You're using an outdated browser. Please upgrade to a modern browser for the best experience.
Effects of Biochar on Different Plant Diseases
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/plants11223144

Soilborne pathogens and pests in agroecosystems are serious problems that limit crop yields. Apart from its direct positive effects on plant growth and promotion, biochar appears to be a new and promising tool for controlling several plant diseases and pests.

plant disease sustainable control organic amendment biochar

1. Introduction

Biochar is a heterogeneous material produced by pyrolysis, a thermal process carried out at temperatures between 200 °C and >900 °C and under limited oxygen availability [1].
Biochar differs from charcoal because it can be used as an efficient soil amendment [2]. The elemental composition of biochar varies depending on the biomass feedstock from which it is produced and the characteristics of the pyrolysis process [3]. Biochar is characterized by a high C-to-N ratio, even exceeding 100, and a high content of organic aromatic carbon. Thanks to these properties, biochar is resistant to microbial degradation and its estimated average residence time in the soil varies from centuries to millennia [4]. The use of biochar in agriculture is not new, but dates back to ancient times when the pre-Columbian people of Amazonia developed the so-called “terra preta” or “dark earth” soils through repeated cycles of fire and cultivation, i.e., the slash-and-char system [5]. In this way, nutrient-poor and highly weathered acidic soils were transformed into a fertile substrate that could sustain indigenous populations [6]. Several studies have confirmed the positive interactions of biochar with soil, such as liming effect [7], increasing water retention capacity [8], and the ability to adsorb phytotoxic organic molecules [9]. The changes induced by biochar may well affect nutrient cycling [10] and soil structure [11], thus indirectly affecting plant growth [12], and also soil organic matter cycling [13][14][15]. In addition, biochar has been shown to stimulate the activity of beneficial microbes [12] and suppress soilborne pathogens [16]. The beneficial effects of biochar are often explained by its porosity and sorption capacity [17], redox properties [18][19], and influence on soil structure [20][21].
Soilborne plant pathogens in agroecosystems pose serious problems for agriculture and crop yields. Organic amendments have already been proposed to reduce the incidence of diseases caused by soilborne pathogens [22]. In this context, biochar seems to be a promising tool for controlling various plant pathogens. Indeed, an important application of biochar is its use as an agent for the effective control of plant diseases. Bonanomi et al. [16] reported that biochar effectively suppresses diseases caused by airborne and soilborne plant pathogens such as Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. asparagi, F. oxysporum f. sp. radicis-lycopersici, F. proliferatum, Pythium aphanidermatum, Phytophthora cactorum, P. cinnamomi, and Rhizoctonia solani. Previously, both Elad ad et al. [23] and Harel et al. [24] reported that biochar produced from wood and greenhouse wastes significantly reduced the incidence of powdery mildew caused by Leveillula taurica on Lycopersicon esculentum and Podosphaera aphanis on Fragaria x ananassa, respectively. Five main mechanisms have been proposed to explain disease suppression by biochar: (i) induction of systemic resistance in host plants; (ii) enhanced abundance and activity of beneficial microbes, including mycorrhizal fungi; (iii) alteration of soil quality in terms of nutrient availability and abiotic conditions, such as liming effect; (iv) direct fungitoxic effect of biochar; (v) sorption of allelopathic phytotoxic compounds that can directly damage plant roots and thus promote pathogen infestation. With the aim of developing more ecologically sustainable agriculture, the possibility of using biochar to defend against pathogens has increased in prominence in recent years in light of previous studies.
Apart from its direct positive effects on plant growth and promotion [25], biochar appears to be a new and promising tool for controlling several plant diseases and pests, with most case studies reporting positive suppressive effects. Studies investigating the effects of different types of biochar on plants are summarized below and subdivided by pathogen type.

2. Fungi and Oomycetes

Fungi and oomycetes can be divided into two broad groups: obligate parasites, which depend entirely on living host plant tissue for nutrition and reproduction, and facultative parasites, which cause significant damage to plants but can also live as saprophytes on plant debris and organic material [26]. Pathogens that attack aboveground plant organs are referred to as foliar pathogens, while those that attack the root system and reside primarily in the soil are referred to as soilborne pathogens [27]. The potential benefits of biochar in suppressing diseases caused by pathogenic soilborne fungi have been demonstrated in several studies (Table 1) For example, Akhter et al. [28] evaluated the response of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici chlamydospores on tomato plants grown in soil enriched with biochar and compost and found that the amended soil had great potential to suppress chlamydospore infectivity and reduce pathogen-related physiological stress in tomato plants. Moreover, Akanmu et al. [29] demonstrated the efficacy of biochar in controlling Fusarium ear rot in maize. Similar results were reported by Wu et al. [30], who found that soil treatment with biochar resulted in a reduction in the abundance of Fusarium oxysporum and a reduction in the virulence of the fungus on Radix pseudostellariae plants. The suppressive effect of biochar was also tested against airborne plant pathogens. For example, Rasool et al. [31] studied the effect of green waste biochar (GWB) and wood biochar (WB) together with compost and plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR; Bacillus subtilis) on the physiology of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) and the development of Alternaria solani, and showed for the first time that disease suppression was strongest (up to 80%) in the presence of B. subtilis in the GWB-containing substrate. In addition, De Tender et al. [32] showed how biochar treatments can improve the disease resistance of strawberry plants to the airborne fungal pathogen Botrytis cinerea by recruiting microbes from the rhizosphere. On the other hand, several studies have also investigated the ability of biochar to suppress oomycetes. Wang et al. [33] investigated the suppression of Phytophthora pepper blight in a pot experiment as a function of time after biochar application. Biochar treatment effectively inhibited pathogen growth, reduced disease by up to 91%, and significantly increased the incidence of potential biocontrol fungi. However, a few case studies have shown a negative effect of biochar on disease control. For example, Copley et al. [34] showed that maple bark biochar increased soybean susceptibility to diseases caused by Rhizoctonia solani. At lower concentrations (1% and 3%), biochar was ineffective against the disease, but at a 5% application rate, biochar treatment showed a significant increase in disease severity caused by R. solani. The authors provide compelling evidence that biochar is associated with the downregulation of a number of genes related to primary and secondary plant metabolism, such as genes involved in amino acid metabolism, cell wall plasticity, and the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle, which likely facilitated entry points, resulting in higher susceptibility to R. solani.
Table 1. List of experimental studies examples that applied biochar as a soil amendment to control plant diseases caused by airborne (A) and soilborne fungal (SB) pathogens. Pathogen, host plant, biochar feedstock type, response level, and reference are reported for each study.
Table
Pathogen Host Plant Biochar Type and Application Rate Response References
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. radicis lycopersici (SB) Solanum lycopersicum Wood (1–3%) Medium–high [35]
Alternaria solani
(A)		 Solanum lycopersicum Wood—green wastes (3–6%) high [31]
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. radicis lycopersici (SB) Solanum lycopersicum Wood—wastes
(1–3%)		 Medium–high [35]
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. radicis lycopersici (SB) Solanum lycopersicum Wood—wastes
(3%)		 high [28]
Botrytis cinerea
(A)		 Solanum lycopersicum Wood (1%) high [36]
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. radicis lycopersici (SB) Solanum lycopersicum Green house wastes
(1–3%)		 high [37]
Alternaria solani
(A)		 Solanum lycopersicum Wood—green wastes (3–6%) Medium–low [31]
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici (SB) Solanum lycopersicum Wood (0.5–3%) Medium–high [35]
Fusarium verticillioides (SB) Zea mays Wastes
(1–3%)		 Medium [29]
Fusarium oxysporum
(SB)		 Radix pseudostellariae Hull (3%) High [30]
Botrytis cinerea (A) Fragaria x ananassa Organic matter
(1–3%)		 High [32]
Fusarium spp. (SB) Panax notoginseng Wood
(8 g L−1)		 Medium [38]
Magnaporthe oryzae
(A)		 Lolium perenne L. Straw (0.22–1%) Medium–high [39]
Fusarium solani (SB) Malus Husk
(5–80 g kg−1)		 Medium [39]
F.oxysporum f. sp. radicis-lycopersici (SB), Botrytis cinerea (A), Fusarium oxysporum (SB), Ganodema lucidum (SB), Penicillium italicum (A), Rhizoctonia solani (SB), Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (SB) Solanum lycopersicum Medicago-Mays—organic wastes (5%) High [40]
Verticillium dahliae
(SB)		 Solanum melongena Husk (10 t/ha biochar) High [41]
Phyllactinia corylea
(A),
Pseudocercospora mori
(A)		 Morus alba Husk Medium [42]
Leveillula taurica
(A)		 Capiscum annum L. Green house wastes—wood High [43]
Fusarium oxysporum
(SB),
Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. asparagi (SB), Fusarium proliferatum (SB)		 Asparagus officinalis L. Wood (10%) Medium–high [44]
Rhizoctonia solani (SB) Glycine max Wood (1–5%) Negative effect [34]
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. radicis-lycopersici (SB), Fusarium oxysporum (SB), Rhizoctonia solani (SB), Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (SB), Macrophomina phaseolina (SB), Sclerotium cepivorum (SB), Sclerotium rolfsii (SB) Jatropha curcas L. Sewage sludge (0.2–1%) Medium–high [45]
Fusarium torulosum (SB),
Fusarium solani (SB)		 Panax ginseng Straw (1%) High [46]

3. Bacteria

Regarding pathogenic bacteria in soil, a suppressive capacity of biochar was reported for Ralstonia solanacearum [46], Kosakonia sacchari [30], Agrobacterium tumefaciens [40], and Streptomyces scabies [47]. Regarding airborne pathogenic bacteria, Bonanomi et al. [40] reported a high efficacy of biochar against Pseudomonas syringae and Pseudomonas viridiflava on Solanum lycopersicum plants. No case studies of negative effects of biochar on the suppression of diseases caused by bacteria were reported (Table 2). In contrast, Tian et al. [46] investigated the efficacy of wheat straw biochar for control of bacterial wilt of tomato caused by R. solanacearum. Their results showed that biochar reduced disease incidence by 61% to 78% compared to the control without biochar while improving plant growth, likely due to increased microbial activity and changes in organic matter and amino acid composition in the rhizosphere. Furthermore, Gu et al. [48] investigated the efficacy of applying 3% wood biochar to suppress bacterial wilt of tomato caused by R. solanacearum. Specifically, the application of fine biochar significantly reduced the incidence of bacterial wilt by 20% and reduced pathogen mobility and rhizosphere colonization.
Table 2. List of experimental studies examples that applied biochar as a soil amendment to control plant diseases caused by airborne (A) and soilborne (SB) bacterial plant pathogens. Pathogen, host plant, biochar feedstock type, response level, and reference are reported for each study.
Table
Pathogen Host Plant Biochar Type and Application Rate Response References
Ralstonia solanacearum (SB) Solanum lycopersicum Straw (2%) High [46]
Ralstonia solanacearum (SB) Solanum lycopersicum Straw (2%) High [49]
Ralstonia solanacearum (SB) Solanum lycopersicum Straw (2%) Medium–high [48]
Kosakonia sacchari (SB) Radix pseudostellariae Hull (3%) High [30]
Agrobacterium tumefaciens (SB) Lactuca sativa Medicago, wood, organic wastes, maize (5%) High [40]
Pseudomonas syringae (A) Solanum lycopersicum Medicago, wood, organic wastes, maize (5%) High [40]
Pseudomonas viridiflava
(A)		 Solanum lycopersicum Medicago, wood, organic wastes, maize (5%) High [40]
Lysobacter sp. (SB) Solanum lycopersicum Medicago, wood, organic wastes, maize (5%) High [40]
Ralstonia solanacearum (SB) Nicotiana Tabacum Hull (7.5–45 ton/ ha) High [50]
Ralstonia solanacearum (SB) Solanum lycopersicum Wood (3%) High [48]
Streptomyces scabies (SB) Solanum tuberosum Different agricultural wastes (0.5 ton/ha) Medium [47]

4. Viruses

Little work has been done on the effects of biochar soil amendment on plant viruses [51][52][53] (Table 3). However, the few studies available show great potential to protect plants from phytopathogenic viruses using biochar.
Table 3. List of experimental studies that applied biochar as a soil amendment to control plant diseases caused by viral plant pathogens. Pathogen, host plant, biochar feedstock type, response level, and reference are reported for each study.
Table
Pathogen Host Plant Biochar Type and Application Rate Response References
Curl virus (SB) Solanum lycopersicum Maize (1–3%) High [53]
Tomato Mosaic virus (SB) Solanum lycopersicum Husk (0.5–1.5%) Medium [52]
Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV) (SB) Solanum lycopersicum Wood High [51]
Specifically, Zeshan et al. [53] tested the efficacy of biochar from maize at 1%, 2%, and 3% concentrations on tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) plants infected with leaf curl virus. After biochar soil treatment, disease severity was found to be 22%, which was significantly lower than that of the control (40%). Kawanna et al. [52] reported a reduction in tomato mosaic virus incidence after the application of 1% and 1.5% biochar obtained from rice husk material. The rates of infection and disease severity were reduced by 50% and 37% following treatments with 1.5% and 1% biochar in the soil, respectively. Finally, Bonanomi et al. [51] studied the suppressive effect of biochar against Tomato spotted wilt virus in tomato plants. Plants grown in soils treated with biochar had a lower incidence of the disease (<40%) than those grown in soils treated with mineral fertilizer and fumigation (>80%). In their study, the authors noted a significant change in soil microbial community and structure after biochar application, and speculated that induction of resistance might be the cause of disease suppression.

5. Nematodes and Insects

Arshad et al. [54] tested biochar derived from rice husks in combination with biological control agents (BCAs) such as B. subtilis and Trichoderma harzianum against Meloidogyne incognita in tomato (S. lycopersicum). The results indicate that applying 3% biochar with BCAs effectively controlled root-knot nematode, improved overall plant biomass, and activated genes related to tomato plant defense. Similarly, Oche Eche and Okafor [55] showed that biochar from gum arabic, bush mango, and locust bean is a promising control agent for M. incognita. In addition, Marra et al. [56] demonstrated that biochar from olive mill waste produced complete inhibition of the root-knot nematode M. incognita due to the presence of several compounds in the biochar, mainly fatty acids and phenols, which are known to be among the phytochemical compounds that exhibit nematicidal effects.
Regarding insects, Chen et al. [50] investigated the effect of biochar on the development and reproductive performance of Cnaphalocrocis medinalis on rice and examined the population size of C. medinalis, showing that biochar can affect its development and has negative effects on its population. Furthermore, Edenborn et al. [57] studied the effects of modified hardwood biochar with different types of compost tea and microbial enrichment from vermicompost on eggplant (S. melongena var. Rosa Bianca) growth and flea beetle (Epitrix fuscula) damage. The authors found that adding biochar did not improve resistance to insect damage.

6. Parasitic Plants

Parasitic plants are a taxonomically diverse group of angiosperms that are partially or completely dependent on host plants for carbon, nutrients, and water, which they obtain by attaching to the roots or shoots of the host. Parasitism often results in severely impaired host plant performance, leading to changes in the competitive relationships between host and nonhost plants and a cascade of effects on community structure and diversity, vegetation cycling, and zonation [58]. Research revealed two case studies of use of biochar against parasitic plants. Eizenberg et al. [59] conducted experiments in pots of tomato (S. lycopersicum) infested with Phelipanche aegyptiaca (Egyptian broomrape) using biochar prepared from greenhouse pepper plant waste. The addition of biochar resulted in reduced infestation of the tomato plants, mainly by reducing germination of P. aegyptiaca seeds due to adsorption to the biochar of stimulatory molecules, i.e., strigolactones. On the other hand, Saudy et al. [60] conducted the first field experiment investigating the use of biochar for control of broomrape weed (Orobanche crenata) in two faba bean cultivars. Biochar prepared from dry plant waste of Casuarina equisetifolia was associated with significant reduction of broomrape infestation. The authors suggested that the addition of biochar might represent a barrier handicapping the accession of faba bean root stimulants to broomrape seeds, preventing their germination. Moreover, application of biochar could change the rhizospheric environment to one unsuitable for broomrape seed germination, or could even cause damage to germinated seeds. These studies prove that biochar can also reduce infestations of parasitic weeds in important crops, suggesting new treatment strategies for this type of pest and highlighting the economic feasibility of using biochar.

References

  1. International Biochar Initiative. Standardized Product Definition and Product Testing Guidelines for Biochar that Is Used in Soil; IBI Biochar Standards: Canandaigua, NY, USA, 2012.
  2. Lehmann, D.J.; Joseph, S. Biochar for Environmental Management: Science and Technology; Earthscan Books Ltd.: London, UK, 2009.
  3. Duku, M.H.; Gu, S.; Hagan, E.B. Biochar production potential in Ghana—A review. Renew. Sustian. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 3539–3551.
  4. Lehmann, J. Bio-energy in the black. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2007, 5, 381–387.
  5. Steiner, C.; Teixeira, W.G.; Zech, W. Slash and char: An alternative to slash and burn practiced in the Amazon basin. In Amazonian Dark Earth: Exploration in Space and Time; Glaser, B., Woods, W.I., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany; New York, NY, USA, 2004.
  6. Tollefson, J. Footprints in the forest. Nature 2013, 502, 160–162.
  7. Van Zwieten, L.; Kimber, S.; Morris, S.; Chan, K.; Downie, A.; Rust, J.; Joseph, S.; Cowie, A. Effects of biochar from slow pyrolysis of papermill waste on agronomic performance and soil fertility. Plant Soil 2010, 327, 235–246.
  8. Novak, J.M.; Busscher, W.J.; Watts, D.W.; Amonette, J.E.; Ippolito, J.A.; Lima, I.M.; Gaskin, J.; Das, K.C.; Steiner, C.; Ahmedna, M.; et al. Biochars impact on soil-moisture storage in an ultisol and two aridisols. Soil Sci. 2012, 177, 310–320.
  9. Oleszczuk, P.; Rycaj, M.; Lehmann, J.; Cornelissen, G. Influence of activated carbon and biochar on phytotoxicity of air-dried sewage sludges to Lepidium sativum. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2012, 80, 321–326.
  10. Steiner, C.; Glaser, B.; Teixeira, W.G.; Lehmann, J.; Blum, W.E.H.; Zech, W. Nitrogen retention and plant uptake on a highly weathered central Amazonian Ferralsol amended with compost and charcoal. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2008, 171, 893–899.
  11. Rillig, M.C.; Mummey, D.L. Mycorrhizas and soil structure. New Phytol. 2006, 171, 41–53.
  12. Warnock, D.D.; Lehmann, J.; Kuyper, T.W.; Rillig, M.C. Mycorrhizal responses to biochar in soil and concepts and mechanisms. Plant Soil 2007, 300, 9–20.
  13. Wardle, D.A.; Nilsson, M.C.; Zackrisson, O. Fire-derived charcoal causes loss of forest humus. Science 2008, 320, 629–630.
  14. Kuzyakov, Y.; Subbotina, I.; Chen, H.; Bogomolova, I.; Xu, X. Black carbon decomposition and incorporation into microbial biomass estimated by 14C labelling. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2009, 41, 210–219.
  15. Liang, B.; Lehmann, J.; Sohi, S.P.; Thies, J.E.; O’Neill, B.; Trujillo, L.; Gaunt, J.; Solomon, D.; Grossman, J.; Neves, E.G.; et al. Black carbon affects the cycling of non-black carbon in soil. Organ. Geochem. 2010, 41, 206–213.
  16. Bonanomi, G.; Ippolito, F.; Scala, F. A “black” future for plant pathology? Biochar as a new soil amendment for controlling plant diseases. J. Plant Pathol. 2015, 97, 223–234.
  17. Gul, S.; Whalen, J.K.; Thomas, B.W.; Sachdeva, V.; Deng, H.Y. Physico-chemical properties and microbial responses in biochar-amended soils: Mechanisms and future directions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 206, 46–59.
  18. Klüpfel, L.; Piepenbrock, A.; Kappler, A.; Sander, M. Humic substances as fully regenerable electron acceptors in recurrently anoxic environments. Nat. Geosci. 2014, 7, 195–200.
  19. Kappler, A.; Wuestner, M.L.; Ruecker, A.; Harter, J.; Halama, M.; Behrens, S. Biochar as an electron shuttle between bacteria and Fe (III) minerals. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2014, 1, 339–344.
  20. Baiamonte, G.; De Pasquale, C.; Marsala, V.; Cimò, G.; Alonzo, G.; Crescimanno, G.; Conte, P. Structure alteration of a sandy-clay soil by biochar amendments. J. Soils Sediments 2015, 15, 816–824.
  21. Ajayi, A.E.; Holthusen, D.; Horn, R. Changes in microstructural behaviour and hydraulic functions of biochar amended soils. Soil Tillage Res. 2016, 155, 166–175.
  22. Noble, R.; Coventry, E. Suppression of soil-borne plant diseases with composts: A review. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2005, 15, 3–20.
  23. Elad, Y.; David, D.R.; Harel, Y.M.; Borenshtein, M.; Kalifa, H.B.; Silber, A.; Graber, E.R. Induction of systemic resistance in plants by biochar, a soil-applied carbon sequestering agent. Phytopathology 2010, 100, 913–921.
  24. Harel, Y.M.; Elad, Y.; Rav-David, D.; Borenstein, M.; Shulchani, R.; Lew, B.; Graber, E.R. Biochar mediates systemic response of strawberry to foliar fungal pathogens. Plant Soil 2012, 357, 245–257.
  25. Iacomino, G.; Sarker, T.C.; Ippolito, F.; Bonanomi, G.; Vinale, F.; Staropoli, A.; Idbella, M. Biochar and Compost Application either Alone or in Combination Affects Vegetable Yield in a Volcanic Mediterranean Soil. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1996.
  26. Tippe, D.E.; Bastiaans, L.; van Ast, A.; Dieng, I.; Cissoko, M.; Kayeke, J.; Makokha, D.W.; Rodenburg, J. Fertilisers differentially affect facultative and obligate parasitic weeds of rice and only occasionally improve yields in infested fields. Field Crops Res. 2020, 254, 107845.
  27. Yuan, J.; Zhao, J.; Wen, T.; Zhao, M.; Li, R.; Goossens, P.; Huang, Q.; Bai, Y.; Vivanco, J.M.; Kowalchuk, G.A.; et al. Root exudates drive the soil-borne legacy of aboveground pathogen infection. Microbiome 2018, 6, 156.
  28. Akhter, A.; Hage-Ahmed, K.; Soja, G.; Steinkellner, S. Potential of Fusarium wilt-inducing chlamydospores, in vitro behaviour in root exudates and physiology of tomato in biochar and compost amended soil. Plant Soil 2016, 406, 425–440.
  29. Akanmu, A.O.; Sobowale, A.A.; Abiala, M.A.; Olawuyi, O.J.; Odebode, A.C. Efficacy of biochar in the management of fusarium verticillioides Sacc. causing ear rot in Zea mays L. Biotechnol. Rep. 2020, 26, e00474.
  30. Wu, H.M.; Lin, M.H.; Rensing, C.; Qin, X.J.; Zhang, S.K.; Chen, J.; Wu, L.K.; Zhao, Y.L.; Lin, S.; Lin, W.X. Plant-mediated rhizospheric interactions in intraspecific intercropping alleviate the replanting disease of Radix pseudostellariae. Plant Soil 2020, 454, 411–430.
  31. Rasool, M.; Akhter, A.; Soja, G.; Haider, M.S. Role of biochar, compost and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria in the management of tomato early blight disease. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 6092.
  32. De Tender, C.; Haegeman, A.; Vandecasteele, B.; Clement, L.; Cremelie, P.; Dawyndt, P.; Maes, M.; Debode, J. Dynamics in the strawberry rhizosphere microbiome in response to biochar and Botrytis cinerea leaf infection. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 2062.
  33. Wang, G.; Ma, Y.; Chenia, H.Y.; Govinden, R.; Luo, J.; Ren, G. Biochar-mediated control of phytophthora blight of pepper is closely related to the improvement of the rhizosphere fungal community. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 1427.
  34. Copley, T.; Bayen, S.; Jabaji, S. Biochar amendment modifies expression of soybean and Rhizoctonia solani genes leading to increased severity of Rhizoctonia Foliar Blight. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 221.
  35. Jaiswal, A.K.; Frenkel, O.; Tsechansky, L.; Ela, Y.; Graber, E.R. Immobilization and deactivation of pathogenic enzymes and toxic metabolites by biochar: A possible mechanism involved in soilborne disease suppression. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2018, 121, 59–66.
  36. Kolton, M.; Graber, E.R.; Tsehansky, L.; Elad, Y.; Cytryn, E. Biochar-stimulated plant performance is strongly linked to microbial diversity and metabolic potential in the rhizosphere. New Phytol. 2016, 213, 1393–1404.
  37. Jaiswal, A.K.; Alkan, N.; Elad, Y.; Sela, N.; Philosoph, A.M.; Graber, E.R.; Frenkel, O. Molecular insights into biochar-mediated plant growth promotion and systemic resistance in tomato against Fusarium crown and root rot disease. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 13934.
  38. Yang, M.; Yuan, Y.; Huang, H.C.; Ye, C.; Guo, C.W.; Xu, Y.G.; Wang, W.; He, X.; Liu, Y.; Zhu, S. Steaming combined with biochar application eliminates negative plant-soil feedback for sanqi cultivation. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 189, 189–198.
  39. Wang, Y.; Ma, Z.; Wang, X.; Sun, Q.; Dong, H.; Wang, G.; Chen, X.; Yin, C.; Han, Z.; Mao, Z. Effects of biochar on the growth of apple seedlings, soil enzyme activities and fungal communities in replant disease soil. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 256, 108641.
  40. Bonanomi, G.; Ippolito, F.; Cesarano, G.; Vinale, F.; Lombardi, N.; Crasto, A.; Woo, G.S.L.; Scala, F. Biochar chemistry defined by 13C-CPMAS NMR explains opposite effects on soilborne microbes and crop plants. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2018, 124, 351–361.
  41. Ogundeji, A.O.; Li, Y.; Liu, X.; Meng, L.; Sang, P.; Mu, Y.; Wu, H.; Ma, Z.; Hou, J.; Li, S. Eggplant by grafting enhanced with biochar recruits specific microbes for disease suppression of Verticillium wilt. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2021, 163, 103912.
  42. Ahmed, F.; Islam, M.S.; Iqbal, M.T. Biochar amendment improves soil fertility and productivity of mulberry plant. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2017, 6, 37–43.
  43. Kumar, A.; Elad, Y.; Tsechansky, L.; Abrol, V.; Lew, B.; Offenbach, R.; Graber, E.R. Biochar potential in intensive cultivation of Capsicum annuum L. (sweet pepper): Crop yield and plant protection. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2018, 98, 495–503.
  44. Elmer, W.H. Effect of leaf mold mulch, biochar, and earth worms on mycorrhizal colonization and yield of asparagus affected by Fusarium crown and root rot. Plant Dis. 2016, 100, 2507–2512.
  45. De Araujo, A.S.; Bassay Blum, L.E.; Vinícius Nunes Andrade, D.; Batista da Silva Júnior, P.; De Figueiredo, C.C. Sewage Sludge Biochar Effects on Phytopathogenic Fungi and Beneficial Microorganisms. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 2021, 64, e21210266.
  46. Tian, J.; Rao, S.; Gao, Y.; Lu, Y.; Cai, K. Wheat straw biochar amendment suppresses tomato bacterial wilt caused by Ralstonia solanacearum: Potential effects of rhizosphere organic acids and amino acids. J. Integr. Agric. 2021, 20, 2450–2462.
  47. El-Hafez, O.A.A.; Amer, M.A. The influence of biochar on Common scab disease of potatoes. J. Plant Prot. Pathol. 2021, 12, 373–380.
  48. Gu, Y.; Hou, Y.; Huang, D.; Hao, Z.; Wang, X.; Wei, Z.; Jousset, A.; Tan, S.; Xu, D.; Shen, Q.; et al. Application of biochar reduces Ralstonia solanacearum infection via effects on pathogen chemotaxis, swarming motility, and root exudate adsorption. Plant Soil 2017, 415, 269–281.
  49. Lu, Y.; Rao, S.; Huang, F.; Cai, Y.; Wang, G.; Cai, K. Effects of biochar amendment on tomato bacterial wilt resistance and soil microbial amount and activity. Int. J. Agron. 2016, 2016, 2938282.
  50. Chen, C.; Ma, T.; Shang, Y.; Gao, B.; Jin, B.; Dan, H.; Li, Q.; Yue, Q.; Li, Y.; Wang, Y.; et al. In-situ pyrolysis of Enteromorpha as carbocatalyst for catalytic removal of organic contaminants: Considering the intrinsic N/Fe in Enteromorpha and non-radical reaction. Appl. Catal. B 2019, 250, 382–395.
  51. Bonanomi, G.; Alioto, D.; Minutolo, M.; Marra, R.; Cesarano, G.; Vinale, F. Organic amendments modulate soil microbiota and reduce virus disease incidence in the TSWV-tomato pathosystem. Pathogens 2020, 9, 379.
  52. Kawanna, M.; Elbebany, A.; Basyony, A. Impact of Biochar Soil Amendment on Tomato mosaic virus Infection, Growth and Nutrients Uptake of Tomato Plants. Alex. Sci. Exch. J. 2021, 42, 799–807.
  53. Zeshan, M.A.; Iftikhar, Y.; Ali, S.; Ahmed, N.; Ghani, M.; Kamran, N.; Khan, Q.N. Induction of resistance in tomato plants against Tomato leaf curl virus by using biochar and seed priming. Pak. J. Phytopathol. 2018, 30, 19–25.
  54. Arshad, U.; Azeem, F.; Mustafa, G.; Bakhsh, A.; Toktay, H.; McGiffen, M.; Amjad Nawaz, M.; Naveed, M.; Amjad Ali, M. Combined application of biochar and biocontrol agents enhances plant growth and activates resistance against Meloidogyne incognita in tomato. Gesunde Pflanz. 2021, 73, 591–601.
  55. Eche, C.O.; Okafor, O.E. Control potential of some indigenous biochars against Meloidogyne incognita in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). J. Entomol. Nematol. 2020, 12, 32–38.
  56. Marra, R.; Vinale, F.; Cesarano, G.; Lombardi, N.; D’Errico, G.; Crasto, A.; Mazzei, P.; Piccolo, A.; Incerti, G.; Woo, S.L.; et al. Biochars from olive mill waste have contrasting effects on plants, fungi and phytoparasitic nematodes. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, 6.
  57. Edenborn, L.; Johnson, L.M.K.; Edenborn, H.M.; Albarran-Jack, M.R.; Demetrion, L.D. Amendment of a hardwood biochar with compost tea: Effects on plant growth, insect damage and the functional diversity of soil microbial communities. Biol. Agric. Hortic. 2018, 34, 88–106.
  58. Pennings, S.C.; Callaway, R.M. Parasitic plants: Parallels and contrasts with herbivores. Oecologia 2002, 131, 479–489.
  59. Eizenberg, H.; Plakhine, D.; Ziadne, H.; Tsechansky, L.; Graber, E.R. Non-chemical control of root parasitic weeds with biochar. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 939.
  60. Saudy, H.S.; Hamed, M.F.; El–Metwally, I.M.; Ramadan, K.A.; Aisal, K.H. Assessing the Effect of Biochar or Compost Application as a Spot Placement on Broomrape Control in Two Cultivars of Faba Bean. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2021, 21, 1856–1866.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Agronomy
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Giuseppina Iacomino
,
Mohamed Idbella
,
Stefania Laudonia
,
Francesco Vinale
,
Giuliano Bonanomi
View Times: 715
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 13 Dec 2022
Table of Contents
Academic Video Service
Feedback