Table of Contents

    Topic review

    Botanical Amendments for Synthetic Nematicides

    Subjects: Plant Sciences
    View times: 170
    Submitted by: Nikoletta Ntalli

    Definition

    The intensification of agriculture has created concerns about soil degradation and toxicity of agricultural chemicals to non-target organisms. As a result, there is great urgency for discovering new ecofriendly tools for pest management and plant nutrition. Botanical matrices and their extracts and purified secondary metabolites have received much research interest, but time-consuming registration issues have slowed their adoption. In contrast, cultural practices such as use of plant matrices as soil amendments could be immediately used as plant protectants or organic fertilizers. 

    1. Introduction

    The most notorious below-ground agricultural targets are phytoparasitic nematodes; after their infection of plants, other soil borne pathogens often follow, such as Fusarium spp., Phytophthora spp., and Pseudomonas spp. The recently rated top 10 nematode pest genera include the root-knot (Meloidogyne), cyst (Heterodera and Globodera), and root lesion (Pratylenchus) nematodes [[1]]. Nematodes attack numerous crops and are responsible for estimated losses of more than EUR 157 billion per year [[2]]. On the other hand, free-living and non-phytoparasitic nematodes are ubiquitous, possess several beneficial roles in soils, and are considered good bioindicators for environmental monitoring because their populations are sensitive to environmental contaminants and because they are well classified into diverse functional groups [[3][4]]. Likewise, soil bacteria and fungi are important components of the functional biodiversity required to maintain sustainable agroecosystems [[5]]. Because preserving this essential soil biota is a specific protection goal in pesticide environmental risk assessment, recent studies have focused on the response of the soil microbial community to the so-called low-risk pesticide classes and botanically derived nematicidal preparations [[6][7][8]].

    2. Botanical Amendments as Substitutes for Synthetic Nematicides

    Indeed, great efforts are being made worldwide towards the development of more ecofriendly crop protection tools that protect non target organisms and other aspects of the environment. European Union legislation requires extensive experimental data for plant protection products prior to authorization, so as to avoid ecotoxicity concerns. For the most part, formulations of synthetic chemicals have been drastically restricted in usage because of their adverse environmental side effects and subsequent non-inclusion in Annex I of 91/414/EEC [[9]]. The most representative multipurpose soil sterilant, methyl bromide, has been unavailable since 2005 because of the Montreal Protocol, and no other compound has replicated its role in crop protection [[10]]. Moreover, new synthetic nematicides are expensive to develop, and inconsistent efficacy often renders the use of the currently available synthetic nematicides inadequate as a stand-alone pest control method. As a result, non-chemical methods to control soil pathogens and parasites are highly desirable, although such strategies also have limitations. For instance, solarization is expensive and may affect beneficial soil organisms, flooding cannot be performed in all locations and its efficacy depends on the crop and nematode species, and cultivar resistance to plant-parasitic nematodes may break under elevated temperatures and is species-dependent [[11]].

    Most noteworthy is that many synthetic nematicides belong to the same chemical groups (e.g., organophosphates and carbamates) as many insecticides and acaricides, and they are often very toxic to soil microarthopods such as mites [[12]]. Many mites such as Cosmolaelaps simplex, a soil mite present in citrus orchards, prey on nematodes [[13]]. This mite hunts for plant-parasitic nematodes such as Meloidogyne incognita and the citrus nematode Tylenchulus semipenetrans and can significantly decrease their numbers [[14]]. Other predatory mites inhabiting soil and feeding on plant-parasitic nematodes include Lasioseius penicilliger [[15]], Lasioseius subterraneous, Protogamasellus mica [[16][17]], Lasioseius scapulatus, and Gaeolaelaps aculeifer [[18]]. Interestingly, the presence of organic manure generally increases the number of predatory mites in soil [[19]]. Consequently, the limited usage of synthetic pesticides and the application of other, ecofriendly methods may decrease plant infestation by nematodes, limit environmental pollution, and decrease the costs of plant production.

    With respect to developing ecofriendly plant protection products, interest in botanical insecticides has surged since 2000 [[20]]. Countless types of plant secondary metabolites—including alcohols, aldehydes, fatty acid derivatives, terpenoids and phenolics—contribute independently or jointly to many biological processes. These metabolites may attract or repel nematodes, stimulate or inhibit egg-hatching, or exhibit nematicidal properties [[21][22][23]]. Nematicidal compounds naturally present in plants as products of secondary metabolism have been well documented in recent years [[22][23][24][25]]. Most importantly, these secondary metabolites form complexes that often act at multiple or novel target sites, thus reducing the likelihood of pest development of resistance [[26][27]]. Different natural molecules may affect directly nematode biology and behavior [[21][28]] but also interfere with respect to nematodes and other soil microfauna interaction, although this relationship needs extensive research. In this context, it has been found that volatile substances such as short-chain alcohols or aldehydes, acetate, or other secondary metabolites such as terpenes attract predators that feed on herbivores [[29][30]]. Last, toxicity to pests and pathogens may be provided by botanical amendments by virtue of their decomposition products, induced changes in soil physical and chemical properties, and their effects on biological antagonists [[31][32][33][34]].

    The entry is from 10.3390/plants9040429

    References

    1. John Jones; Annelies Haegeman; Etienne G. J. Danchin; Hari S. Gaur; Johannes Helder; Michael Jones; Taisei Kikuchi; Rosa Helena Manzanilla-López; Juan Emilio Palomares-Rius; Wim Wesemael; et al. Top 10 plant-parasitic nematodes in molecular plant pathology. Molecular Plant Pathology 2013, 14, 946-961, 10.1111/mpp.12057.
    2. Perry, R.N.; Moens, M. (Eds.) Plant Nematology, 2nd ed.; CABI Publishing: Oxford Shire, UK, 2013.
    3. Tom Bongers; Marina Bongers; Functional diversity of nematodes. Applied Soil Ecology 1998, 10, 239-251, 10.1016/s0929-1393(98)00123-1.
    4. K Ekschmitt; Thomas Stierhof; Jens Dauber; Kurt Kreimes; Volkmar Wolters; On the quality of soil biodiversity indicators: abiotic and biotic parameters as predictors of soil faunal richness at different spatial scales. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 2003, 98, 273-283, 10.1016/s0167-8809(03)00087-2.
    5. Silvia Fusaro; Andrea Squartini; Maurizio Guido Paoletti; Functional biodiversity, environmental sustainability and crop nutritional properties: A case study of horticultural crops in north-eastern Italy. Applied Soil Ecology 2018, 123, 699-708, 10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.06.023.
    6. N. Suciu; S. Vasileiadis; E. Puglisi; Giorgia Pertile; M. Tourna; P.α. Karas; A. Papolla; A. Ferrarini; Sławomir Sułowicz; F. Fornasier; et al. Azadirachtin and trifloxystrobin had no inhibitory effects on key soil microbial functions even at high dose rates. Applied Soil Ecology 2019, 137, 29-38, 10.1016/j.apsoil.2019.01.016.
    7. Nikoletta Ntalli; N. Monokrousos; Christos Rumbos; Dorothea Kontea; Despoina Zioga; Maria D. Argyropoulou; Urania Menkissoglu-Spiroudi; Nikolaos G. Tsiropoulos; Greenhouse biofumigation with Melia azedarach controls Meloidogyne spp. and enhances soil biological activity. Journal of Pest Science 2017, , , 10.1007/s10340-017-0909-1.
    8. Nikoletta Ntalli; Despoina Zioga; Maria Argyropoulou D.; Efimia Papatheodorou M.; Urania Menkissoglu-Spiroudi; N. Monokrousos; Anise, parsley and rocket as nematicidal soil amendments and their impact on non-target soil organisms. Applied Soil Ecology 2019, 143, 17-25, 10.1016/j.apsoil.2019.05.024.
    9. European Commission. Council directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market. Off. J. Eur. Commun. 1991, L 230, 1–32.
    10. E.P.A. (US Environmental Protection Agency). Ozone Layer Depletion—Regulatory Programs, Methyl Bromide Alternatives. 2008. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection (accessed on 25 January 2020).
    11. Janet G. Atandi; Solveig Haukeland; George M. Kariuki; Danny L. Coyne; Edward N. Karanja; Martha W. Musyoka; Komi K. M. Fiaboe; David Bautze; Noah Adamtey; Organic farming provides improved management of plant parasitic nematodes in maize and bean cropping systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 2017, 247, 265-272, 10.1016/j.agee.2017.07.002.
    12. Gunther, F.A.; Gunther, J.D. Residue Reviews: Residues of Pesticides and Other Contaminants in the Total Environment; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1983; p. 213
    13. Fouly, A.H.; Influence of different nourishment on the biology of Lasioseius dentatus (Fox), a new record from Egypt (Acari: Gamasida: Ascidae). Egypt J. Biol. Pest Control. 1997, 7, 1–6, .
    14. Al Rehiayani, S.M.; Fouly, A.F.; Cosmolaelaps simplex (Berlese), a polyphagous predatory mite feeding on root-knot nematode Meloidogyne javanica and citrus nematode Tylenchulus semipenetrans. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 2005, 8, 168–174, .
    15. García-Ortiz, N.; Aguilar-Marcelino, L.; Mendoza-de-Gives, P.; López-Arellano, M.E.; Bautista-Garfias, C.R.; González-Garduño, R.; In vitro activity of Lasioseius penicilliger (Arachnida: Mesostigmata) against three nematode species: Teladorsagia circumcincta, Meloidogyne sp. and Caenorhabditis elegans. Vet. Méx. 2015, 2, 1–9, .
    16. Graham R. Stirling; A. Marcelle Stirling; David E. Walter; The Mesostigmatid Mite Protogamasellus mica, an Effective Predator of Free-Living and Plant-Parasitic Nematodes. Journal of Nematology 2017, 49, 327-333, 10.21307/jofnem-2017-080.
    17. Manwaring, M.; Nahrung, F.H.; Wallace, H. Attack rate and prey preference of Lasioseius subterraneous [sic] and Protogamasellus mica on four nematode species. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2020, 80, 29–41.
    18. Salehi, A.; Ostovan, H.; Moderresi, M.; Evaluation of the efficiency of Gaeolaelaps aculeifer in control of plant parasitic nematode Tylenchulus semipenetrans under greenhouse conditions. J. Entomol. Nematol. 2014, 6, 150–153, .
    19. Elbanhawy, E.M.; Osman, H.A.; El-Sawaf, B.M.; Afia, S.I.; Interactions of soil predacious mites and citrus nematodes (parasitic and saprophytic), in citrus orchard under different regime of fertilizers. Effect on the population densities and citrus yield. Anz. Schädlingskd. Pfl. 1997, 70, 20–23, .
    20. Murray B. Isman; Bridging the gap: Moving botanical insecticides from the laboratory to the farm. Industrial Crops and Products 2017, 110, 10-14, 10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.07.012.
    21. Chitwood, D.J. Phytochemical based strategies for nematode control. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2002, 40, 221–249.
    22. Pierluigi Caboni; Nikoletta Ntalli; Botanical Nematicides, Recent Findings. Chemistry Student Success: A Field-Tested, Evidence-Based Guide 2014, 1172, 145-157, 10.1021/bk-2014-1172.ch011.
    23. Nikoletta Ntalli; Pierluigi Caboni; Botanical nematicides in the mediterranean basin. Phytochemistry Reviews 2012, 11, 351-359, 10.1007/s11101-012-9254-4.
    24. Nikoletta Ntalli; Pierluigi Caboni; A review of isothiocyanates biofumigation activity on plant parasitic nematodes. Phytochemistry Reviews 2017, 16, 827-834, 10.1007/s11101-017-9491-7.
    25. Trifone D’Addabbo; Sebastiano Laquale; Stella Lovelli; Vincenzo Candido; Pinarosa Avato; Biocide plants as a sustainable tool for the control of pests and pathogens in vegetable cropping systems. Italian Journal of Agronomy 2014, 9, 137, 10.4081/ija.2014.616.
    26. Murray Isman; Plant essential oils for pest and disease management. Crop Protection 2000, 19, 603-608, 10.1016/s0261-2194(00)00079-x.
    27. Murray Isman; BOTANICAL INSECTICIDES, DETERRENTS, AND REPELLENTS IN MODERN AGRICULTURE AND AN INCREASINGLY REGULATED WORLD. Annual Review of Entomology 2006, 51, 45-66, 10.1146/annurev.ento.51.110104.151146.
    28. Robert Sobkowiak; Natalia Bojarska; Emilia Krzyzaniak; Karolina Wagiel; Nikoletta Ntalli; Chemoreception of botanical nematicides by Meloidogyne incognita and Caenorhabditis elegans. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part B 2018, 53, 493–502, 10.1080/03601234.2018.1462936.
    29. Wilhelm Boland; Van Poecke Rm; Posthumus Ma; Dicke M; Faculty of 1000 evaluation for Herbivore-induced volatile production by Arabidopsis thaliana leads to attraction of the parasitoid Cotesia rubecula: chemical, behavioral, and gene-expression analysis.. F1000 - Post-publication peer review of the biomedical literature 2002, 27, 1911–1928, 10.3410/f.1002936.31905.
    30. Ishita Ahuja; Jens Rohloff; Atle Bones; Defence Mechanisms of Brassicaceae: Implications for Plant-Insect Interactions and Potential for Integrated Pest Management. Sustainable Agriculture Volume 2 2011, , 623-670, 10.1007/978-94-007-0394-0_28.
    31. S. Alan Walters; Todd C. Wehner; Kenneth R. Barker; Effects of Root Decay on the Relationship between Meloidogyne spp. Gall Index and Egg Mass Number in Cucumber and Horned Cucumber. Journal of Nematology 1992, 24, 707-711, .
    32. Al-Hamdany, M.A.; Al-Noaimi, H.N.; Aboud, H.M.; Salih, H.M. Use of furfural for control of the root-knot nematode Meloidogyne javanica on cucumber and eggplant under greenhouse conditions. Arab J. Plant Prot. 1999, 17, 84–87.
    33. Rajendran, G.; Shanthi, A.; Senthamizh, K. Effect of potensized nematode induced cell extract against root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita in tomato and reniform nematode, Rotylenchulus reniformis in turmeric. Ind. J. Nematol. 2003, 33, 67–69.
    34. M. Mazzola; ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF SOIL MICROBIAL COMMUNITY STRUCTURE FOR DISEASE SUPPRESSION. Annual Review of Phytopathology 2004, 42, 35-59, 10.1146/annurev.phyto.42.040803.140408.
    More
    1. Please check and comment entries here.