Bacterial endophytes from Chukrasiatabularis can antagonize Hypsipylarobusta larvae

Damage by the shoot-tip borer Hypsipyla robusta (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) has limited the commercial cultivation of Chukrasia tabularis (Meliaceae) in many parts of the world. Recently, a number of C. tabularis families in Vietnam have shown field resistance to H. robusta . This study explores whethe...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Phytoparasitica 2022-07, Vol.50 (3), p.655-668
Main Authors: Tra, T. T. L., Chi, N. M., Anh, D. T. K., Thu, P. Q., Nhung, N. P., Dell, B.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Agriculture
Bacteria
Biological activity
Biological control
Biomedical and Life Sciences
Borers
Damage
Ecology
Endophytes
Inoculation
Laboratories
Larvae
Life Sciences
Metabolites
Phylogeny
Plant Pathology
Plant resistance
Plant Sciences
RpoB protein
rRNA 16S
Trees
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p157t-8220397b2ac57c44bf73de31c3e905626367c0a3f6de5ed2080faec92c697b433
container_end_page 668
container_issue 3
container_start_page 655
container_title Phytoparasitica
container_volume 50
creator Tra, T. T. L.
Chi, N. M.
Anh, D. T. K.
Thu, P. Q.
Nhung, N. P.
Dell, B.
description Damage by the shoot-tip borer Hypsipyla robusta (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) has limited the commercial cultivation of Chukrasia tabularis (Meliaceae) in many parts of the world. Recently, a number of C. tabularis families in Vietnam have shown field resistance to H. robusta . This study explores whether endophytic bacteria in C. tabularis can inhibit the development of H. robusta . Endophytic bacteria from resistant trees had strong repellent (73–97%) and antifeedant (74–84%) activity with H. robusta in laboratory trials. The most biologically active isolates were identified as Bacillus bombysepticus (4 isolates) and Bacillus velezensis (2 isolates) based on phylogenetic analysis of 16S rRNA, gyrB, pycA and rpoB. Fifteen days after releasing H. robusta larvae in a nursery trial, spray inoculation with bacterial solutions from resistant trees reduced shoot tip damage by over 60% compared with the control. Spray treatments with bacterial endophytes from susceptible trees were less effective. These findings have application to the future development of biological control of H. robusta , and the selection of resistant trees for breeding.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s12600-022-01001-6
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_sprin</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2676399026</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2676399026</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p157t-8220397b2ac57c44bf73de31c3e905626367c0a3f6de5ed2080faec92c697b433</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkE1PwzAMhiMEEmPwBzhV4hxw4jZpjzDxJU3iAJwjN023jtGWJEUav57AkDjZsh-_lh7GzgVcCgB9FYRUAByk5JAGgqsDNhOlVlyLMj9kM0DMuRQSj9lJCBuAhAuYsecbstH5jraZ65thXO-iC1nrh_dssZ7ePIWOItXTlnwXMkt9Rn2k1dB3Xy572I2hG3dpN9RTiJSl7pPcKTtqaRvc2V-ds9e725fFA18-3T8urpd8FIWOvJQSsNK1JFtom-d1q7FxKCy6CgolFSptgbBVjStcI6GElpytpFXpKkecs4t97uiHj8mFaDbD5Pv00kilFVYVpJA5wz0VRt_1K-f_KQHmx57Z2zPJnvm1ZxR-A2yuY4M</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2676399026</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Bacterial endophytes from Chukrasiatabularis can antagonize Hypsipylarobusta larvae</title><source>Springer Nature</source><creator>Tra, T. T. L. ; Chi, N. M. ; Anh, D. T. K. ; Thu, P. Q. ; Nhung, N. P. ; Dell, B.</creator><creatorcontrib>Tra, T. T. L. ; Chi, N. M. ; Anh, D. T. K. ; Thu, P. Q. ; Nhung, N. P. ; Dell, B.</creatorcontrib><description>Damage by the shoot-tip borer Hypsipyla robusta (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) has limited the commercial cultivation of Chukrasia tabularis (Meliaceae) in many parts of the world. Recently, a number of C. tabularis families in Vietnam have shown field resistance to H. robusta . This study explores whether endophytic bacteria in C. tabularis can inhibit the development of H. robusta . Endophytic bacteria from resistant trees had strong repellent (73–97%) and antifeedant (74–84%) activity with H. robusta in laboratory trials. The most biologically active isolates were identified as Bacillus bombysepticus (4 isolates) and Bacillus velezensis (2 isolates) based on phylogenetic analysis of 16S rRNA, gyrB, pycA and rpoB. Fifteen days after releasing H. robusta larvae in a nursery trial, spray inoculation with bacterial solutions from resistant trees reduced shoot tip damage by over 60% compared with the control. Spray treatments with bacterial endophytes from susceptible trees were less effective. These findings have application to the future development of biological control of H. robusta , and the selection of resistant trees for breeding.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0334-2123</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1876-7184</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s12600-022-01001-6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Agriculture ; Bacteria ; Biological activity ; Biological control ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; Borers ; Damage ; Ecology ; Endophytes ; Inoculation ; Laboratories ; Larvae ; Life Sciences ; Metabolites ; Phylogeny ; Plant Pathology ; Plant resistance ; Plant Sciences ; RpoB protein ; rRNA 16S ; Trees</subject><ispartof>Phytoparasitica, 2022-07, Vol.50 (3), p.655-668</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2022</rights><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2022.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-p157t-8220397b2ac57c44bf73de31c3e905626367c0a3f6de5ed2080faec92c697b433</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-2345-2398</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tra, T. T. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chi, N. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anh, D. T. K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thu, P. Q.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nhung, N. P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dell, B.</creatorcontrib><title>Bacterial endophytes from Chukrasiatabularis can antagonize Hypsipylarobusta larvae</title><title>Phytoparasitica</title><addtitle>Phytoparasitica</addtitle><description>Damage by the shoot-tip borer Hypsipyla robusta (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) has limited the commercial cultivation of Chukrasia tabularis (Meliaceae) in many parts of the world. Recently, a number of C. tabularis families in Vietnam have shown field resistance to H. robusta . This study explores whether endophytic bacteria in C. tabularis can inhibit the development of H. robusta . Endophytic bacteria from resistant trees had strong repellent (73–97%) and antifeedant (74–84%) activity with H. robusta in laboratory trials. The most biologically active isolates were identified as Bacillus bombysepticus (4 isolates) and Bacillus velezensis (2 isolates) based on phylogenetic analysis of 16S rRNA, gyrB, pycA and rpoB. Fifteen days after releasing H. robusta larvae in a nursery trial, spray inoculation with bacterial solutions from resistant trees reduced shoot tip damage by over 60% compared with the control. Spray treatments with bacterial endophytes from susceptible trees were less effective. These findings have application to the future development of biological control of H. robusta , and the selection of resistant trees for breeding.</description><subject>Agriculture</subject><subject>Bacteria</subject><subject>Biological activity</subject><subject>Biological control</subject><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Borers</subject><subject>Damage</subject><subject>Ecology</subject><subject>Endophytes</subject><subject>Inoculation</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Larvae</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Metabolites</subject><subject>Phylogeny</subject><subject>Plant Pathology</subject><subject>Plant resistance</subject><subject>Plant Sciences</subject><subject>RpoB protein</subject><subject>rRNA 16S</subject><subject>Trees</subject><issn>0334-2123</issn><issn>1876-7184</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpFkE1PwzAMhiMEEmPwBzhV4hxw4jZpjzDxJU3iAJwjN023jtGWJEUav57AkDjZsh-_lh7GzgVcCgB9FYRUAByk5JAGgqsDNhOlVlyLMj9kM0DMuRQSj9lJCBuAhAuYsecbstH5jraZ65thXO-iC1nrh_dssZ7ePIWOItXTlnwXMkt9Rn2k1dB3Xy572I2hG3dpN9RTiJSl7pPcKTtqaRvc2V-ds9e725fFA18-3T8urpd8FIWOvJQSsNK1JFtom-d1q7FxKCy6CgolFSptgbBVjStcI6GElpytpFXpKkecs4t97uiHj8mFaDbD5Pv00kilFVYVpJA5wz0VRt_1K-f_KQHmx57Z2zPJnvm1ZxR-A2yuY4M</recordid><startdate>20220701</startdate><enddate>20220701</enddate><creator>Tra, T. T. L.</creator><creator>Chi, N. M.</creator><creator>Anh, D. T. K.</creator><creator>Thu, P. Q.</creator><creator>Nhung, N. P.</creator><creator>Dell, B.</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2345-2398</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220701</creationdate><title>Bacterial endophytes from Chukrasiatabularis can antagonize Hypsipylarobusta larvae</title><author>Tra, T. T. L. ; Chi, N. M. ; Anh, D. T. K. ; Thu, P. Q. ; Nhung, N. P. ; Dell, B.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p157t-8220397b2ac57c44bf73de31c3e905626367c0a3f6de5ed2080faec92c697b433</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Agriculture</topic><topic>Bacteria</topic><topic>Biological activity</topic><topic>Biological control</topic><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Borers</topic><topic>Damage</topic><topic>Ecology</topic><topic>Endophytes</topic><topic>Inoculation</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Larvae</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Metabolites</topic><topic>Phylogeny</topic><topic>Plant Pathology</topic><topic>Plant resistance</topic><topic>Plant Sciences</topic><topic>RpoB protein</topic><topic>rRNA 16S</topic><topic>Trees</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tra, T. T. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chi, N. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anh, D. T. K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thu, P. Q.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nhung, N. P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dell, B.</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Phytoparasitica</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tra, T. T. L.</au><au>Chi, N. M.</au><au>Anh, D. T. K.</au><au>Thu, P. Q.</au><au>Nhung, N. P.</au><au>Dell, B.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Bacterial endophytes from Chukrasiatabularis can antagonize Hypsipylarobusta larvae</atitle><jtitle>Phytoparasitica</jtitle><stitle>Phytoparasitica</stitle><date>2022-07-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>50</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>655</spage><epage>668</epage><pages>655-668</pages><issn>0334-2123</issn><eissn>1876-7184</eissn><abstract>Damage by the shoot-tip borer Hypsipyla robusta (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) has limited the commercial cultivation of Chukrasia tabularis (Meliaceae) in many parts of the world. Recently, a number of C. tabularis families in Vietnam have shown field resistance to H. robusta . This study explores whether endophytic bacteria in C. tabularis can inhibit the development of H. robusta . Endophytic bacteria from resistant trees had strong repellent (73–97%) and antifeedant (74–84%) activity with H. robusta in laboratory trials. The most biologically active isolates were identified as Bacillus bombysepticus (4 isolates) and Bacillus velezensis (2 isolates) based on phylogenetic analysis of 16S rRNA, gyrB, pycA and rpoB. Fifteen days after releasing H. robusta larvae in a nursery trial, spray inoculation with bacterial solutions from resistant trees reduced shoot tip damage by over 60% compared with the control. Spray treatments with bacterial endophytes from susceptible trees were less effective. These findings have application to the future development of biological control of H. robusta , and the selection of resistant trees for breeding.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1007/s12600-022-01001-6</doi><tpages>14</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2345-2398</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0334-2123
ispartof Phytoparasitica, 2022-07, Vol.50 (3), p.655-668
issn 0334-2123
1876-7184
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2676399026
source Springer Nature
subjects Agriculture
Bacteria
Biological activity
Biological control
Biomedical and Life Sciences
Borers
Damage
Ecology
Endophytes
Inoculation
Laboratories
Larvae
Life Sciences
Metabolites
Phylogeny
Plant Pathology
Plant resistance
Plant Sciences
RpoB protein
rRNA 16S
Trees
title Bacterial endophytes from Chukrasiatabularis can antagonize Hypsipylarobusta larvae
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T16%3A53%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_sprin&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Bacterial%20endophytes%20from%20Chukrasiatabularis%20can%20antagonize%20Hypsipylarobusta%20larvae&rft.jtitle=Phytoparasitica&rft.au=Tra,%20T.%20T.%20L.&rft.date=2022-07-01&rft.volume=50&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=655&rft.epage=668&rft.pages=655-668&rft.issn=0334-2123&rft.eissn=1876-7184&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s12600-022-01001-6&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_sprin%3E2676399026%3C/proquest_sprin%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p157t-8220397b2ac57c44bf73de31c3e905626367c0a3f6de5ed2080faec92c697b433%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2676399026&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true