. infestans by B. subtulis, (I) deformation of mycelial structure of P. infestans by Bacillus subtilis under stereo binocular microscope, (J) pure culture of T. erinacium, (K) growth inhibition of P. infestans by T. erinacium, and (L) deformation of mycelial structure of P. infestans by T. erinacium under stereo binocular microscope.
Sustainability 14 04383 g001
Chart 1. A flow chart depicting the entire experimental procedures.
Chart 1. A flow chart depicting the entire experimental procedures.
Sustainability 14 04383 ch001
Figure 2. In vitro growth inhibition (mm) and percent reduction of mycelia growth of P. infestans by two antagonistic fungal isolates (BDISOF67R and BDISOF91R).
Figure 2. In vitro growth inhibition (mm) and percent reduction of mycelia growth of P. infestans by two antagonistic fungal isolates (BDISOF67R and BDISOF91R).
Sustainability 14 04383 g002
Figure 3. In vitro growth inhibition (mm) and percent reduction of mycelia growth of P. Infestans by two antagonistic bacterial isolates (BDISOF64RanP and BDISO36ThaR).
Figure 3. In vitro growth inhibition (mm) and percent reduction of mycelia growth of P. Infestans by two antagonistic bacterial isolates (BDISOF64RanP and BDISO36ThaR).
Sustainability 14 04383 g003
Table 1. Efficacy of formulated two bacterial and two fungal bioagents at reducing late blight severity of potato under growth chamber conditions during 2018–2019.
Table 1. Efficacy of formulated two bacterial and two fungal bioagents at reducing late blight severity of potato under growth chamber conditions during 2018–2019.
Treatments% Severity (0.1–100)% Reduction of Late blight Severity over Control at 65 DAP
Days after Planting (DAP)
6165
T041.67 ± 8.33 a73.33 ± 13.02 a0.00
T118.33 ± 6.67 ab33.33 ± 8.33 bc52.34
T211.67 ± 6.67 ab18.33 ± 6.67 bc70.47
T311.67 ± 6.67 ab26.67 ± 13.02 bc60.78
T426.67 ± 13.02 ab33.33 ± 8.33 bc52.34
T533.67 ± 16.33 ab41.67 ± 8.33 b43.57
T625.33 ± 14.15 ab33.33 ± 8.33 bc54.68
T718.33 ± 6.67 ab33.33 ± 8.33 bc46.78
T811.67 ± 6.67 ab25.00 ± 0.00 bc63.45
T914.67 ± 2.91 ab17.83 ± 3.93 bc72.44
T1010.33 ± 7.42 ab17.00 ± 8.00 bc71.87
T113.67 ± 1.33 b5.00 ± 0.00 c92.69
Level of significance**-
CV (%)85.1549.40-
Data are the averages of three replications. Values with same letters in the same column are statistically similar. NS = non-significant and * indicates the means were significant at 5% level of probability. T0 = water (Negative control); T1 = foliar spray of formulation of T. paraviridescens; T2 = foliar spray of formulation of T. erinaceum; T3 = foliar spray of formulation of P. putida; T4 = foliar spray of formulation of B. subtilis; T5 = foliar spray of formulation of T. paraviridescens and P. putida; T6 = foliar spray of formulation of T. erinaceum and P. putida; T7 = foliar spray of formulation of T. paraviridescens and B. subtilis; T8 = foliar spray of formulation of T. erinaceum and B. subtilis; T9 = foliar spray of formulation of T. paraviridescens, T. erinaceum, P.putida, and B. subtilis; T10 = foliar spray of Curzate M8 (Cymoxonil + Mancozeb); and T11 = foliar spray of formulation of T. paraviridescens, T. erinaceum, P. putida, and B. subtilis with T10.
Table 2. Efficacy of formulated two bacterial and two fungal bioagents in controlling late blight infection and late blight severity of potato under field condition during 2018–2019.
Table 2. Efficacy of formulated two bacterial and two fungal bioagents in controlling late blight infection and late blight severity of potato under field condition during 2018–2019.
Treatment% Plant Infection% Late Blight Severity% Reduction of Late Blight Severity over Control at 71 DAP
Days after PlantingDays after Planting
485971485971
T066.67 ± 5.34 ab100 ± 0.0 a1001.50 ± 0.38 abc69.33 ± 2.92 a95.50 ± 2.08 a0.00
T170.09 ± 9.86 ab100 ± 0.0 a1002.14 ± 0.67 ab50.83 ± 5.92 b90.50 ± 1.80 ab5.07
T258.12 ± 9.86 ab100 ± 0.0 a1001.34 ± 0.38 abc47.50 ± 3.69 b79.50 ± 3.75 bc16.71
T367.52 ± 9.40 ab100 ± 0.0 a1001.46 ± 0.68 abc59.50 ± 6.43 ab91.00 ± 3.21 ab4.74
T471.12 ± 7.31 ab100 ± 0.0 a1001.60 ± 0.38 ab53.50 ± 4.25 a85.00 ± 1.04 ab10.93
T569.86 ± 7.40 ab100 ± 0.0 a1002.84 ± 0.12 a60.17 ± 5.83 ab83.33 ± 3.18 ab12.75
T649.47 ± 3.63 b100 ± 0.0 a1001.32 ± 0.31 abc46.67 ± 4.34 b86.00 ± 1.50 ab9.93
T767.52 ± 6.16 ab100 ± 0.0 a1002.37 ± 0.87 ab56.83 ± 2.92 ab93.67 ± 0.44 a1.83
T874.36 ± 6.78 a100 ± 0.0 a1001.71 ± 0.65 ab57.50 ± 8.40 ab84.17 ± 8.35 ab12.15
T956.00 ± 3.80 ab95.00 ± 1.48 a1001.60 ± 0.15 bc47.50 ± 0.88 b76.17 ± 6.17 c27.07
T101.71 ± 1.71 c64.96 ± 13.27 b1000.00 ± 0.00 c3.37 ± 1.07 c21.30 ± 6.33 d77.50
T110.00 ± 0.00 c29.91 ± 2.26 c1000.00 ± 0.00 c2.43 ± 0.62 c10.33 ± 3.53 d89.16
Level of significance**NS***-
CV (%)21.577.530.0056.0617.089.07-
Data are the averages of three replications. Values with same letters in the same column are statistically similar. NS = non-significant and * indicates the means were significant at 5% level of probability. Data are the averages of three replications. Values with same letters in the same column are statistically similar. T0 = water (Negative control); T1 = foliar spray of formulation of T. paraviridescens; T2 = foliar spray of formulation of T. erinaceum; T3 = foliar spray of formulation of P. putida; T4 = foliar spray of formulation of B. subtilis; T5 = foliar spray of formulation of T. paraviridescens and P. putida; T6 = foliar spray of formulation of T. erinaceum and P. putida; T7 = foliar spray of formulation of T. paraviridescens and B. subtilis; T8 = foliar spray of formulation of T. erinaceum and B. subtilis; T9 = foliar spray of formulation of T. paraviridescens, T. erinaceum, P. putida, and B. subtilis; T10 = foliar spray of Curzate M8 (Cymoxanil + Mancozeb); and T11 = foliar spray of formulation of T. paraviridescens, T. erinaceum, P. putida, and B. subtilis with T10.
Table 3. Cost−benefit analyses of selected two bacterial and two fungal bioagents used for controlling late blight of potato during 2018–2019.
Table 3. Cost−benefit analyses of selected two bacterial and two fungal bioagents used for controlling late blight of potato during 2018–2019.
TreatmentYield (t/ha)Gross Return (Tk./ha)Production Cost (Tk./ha)Total Cost of the Treatment (Tk/ha)Total Cost with Treatment (Tk/ha)Net Return (Tk./ha)BCR
T07.22115,555.56192,5000192,500−76,944.444−0.40
T16.44103,111.11192,5009600202,100−98,988.89−0.49
T26.56104,888.89192,5009600202,100−97,211.11−0.48
T36.28100,444.44192,5009600202,100−101,655.56−0.50
T46.67106,666.67192,5009600202,100−95,433.33−0.47
T57.22115,555.56192,5009600202,100−86,544.44−0.43
T66.33101,333.33192,5009600202,100−100,766.67−0.50
T76.89110,222.22192,5009600202,100−91,877.78−0.45
T86.89110,222.22192,5009600202,100−91,877.78−0.45
T910.06160,888.89192,5009600202,100−41,211.11−0.20
T1018.67298,720.00192,50013,000205,50093,220.000.45
T1120.11321,760.00192,50022,600215,100106,660.000.50
Price: Potato Tk. 16.00/kg, Fungicide Tk. 1625/kg, bioagents Tk. 600/kg, fungicide 8 kg/ha, bioagents 16 kg/ha. T0 = water (negative control); T1 = foliar spray of formulation of T. paraviridescens; T2 = foliar spray of formulation of T. erinaceum; T3 = foliar spray of formulation of P. putida; T4 = foliar spray of formulation of B. subtilis; T5 = foliar spray of formulation of T. paraviridescens and P. putida; T6 = foliar spray of formulation of T. erinaceum and P. putida; T7 = foliar spray of formulation of T. paraviridescens and B. subtilis; T8 = foliar spray of formulation of T. erinaceum and B. subtilis; T9 = foliar spray of formulation of T. paraviridescens, T. erinaceum, P. putida, and B. subtilis; T10 = foliar spray of Curzate M8 (Cymoxonil + Mancozeb); and T11 = foliar spray of formulation of T. paraviridescens, T. erinaceum, P. putida, and B. subtilis with T10.
Table 4. Efficacy of formulated two bacterial and one fungal bioagents in reducing the frequency of application of chemical fungicides for controlling late blight of potato under artificial inoculation condition during 2019–2020.
Table 4. Efficacy of formulated two bacterial and one fungal bioagents in reducing the frequency of application of chemical fungicides for controlling late blight of potato under artificial inoculation condition during 2019–2020.
Treatment% Severity (0.1–100)% Reduction of Late Blight Severity over Control at 65 DAP
Days after Planting (DAP)
6165
T081.67 ± 6.67 a100.00 ± 0.00 a0.00
T12.33 ± 1.33 e10.33 ± 7.42 f89.67
T258.33 ± 8.33 b66.67 ± 8.33 b33.33
T36.67 ± 1.67 e33.33 ± 8.33 de66.67
T45.33 ± 2.60 e18.33 ± 6.67 ef81.67
T55.33 ± 2.60 e15.00 ± 5.00 ef85.00
T65.00 ± 0.00 e12.67 ± 3.71 f87.33
T746.67 ± 3.33 c58.33 ± 8.33 bc41.67
T830.00 ± 5.00 d53.33 ± 3.33 bcd46.67
T92.03 ± 1.51 e20.00 ± 2.89 ef80.00
T101.73 ± 1.63 e17.00 ± 8.00 ef83.00
T111.70 ± 1.65 e15.00 ± 2.89 ef85.00
T1223.33 ± 1.67 d41.67 ± 8.33 cd58.33
T135.03 ± 2.86 e33.33 ± 8.33 de66.67
T142.03 ± 1.51 e10.33 ± 7.42 f89.67
T150.70 ± 0.30 e10.33 ± 7.42 f89.67
T160.40 ± 0.30 e10.00 ± 5.00 f90.00
Level of significance****
CV (%)32.7033.79
Data are the averages of three replications. Values with same letters in the same column are statistically similar and ** indicates the means were significant at 1% level of probability. T0 = water (negative control); T1 = eight sprays of Curzate M8 (positive control); T2 = eight sprays of formulation of P. putida + B. subtilis; T3 = T2 + one spray of Curzate M8; T4 = T2 + two sprays of Curzate M8; T5 = T2 + three sprays of Curzate M8; T6 = T2 + four sprays of Curzate M8; T7 = eight sprays of formulation of T. erinaceum; T8 = T7 + one spray of Curzate M8; T9 = T7 + two sprays of Curzate M8; T10 = T7 + three sprays of Curzate M8; T11 = T7 + four sprays of Curzate M8; T12 = Eight sprays of formulation of P. putida, B. subtilis, and T. erinaceum; T13 = T12 + one spray of Curzate M8; T14 = T12 + two sprays of Curzate M8; T15 = T12 + three sprays of Curzate M8; and T16 = T12 + four sprays of Curzate M8.
Table 5. Efficacy of formulated two bacterial and one fungal bioagents in reducing the frequency of fungicides application for controlling late blight severity of potato under field conditions during 2019–2020.
Table 5. Efficacy of formulated two bacterial and one fungal bioagents in reducing the frequency of fungicides application for controlling late blight severity of potato under field conditions during 2019–2020.
Treatments% Severity% Reduction of Late Blight Severity over Control at 71 DAP
Days after Planting
485971
T00.020 ± 0.01 a44.930 ± 21.44 a99.16 ± 0.60 a0.00
T10.000 ± 0.00 d0.007 ± 0.003 b0.45 ± 1.89 f99.54
T20.003 ± 0.003 cd4.513 ± 2.89 b72.83 ± 6.33 b26.57
T30.010 ± 0.01 b0.197 ± 0.07 b8.36 ± 0.6 ef91.57
T40.000 ± 0.00 d0.147 ± 0.06 b8.07 ± 1.50 ef91.85
T50.000 ± 0.00 d1.817 ± 1.75 b8.07 ± 1.62 ef91.87
T60.000 ± 0.00 d0.683 ± 0.36 b2.76 ± 1.62 f97.20
T70.011 ± 0.006 b1.400 ± 0.29 b64.17 ± 4.32 b35.34
T80.010 ± 0.01 b1.343 ± 0.19 b19.27 ± 7.18 de80.63
T90.000 ± 0.00 d1.100 ± 0.10 b18.83 ± 0.67 de76.65
T100.000 ± 0.00 d0.170 ± 0.08 b9.00 ± 0.58 ef76.42
T110.010 ± 0.006 b0.183 ± 0.00 b5.26 ± 3.0 ef94.69
T120.000 ± 0.00 d0.773 ± 0.36 b53.33 ± 0.83 c46.21
T130.007 ± 0.007 bc0.050 ± 0.01 b30.07 ± 9.93 d69.64
T140.000 ± 0.00 d0.390 ± 0.16 b25.17 ± 9.23 d74.72
T150.003 ± 0.003 cd0.140 ± 0.04 b6.07 ± 3.47 ef97.38
T160.000 ± 0.00 d0.083 ± 0.04 b1.86 ± 0.52 f98.13
Level of significance******-
CV (%)232.72263.5334.16-
Data are the averages of three replications. Values with same letters in the same column are statistically similar and ** indicates the means were significant at 1% level of probability. T0 = water (negative control); T1 = eight sprays of Curzate M8 (positive control);; T2 = eight sprays of formulated P. putida + B. subtilis; T3 = T2 + one spray of Curzate M8; T4 = T2 + two sprays of Curzate M8; T5 = T2 + three sprays of Curzate M8; T6 = T2 + four sprays of Curzate M8; T7 = eight sprays of formulated T. erinaceum; T8 = T7 + one spray of Curzate M8; T9 = T7 + two sprays of Curzate M8; T10 = T7 + three sprays of Curzate M8; T11 = T7 + four sprays of Curzate M8; T12 = eight sprays of formulated P. putida, B. subtilis, and T. erinaceum; T13 = T12 + one spray of Curzate M8; T14 = T12 + two sprays of Curzate M8; T15 = T12 + three sprays of Curzate M8; and T16 = T12 + four sprays of Curzate M8.
Table 6. Efficacy of formulated two bacterial and one fungal bioagents in reducing the frequency of application of chemical fungicides for controlling potato late blight under artificial inoculation conditions during 2020–2021.
Table 6. Efficacy of formulated two bacterial and one fungal bioagents in reducing the frequency of application of chemical fungicides for controlling potato late blight under artificial inoculation conditions during 2020–2021.
Treatment% Severity (0.1–100)% Reduction of Late Blight Severity over Control at 65 DAP
Days after Planting (DAP)
6165
T088.33 ± 6.67 a100.00 ± 0.00 a0.00
T13.67 ± 1.33 e11.67 ± 6.67 f88.33
T258.33± 8.33 b81.67 ± 6.67 b18.33
T38.33 ± 1.67 e41.67 ± 8.33 de58.33
T48.33 ± 1.67 e21.67 ± 1.67 ef78.33
T56.67 ± 1.67 e20.00 ± 5.00 ef80.00
T66.67 ± 1.67 e15.00 ± 5.00 f85.00
T750.00 ± 8.33 c66.67 ± 8.33 bc41.67
T833.33 ± 8.33 d58.33 ± 8.33 bcd41.67
T93.67 ± 1.33 e23.33 ± 1.67 ef76.67
T102.33 ± 1.33 e18.33 ± 6.67 ef81.67
T112.03 ± 1.51 e13.33 ± 1.67 ef86.67
T1233.33 ± 8.33 d40.00 ± 10.00 cd60.00
T1315.00 ± 5.00 e33.33 ± 8.33 de66.67
T142.33 ± 1.33 e11.67 ± 6.67 f88.33
T151.00 ± 0.00 e8.33 ± 1.67 f91.67
T160.70 ± 0.30 e6.67 ± 1.67 f93.33
Level of significance****-
CV (%)32.7033.79-
Data are the averages of three replications. Values with same letters in the same column are statistically similar and ** indicates the means were significant at 1% level of probability. T0 = water (negative control); T1 = eight sprays of Curzate M8 (positive control); T2 = eight sprays of formulated P. putida + B. subtilis, T3 = T2 + one spray of Curzate M8; T4 = T2 + two sprays of Curzate M8; T5 = T2 + three sprays of Curzate M8; T6 = T2 + four sprays of Curzate M8; T7 = eight sprays of formulated T. erinaceum; T8 = T7 + one spray of Curzate M8;; T9 = T7 + two sprays of Curzate M8; T10 = T7 + three sprays of Curzate M8; T11 = T7 + four sprays of Curzate M8; T12 = eight sprays of formulated P. putida, B. subtilis, and T. erinaceum; T13 = T12 + one spray of Curzate M8; T14 = T12 + two sprays of Curzate M8; T15 = T12 + three sprays of Curzate M8; and T16 = T12 + four sprays of Curzate M8.
Table 7. Efficacy of formulated two bacterial and one fungal bioagents in reducing the frequency of fungicides application for controlling late blight severity of potato under field condition during 2020–2021.
Table 7. Efficacy of formulated two bacterial and one fungal bioagents in reducing the frequency of fungicides application for controlling late blight severity of potato under field condition during 2020–2021.
Treatment% Severity% Reduction of Late Blight Severity over Control at 71 DAP
Days after Planting
485971
T00.030 ± 0.012 a53.00 ± 10.77 a99.17 ± 0.33 a0.00
T10.000 ± 0.000 d0.03 ± 0.003 b0.89 ± 0.14 f99.10
T20.010 ± 0.006 cd4.24 ± 2.18 b80.67 ± 5.47 b18.68
T30.013 ± 0.009 b1.22 ± 0.052 b32.03 ± 1.02 d67.69
T40.003 ± 0.003 d0.97 ± 0.38 b17.00 ± 1.16 de82.85
T50.000 ± 0.000 d0.58 ± 0.79 b14.50 ± 0.76 de85.37
T60.007 ± 0.0007 d0.40 ± 0.27 b5.27 ± 0.71 ef94.68
T70.013 ± 0.009 b2.42 ± 0.210 b51.50 ± 2.08 c48.06
T80.000 ± 0.003 d1.71 ± 0.283 b35.83 ± 0.83 d63.87
T90.000 ± 0.000 d0.72 ± 0.090 b16.67 ± 1.64 de83.19
T100.013 ± 0.009 b0.46 ± 0.052 b10.87 ± 1.27 ef71.65
T110.003 ± 0.003 d0.43 ± 0.030 b6.07 ± 0.74 ef93.88
T120.010 ± 0.006 cd0.75 ± 0.038 b45.83 ± 0.83 d53.78
T130.003 ± 0.003 d1.23 ± 0.253 b34.33 ± 1.59 d65.38
T140.007 ± 0.007 d1.04 ± 0.210 b15.00 ± 1.16 de84.87
T150.000 ± 0.000 d0.37 ± 0.049 b12.87 ± 1.27 de87.02
T160.000 ± 0.000 d0.16 ± 0.006 b3.80 ± 0.23 f96.17
Level of significance******-
CV (%)232.72263.5334.16-
Data are the averages of three replications. Values with same letters in the same column are statistically similar and ** indicates the means were significant at 1% level of probability. T0 = water (negative control); T1 = eight sprays of Curzate M8 (positive control); T2 = eight sprays of formulated P. putida + B. subtilis; T3 = T2 + one spray of Curzate M8; T4 = T2 + two sprays of Curzate M8; T5 = T2 + three sprays of Curzate M8; T6 = T2 + four sprays of Curzate M8; T7 = eight sprays of formulated T. erinaceum; T8 = T7 + one spray of Curzate M8; T9 = T7 + two sprays of Curzate M8; T10 = T7 + three sprays of Curzate M8; T11 = T7 + four sprays of Curzate M8; T12 = eight sprays of formulated P. putida, B. subtilis, and T. erinaceum; T13 = T12 + one spray of Curzate M8; T14 = T12 + two sprays of Curzate M8; T15 = T12 + three sprays of Curzate M8; and T16 = T12 + four sprays of Curzate M8.
Table 8. Cost−benefit analyses of formulated two bacterial and one fungal bioagents used for reducing the frequency of fungicide application in controlling late blight of potato under field condition during 2019–2020 and 2020–2021.
Table 8. Cost−benefit analyses of formulated two bacterial and one fungal bioagents used for reducing the frequency of fungicide application in controlling late blight of potato under field condition during 2019–2020 and 2020–2021.
TreatmentYield (t/ha)Gross Return (Tk./ha)Production Cost (Tk./ha)Total Cost of the Treatment (Tk/ha)Total Cost with Treatment (Tk/ha)Net Return (Tk./ha)BCR
T06.42109,083.34192,5000192,500−86,583.34−0.45
T123.70379,200.00192,50013,000205,500173,700.000.85
T28.61137,777.78192,5009600202,100−64,322.23−0.32
T314.47231,555.56192,50011,225203,72527,830.560.14
T416.12257,777.78192,50012,850205,35052,427.780.26
T516.22128,875.56192,50014,475206,97552,580.560.26
T624.39390,222.23192,50016,100208,600181,622.230.88
T711.23179,555.56192,5009600202,100−22,544.45−0.11
T812.97207,555.56192,50011,225203,7253830.560.02
T913.61217,777.78192,50012,850205,35012,427.780.06
T1016.64266,222.22192,50014,475206,97559,247.220.29
T1123.43374,888.89192,50016,100208,600166,288.890.80
T1211.14178,222.23192,5009600202,100−23,877.78−0.12
T1312.50200,000.00192,50011,225203,725−3725.00−0.02
T1414.62233,777.78192,50012,850205,35028,427.780.14
T1516.20259,111.11192,50014,475206,97552,136.110.25
T1624.70395,111.11192,50016,100208,600186,511.110.90
Price: potato Tk. 16.00/kg, fungicide Tk. 1625/kg, bioagents Tk. 600/kg, fungicide 8 kg/ha, bioagents 16 kg/ha. T0 = water (negative control); T1 = eight sprays of Curzate M8 (positive control); T2 = eight sprays of formulated P. putida + B. subtilis; T3 = T2 + one spray of Curzate M8; T4 = T2 + two sprays of Curzate M8; T5 = T2 + three sprays of Curzate M8; T6 = T2 + four sprays of Curzate M8; T7 = eight sprays of formulated T. erinaceum; T8 = T7 + one spray of Curzate M8; T9 = T7 + two sprays of Curzate M8; T10 = T7 + three sprays of Curzate M8; T11 = T7 + four sprays of Curzate M8; T12 = eight sprays of formulated P. putida, B. subtilis and T. erinaceum; T13 = T12 + one spray of Curzate M8; T14 = T12 + two sprays of Curzate M8; T15 = T12 + three sprays of Curzate M8; and T16 = T12 + four sprays of Curzate M8.
Table 9. Detailed Economic analysis of the improved management using bioagents based on the BCR calculated during 2019–2020 and 2020–2021.
Table 9. Detailed Economic analysis of the improved management using bioagents based on the BCR calculated during 2019–2020 and 2020–2021.
ApproachesTotal Expenditure for Fungicides Used (Million Tk)Economic Return (Million Tk)Percent Increase of Income/ha Compared to Conventional PracticesTotal Increase of Return in the Country (Million Tk) Compared to Conventional PracticesIncrease of Income per Farm Family (000’Tk) Compared to Conventional Practices
Farmers’ Conventional approach650085,282.50.000.000.00
Improved Management with Bioagents 1325091,417.57.19613520.45
Improved Management with Bioagents 2325094,64410.989361.531.21
Farmers’ conventional approach: T1 ((eight sprays of Curzate M8 (Positive control)); improved management of bioagents 1: T6 (eight sprays of formulated P. putida + B. subtilis (T2) + four sprays of Curzate M8); improved management of bioagents 2: T16 (eight sprays of formulated P. putida, B. subtilis, and T. erinaceum (T12) + four sprays of Curzate M8). Tk = Bangladeshi currency; total expenditure for fungicides used (million Tk): area (0.5 milion hectare) × 1625 × 8 kg; total expenditure for improved management with bioagents: area (0.5 milion hectare) × 1625 × 4 kg, where fungicide cost 1625 taka (Bangladeshi currency)/kg. Economic return (million Tk): ((total production cost + 13,000) × 0.5 million × BCR)/10 million. Percent increase of income/ha compared to conventional practices for improved management with bioagents: economic return − economic return of farmer’s conventional approach/economic return of farmers conventional approach × 100. Total increase of return in the country (million Tk) compared to conventional practices: Economic return of improved management with bioagents − economic return of farmers’ conventional approach. Increase of income per farm family (000′ Tk) compared to conventional practices: total increase of return in the country (million Tk)/0.3 million × 10 Million.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Islam, M.H.; Masud, M.M.; Jannat, M.; Hossain, M.I.; Islam, S.; Alam, M.Z.; Serneels, F.J.B.; Islam, M.R. Potentiality of Formulated Bioagents from Lab to Field: A Sustainable Alternative for Minimizing the Use of Chemical Fungicide in Controlling Potato Late Blight. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4383. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084383

AMA Style

Islam MH, Masud MM, Jannat M, Hossain MI, Islam S, Alam MZ, Serneels FJB, Islam MR. Potentiality of Formulated Bioagents from Lab to Field: A Sustainable Alternative for Minimizing the Use of Chemical Fungicide in Controlling Potato Late Blight. Sustainability. 2022; 14(8):4383. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084383

Chicago/Turabian Style

Islam, Md. Huzzatul, Md. Mostafa Masud, Muhtarima Jannat, Muhammad Iqbal Hossain, Shafiqul Islam, Md. Zahangir Alam, Francois J. B. Serneels, and Md. Rashidul Islam. 2022. "Potentiality of Formulated Bioagents from Lab to Field: A Sustainable Alternative for Minimizing the Use of Chemical Fungicide in Controlling Potato Late Blight" Sustainability 14, no. 8: 4383. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084383

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop