Comparison between two methods of mycelia growth evaluation of some Oomycetes species

  • Najwa Benfradj Department of Biological Sciences and Plant Protection, High Institute of Agronomy of Chott Mariem, University of Sousse, 4042 Sousse, Tunisia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9786-4002
  • Amai Rouini Department of Biological Sciences and Plant Protection, High Institute of Agronomy of Chott Mariem, University of Sousse, 4042 Sousse, Tunisia
  • Naima Boughalleb-M’Hamdi Department of Biological Sciences and Plant Protection, High Institute of Agronomy of Chott Mariem, University of Sousse, 4042 Sousse, Tunisia
Keywords: calculated area, measured area, growth factors, mefenoxam, ratio

Abstract

Oomycetes pathogens causes devastating crop diseases worldwide. In this study, we compared mycelium growth of 7 Oomycetes species using the calculated area (CA) method obtained by perpendicular diameter of colony and measured area (MA) method. Results revealed a significant difference between Oomycetes species inhibition ratio using CA and MA, at lower mefenoxam concentrations. The interval of variation between MA/CA methods was variable according to Oomycetes specie. The largest interval (0.01-1000 μg/ml) was detected with Pythium aphanidermatum and Phytopythium mercuriale. The second interval (0.01-100 μg/ml) was determined by Phytophthora cryptogea, P. aphanidermatum, P. ultimum and P. mercuriale. An interval ranged from 0.01μg/ml to 31.6μg/ml was recorded with P. cryptogea and Phytopythium vexans. An interval from 0.01 μg/ml to 10μg/ml was determined with Pythium dissotocum and P. vexans; while the shortest interval (0.01-1μg/ml) was noted with P. nicotianae. In addition, present findings recorded a difference in Pearson’s correlation index between growth factors (medium, evaluation dates, mefenoxam concentration) and Oomycetes mycelium growth using MA and CA methods. A statistical significance difference (P<0.05), weas noted more in case MA method and was more expressed in case of CA method.

References

Benfradj N, Migliorini D, Luchi N, Santini A, Boughalleb-M’Hamdi N, 2017. Occurrence of Pythium and Phytopythium species isolated from citrus trees infected with gummosis disease in Tunisia. Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection 50: 286–302.

Boughalleb-M’Hamdi N, Benfradj N, Migliorini D, Luchi N, Santini A, 2018. Phytophthora nicotianae and P. cryptogea causing gummosis of citrus crops in Tunisia. Tropical Plant Pathology 43: 36–48.

Broekaert WF, Terras FR, Cammue BP, Vanderleyden J, 1990. An automated quantitative assay for fungal growth inhibition. FEMS Microbiology Letters 69: 55–59.

Da Silva FO, Itako AT, Júnior JBT, 2017. Mycelial growth assessment by digital image analysis in R software environment. Idesia (Chile) 35: 5–8.

De Ulzurrun GVD, Baetens JM, Van den Bulcke J, De Baets B, 2017. Modelling three-dimensional fungal growth in response to environmental stimuli. Journal of Theoretical Biology 414: 35–49.

De Ulzurrun GVD, Baetens JM, Van den Bulcke J, Lopez-Molina C, De Windt I, De Baets B, 2015. Automated image-based analysis of spatio-temporal fungal dynamics. Fungal Genetics and Biology 84: 12–25.

Falconer RE, Bown JL, McAdam E, Perez-Reche P, Sampson AT, Van den Bulcke J, White NA, 2010. Modelling fungal colonies and communities: challenges and opportunities. IMA Fungus 1: 155–159.

Fricker M, Boddy L, Bebber D, 2007. Network organisation of mycelial fungi. In: Howard R, Gow N, eds. Biology of the fungal cell, Springer, New York, USA, pp. 309–330.

Girbardt M, 1957. Der Spitzenkorper von Polystictus versicolor. Planta 50: 47–59.

Gooday GW, 1976. Chemotaxis and chemotropism in fungi and algae. In: Carlile MJ, eds. Primitive sensory and communication systems, Academic Press, London, England, pp. 155–204.

Graham JH, 1995. Root regeneration and tolerance of citrus rootstocks to root rot caused by Phytophthora nicotianae. Phytopathology 85:111–117.

Hendricks KE, Christman MC, Roberts PD, 2017. A statistical evaluation of methods of in-vitro growth assessment for Phyllosticta citricarpa: Average colony diameter vs. area. PloS one 12: e0170755.

Kamel AAE, Mohamed AM, Ali HB, 2009. First morpho-molecular identification of Rhizoctonia solani ag-7 from potato tuber-borne sclerotium in Saudi Arabia. African Journal of Microbiology Research 3: 952–956.

Loeck AE, Pierobom CR, Gusmão LGD, Afonso AP, 2004. Growth of symbiont fungi of some higher attine ants in mineral medium. Ciência Rural 34: 79–82.

Matcham SE, Jordan BR, Wood DA, 1985. Estimation of fungal biomass in a solid substrate by three independent methods. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 21: 108–112.

Matsuura S, 1999. Growth and colony patterning of filamentous fungi. Forma-Tokyo 14: 315–320.

Miyashira CH, Tanigushi DG, Gugliotta AM, Santos DYAC, 2010. Comparison of radial growth rate of the mutualistic fungus of Atta sexdens rubropilosa forel in two culture media. Brazilian Journal of Microbiology 41: 506–511.

Noel ZA, Wang J, Chilvers MI, 2018. Significant influence of EC50 estimation by model choice and EC50 type. Plant Disease 102: 708–714.

Olsson S, 2001. Colonial growth of fungi. In: Biology of the fungal cell. Springer, Heidelberg, Berlin, Germany, pp. 125–141.

Pradhan S, Flores FJ, Molineros JE, Walker NR, Melouk H, Garzon CD, 2017. Improved assessment of mycelial growth stimulation by low doses of mefenoxam in plant pathogenic Globisporangium species. European Journal of Plant Pathology 147: 477–487.

Riquelme M, Reynaga-Pena CG, Gierz G, Bartnicki-Garcıa S, 1998. What determines growth direction in fungal hyphae?. Fungal Genetics and Biology 24: 101–109.

Riquelme M, Yarden O, Bartnicki-Garcia S, Bowman B, Castro-Longoria E, Free SJ, Fleißnerg A, Freitag M, Lew RR, Mouriño-Péreza R, Plamann M, Rasmussen C, Richthammer C, Robersonk RW, Sanchez-Leona E, Seiler S, Watters MK, 2011. Architecture and development of the Neurospora crassa hypha–a model cell for polarized growth. Fungal Biology 115: 446–474.

Schnürer J, 1993. Comparison of methods for estimating the biomass of three foodborne fungi with different growth patterns. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 59: 552–555.

Simonin A, Palma-Guerrero J, Fricker M, Glass NL, 2012. Physiological significance of network organization in fungi. Eukaryotic Cell 11: 1345–1352.

Taniwaki MH, Pitt JI, Hocking AD, Fleet GH, 2006. Comparison of hyphal length, ergosterol, mycelium dry weight, and colony diameter for quantifying growth of fungi from foods. In: Advances in food mycology. Springer, Boston, MA, USA, pp. 49–67.

Trinci APJ, 1969. Kinetic study of growth of Aspergillus nidulans and other fungi. Journal of General Microbiology 57: 11–24.

Williams-Woodward JL, De Mott ME, 2013. Fungicide Resistance in Pythium and Phytophthora from Ornamentals in Georgia. Proceedings of the International Plant Propagators Society 1055: 453–456.

Published
2022-07-26
How to Cite
Benfradj, N., Rouini, A., & Boughalleb-M’Hamdi, N. (2022). Comparison between two methods of mycelia growth evaluation of some Oomycetes species. Journal of Phytopathology and Pest Management, 9(1), 1-13. Retrieved from http://ppmj.net/index.php/ppmj/article/view/204
Issue
Vol. (9), Issue (1)
Section
Research Articles

Copyright (c) 2022 Journal of Phytopathology and Pest Management

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with Journal of Phytopathology and Pest Management agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial License (CC BY-NC). This allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  3. Archives of Agricultural Sciences Journal is an Open Access Journal, and articles published are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial License (CC BY-NC). Readers may copy, distribute, and display the work for non commercial purposes with the proper citation of the original work. However, the journal retains the right to exploit subsidiary rights on behalf of the authors.
  4. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractural arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  1. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process with full disclosure to the journal, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Following publication in Archives of Agricultural Sciences Journal, the author should update the repository, and include a citation and link to the published work.

      Click here for more information on Licensing policy