Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 -- 1970 2022-07-26 09:46:26 |
2 layout Meta information modification 1970 2022-07-27 04:56:31 | |
3 layout + 1 word(s) 1971 2022-07-27 04:58:45 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?


Are you sure to Delete?
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Makhumbila, P. Biotic Stressors of Legumes. Encyclopedia. Available online: (accessed on 19 June 2024).
Makhumbila P. Biotic Stressors of Legumes. Encyclopedia. Available at: Accessed June 19, 2024.
Makhumbila, Penny. "Biotic Stressors of Legumes" Encyclopedia, (accessed June 19, 2024).
Makhumbila, P. (2022, July 26). Biotic Stressors of Legumes. In Encyclopedia.
Makhumbila, Penny. "Biotic Stressors of Legumes." Encyclopedia. Web. 26 July, 2022.
Biotic Stressors of Legumes

Leguminous crops such as Arachis hypogaea (groundnut), Glycine max (soybean), Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean), Pisum sativum (common pea), Cicier arietinum (chickpea), Vigna anguiculata (cowpea), Vicia faba (faba bean), Lens culinaris (lentil), Cajanus cajan (pigeon pea), Lupinus spp. (lupin), and Vigna subterranean (bambara bean) contribute to the improvement of ecosystems, nutrition and food security. 

legumes stress insect pests

1. Insect Pests

Insect pests attack legume crops by boring, webbing and damaging plant parts such as the leaves, pods, stems and roots [1][2]. In addition to attacking plants, insect pests may also act as vectors for pathogens that negatively impact crop production systems [3]. Insect pests such as aphids [3][4], pod borers [1][5], thrips [6][7] and whiteflies [8][9] have been reported to feed on legume crops, among others. The use of biological enemies of pests, cultural control (crop rotation, mulching, intercropping, etc.), mechanical control (water hosing at high pressure), chemical application and integrated pest management strategies have been recommended for the control of insect pests in legumes [9][10][11][12]. These efforts have been found to be effective in reducing insect severity in legumes [9][13]. However, the insects are constantly adapting to control measures used in production systems [14]. Breeding for tolerance to insect pests is the most sustainable approach and this requires an understanding of the plant’s signal pathways that respond to insect attack [15].
Pathways expressed in rice infested with caterpillars included flavonoids, phenolic acids, amino acids and derivatives. These improved the production of cytosolic calcium ions that signal herbivore attack to the plant [16]. Maize infested with Monolepta hieroglyphica revealed significant up-/down-regulation of metabolites derived from sugar and amino acid pathways that might be responsible for resistance. Similar results were reported in cabbage infested with aphids [17]. Insect–plant metabolomic response of leguminous crops has been conducted for red clover, pea and alfalfa in a composite study with aphid infestation. Triterpene, flavonoid and saponin enriched pathways were found to be responsive to aphid attack [4]. Flavonoids and amino acids have also been found to be significantly enriched in alfalfa infested with thrips [18]. However, limited studies have been conducted on the host-plant metabolomic response of leguminous crops to insects, as well as to other biotic stressors. These studies could have far-reaching impacts on stress biomarker identification with potential benefits in legume improvement programmes.

2. Diseases of Legumes

2.1. Bacterial Diseases

Bacterial diseases of legumes can be categorised into leaf blights, leaf spots/bacterial wilts and other multiple symptoms of sprout rot and dwarfism [19]. Their symptoms are based on the tissues that they infiltrate (leaves, stems and roots) [20]. Legume bacterial diseases are known to cause yield losses of up to 50%, which negatively impacts economic gains and food security [21]. The two plant bacterial pathogens Xanthomonas axonopodis and Pseudomonas syringae are known worldwide for causing bacterial blight [19][22]. Symptoms of infection usually occur on all aerial parts of the plant, and in severe incidences, defoliation and wilting occur [22][23]. Like bacterial blight, another disease that threatens legume production is bacterial wilt, caused by Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens pv. Flaccumfaciens [24]. The pathogen has created new variants that cause damage to legume crops worldwide by causing leaf chlorosis in plants. In fields where the disease occurs, upon plant maturation and shattering of seeds, the infected seed replants itself and allows the pathogen to thrive from generation to generation [24][25]. The control of bacterial diseases has relied on integrated approaches that limit the survival of pathogens. This includes crop rotation and the use of pathogen free certified seed [22]. These measures are only effective to a limited extent, and detecting pathogens in seed is not an easy task for farmers. A promising and more long-term method for the control of bacterial diseases would be the utilisation/breeding of tolerant varieties [26][27].
The evaluation of metabolite profiles in citrus infected with huanlongbing caused by the bacterium ‘Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus’ reported distinct sugars as well as amino and organic acids expressed in the roots, thus giving insight on resistance [28]. Metabolomic compounds synthesized from flavonoids, amino and phenolic acids act as protective agents in the xylem of oat plants when infected with halo blights caused by P. syringae pv. by repairing the cell wall [29]. Similar metabolomic pathways including phenols and acetates have been reported in tomato infected with bacterial wilt caused by Ralstonia solanacearum [30]. To date, there is little to no information from metabolomic studies on the response of leguminous crops to bacterial disease infection to aid breeders with biomarker discovery.

2.2. Fungal Diseases

The occurrence of fungal diseases in legume production areas is known to cause substantial yield losses of up to 100% [29]. Fungal pathogens can cause infection at any plant growth stage (emergence, seedling, vegetative and reproductive stage) by attacking organs and tissues that are involved in the transportation of water and nutrients [31][32]. Upon infection, these pathogens degrade the plant cell wall, which consequently results in the death of the plant, especially if the variety grown does not have any resistant genes [33]. Root rot caused by Rhizoctonia solaniFusarium solaniFusarium oxysporum and Aphanomyces euteiches and fungal wilt caused by Formae speciales are some of the most destructive fungal diseases that limit the productivity of legume crops worldwide [34]. The pathogen R. solani is considered one of the most destructive fungal pathogens that usually infects the roots and hypocotyl of the plant through penetration of the appressoria [33]. At pre-emergence and post-emergence plant growth stages, R. solani causes symptoms of damping-off, root rot and stem canker [35]. Under greenhouse conditions, the seedling survival of some leguminous crops may be less than 5% [36]. The pathogen may further infect the plant’s fruits in highly humid conditions, thus reducing crop quality and yield [37]Fusarium spp. are also predominant pathogens that interfere with plant growth by causing damping off and root rot [38]. In African small-scale farms, yield losses of up to 100% caused by the F. solani pathogen in common bean have been reported [39]. In addition, A. euteiches is a soil-borne fungal pathogen that poses a threat to legume production by causing wilting, root rot and consequently yield losses of up to 80% [40][41].
The management of fungal diseases is problematic due to the complexity of these pathogens [42]. Over the years, management has been implemented by integrating conventional methods such as crop rotations, increased greenhouse temperatures, biological enemies and chemical use [43]. The use of fungicides has been a promising avenue for the control of fungal pathogens. However, chemicals used to control pathogens have an immense economic and environmental impact [44]. This has led to the exploration of using biological control measures such as bacterium and fungal strains as environmentally friendly alternatives to control pathogens that attack plants [45]Trichoderma spp. are widely used strains for the biological control of fungal diseases. Beneficial strains of T. velutinum have been found to be an effective biological control measure that promotes the accumulation of metabolites that are responsible for defence in common bean infected with F. solani. Even though numerous strains have been found to be effective in controlling fungal diseases, legislation in many countries regarding the use of biopesticides and their shelf life is still a challenge [46][47]. The development of disease-resistant cultivars using genomic technologies can aid in improving legume productivity worldwide [24]. Legume metabolomics focussed on breeding for disease resistance can be beneficial to breeding programmes by increasing the availability of resistant genotypes that are released to farmers [48].
The metabolomic profiling of leguminous crops has been conducted in common bean and provided major findings in relation to metabolomic pathways including amino acids, flavonoids, isoflavanoids, purines and proline metabolism, which were shown to promote plants’ potential for defence against Fusarium pathogens [49]. In addition, Mayo-Prieto et al. [50] also reported amino acids, peptides, carbohydrates, flavonoids, lipids, phenols, terpenes and glycosides that were up-/down-regulated as a defence mechanism by the common bean plant against the pathogen R. solani. Similar results have been reported in other leguminous crops including chickpea infected with F. oxysporum, soybean infected with Aspergillus oryzae/Rhizopus oligosporus, pea infected with Dydymella pinodes and R. solani (Table 1) [51][52]. Intensifying the fungal–legume metabolomic research worldwide will aid in understanding the biochemical properties of these leguminous crops in response to disease stress.

2.3. Viral Diseases

Viral pathogens attack many crops, including legumes, by causing the yellowing of leaves, stunting and poor pod setting, which result in poor yields [35]. Major viral diseases causing production losses in legumes belong to the NanoviridaeLuteovridae and Poltyvridae families. These diseases cause the necrosis of plants, and their identification requires molecular techniques. Over the years, the accurate identification of viruses has improved because of an increasing number of available genomic platforms. [19][36]. Viruses attach themselves to specific sites of vectors such as insects (aphids, beetles, etc.) and remain there until transmission to their host occurs [37]. The control of viral diseases is difficult and thus requires adherence to quarantine prescripts, removal of inoculum sources, adjustments of planting dates, intercropping, crop rotation, chemical application aimed at controlling pests (elimination of vectors) and the use of tolerant/resistant genotypes [38].
Utilising metabolomic techniques on the Citrus tristeza virus of Mexican lime Citrus aurantifolia revealed up-/down-regulation of amino acids, alkaloids and phenols during infection, thus signalling pathogen defence when different strains of the virus were utilised [53]. In stems of Amarathus hypochondriacus L. infected with Ageratum enation virus, alkaloids, amino acids, dicarboxylic acids, glutamine and sugars may increase or decrease in concentration as a mechanism to improve overall respiratory metabolism [54]. Studies on the response of leguminous crops to viral disease infection are limited, thus requiring more research in order to fully understand the underlying information relating to metabolites expressed under virus pressure.

3. Parasitic Weeds

Unlike “normal” weeds that disadvantage the plant greatly, parasitic weeds on the other hand extensively extract moisture, nutrients, photosynthates and other resources from the host plant [39]. When parasitic weeds are not controlled, the extraction of resources continues, consequently extinguishing the crop [40]. Roomrape species, Striga gesnerioides and Alectra vogelii are problematic parasitic weeds that cause yield losses in many legume production areas in Sub-Saharan Africa [41]. Biological control [39], intercropping [42], chemical application and cultural practices (timely planting) are recommended for the control of parasitic weeds [43]. However, these are often not successful, and the fight against parasitic weeds lies within breeding for resistance [41][43]. Although breeding for resistance will aid in controlling parasitic weeds, the complexity and low heritability is a challenge that breeders face when breeding for parasitic weed resistance [41][43][44]. Initiatives to use breeding prediction tools such as metabolomic techniques for parasitic weed resistance have been explored in rice to study and dissect S. hermonthica resistance [55]. This research reported the phenylpropanoid pathway, which contributes to the formation of lignin in rice, to be an important pathway that can be utilised for resistance to S. hermonthica. There is a deficit on metabolomic experiments that evaluate the performance of legumes under parasitic weed conditions.

4. Parasitic Nematodes

Legumes are famous for their ability to fix nitrogen by using rhizobium, which is a mutualist bacterium [45]. However, the presence of parasitic nematodes reduces rhizobia activity, which leads to poor nodulation [46]. Parasitic nematodes invade the roots of plants and form an indefinite feeding area, which, in turn, can affect root development, thus leading to poor plant growth [47]Heterodera and Globodera spp. are root knot and cyst nematodes that affect many crops including legumes, resulting in over 12% yield losses [48]. The presence of parasitic nematodes often leads to infection by other pathogens including fusarium spp.; therefore, the utilisation of sustainable control strategies for other pathogens is essential for legumes [44]. Soybean evaluated under Melodegyne pinodes and Heterodera glycines pressure exhibited phenylpropanoids, cysteine, methionine, alkaloid and tropane pathways that can be attributed to resistance properties of the crop to nematodes [56]. The in-depth exploration of metabolites of other crops including legumes would be beneficial to understanding nematode–crop biological interactions.
Table 1. Summary of metabolomic studies conducted in response to biotic stress in leguminous crops using different platforms such as GC-MS, LC-QqQ-MS, LC-MS, LC-obitrap-MS, UHPLC-MS, 1H NMR and GC-MS/TOF.
Legume Biotic Stress Classification Method Total
C. arietinum Fusarium oxysporum Fungal GC-MS 72 [57]
G. max Aspergillus oryzae/Rhizopus oligosporus Fungal LC-QqQ-MS 489 [58]
Heterodera glycines Nematode GC-MS 20 [56]
M. sativa Thysanoptera spp. Insect LC-MS 772 [18]
Acyrthosiphon pisum Harris Insect LC-Obitrap-MS/UHPLC-MS 107 [4]
P. sativum Acyrthosiphon pisum Harris Insect LC-Obitrap-MS/UHPLC-MS 57 [4]
Didymella pinodes Fungal LC-MS/MS 31 [59]
Rhizoctonia solani Fungal 1H NMR 126 [51]
Didymella pinodes Fungal GC-MS/TOF 39 [52]
P. vulgaris Fusarium solani Fungal UPLC 743 [49]
Trichoderma velutinum/Rhizoctotonia solani Fungal LC-MS 216 [50]
T. pratense Acyrthosiphon pisum Harris Insect LC-Obitrap-MS/UHPLC-MS 103 [4]
V. faba Acyrthosiphon pisum Harris Insect LC-Obitrap-MS/UHPLC-MS 13 [4]


  1. Kumar, A.; Jaiwal, R.; Sreevathsa, R.; Chaudhary, D.; Jaiwal, P. Transgenic cowpea plants expressing Bacillus thuringiensis Cry2Aa insecticidal protein imparts resistance to Maruca vitrata legume pod borer. Plant Cell Rep. 2021, 40, 583–594.
  2. Singh, S.; Singh, P. Biochemical factors associated with resistance to spotted pod borer, Maruca vitrata (Fabricius) in green gram. Legume Res. 2021, 44, 1398–1401.
  3. Kamphuis, L.; Zulak, K.; Gao, L.; Anderson, J.; Singh, K. Plant-aphid interactions with a focus on legumes. Funct. Plant Biol. 2013, 40, 1271–1284.
  4. Sanchez-Arcos, C.; Kai, M.; Svatos, A.; Gershenzon, J.; Kunert, G. Untargeted metabolomics approach reveals differences in host plant chemistry before and after infestation with different pea aphid host races. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 188.
  5. Sharma, H. Bionomics, host plant resistance, and management of the legume pod borer, Maruca Vitrata—A review. Crop Prot. 1998, 17, 373–386.
  6. Pobozniak, M. The occurrence of thrips (Thysanoptera) on food legumes (Fabaceae). J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2011, 118, 185–193.
  7. Singh, C.; Singh, N. Occurrence of insect-pests infesting cowpea (Vigna unguiculata walpers) and their natural enemy complex in associations with weather variables. Legume Res. 2014, 37, 658–664.
  8. Kalyan, R.; Ameta, O. Impact of abiotic factors on seasonal incidence of insect pests of soybean. Legume Res. 2017, 40, 762–767.
  9. Rajawat, I.; Kumar, A.; Alam, M.; Tiwari, R.; Pandey, A. Insect pests of black gram (Vigna mungo L.) and their management in Vindhya region. Legume Res. 2021, 44, 225–232.
  10. Ahmed, K.; Awan, M. Integrated management of insect pests of chickpea Cicer arietinum (L. Walp) in South Asian countries: Present status and future strategies—A review. Pak. J. Zool. 2013, 45, 1125–1145.
  11. Abudulai, M.; Kusi, F.; Seini, S.; Seidu, A.; Nboyine, J.; Larbi, A. Effects of planting date, cultivar and insecticide spray application for the management of insect pests of cowpea in Northern Ghana. Crop Prot. 2017, 100, 168–176.
  12. Mofokeng, M.; Gerrano, A. Efforts in breeding cowpea for aphid resistance: A review. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B—Soil Plant Sci. 2021, 71, 489–497.
  13. Kooner, B.; Malhi, B.; Cheema, H. Insect Pest Management of Mungbean; Shanmugasundaram, S., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2004; pp. 214–235.
  14. Edwards, O.; Singh, K. Resistance to insect pests: What do legumes have to offer? Euphytica 2006, 147, 273–285.
  15. Van Dam, N.; van der Meijden, E. A role for metabolomics in plant ecology. In Biology of Plant Metabolomics; Hall, R., Ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011; Volume 43, pp. 87–107. ISBN 1460-1494.
  16. Wang, Y.; Liu, Q.; Du, L.; Hallerman, E.; Li, Y. Transcriptomic and metabolomic responses of rice plants to Cnaphalocrocis medinalis caterpillar infestation. Insects 2020, 11, 705.
  17. Kusnierczyk, A.; Winge, P.; Jorstad, T.; Troczynska, J.; Rossiter, J.; Bones, A. Towards global understanding of plant defence against aphids—Timing and dynamics of early arabidopsis defence responses to cabbage aphid (brevicoryne brassicae) attack. Plant Cell Environ. 2008, 31, 1097–1115.
  18. Zhang, Z.; Chen, Q.; Tan, Y.; Shuang, S.; Dai, R.; Jiang, X.; Temuer, B. Combined transcriptome and metabolome analysis of alfalfa response to thrips infection. Genes 2021, 12, 1967.
  19. Rubiales, D.; Fondevilla, S.; Chen, W.; Gentzbittel, L.; Higgins, T.J.V.; Castillejo, M.A.; Singh, K.B.; Rispail, N. Achievements and challenges in legume breeding for pest and disease resistance. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2015, 34, 195–236.
  20. Mgbechi-Ezeri, J.; Porter, L.; Johnson, K.; Oraguzie, N. Assessment of sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) genotypes for response to bacterial canker disease. Euphytica 2017, 213, 145.
  21. Obasa, K.; Haynes, L. Two new bacterial pathogens of peanut, causing early seedling decline disease, identified in the Texas Panhandle. Plant Dis. 2022, 106, 648–653.
  22. Chen, N.; Ruh, M.; Darrasse, A.; Foucher, J.; Briand, M.; Costa, J.; Studholme, D.; Jacques, M. Common bacterial blight of bean: A model of seed transmission and pathological convergence. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2021, 22, 1464–1480.
  23. Tugume, J.; Tusiime, G.; Sekamate, A.; Buruchara, R.; Mukankusi, C. Diversity and interaction of common bacterial blight disease-causing bacteria (Xanthomonas spp.) with Phaseolus vulgaris L. Crop J. 2019, 7, 1–7.
  24. Osdaghi, E.; Young, A.; Harveson, R. Bacterial wilt of dry beans caused by Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens pv. flaccumfaciens: A new threat from an old enemy. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2020, 21, 605–621.
  25. Vaghefi, N.; Adorada, D.; Huth, L.; Kelly, L.; Poudel, B.; Young, A.; Sparks, A. Whole-genome data from Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens pv. flaccumfaciens strains associated with tan spot of mungbean and soybean reveal diverse plasmid profiles. Mol. Plant. Microbe Interact. 2021, 34, 1216–1222.
  26. Nair, R.; Pandey, A.; War, A.; Hanumantharao, B.; Shwe, T.; Alam, A.; Pratap, A.; Malik, S.; Karimi, R.; Mbeyagala, E. Biotic and abiotic constraints in mungbean production-progress in genetic improvement. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1340.
  27. Gonzalez, A.; Yuste-Lisbona, F.; Fernandez-Lozano, A.; Lozano, R.; Santalla, M. Genetic mapping and QTL analysis in common bean. In Common Bean Genome; DeLaVega, M., Santalla, M., Marsolais, F., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 69–107. ISBN 2199-4781.
  28. Padhi, E.; Maharaj, N.; Lin, S.; Mishchuk, D.; Chin, E.; Godfrey, K.; Foster, E.; Polek, M.; Leveau, J.; Slupsky, C. Metabolome and microbiome signatures in the roots of citrus affected by huanglongbing. Phytopathology 2019, 109, 2022–2032.
  29. Andam, A.; Azizi, A.; Majdi, M.; Abdolahzadeh, J. Comparative expression profile of some putative resistance genes of chickpea genotypes in response to ascomycete fungus, Ascochyta rabiei (Pass.) Labr. Braz. J. Bot. 2020, 43, 123–130.
  30. Gerlin, L.; Escourrou, A.; Cassan, C.; Macia, F.; Peeters, N.; Genin, S.; Baroukh, C. Unravelling physiological signatures of tomato bacterial wilt and xylem metabolites exploited by Ralstonia solanacearum. Environ. Microbiol. 2021, 23, 5962–5978.
  31. Pandey, A.; Burlakoti, R.; Kenyon, L.; Nair, R. Perspectives and challenges for sustainable management of fungal diseases of mungbean : A review. Front. Environ. Sci. 2018, 6, 53.
  32. Kowalska, B. Management of the soil-borne fungal pathogen—Verticillium dahliae Kleb. causing vascular wilt diseases. J. Plant Pathol. 2021, 103, 1185–1194.
  33. Anderson, J.; Lichtenzveig, J.; Oliver, R.; Singh, K. Medicago truncatula as a model host for studying legume infecting Rhizoctonia solani and identification of a locus affecting resistance to root canker. Plant Pathol. 2013, 62, 908–921.
  34. Infantino, A.; Kharrat, M.; Riccioni, L.; Coyne, C.; McPhee, K.; Grunwald, N. Screening techniques and sources of resistance to root diseases in cool season food legumes. Euphytica 2006, 147, 201–221.
  35. Marzouk, T.; Chaouachi, M.; Sharma, A.; Jallouli, S.; Mhamdi, R.; Kaushik, N.; Djebali, N. Biocontrol of Rhizoctonia solani using volatile organic compounds of solanaceae seed-borne endophytic bacteria. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2021, 181, 111655.
  36. Wang, H.; Chang, K.; Hwang, S.; Gossen, B.; Turnbull, G.; Howard, R.; Strelkov, S. Response of lentil cultivars to Rhizoctonia seedling diseases in Canada. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2006, 113, 219–223.
  37. Wolfgang, A.; Taffner, J.; Guimarães, R.A.; Coyne, D.; Berg, G. Novel strategies for soil-borne diseases: Exploiting the microbiome and volatile-based mechanisms toward controlling Meloidogyne-based disease complexes. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 1296.
  38. Willsey, T.; Chatterton, S.; Heynen, M.; Erickson, A. Detection of interactions between the pea root rot pathogens Aphanomyces euteiches and Fusarium spp. using a multiplex QPCR assay. Plant Pathol. 2018, 67, 1912–1923.
  39. Diaz, L.; Arredondo, V.; Ariza-Suarez, D.; Aparicio, J.; Buendia, H.; Cajiao, C.; Mosquera, G.; Beebe, S.; Mukankusi, C.; Raatz, B. Genetic analyses and genomic predictions of root rot resistance in common bean across trials and populations. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 629221.
  40. Gaulin, E.; Jacquet, C.; Bottin, A.; Dumas, B. Root rot disease of legumes caused by Aphanomyces euteiches. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2007, 8, 539–548.
  41. Wu, L.; Chang, K.; Conner, R.; Strelkov, S.; Fredua-Agyeman, R.; Hwang, S.; Feindel, D. Aphanomyces euteiches: A threat to Canadian field pea production. Engineering 2018, 4, 542–551.
  42. Smolinska, U.; Kowalska, B. Biological control of the soil-borne fungal pathogen Sclerotinia sclerotiorum—A review. J. Plant Pathol. 2018, 100, 1–12.
  43. You, M.; Lamichhane, J.; Aubertot, J.; Barbetti, M. Understanding why effective fungicides against individual soilborne pathogens are ineffective with soilborne pathogen complexes. Plant Dis. 2020, 104, 904–920.
  44. Bilkiss, M.; Shiddiky, M.J.A.; Ford, R. Advanced diagnostic approaches for necrotrophic fungal pathogens of temperate legumes with a focus on Botrytis spp. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 1889.
  45. Kisiel, A. Biological control as an alternative method of protecting crops against fungal pathogens. Rocz. Ochr. Srodowiska 2019, 21, 1366–1377.
  46. Chandler, D.; Bailey, A.; Tatchell, G.; Davidson, G.; Greaves, J.; Grant, W. The development, regulation and use of biopesticides for integrated pest management. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B—Biol. Sci. 2011, 366, 1987–1998.
  47. Quiroz, R.; Maldonado, J.; Alanis, M.; Torres, J.; Saldivar, R. Fungi-based biopesticides: Shelf-life preservation technologies used in commercial products. J. Pest Sci. 2019, 92, 1003–1015.
  48. Harveson, R. Improving yields and managing dry bean bacterial diseases in Nebraska with new copper-alternative chemicals. Plant Health Prog. 2019, 20, 14–19.
  49. Chen, L.; Wu, Q.; He, T.; Lan, J.; Ding, L.; Liu, T.; Wu, Q.; Pan, Y.; Chen, T. Transcriptomic and metabolomic changes triggered by Fusarium solani in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Genes 2020, 11, 177.
  50. Mayo-Prieto, S.; Marra, R.; Vinale, F.; Rodríguez-González, Á.; Woo, S.L.; Lorito, M.; Gutiérrez, S.; Casquero, P.A. Effect of Trichoderma velutinum and Rhizoctonia solani on the metabolome of bean plants (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 549.
  51. Copley, T.; Aliferis, K.; Kliebenstein, D.; Jabaji, S. An integrated RNAseq-H-1 NMR metabolomics approach to understand soybean primary metabolism regulation in response to Rhizoctonia foliar blight disease. BMC Plant Biol. 2017, 17, 84.
  52. Turetschek, R.; Desalegn, G.; Epple, T.; Kaul, H.; Wienkoop, S. Key metabolic traits of Pisum sativum maintain cell vitality during Didymella pinodes infection: Cultivar resistance and the microsymbionts’ influence. J. Proteom. 2017, 169, 189–201.
  53. Pérez-Clemente, R.M.; Montoliu, A.; Vives-Peris, V.; Arbona, V.; Gómez-Cadenas, A. Hormonal and metabolic responses of mexican lime plants to CTV infection. J. Plant Physiol. 2019, 238, 40–52.
  54. Srivastava, S.; Bisht, H.; Sidhu, O.; Srivastava, A.; Singh, P.; Pandey, R.; Raj, S.; Roy, R.; Nautiyal, C. Changes in the metabolome and histopathology of Amaranthus hypochondriacus L. in response to Ageratum enation Virus Infection. Phytochemistry 2012, 80, 8–16.
  55. Mutuku, J.; Cui, S.; Hori, C.; Takeda, Y.; Tobimatsu, Y.; Nakabayashi, R.; Mori, T.; Saito, K.; Demura, T.; Umezawa, T. The structural integrity of lignin is crucial for resistance against Striga hermonthica parasitism in rice. Plant Physiol. 2019, 179, 1796–1809.
  56. Kang, W.; Zhu, X.; Wang, Y.; Chen, L.; Duan, Y. Transcriptomic and metabolomic analyses reveal that bacteria promote plant defense during infection of soybean cyst nematode in soybean. BMC Plant Biol. 2018, 18, 98.
  57. Narula, K.; Elagamey, E.; Abdellatef, M.; Sinha, A.; Ghosh, S.; Chakraborty, N.; Chakraborty, S. Chitosan-triggered immunity to Fusarium in chickpea is associated with changes in the plant extracellular matrix architecture, stomatal closure and remodeling of the plant metabolome and proteome. Plant J. 2020, 103, 561–583.
  58. Uchida, K.; Sawada, Y.; Ochiai, K.; Sato, M.; Inaba, J.; Hirai, M. Identification of a unique type of isoflavone O-methyltransferase, GmIOMT1, based on multi-Omics analysis of soybean under biotic stress. Plant Cell Physiol. 2020, 61, 1974–1985.
  59. Sistani, N.; Kaul, H.; Desalegn, G.; Wienkoop, S. Rhizobium impacts on seed productivity, quality, and protection of Pisum sativum upon disease stress caused by Didymella pinodes: Phenotypic, proteomic, and metabolomic traits. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1961.
Subjects: Plant Sciences
Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to :
View Times: 408
Revisions: 3 times (View History)
Update Date: 27 Jul 2022
Video Production Service