Abstract
Phytophthora root rot is a major problem for avocado growers around the world. This review summarises the current control measures and their impact on the soil microbiome. The fungicide phosphite is widely used in the avocado industry, and reports from several countries indicate that Phytophthora cinnamomi is developing resistance. For this reason, alternative control measures have been investigated. Applying organic mulches and soil dressings of calcium or silicon provides a level of control. Biological control through the application of suppressive microbes has been actively investigated over many years, but reports of successful field deployment are rare. This review examines the effects on the soil microbiome of these control measures and assesses the future directions for research.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Avocado (Persea americana) is a warm climate tree, and its fruits are utilised worldwide for direct consumption, edible oil and the preparation of beauty products (Schaffer et al. 2013). Annual production in 2018 was 5.7 million tonnes (Sommaruga and Eldridge 2021). Soil-borne diseases that impact avocado production include white root, Verticillium wilt and Rhizoctonia root rot (Zentmyer 1984; Perez-Jimenez 2008; Dann et al. 2013), but the one of most concern is Phytophthora root rot caused by the oomycete Phytophthora cinnamomi and other Phytophthora species. This disease occurs in all the major avocado-growing regions of the world (Dann et al. 2013) and if not controlled, may kill all trees in an orchard (Zentmyer 1980).
Phosphite (also known as phosphonate) is the primary chemical used to control Phytophthora root rot in avocados (Pegg et al. 1987; Ramirez-Gil et al. 2017, 2018). Orchards are frequently sprayed with phosphite several times a year, leading to the emergence of resistant P. cinnamomi strains (Dobrowolski et al. 2008; Hunter et al. 2022). Phytophthora cinnamomi strains resistant to other fungicides, metalaxyl, mefenoxam, dimethomorph, and cymoxanil have also emerged (Parra and Ristaino 2001; Thomidis and Elena 2001). Although some new fungicides are becoming available (Belisle et al. 2019), an integrated approach for managing P. cinnamomi in avocado orchards (Pegg and Whiley 1987) is the best option and has been widely adopted. It promotes root health by planting P. cinnamomi-resistant rootstocks, careful soil selection and site preparation, organic and inorganic amendments, irrigation management, and chemical control (Wolstenholme 1979; Wolstenholme and Sheard 2010). However, even with integrated management, the control of P. cinnamomi in avocado orchards still relies heavily on applying phosphite.
Increasing awareness of the value of sustainable agriculture has stimulated research into ways of reducing the applications of chemical pesticides. Identifying and harnessing the disease suppression abilities of soil microbes is an attractive alternative for disease control. Many studies have identified microbes from the rhizosphere or root endosphere that can inhibit P. cinnamomi in vitro. Fewer have shown these organisms to be effective in glasshouse trials, and even fewer have demonstrated effectiveness in the field (Table 1). Attempts to use single organisms for biocontrol for other woody species have also frequently failed when applied in the field, and as a result, the thrust of the research effort is now to assemble cohorts of suppressive organisms which have different, complementary modes of action and which can co-exist in the soil (Raaijmakers and Mazzola 2016). An alternative approach is manipulating the soil environment so introduced organisms can multiply and express their disease suppression traits. These two approaches could be complementary and soil health could be improved using both methods. This review will focus on the effects on the soil microbiome of various control measures used for P. cinnamomi in avocados: applications of organic and inorganic soil amendments or suppressive microbes and spraying with pesticides. Prospects for using soil microbes for biological control of Phytophthora root rot in avocados will be discussed.
Soils suppressive or conducive to soil-borne pathogens
Some soils are naturally suppressive to disease due to their microbial populations, which inspired research into using soil microbes for disease control (Mazzola 2002; Cook 2014). These soils may have either general or specific suppression ability. Weller et al. (2002) explained the difference: “General suppression owes its activity to the total microbial biomass in soil and is not transferable between soils. Specific suppression owes its activity to the effects of individual or select groups of microorganisms and is transferable”. Soil microflora can contribute significantly to the suppression of pathogens directly by hyperparasitism (Davies et al. 2008), microbiostasis (Jambhulkar et al. 2015), production of antibiotics, metabolites, toxins (Garbeva et al. 2006, 2011; Adesina et al. 2007), competition for substrates (Cook and Baker 1983), or direct destruction of pathogen propagules (Jambhulkar et al. 2015). Indirect protection against diseases can result from the induction of systemic host resistance (Jambhulkar et al. 2015), the release of volatile compounds as signalling molecules in intraspecific interactions (Schmidt et al. 2015), or improved growth of plants through microbial production of growth hormones and siderophores (Bhattacharjee and Dey 2014). Gomez Exposito et al. (2017) provide an extensive list of organisms shown to provide specific suppression of a pathogen in vitro or under glasshouse conditions. In disease-suppressive soils, species of Proteobacteria and Actinobacteria are amongst the most abundant (Mendes et al. 2011; Liu et al. 2016). However, the theoretically possible transfer of specific suppression to conducive soils by soil transplantation or inoculation with microbial cultures has proved difficult for annual crop species and even more so for tree species (Cazorla and Mercado-Blanco 2016). As the use of one or two organisms to induce specific suppression has been largely unsuccessful, the research focus is changing to manipulation of the whole microbiome and utilising consortia of suppressive organisms to engineer the soil to function in a manner closer to one with general suppressive ability (Whipps 2001).
Microbes that suppress Phytophthora
Fungi, bacteria and oomycetes that inhibit the growth or reproduction of P. cinnamomi have been found in soils, rhizosphere soils or root endospheres (Table 1). The organisms shown to be effective both in vitro and in pot trials with avocado are Bacillus cereus, Paenibacillus polymyxa Trichoderma harzianum, T. hamatum, T. kongingiopsis and T. asperellum (Hakizimana et al. 2011; Andrade-Hoyos et al. 2020). There are few reports of field studies. One short study in Mexico showed that four soil treatments with suppressive Trichoderma species, six months apart, reduced damage observed on infected trees to a greater extent than Ridomil (Lara-Chavez et al. 2012). An extensive study in South Africa showed that in vitro Aspergillus candidus, T. hamatum, Paecilomyces lilacinus, Bacillus azotoformans and B. megatenum reduced P. cinnamomi damage. However, the fungal species were more effective for avocado seedlings in the glasshouse than the bacteria. Subsequent field tests over seven years demonstrated that Aspergillus candidus and T. hamatum established and survived best (Duvenhage 1999) and either separately or together with Paecilomyces lilacinus improved root health and plant condition, depending on the avocado variety. Unfortunately, in this trial, untreated control trees had a low level of diseased roots. Yang et al. (2001) studied the effect of treating 30-year-old avocado trees with Pseudomonas fluorescens through irrigation water once a week for four months. After this treatment, the rhizosphere and endosphere of roots had no Phytophthora and a population of Pseudomonas, Polangium and Cytophaga similar to healthy untreated roots, but the long-term health of the trees was not reported. The association of particular microbial groups on healthy roots does not necessarily mean they suppress Phytophthora, as the differences may reflect differences in root exudates due to infection/tree health (Yang et al. 2001).
Various culture-independent DNA-based analyses are now available that provide information on how the microbial community composition and metabolic activity changes in avocado soil in response to soil additives (e.g.Yang et al. 2001). Another population study reported that infection causes a shift toward a higher proportion of bacteria than fungi in the top ten taxa, and changes the relative abundance of the top ten taxa of both bacteria and fungi (Shu et al. 2019). Solis-Garcia et al. (2021) found that P. cinnamomi infection did not affect species richness, diversity or community structure in the rhizosphere but did change relative abundance, increasing the abundance of Burkhoderiales and decreasing Actinobacteria, Bacillus species and Rhizobiales. They also found an increase in opportunistic fungi. In contrast, Farooq et al. (2022b) reported that infection decreased bacterial abundance and diversity and that Actinobacteria and Proteobacteria were higher in relative abundance after infection. They also found that soil treatments of mineral mulch or spraying plants with phosphite suppressed Phytophthora root rot similarly and had different impacts on the bacterial microbiome.
Thus far, suppressive organisms have been sought mainly from soils and roots in agricultural environments. However, some organisms that suppress disease also confer resistance to abiotic stress (Timmusk and Wagner 1999), so bioprospecting in extreme environments might discover organisms that suppress pathogens. The halophytes Halomonas elongata and Bacillus pumilis inhibited the growth of P. citrophthora in Citrus x clementina (Zouaoui et al. 2019) and dark septate endophytes tolerant of trace element contamination of soils reduced the in vitro growth of P. citricola (Berthelot et al. 2019). Thus exploration of extreme habitats may reveal microbes capable of suppressing P. cinnamomi.
Mechanisms of action of microbes associated with disease-suppressive soils
Chemical antibiosis
Metabolites from many soil bacteria and fungi have antibiotic properties (Gomez Exposito et al. 2017; Raaijmakers et al. 2002; Whipps and Lumsden 2001). Although the production and action of these antibiotics have been intensively studied in vitro, their production in the soil environment has not been conclusively demonstrated, let alone shown to occur at inhibitory levels (Gomez Exposito et al. 2017). Their function at subinhibitory concentrations in soil may lie in cell-to-cell communication (Davies 2006). A notable aspect of chemical inhibitors is the wide range of chemicals produced (Whipps and Lumsden 2001). Some of these compounds can suppress diseases caused by entirely different pathogens, even across different phyla. For example, species of Trichoderma and Muscador can suppress Phytophthora, Pythium, Sclerotinia, Mycosphaerella, and Xanthomonas (Mitchell et al. 2009; Andrade-Hoyos et al. 2020). This illustrates the possibility that a suppressive soil microbe may positively or negatively impact many soil organisms, whether beneficial or pathogenic. However, some metabolites are particularly potent against zoosporic pathogens such as Phytophthora. Species of Pseudomonas produce biosurfactants that lyse naked cells, such as zoospores (Stanghellini and Miller 1997). Strains of the same suppressive species may vary widely in the ability to produce an antibiotic, and closely related species may inhibit a pathogen through different mechanisms; of five species of Paraburkholdaria equally effective against Rhizoctonia in soil, only one did so through the production of inhibitory volatiles (Carrion et al. 2018). The flexibility of microbial metabolism is notable too, and makes experimentation and application of results difficult. Production of suppressive metabolites can depend on the plant to which the microbe is applied and the pathogen present (Woo and Lorito 2007).
Many active compounds from Pseudomonas and Bacillus species are also notable, but other taxa may be equally as versatile, and the current data may, in part, reflect the extensive research involving Pseudomonas and Bacillus (Whipps and Lumsden 2001; Cawoy et al. 2011). Interestingly, many suppressive species (or their close relatives) are also endophytes (Table 1), and it is difficult to disentangle the contribution to disease suppression from microbes in the rhizosphere or the endosphere of a plant. As discussed below, using biological control organisms as endophytes is attracting increasing attention as it may provide better disease control than soil bacteria.
New metatranscriptomic techniques provide information on microbial metabolism in the soil rather than under the artificial conditions of in vitro culture. Metatranscriptomics analysis has not yet been applied to the avocado/P. cinnamomi pathosystem, but has provided information on microbial metabolism in soils that suppress Rhizoctonia solani (Raaijmakers and Mazzola 2016; Carrion et al. 2018; Hayden et al. 2018). These studies have illustrated the power of the technique to pinpoint the soil organisms important for producing key metabolites responsible for reducing disease expression.
Competition for nutrients
Non-pathogenic soil organisms may suppress pathogenic organisms through competition by obtaining soil nutrients more effectively (Heydari and Pessarakli 2010). The competition may be for macro- and micro-nutrients in the soil matrix and those secreted by the plant. For example, some non-pathogenic strains of F. oxysporum can out-compete the pathogenic strain for carbon and iron and reduce the pathogen’s impact. Their suppressive ability correlates with their siderophore production level (Loper and Buyer 1991). Organisms that owe their suppressive ability to the speedy utilisation of secreted nutrients include Enterobacter cloacae which rapidly colonises the surface of germinating seeds of several horticultural species preventing Pythium ultimum damage (Kageyama and Nelson 2003), and Pseudomonas putida which suppresses F. oxysporum wilt in cucumber through its ability to colonise root surfaces rapidly (Anderson et al. 1988).
P. cinnamomi is a weak saprophyte, and increasing the abundance of competitive saprophytes may be an effective management strategy. In addition, root damage may be reduced by introducing non-pathogenic organisms that rapidly colonise the root surface. There are no examples of applying these strategies to P. cinnamomi, and there are no studies of interspecies competition in Phytophthora. Investigating the potential of non-pathogenic Phytophthora to suppress P. cinnamomi through competition for nutrients may be rewarding.
Parasitism and lysis
Although in vitro studies have shown that many organisms, especially fungi, can be parasitic on soil pathogens by releasing enzymes that destroy the host cell wall (Adams 1990), the effectiveness of this mechanism in soil has been questioned. No conclusive studies demonstrate the role of parasitism in specific disease suppression in soil (Gomez Exposito et al. 2017). Many suppressive organisms are capable of lysis, antibiosis, and parasitism. The widely used in vitro screening methods usually detect an inhibition zone rather than the direct interaction between a pathogen and a mycoparasite. Necrotrophic parasitic fungi with a broad range of nutritional strategies are more often successful biocontrol agents and more competitive in the soil environment than parasites that require a living host (Karlsson et al. 2017).
Early research on P. sojae and P. cactorum oospores showed a great diversity of microbes that parasitize them; amoebae, other oomycetes, Actinomycetes and Chytridiomycetes (Waterhouse 1940; Sneh et al. 1977; Chakraborty et al. 1983). Most information is available on the effect of Trichoderma species. In vitro, Trichoderma species parasitize Phytophthora; the intertwining of hyphae is followed by the degradation of walls and cytoplasm of Phytophthora hyphae, oospores, and chlamydospores by lytic enzymes and antibiotic substances released from the Trichoderma (Andrade-Hoyos et al. 2020). Mycoparasites must be used cautiously as biocontrol agents as they may also parasitise beneficial soil fungi such as mycorrhizae.
Surprisingly, amongst the oomycetes, some species of Pythium are parasitic and suppressive of some pathogens. Pythium nunn can protect orange trees from P. parasitica, and Pythium oligandrum inhibits P. megasperma and P. parasitica. Pythium oligandrum was highly effective against P.cinnamomi in vitro but not for infested potted azalea plants (Fang and Tsao 1995b). Pythium oligandrum is the biological component of the commercial product PolyversumR. Its mode of action is most unusual. It behaves like an oomycete pathogen, quickly colonising root tissue and producing oligandrin, an elicitor of plant defence (Mohamed et al. 2007). The Pythium then rapidly degenerates without harming the plant. Further, it is a virulent mycoparasite and produces cellulases that destroy the walls of P. parasitica and lytic substances that degrade cellular structure of P. megasperma without hyphal contact or wall destruction. In addition, it promotes plant growth through auxin production (Benhamou et al. 2012). The selective advantage of this unusual modus operandi is not clear. The biology of non-pathogenic oomycetes is rarely studied, and it is not known how many other species of soil oomycetes share these valuable attributes, particularly stimulation of host defence.
Induction of systemic resistance in the host plant
Some non-pathogenic bacteria and fungi (free-living or mycorrhizal) can induce systemic resistance in a host plant. In some cases, resistance is long-lasting and gives a high level of disease control, but more often, it is inconsistent and provides a low level of control (Walters et al. 2013; Pieterse et al. 2014). Organisms known for this trait include species of Pseudomonas, Bacillus and Trichoderma (Da Rocha and Hammerschmidt 2005; Alabouvette et al. 2009; Bakker et al. 2013). Fusarium oxysporum induced resistance to P. capsici in peppers (Silvar et al. 2009). Using a model system of tomato, Trichoderma and Phytophthora, La Spada et al. (2020) demonstrated that Trichoderma asperellum and T. atroviride induced plant defence genes effective against P. nicotianae and were also mycoparasites. Also of interest is that a zoospore suspension of P. cryptogea applied to leaves of tomato induced systemic resistance against F. oxysporum (Attitalla et al. 2001). Microbially induced resistance in avocados against P. cinnamomi is unknown, but research to identify such soil microbes appears attractive. In order to be practical, induced defence throughout the root system would need to occur in response to an application of an organism to the foliage. This simplified delivery system could result in better contact between the organism and the host tissue than in soil applications, as the biocontrol agent would face less competition on the foliage than in the soil. It would also be interesting to test whether a killed suspension of P. cinnamomi mycelium and zoospores would induce systemic resistance if applied to the leaves of avocado. However, several aspects concerning this strategy must be resolved before its real value can be determined. Resident microbes may result in plants in the field already having a level of resistance to some pathogens, and applying additional microbial treatments may make little difference. Moreover, the cost to plant metabolism of maintaining a high induction level without a pathogen may reduce productivity (Walters et al. 2013).
Agricultural practices affecting disease suppression and beneficial soil microbes
Any amendment to soil, including organic substrates, fertilizers and pesticides, will affect its chemical and physical properties and thus directly or indirectly, affect the microbial communities composition and activity.
Organic soil additives
Suppressive soils from natural environments are generally high in organic matter, and raising the organic content in agricultural soils is one way of improving their general disease suppressiveness (Vida et al. 2020). The commonly used organic inputs in avocado orchards are composted animal manures (sheep, cow, chicken) (Ramírez-Gil and Morales-Osorio 2020; Carreon-Abud et al. 2015), almond shell mulch, vegetable compost, blood meal (Bonilla et al. 2012), wood mulch (Mohale et al. 2022) and biochar (Zwart and Kim 2012). The ‘Ashburner System’ of Phytophthora control involves several cycles of incorporation of green manure crops and application of chicken manure and NPK fertilizer to the soil before planting avocado, and after planting, maintaining the high soil organic matter by retention of litter and further application of composts (Pegg 1977). The degree of disease suppression achieved using an organic amendment is a combination of the physical and chemical properties of the compost and the soil and changes in the abundance, composition and metabolism of the soil microbes. A three-way interaction between compost microbiota (composition, diversity and functionality), pathogens and plants lead to a new equilibrium (Hardy and Sivasithamparam 1995; Aviles et al. 2011; Bonanomi et al. 2010).
Disease suppression resulting from adding organic materials may result from a combination of increased plant vigour and suppression of pathogens. Plant growth may be improved by the organic material buffering changes in moisture content, the increased microbial activity resulting in greater availability of nutrients, higher levels of nitrogen fixation, and microbial production of plant growth hormones and siderophores (Zhang et al. 1998; Hoitink and Boehm 1999; Van Wees et al. 2008).
The complexity of the possible impacts of an organic amendment is illustrated by the results of the addition of biochar (Lehmann et al. 2011), the application of which decreases root damage in oak and maple (Zwart and Kim 2012). Biochar has been shown to enhance plant growth-promoting microorganisms (Graber et al. 2010; Kolton et al. 2011) and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (Warnock et al. 2007) and improve the growth and yield of avocado (Crowley 2012; Jones et al. 2012). Biochar makes waterlogged soils less conducive for Phytophthora by increasing water infiltration and improving aeration, increasing the microbial biomass and changing the balance to one dominated by bacteria (Jones et al. 2012), alters the functions of microbial communities (Bonanomi et al. 2015) and results in disease suppression (Lehmann et al. 2011; Thies et al. 2015).
Volatile organic compounds originating from metabolism of soil microbes or compost can beneficially alter the soil microbial population (Kasuya et al. 2006; Klein et al. 2007). The degradation of crop residues or seed meal from some Brassica species releases volatile toxic chemicals, mainly glucosinolates and isothiocyanates (Neubauer et al. 2014; Fourie et al. 2016), capable of inhibiting mycelial growth, decreasing sporangial production and chlamydospore viability. Brassica residues reduced hyphal growth of P. cinnamomi in vitro and inoculum levels in pot soils for up to 9 days. When Brassica was applied as a pre-planting soil fumigation technique in the field, P. cinnamomi infection of Leucadendron was reduced, but chemical fumigation was more effective (Dunne et al. 2003a, b). The effect of Brassica residues has also been observed for P. cinnamomi on lupin and oak (Rios et al. 2017), P. nicotianae on tobacco, and P. capsici on squash (Ji et al. 2012; Morales-Rodriguez et al. 2014) The possibility of using Brassica residue for controlling P. cinnamomi in avocados is being investigated (Avocados Australia 2021), and it is also being considered as a means of reducing the population of resident soil microbes before the introduction of suppressive organisms such as Trichoderma (Trichoderma is resistant to the volatiles) (Mazzola and Freilich 2017).
Beneficial organisms may be introduced to the soil in the compost itself, or the changed physical conditions induced by the organic additive may enhance the relative abundance of beneficial species already present in the soil. Composted eucalyptus bark and organic mulch used in avocado orchards contain many actinomycetes antagonistic to P. cinnamomi (Hardy and Sivasithamparam 1995; You et al. 1996). Although composts may increase microbial abundance and activity overall and result in increased general suppressiveness, there is also frequently an increase in microbes known to be suppressive of a specific pathogen such as Phytophthora, i.e. the bacteria Pseudomonas, Streptomyces Bacillus, Paenibacillus and Enterobacter, and the fungi Trichoderma and Penicillium (Gomez Exposito et al. 2017).
Soils naturally suppressive to Phytophthora are high in calcium (Broadbent and Baker 1974) and soil dressings of calcium, gypsum, or limestone are known to suppress Phytophthora in woody tree species. Calcium application has proven effective for avocado (Messenger et al. 1997; Silva et al. 2016) as well as for jarrah (Khdiar et al. 2022), citrus (Campanella et al. 2002), oak (Serrano et al. 2012), pistachio (Mostowfizadeh-Ghalamfarsa et al. 2018), Banksia (Stasikowski et al. 2014; Khdiar et al. 2022) and blueberries (Yeo 2014). Most of these studies were glasshouse trials, but the work on blueberry and avocado includes field observations. A calcium chelate was as effective as phosphite in controlling P. cinnamomi (Khdiar et al. 2022). Calcium reduces sporangial production and zoospore motility, induces premature encystment in the pathogen, and reduces plant root exudates that attract the zoospores (Messenger et al. 2000a, b). Stasikowski et al. (2014) showed that externally supplied calcium disrupts calcium signalling pathways in Phytophthora, reducing its pathogenicity and that when calcium was applied to soil, it enhanced the protective effect of spraying with phosphite. There is no information on the effect of calcium on beneficial microbes in avocado orchard soils, but it has been shown to increase populations of suppressive organisms in other crops (e.g. peanut) (Zhang et al. 2021).
Application of silicon to the soil reduces the severity of a number of diseases in several species, including P. cinnamomi root rot of avocado, ink disease of chestnut seedlings (Pozza et al. 2015; Carneiro-Carvalho et al. 2017; Dann and Le 2017; Farooq et al. 2022a; Bekker et al. 2006, 2007) and P. sojae root rot of soybean (Rasoolizadeh et al. 2018, 2020). Silicon also controls several rice leaf pathogens as effectively as fungicides (Tubana et al. 2016). Silicon inhibits Phytophthora mycelial growth in vitro, although the high concentration required would be unrealistic for field applications (Carneiro-Carvalho et al. 2017; Bekker et al. 2006). Silicon increases root growth and production of phenolics in avocados (Anderson et al. 2004; Bekker et al. 2007, 2014) and in other species, it stimulates several plant metabolic processes related to disease suppression. These include the host defence response (Liang et al. 2007), enzymatic activity, hormone release and synthesis of antimicrobial compounds (Fauteux et al. 2005; Ahammed and Yang 2021), accumulation of flavonoids, phenols and lignin in root tissues (Fortunato et al. 2015), antioxidant enzyme activity (Carneiro-Carvalho et al. 2020) and the formation of physical barriers in plant cell walls (Fawe et al. 2001). Finally, it has an impact through changes in the soil microbiome. In the rhizosphere of P. cinnamomi infested avocado plants treated with a silica-based mulch, there was an increase in the proportion of Actinobacteria and Chloroflexi, phyla known to include many species that suppress Phytophthora (Farooq et al. 2022b). Application of a silica-based mulch may be cheaper than multiple sprays of phosphite each year. For avocados growing in Queensland, the application of 2 tonnes per hectare of silicate-based mulch effectively controlled Phytophthora root rot for at least ten months, but the total longevity of the effect was not reported (Dann and Le 2017). Bekker et al. (2014) also found that soil drenches of potassium silicate significantly improved the health of infected avocado trees, but three drenches in each growing season were required. The application of silicon-based nanoparticles also appears to be a promising line of research (Rajput et al. 2021).
Herbicides and pesticides
Many agricultural chemicals used for pest and disease control eventually end up in the soil, where they affect the composition and metabolic activity of the microbiome, usually detrimentally (Hussain et al. 2009; Lo 2010; Floch et al. 2011; Munoz-Leoz et al. 2011; Kaur and Garg 2014). The main chemicals commonly used in avocado orchards are glyphosate for weed control, phosphite, and metalaxyl to suppress Phytophthora root rot. Although not soil amendments, it is appropriate to consider these treatments here as they may cause changes to the soil microbiome.
The effect of phosphite on soil organisms is multipronged. A direct impact on P. cinnamomi and non-target organisms is possible as the chemical inhibits several Phytophthora species and other oomycetes (Peronospora, Plasmospora and Pythium), some fungal species (e.g. Fusarium, Armillaria, Puccinia, Ralstoniaand Phakospora) and some bacteria (Thao and Yamakawa 2009; Gill et al. 2018). Phosphite can be metabolised as a source of phosphorous by some bacteria and fungi, which may enhance their growth. Knowledge of which soil organisms have this capability is sparse and not well substantiated, but they include Pseudomonas and Rhizobium, which are known to be suppressive to Phytophthora (McDonald et al. 2001; Achary et al. 2017). Phosphite mainly reduces Phytophthora infection by stimulating the host plant’s defence system, but concentrations in root tips may be sufficiently high to directly affect the pathogen (Guest and Grant 1991; Van den Berg et al. 2021). Changes in plant metabolism cause changes in root exudates (e.g. Kremer et al. 2005). Phosphite treatment likely changes root exudates, affecting the soil microbiome. In tomatoes, root exudates are altered by Trichoderma atroviride, stimulating this fungus’s growth and inhibiting P. cinnamomi (Macías-Rodríguez et al. 2018). It would be interesting to know if avocado root exudates change following the application of phosphite and, if so, the impact on the soil microbiome. Farooq et al. (2022b) found that applying phosphite spray to avocado leaves increased the overall abundance of soil bacteria in the rhizosphere but did not change their diversity or the relative abundance of the different phyla. In contrast, metalaxyl and related products and their residues are generally deleterious to microbial communities as they reduce microbial numbers and enzymatic activity and suppress groups, including beneficial organisms such as the Actinomycetes well as the target pathogen (Demanou et al. 2004; Sukul 2006).
The herbicide glyphosate may have positive or negative effects on the soil microbe mass and respiration depending on the rate of application and soil conditions (Haney et al. 2000). Soil fungi metabolise it (Lane et al. 2012) and this may increase the abundance of saprophytic fungi,Fusarium and Pythium (Meriles et al. 2006; Schlatter et al. 2017), but it has not been reported to affect Phytophthora directly. Like phosphite, it, too, may indirectly affect the soil microbiome by changing root exudates and increasing the mass of necrotic root material in the soil (Kremer et al. 2005). Farooq et al. (2022a) noted that glyphosate applied to weeds in potted avocados reduced avocado shoot and root dry weights and suggested that repetitive spraying of glyphosate in the field may exacerbate the effect of the P. cinnamomi.
Extension of results from in vitro to the glasshouse and from the glasshouse to the field
Treating soil with organic mulches or calcium has successfully reduced the Phytophthora root rot of avocados in the field, and there is one field study of the successful use of a silicon-based mineral mulch. However, despite the wide range of potential biocontrol species for avocados (Table 1), there are few examples in the scientific literature of successful biocontrol in the field. Initial evaluation of potential suppressive microbes is usually done in vitro as this is a quick, economical way of screening many microbes before selecting a few for testing in pot trials. Such studies are valuable to identify antagonists that owe their suppressive abilities to antibiosis resulting from soluble or volatile chemicals, and microscopic observations may also detect mycoparasitism. However, in vitro results may not reflect the full range of interactions that will occur in pot trials or in the field where the conditions of temperature, nutrient availability and population density are very different, and interactions with competing organisms may affect metabolism. Also, when assessing oomycetes in pot trials, it is usual to include a period of flooding to stimulate zoospore production and movement, but if not carefully controlled, flooded soil can become anoxic and affect the health of host roots (Davison and Hardy 2022). Additionally, an organism may lose the ability to suppress Phytophthora during the repetitive subcultures required to obtain the quantity of inoculum necessary for large-scale trials. This happened in the case of the suppressive ability of Burkholderia gladioli against Pythium ultimum (Bae et al. 2007). Depending on in vitro screening also means that species that have a mechanism of action effective in the field but not in vitro will be missed (Carrion et al. 2018). Testing control of the pathogen using culture filtrates in pot trials is common but gives little more information than in vitro trials and provides no insight into whether the microbe can compete in soil and produce sufficient levels of suppressive chemicals to inhibit P. cinnamomi in the field. It may lead to identifying compounds that might be formulated as fungicides.
Establishing trials in the field exposes the control organisms to different conditions than those experienced in a glasshouse pot trial (Forero et al. 2019; Johnson et al. 2003; Heinze et al. 2016; Howard et al. 2017). In the glasshouse, controlled temperatures, fertilisation and watering provide different (usually less stressful) conditions for the plant and the soil microbes compared to the field. This may result in differences in plant morphology and physiology in the glasshouse and the field (Poorter et al. 2016) and impact the metabolism of the microbes. For example, increased fertilization and water availability can cause some arbuscular fungi to become parasitic (Johnson et al. 2003; Schmidt et al. 2011). The restricted growing space and the time a tree species can be realistically grown under glasshouse conditions also affect the results. Under glasshouse conditions, infected plants are often harvested two weeks or so after infection to assess the extent of root damage before the roots disintegrate (Davison and Hardy 2022) and such trials do not measure the organism(s) ability to survive in the field in the longer term. Experiments may use field soil in pots to simulate field conditions as closely as possible, but plant growth in unaltered field soil in pots is not usually possible. The disturbance during collection destroys soil structure and results in a poorly draining medium, and it is usually necessary for field soil to be mixed with another medium such as sand, perlite or potting mix to increase porosity and provide a substrate suitable for plant growth in pots. In an orchard, the volume of soil that a biocontrol organism must reach vastly differs from that in a pot. Avocado has a shallow root system, with 60% of the roots in the top 60 cm of soil (Salazar-Garcia and Cortés-Flores 1986), and should thus be more suitable for biological control of root disease than many other tree crops. However, there are few papers on avocado (or any tree crop) in which reports of a high level of success in the field have followed up promising results from soil additives in glasshouse trials.
Most publications on microbial suppression of P. cinnamomi (Table 1) give only data on in vitro studies. Fang and Tsao (1995b) reported a poor correlation between results from in vitro and pot trials. A good correlation between in vitro suppression and control of P. cinnamomi in pot trials was reported in four cases (Fang and Tsao 1995a; El-Tarabily et al. 1996; Hakizimana et al. 2011; Andrade-Hoyos et al. 2020). There are three studies involving field trials (Table 1). Of these, only the South African work included comparisons of effects in vitro, pot trials and the field, but the data provided do not allow comparison of the same suppressive species in all three environments. Pot trials showed that the selected bacterial species for avocado were not as effective as the fungi for suppressing Phytophthora. Aspergillus candidus and Trichoderma were more advantageous in the field than Paecilomyces lilacinus (Duvenhage 1999). The question arises as to why so many in vitro results have not been tested further in the glasshouse and why there is so little information on field trials using experimental microbes or commercial products. Is this because of the cost, difficulty and time required to conduct these experiments or because negative results, for some reason, have not reached the scientific literature? This is an area where the publication of negative or positive results is badly needed to guide further research.
Collinge et al. (2022) and Whipps and Lumsden (2001) review the development and success of commercial microbial products for plant disease control in general and list several products that have enjoyed commercial success. Whipps and Lumsden (2001) suggest that the legislative requirements for registration of a new pesticide are so onerous that some products containing disease-suppressive microbes are marketed as growth promotors or fertilizers rather than fungicides. The few products listed against Phytophthora species have been applied in annual crops, and none are available for Phytophthora root rot in avocados. The high cost of developing commercial products and delivery systems and the limited target may result in potentially effective microbes not being tested further for commercial use. This will not change until the market drivers change; climate change might result in the disease becoming more severe and widespread, demand for organic produce may increase, government legislation may demand less use of chemical pesticides, or legislation concerning the release of a biopesticide simplified.
Future directions and research gaps
The complexity of the interactions resulting from using soil additives to control Phytophthora root rot in avocados is illustrated in Fig. 1. Many impacts or mechanisms require confirmation as they have only been shown in vitro, in other host species, or other pathogens (Fig. 1). A fuller understanding of the effects of perturbations in soil ecology following the addition of soil additives will enable better design of beneficial communities of microbes. Some research gaps are outlined below:
-
1.
The most promising additive, and one that may complement current disease control measures, is silicon. More information is needed regarding the rate and timing of silica applications and tests in different soil types and climatic conditions.
-
2.
It has become apparent that for tree crops, applying a single microbial species, no matter how effective in vitro, is rarely effective in the field (Cazorla and Mercado-Blanco 2016). However, past research has identified several species that might be used effectively in combinations. The use of both a bacterium and a fungus gave more suppression of P. cinnamomi in avocado and Banksia grandis than either of the organisms used separately (El-Tarabily et al. 1996; Hakizimana et al. 2011), while two strains of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens gave better control of P. capsici in Capsicum annuum than either strain separately (Yang et al. 2015). The use of species consortia with several different modes of action is being investigated to establish synthetic communities of suppressive organisms for various diseases (Mazzola and Freilich 2017; Gomez Exposito et al. 2017). Members of these consortia also need to be compatible and able to thrive in the ecological parameters of the orchard soil. This is a complex task, but it will provide the best chance of biocontrol of P. cinnamomi in avocados.
-
3.
Further investigation is needed into whether biocontrol microbes lose their suppressive traits when repeatedly sub-cultured and, if so, how culture methods can be modified to reduce or eliminate this problem. Regardless of whether a single organism or a group is being utilized, it is essential to know that the suppressive capabilities are expressed at the time of application to the soil. Confirmation of suppressive compounds being produced at inhibitory levels in soil, as distinct from in vitro, is also needed.
-
4.
When the new ground is being prepared, or an infected site is cleared for replanting, Phytophthora in the soil can be reduced or eliminated by solarization (Lopez-Herrera et al. 1997), treatment with brassica residues (Fourie et al. 2016) or by removing large woody residue and all living plant roots (including annual weeds) for 2–3 years (Dunstan et al. 2020),. These treatments may reduce the abundance in the entire microbiome and thus facilitate the establishment of populations of the desired suppressive organisms. However, as Mazzola and Freilich (2017) point out, solarization and brassica treatments may also suppress resident beneficial microbes or increase the abundance of a pathogen other than Phytophthora. A study of the changes in the total microbiome due to these elimination/suppression methods would be valuable, as well as information on the population changes following the addition of suppressive microbes.
-
5.
While applying beneficial organisms to nursery stock is relatively straightforward, methods to ensure the persistence of these organisms once plants are transferred to the field may require some manipulation of the established resident microbes using the above techniques. The best methods of application of suppressive microbes to established trees need to be developed. Thus far, irrigation with a microbial solution has been widely used (e.g., (Yang et al. 2001) but some type of soil injection may also be appropriate, and provision of a food source (as used by Fang and Tsao 1995a in the glasshouse) may also increase survival in the field.
-
6.
Further attention should be given to the best way to introduce endophytes, as many suppressive organisms are endophytes (Table 1). The endophytic environment in an avocado root should be more similar between plants growing in different soils and climatic conditions than in the surrounding rhizosphere or soil environments. Also, the diversity and abundance of microbes in the avocado endosphere are much lower than in the rhizosphere (Farooq et al. 2022b). Endophytes may be effective over a broader range of growing regions than free-living microbes. It may be easier for a suppressive microbe to establish an effective population in the endosphere than in the rhizosphere, where there is more competition for nutrients and ecological niches. Inoculating endophyte-free tissue cultured plantlets of avocado rootstock would be ideal for establishing a community of the desired organisms (Hakizimana et al. 2011). However, experiments are needed to determine compatible mixes of endophytes that would confer disease suppression and whether they survive the competition from organisms introduced by grafting and planting to the field. Their distribution in the root system as the plant matures and their persistence over time must also be investigated. Molecular techniques are available to study fluctuations of bacterial density populations and the relative abundance of the component taxa under different conditions. Endophytes can be introduced into seedlings through spraying leaves, but it is unknown whether spraying endophytes onto the foliage of mature trees results in the successful colonization of root endospheres.
-
7.
As many biocontrol agents are effective against more than one pathogen species, tests should be conducted to determine whether the organisms suppressing P. cinnamomi also suppress other avocado diseases such as white rot, Verticillium wilt or Rhizoctonia root rot. Conversely, the microorganisms that suppress other Phytophthora species are frequently in the same genera as those that suppress P. cinnamomi, so they may also provide another source of potential suppressors.
Conclusions
Current practices by avocado orchardists to suppress Phytophthora root rot through manipulating the soil’s physical and biological properties have been partially successful, but orchardists still rely on heavily frequent applications of phosphite, a compound to which the pathogen is gradually developing resistance. The application of silicon may replace the necessity for some or all phosphite sprays during a year, thus delaying the development of pathogen resistance. It has rarely been possible to induce a specific suppressive soil by applying one or a few suppressive microbes, but this research has provided knowledge of many suppressive organisms. These known and yet-to-be-discovered organisms hold the potential to establish artificial microbial ecosystems that can naturally control the disease. Additionally, exploring the manipulation of the endophytic microbiome as a means to suppress P. cinnamomi should be pursued. While promising results may arise from laboratory and greenhouse experiments, it is crucial to conduct field trials and publish the outcomes, regardless of whether they are positive or negative. Although effectively utilizing microbes to suppress Phytophthora root rot in avocados still requires further development, the potential benefits are substantial. The availability of advanced tools to assess changes in the entire soil microbiome will facilitate progress in this area.
Data availability
The data are available if required from the corresponding author.
Code availability
R statistical software was used for data analysis, and code is available if required.
References
Achary VMM, Ram B, Manna M, Datta D, Bhatt A, Reddy MK, Agrawal PK (2017) Phosphite: a novel P fertilizer for weed management and pathogen control. Plant Biotechnol J 15:1493–1508. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12803
Adams PB (1990) The potential of mycoparasites for biological control of plant diseases. Annu Rev Phytopathol 28:59–72
Adesina MF, Lembke A, Costa R, Speksnijder A, Smalla K (2007) Screening of bacterial isolates from various European soils for in vitro antagonistic activity towards Rhizoctonia solani and Fusarium oxysporum: site-dependent composition and diversity revealed. Soil Biol Biochem 39(11):2818–2828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.06.004
Ahammed GJ, Yang Y (2021) Mechanisms of silicon-induced fungal disease resistance in plants. Plant Physiol Biochem 165:200–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2021.05.031
Alabouvette C, Olivain C, Migheli Q, Steinberg C (2009) Microbiological control of soil-borne phytopathogenic fungi with special emphasis on wilt‐inducing Fusarium oxysporum. New Phytol 184(3):529–544. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.03014.x
Anderson AJ, Habibzadegah-Tari P, Tepper CS (1988) Molecular studies on the role of a root surface agglutinin in adherence and colonization by Pseudomonas putida. Appl Environ Microbiol 54:375–380. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.54.2.375-380.1988
Anderson JM, Pegg KG, Coates LM, Dann EK, Cooke AW, Smith L, Dean JR (2004) Silicon and disease management in avocados. Talk Avocados 15(3):23–25
Andrade-Hoyos P, Silva-Rojas HV, Romero-Arenas O (2020) Endophytic Trichoderma species isolated from Persea americana and Cinnamomum verum roots reduce symptoms caused by Phytophthora cinnamomi in avocado. Plants 9:1220. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9091220
Attitalla IH, Johnson P, Brishammar S, Quintanilla P (2001) Systemic resistance to Fusarium wilt in tomato induced by Phytopthora Cryptogea. J Phytopathol 149:373–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0434.2001.tb03865.x
Aviles M, Borrero C, Trillas M (2011) Review on compost as an inducer of disease suppression in plants grown in soilless culture. Dyn Soil Dyn Plant 5:1–11
Avocados Australia (2021) Facts at a Glance 2020/21 for the Australian avocado industry. Australia
Bae YS, Park KS, Choi OH (2007) Laboratory culture media-dependent biocontrol ability of Burkholderia gladioli strain B543. Plant Pathol J 23:161–165. https://doi.org/10.5423/PPJ.2007.23.3.161
Bakker PAHM, Doornbos RF, Zamioudis C, Berendsen RL, Pieterse CMJ (2013) Induced systemic resistance and the rhizosphere microbiome. Plant Pathol J 29:136–143. https://doi.org/10.5423/PPJ.SI.07.2012.0111
Bekker TF, Kaiser C, Labuschagne N (2006) Efficacy of water soluble silicon against Phytophthora cinnamomi root rot of avocado: a progress report. South Afr Avocado Growers Association Yearbook 29:58–62
Bekker TF, Labuschagne N, Aveling T, Kaiser C (2007) The inhibition of Phytophthora root rot of avocado with potassium silicate application under greenhouse conditions. South Afr Avocado Grower Association Yearbook 30:49–56
Bekker TF, Labuschagne N, Aveling T, Regnier T, Kaiser C (2014) Effects of soil drenching of water-soluble potassium silicate on commercial avocado (Persea americana Mill.) Orchard trees infected with Phytophthora cinnamomi Rands on root density, canopy health, induction and concentration of phenolic compounds. S Afr J Plant Soil 31:101–107. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC154624
Belisle RJ, Hao W, McKee B, Arpaia ML, Manosalva P, Adaskaveg JE (2019) New Oomycota fungicides with activity against Phytophthora cinnamomi and their potential use for managing avocado root rot in California. Plant Dis 103:2024–2032. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-09-18-1698-RE
Benhamou N, Le Floch G, Vallance J, Gerbore J, Grizard D, Rey P (2012) Pythium oligandrum: an example of opportunistic success. Microbiology 158:2679–2694. https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.061457-0
Berthelot C, Leyval C, Chalot M, Blaudez D (2019) Interactions between dark septate endophytes, ectomycorrhizal fungi and root pathogens in vitro. FEMS Microbiol Lett 366:fnz158. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnz158
Bhattacharjee R, Dey U (2014) An overview of fungal and bacterial biopesticides to control plant pathogens/diseases. Afr J Microbiol Res 8:1749–1762. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJMR2013.6356
Bonanomi G, Antignani V, Capodilupo M, Scala F (2010) Identifying the characteristics of organic soil amendments that suppress soilborne plant diseases. Soil Biol Biochem 42:136–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.10.012
Bonanomi G, Ippolito F, Scala F (2015) A black future for plant pathology? Biochar as a new soil amendment for controlling plant diseases. J Plant Pathol 97(2):223–234
Bonilla N, Cazorla FM, Martínez-Alonso M, Hermoso JM, González-Fernández JJ, Gaju N, Landa BB, de Vicente A (2012) Organic amendments and land management affect bacterial community composition, diversity and biomass in avocado crop soils. Plant Soil 357:215–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1155-1
Broadbent P, Baker KF (1974) Behaviour of Phytophthora cinnamomi in soils suppressive and conducive to root rot. Aust J Agric Res 25:121–137. https://doi.org/10.1071/AR9740121
Campanella V, Ippolito A, Nigro F (2002) Activity of calcium salts in controlling Phytophthora root rot of citrus. Crop Protect 21:751–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-2194(02)00032-7
Carneiro-Carvalho A, Pereira C, Marques T, Martins L, Anjos R, Pinto T, Lousada J, Gomes-Laranjo J (2017) Potential of silicon fertilization in the resistance of chestnut plants to ink disease (Phytophthora cinnamomi). Int J Environ Agric Biotechnol 2:2740–2753. https://doi.org/10.22161/ijeab/2.5.60
Carneiro-Carvalho A, Pinto T, Ferreira H, Martins L, Pereira C, Gomes-Laranjo J, Anjos R (2020) Effect of silicon fertilization on the tolerance of Castanea sativa Mill. seedlings against Cryphonectria parasitica Barr. J Plant Dis Prot 127(2):197–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41348-019-00283-z
Carreon-Abud Y, Vega-Fraga M, Gavito M (2015) Interaction of arbuscular mycorrhizal inoculants and chicken manure in avocado rootstock production. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 15:867–881. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-95162015005000060
Carrion VJ, Cordovez V, Tyc O, Etalo DW, de Bruijn I, de Jager VC, Medema MH, Eberl L, Raaijmakers JM (2018) Involvement of Burkholderiaceae and sulfurous volatiles in disease-suppressive soils. ISME J 12:2307–2321. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-018-0186-x
Cawoy H, Bettiol W, Fickers P, Ongena M (2011) Bacillus-based biological control of plant diseases. In: Stoytcheva (ed) Pesticides in the modern world-pesticides use and management. InTech Academic Press, Rijeka, pp 273–302
Cazorla FM, Mercado-Blanco J (2016) Biological control of tree and woody plant diseases: an impossible task? BioControl 61. 3233–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-016-9737-0
Chakraborty S, Old KM, Warcup JH (1983) Amoebae from a take-all suppressive soil which feed on Gaeumannomyces graminis tritici and other soil fungi. Soil Biol Biochem 15:17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(83)90113-X
Chambers SM, Scott ES (1995) In vitro antagonism of Phytophthora cinnamomi and P. citricola by isolates of Trichoderma spp. and Gliocladium virens. J Phytopathol 143:471–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0434.1995.tb04557.x
Collinge DB, Jensen DF, Rabiey M, Sarrocco S, Shaw MW, Shaw RH (2022) Biological control of plant diseases–what has been achieved and what is the direction? Plant Pathol 71:1024–1047. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppa.13555
Cook RJ (2014) Plant health management: pathogen suppressive soils. In: Van Alfen NK (ed) Encyclopedia of agriculture and food systems. Academic Press, Oxford, pp 441–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-52512-3.00182-0
Cook RJ, Baker KF (1983) The nature and practice of biological control of plant pathogens. American Phytopathological Society, USA, p 539
Crowley D (2012) Biochar as a soil amendment for avocado production. Calif Avocado Soc 2012 Yearbook 95:44–61
Dann EK, Le DP (2017) Effects of silicon amendment on soilborne and fruit diseases of avocado. Plants (Basel) 6:51–65. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants6040051
Dann EK, Ploetz RC, Coates LM, Pegg KG (2013) Foliar, fruit and soil-borne diseases. In: Schaffer BA, Wolstenholme BN, Whiley AW (eds) The Avocado: botany, production and uses. CABI, Wallingford UK, pp 380–442
Davies J (2006) Are antibiotics naturally antibiotics? J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 33:496–499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10295-006-0112-5
Davies KG, Rowe JA, Williamson VM (2008) Inter-and intra-specific cuticle variation between amphimictic and parthenogenetic species of root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.) as revealed by a bacterial parasite (Pasteuria penetrans). Int J Parasitol 38(7):851–859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpara.2007.11.007
Davison E, Hardy G (2022) Getting the best from pot trials with soil-borne Oomycetes. PLANT SOIL 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-022-05705-w
Demanou J, Monkiedje A, Njiné T, Foto SM, Nola M, Zebaze TSH, Kemka N (2004) Changes in soil chemical properties and microbial activities in response to the fungicide Ridomil gold plus copper. Int J Env Res Public Health 1(1):26–34. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph2004010026
Dobrowolski MP, Shearer BL, Colquhoun IJ, O’Brien PA, Hardy GESJ (2008) Selection for decreased sensitivity to phosphite in Phytophthora cinnamomi with prolonged use of fungicide. Plant Pathol 57:928–936. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3059.2008.01883.x
Dunne CP, Dell B, Hardy GESJ (2003a) Control of Phytophthora cinnamomi in cultivated proteas. Horticulture Australia 8th International Congress of Plant Pathology Christchurch New Zealand: Solving problems in the real world.
Dunne CP, Dell B, Hardy GESJ (2003b) The effect of biofumigants on the vegetative growth of five Phytophthora species in vitro. Acta Hortic 602:45–51. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2003.602.5
Dunstan WA, Howard K, Grigg A, Shaw C, Burgess TI, Hardy GESJ (2020) Towards eradication of Phytophthora cinnamomi using a fallow approach in a mediterranean climate. Forests 11:1101. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11101101
Duvenhage JA (1999) Biological and chemical control of root rot. South Afr Avocado Growers Association 22:115–119
Duvenhage J, Kohne J (1997) Biocontrol of root rot in avocado orchards and monitoring for resistance of Phytophthora cinnamomi to phosphites. South Afr Avocado Growers’ Association Yearbook 20:116–117
Duvenhage J, Kotzé J (1993) Biocontrol of root rot of avocado seedlings. South Afr Avocado Growers’ Association Yearbook 16:70–72
Duvenhage J, Kotzé J, Maas EM (1991) Suppressive soils and biological control of Phytophthora root rot. South Afr Avocado Growers Association Yearbook 14:6–11
El-Tarabily KA, Sykes ML, Kurtböke ID, Hardy GESJ, Barbosa AM, Dekker RF (1996) Synergistic effects of a cellulase-producing Micromonospora carbonacea and an antibiotic-producing Streptomyces violascens on the suppression of Phytophthora cinnamomi root rot of Banksia grandis. Canad J Bot 74:618–624. https://doi.org/10.1139/b96-078
Fang JG, Tsao PH (1995a) Efficacy of Penicillium funiculosum as a biological control agent against Phytophthora root rots of azalea and citrus. Phytopathology 85:871–878
Fang JG, Tsao PH (1995b) Evaluation of Pythium nunn as a potential biocontrol agent against Phytophthora root rots of azalea and sweet orange. Phytopathology 85:29–36
Farooq Q, McComb J, Hardy GSJ, Burgess TI (2022a) Soil amendments and suppresssion of Phytophthora root rot in avocado (Persea americana). Australas Plant Pathol 52:1–1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13313-022-00889-2
Farooq QUA, Hardy GES, Mccomb JA, Thomson PC, Burgess TI (2022b) Changes to the bacterial microbiome in the rhizosphere and root endosphere of Persea americana (avocado) treated with organic mulch and a silicate-based mulch or phosphite, and infected with Phytophthora cinnamomi. Front Microbiol 13:870900. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.870900
Fauteux F, Rémus-Borel W, Menzies JG, Bélanger RR (2005) Silicon and plant disease resistance against pathogenic fungi. FEMS Microbiol Lett 249(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.femsle.2005.06.034
Fawe A, Menzies JG, Chérif M, Bélanger RR (2001) Chap. 9 Silicon and disease resistance in dicotyledons. In: Datnoff LE, Snyder GH, Korndörfer GH (eds) Studies in Plant Science, vol 8 Elsevier, pp 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0928-3420(01)80013-6
Floch C, Chevremont A-C, Joanico K, Capowiez Y, Criquet S (2011) Indicators of pesticide contamination: Soil enzyme compared to functional diversity of bacterial communities via Biolog® Ecoplates. Eur J Soil Biol 47:256–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2011.05.007
Forero LE, Grenzer J, Heinze J, Schittko C, Kulmatiski A (2019) Greenhouse-and field-measured plant-soil feedbacks are not correlated. Front Environ Sci 184. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00184
Fortunato AA, Rodrigues FA, Datnoff LE (2015) Silicon control of soil-borne and seed-borne diseases. In: Rodrigues FA, Datnoff LE (eds) Silicon and Plant Diseases. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 53–66
Fourie H, Ahuja P, Lammers J, Daneel M (2016) Brassicacea-based management strategies as an alternative to combat nematode pests: A synopsis. Crop Protect 80:21–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2015.10.026
Garbeva P, Postma J, Van Veen J, Van Elsas J (2006) Effect of above-ground plant species on soil microbial community structure and its impact on suppression of Rhizoctonia solani AG3. Environ Microbiol 8:233–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2005.00888.x
Garbeva P, Silby MW, Raaijmakers JM, Levy SB, De Boer W (2011) Transcriptional and antagonistic responses of Pseudomonas fluorescens Pf0-1 to phylogenetically different bacterial competitors. ISME J 5:973. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2010.196
Garcia-Latorre C, Rodrigo S, Santamaria O (2022) Protective effects of filtrates and extracts from fungal endophytes on Phytophthora cinnamomi in Lupinus luteus. Plants 11:1455. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11111455
Gill US, Sun L, Rustgi S, Tang Y, von Wettstein D, Mysore KS (2018) Transcriptome-based analyses of phosphite‐mediated suppression of rust pathogens Puccinia emaculata and Phakopsora pachyrhizi and functional characterization of selected fungal target genes. Plant J 93:894–904. https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.13817
Gomez Exposito R, de Bruijn I, Postma J, Raaijmakers JM (2017) Current insights into the role of rhizosphere bacteria in disease suppressive soils. Front Microbiol 8:2529. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.02529
Graber ER, Harel YM, Kolton M, Cytryn E, Silber A, David DR, Tsechansky L, Borenshtein M, Elad Y (2010) Biochar impact on development and productivity of pepper and tomato grown in fertigated soilless media. Plant Soil 337(1–2):481–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-010-0544-6
Guest D, Grant B (1991) The complex action of phosphonates as antifungal agents. Biol Rev 66:159–187
Guevara-Avendano E, Carrillo JD, Ndinga-Muniania C, Moreno K, Mendez-Bravo A, Guerrero-Analco JA, Eskalen A, Reverchon F (2018) Antifungal activity of avocado rhizobacteria against Fusarium euwallaceae and Graphium spp., associated with Euwallacea spp. nr. fornicatus, and Phytophthora cinnamomi. Anton Leeuwa 111:563–572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10482-017-0977-5
Hakizimana JD, Gryzenhout M, Coutinho TA, Van den Berg N (2011) Endophytic diversity in Persea americana (avocado) trees and their ability to display biocontrol activity against Phytophthora cinnamomi. In: Proceedings VII World Avocado Congress, pp 1–10
Haney R, Senseman S, Hons F, Zuberer D (2000) Effect of glyphosate on soil microbial activity and biomass. Weed Sci 48:89–93. https://doi.org/10.1614/0043-1745(2000)048
Hardy GSJ, Sivasithamparam K (1995) Antagonism of fungi and actinomycetes isolated from composted eucalyptus bark to Phytophthora drechsleri in a steamed and non-steamed composted eucalyptus bark-amended container medium. Soil Biol Biochem 27(2):243–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(94)00172-W
Hayden HL, Savin KW, Wadeson J, Gupta V, Mele PM (2018) Comparative metatranscriptomics of wheat rhizosphere microbiomes in disease suppressive and non-suppressive soils for Rhizoctonia solani AG8. Front Microbiol 9:859. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.00859
Heinze J, Sitte M, Schindhelm A, Wright J, Joshi J (2016) Plant-soil feedbacks: a comparative study on the relative importance of soil feedbacks in the greenhouse versus the field. Oecologia 181(2):559–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-016-3591-8
Heydari A, Pessarakli M (2010) A review on biological control of fungal plant pathogens using microbial antagonists. J Biol Sci 10:273–290. https://doi.org/10.3923/jbs.2010.273.290
Hoitink HAJ, Boehm MJ (1999) Biocontrol within the context of soil microbial communities: a substrate-dependent phenomenon. Annu Rev Phytopathol 37:427–446. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.phyto.37.1.427
Howard MM, Bell TH, Kao-Kniffin J (2017) Soil microbiome transfer method affects microbiome composition, including dominant microorganisms, in a novel environment. FEMS Microbiol Lett 364(11). https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnx092
Hunter S, McDougal RL, Williams N, Scott P (2022) Evidence of phosphite tolerance in Phytophthora cinnamomi from New Zealand avocado orchards. Plant Dis 107:393–400. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-05-22-1269-RE
Hussain S, Siddique T, Saleem M, Arshad M, Khalid A (2009) Chap. 5 Impact of Pesticides on Soil Microbial Diversity, Enzymes, and Biochemical Reactions. Adv Agron 102:159–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(09)01005-0
Jambhulkar PP, Sharma M, Lakshman D, Sharma P (2015) Natural mechanisms of soil suppressiveness against diseases caused by Fusarium, Rhizoctonia, Pythium, and Phytophthora. In: Meghvansi MK, Varma A (eds) Organic Amendments and Soil Suppressiveness in Plant Disease Management, vol 46. Springer, Cham, pp 95–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23075-7_5
Ji P, Kone D, Yin J, Jackson KL, Csinos AS (2012) Soil amendments with Brassica cover crops for management of Phytophthora blight on squash. Pest Manage Sci 68:639–644. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.2308
Johnson NC, Rowland DL, Corkidi L, Egerton-Warburton LM, Allen EB (2003) Nitrogen enrichment alters mycorrhizal allocation at five mesic to semiarid grasslands. Ecology 84(7):1895–1908. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2003
Jones DL, Rousk J, Edwards-Jones G, DeLuca TH, Murphy DV (2012) Biochar-mediated changes in soil quality and plant growth in a three year field trial. Soil Biol Biochem 45:113–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.10.012
Kageyama K, Nelson EB (2003) Differential inactivation of seed exudate stimulation of Pythium ultimum sporangium germination by Enterobacter cloacae influences biological control efficacy on different plant species. Appl Environ Microbiol 69:1114–1120. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.69.2.1114-1120.2003
Karlsson M, Atanasova L, Jensen DF, Zeilinger S (2017) Necrotrophic mycoparasites and their genomes. Microbiol Spectr 5:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1128/microbiolspec.FUNK-0016-2016
Kasuya M, Olivier AR, Ota Y, Tojo M, Honjo H, Fukui R (2006) Induction of soil suppressiveness against Rhizoctonia solani by incorporation of dried plant residues into soil. Phytopathology 96(12):1372–1379. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-96-1372
Kaur H, Garg H (2014) Pesticides: Environmental Impacts and Management Strategies. In: Larramendy ML, Soloneski S (eds) Pesticides - Toxic Aspects, vol 8. InTech, Croatia, pp 188–210. https://doi.org/10.5772/57399
Khdiar MY, Burgess TI, Barber PA, Hardy GESJ (2022) Calcium chelate is as effective as phosphite in controlling Phytophthora root rot in glasshouse trials. Plant Pathol 72:112–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppa.13642
Klein E, Katan J, Austerweil M, Gamliel A (2007) Controlled laboratory system to study soil solarization and organic amendment effects on plant pathogens. Phytopathology 97(11):1476–1483. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-97-11-1476
Kolton M, Harel YM, Pasternak Z, Graber ER, Elad Y, Cytryn E (2011) Impact of biochar application to soil on the root-associated bacterial community structure of fully developed greenhouse pepper plants. Appl Environ Microbiol 77(14):4924–4930. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00148-11
Kremer R, Means N, Kim S (2005) Glyphosate affects soybean root exudation and rhizosphere micro-organisms. Int J Environ Anal Chem 85(15):1165–1174
La Spada F, Stracquadanio C, Riolo M, Pane A, Cacciola SO (2020) Trichoderma counteracts the challenge of Phytophthora nicotianae infections on tomato by modulating plant defense mechanisms and the expression of crinkler, necrosis-inducing Phytophthora protein 1, and cellulose-binding elicitor lectin pathogenic effectors. Front Plant Sci 11:583539. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.583539
Lane M, Lorenz N, Saxena J, Ramsier C, Dick RP (2012) The effect of glyphosate on soil microbial activity, microbial community structure, and soil potassium. Pedobiologia 55:335–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedobi.2012.08.001
Lara-Chavez MBN, del Avila-Val C, Guerrero-Tejeda T, Barriga-Gonzalez JA, Venegas-Gonzalez FS, Aguirre-Paleo E, Vargas-Sandoval S, Andrade M, Rodríguez-López HG S (2012) Biological and chemical control in rot root in avocado by Phytophthora cinnamomi Rands. J Agric Sci Technol 2:882–887
Lehmann J, Rillig MC, Thies J, Masiello CA, Hockaday WC, Crowley D (2011) Biochar effects on soil biota–a review. Soil Biol Biochem 43(9):1812–1836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.04.022
Liang Y, Sun W, Zhu Y, Christie P (2007) Mechanisms of silicon-mediated alleviation of abiotic stresses in higher plants: a review. Environ Pollut 147(2):422–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2006.06.008
Liu X, Zhang S, Jiang Q, Bai Y, Shen G, Li S, Ding W (2016) Using community analysis to explore bacterial indicators for disease suppression of tobacco bacterial wilt. Sci Rep 6(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep36773
Lo CC (2010) Effect of pesticides on soil microbial community. J Environ Sci Health Part B 45:348–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601231003799804
Loper JE, Buyer JS (1991) Siderophores in microbial interactions on plant surfaces. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact 4:5–13. https://doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-4-005
Lopez-Herrera CJ, Perez-Jimenez RM, Basallote-Ureba MJ, Zea Bonilla T, Melero-Vara JM (1997) Effect of soil solarization on the control of Phytophthora root rot in avocado. Plant Pathol 46:329–340. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3059.1997.d01-18.x
Macías-Rodríguez L, Guzmán-Gómez A, García-Juárez P, Contreras-Cornejo HA (2018) Trichoderma atroviride promotes tomato development and alters the root exudation of carbohydrates, which stimulates fungal growth and the biocontrol of the phytopathogen Phytophthora cinnamomi in a tripartite interaction system. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 94:fiy137. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiy137
Martins J, Ares A, Casais V, Costa J, Canhoto J (2021) Identification and characterization of Arbutus unedo L. endophytic bacteria isolated from wild and cultivated trees for the biological control of Phytophthora cinnamomi. Plants 10:1569. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10081569
Mazzola M (2002) Mechanisms of natural soil suppressiveness to soilborne diseases. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 81(1–4):557–564. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020557523557
Mazzola M, Freilich S (2017) Prospects for Biological Soilborne Disease Control: Application of Indigenous Versus Synthetic Microbiomes. Phytopathology 107(3):256–263. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-09-16-0330-RVW
McDonald AE, Grant BR, Plaxton WC (2001) Phosphite (phosphorous acid): its relevance in the environment and agriculture and influence on plant phosphate starvation response. J Plant Nutr 24:1505–1519. https://doi.org/10.1081/PLN-100106017
Mendes R, Kruijt M, De Bruijn I, Dekkers E, van der Voort M, Schneider JHM, Piceno YM, DeSantis TZ, Andersen GL, Bakker PAHM (2011) Deciphering the rhizosphere microbiome for disease-suppressive bacteria. Science 332(6033):1097–1100. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1203980
Mendez-Bravo A, Cortazar-Murillo EM, Guevara-Avendano E, Ceballos-Luna O, Rodriguez-Haas B, Kiel-Martinez AL, Hernandez-Cristobal O, Guerrero-Analco JA, Reverchon F (2018) Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria associated with avocado display antagonistic activity against Phytophthora cinnamomi through volatile emissions. PLoS ONE 13:e0194665. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194665
Meriles JM, Vargas Gil S, Haro RJ, March GJ, Guzman CA (2006) Glyphosate and previous crop residue effect on deleterious and beneficial soil-borne fungi from a peanut–corn–soybean rotations. J Phytopathol 154:309–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0434.2006.01098.x
Messenger B, Menge J, Amrhein C, Faber B (1997) The effects of calcium on avocado growth and root health. Calif Avocado Soc Yearbook 81:69–78
Messenger BJ, Menge JA, Pond E (2000a) Effects of gypsum on zoospores and sporangia of Phytophthora cinnamomi in field soil. Plant Dis 84(6):617–621. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS.2000.84.6.617
Messenger BJ, Menge JA, Pond E (2000b) Effects of gypsum soil amendments on avocado growth, soil drainage, and resistance to Phytophthora cinnamomi. Plant Dis 84(6):612–616. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS.2000.84.6.612
Mitchell AM, Strobel GA, Moore E, Robison R, Sears J (2009) Volatile antimicrobials from Muscodor crispans, a novel endophytic fungus. Microbiology 156:270–277. https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.032540-0
Mohale MP, Manyevere A, Parwada C, Zerizghy M (2022) Effect of eucalyptus-wood-based compost application rates on avocado (Persea americana Mill) foliar nutrient content and fruit yield. Agronomy 12:477. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12020477
Mohamed N, Lherminier J, Farmer MJ, Fromentin J, Béno N, Houot V, Milat ML, Blein JP (2007) Defense responses in grapevine leaves against Botrytis cinerea induced by application of a Pythium oligandrum strain or its elicitin, oligandrin, to roots. Phytopathology 97:611–620. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-97-5-0611
Morales-Rodriguez C, Palo C, Palo E, Rodríguez-Molina MC (2014) Control of Phytophthora nicotianae with Mefenoxam, fresh Brassica tissues, and Brassica pellets. Plant Dis 98:77–83. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-04-13-0393-RE
Mostowfizadeh-Ghalamfarsa R, Hussaini K, Ghasemi-Fasaei R (2018) Effects of calcium salts in controlling Phytophthora pistaciae, the causal agent of pistachio gummosis. Eur J Plant Pathol 151(2):475–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10658-017-1392-5
Munoz-Leoz B, Ruiz-Romera E, Antiguedad I, Garbisu C (2011) Tebuconazole application decreases soil microbial biomass and activity. Soil Biol Biochem 43(10):2176–2183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.07.001
Neubauer C, Heitmann B, Müller C (2014) Biofumigation potential of Brassicaceae cultivars to Verticillium dahliae. Eur J Plant Pathol 140(2):341–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10658-014-0467-9
Parra G, Ristaino JB (2001) Resistance to mefenoxam and metalaxyl among field isolates of Phytophthora capsici causing Phytophthora blight of bell pepper. Plant Dis 85:1069–1075. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS.2001.85.10.1069
Pegg KG (1977) Biological control of Phytophthora cinnamomi root rot of avocado and pineapple in Queensland. Annual Conference of the Australian Nurserymen’s Association Ltd., Hobart, Australia, pp 7–12
Pegg KG, Whiley AW (1987) Phytophthora control in Australia. South Afr Avocado Growers Association Yearbook 10:94–96
Pegg KG, Whiley AW, Langdon PW, Saranah JB (1987) Comparison of phosetyl-Al, phosphorous acid and metalaxyl for the long-term control of Phytophthora root rot of avocado. Aust J Exp Agric 27:471–474. https://doi.org/10.1071/EA9870471
Perez-Jimenez RM (2008) Significant avocado diseases caused by fungi and oomycetes. Eur J Plant Sci Biotech 2:1–24
Pieterse CMJ, Zamioudis C, Berendsen RL, Weller DM, Van Wees SCM, Bakker PAHM (2014) Induced systemic resistance by beneficial microbes. Annu Rev Phytopathol 52:347–375. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-phyto-082712-102340
Poorter H, Fiorani F, Pieruschka R, Wojciechowski T, van der Putten WH, Kleyer M, Schurr U, Postma J (2016) Pampered inside, pestered outside? Differences and similarities between plants growing in controlled conditions and in the field. New Phytol 212(4):838–855. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14243
Pozza EA, Pozza AAA, Botelho DMDS (2015) Silicon in plant disease control. Rev Ceres 62:323–331. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-737X201562030013
Raaijmakers JM, Mazzola M (2016) Soil immune responses. Science 352(6292):1392–1393. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf3252
Raaijmakers JM, Vlami M, de Souza JT (2002) Antibiotic production by bacterial biocontrol agents. Anton Leeuwa 81:537. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020501420831
Rajput VD, Minkina T, Feizi M, Kumari A, Khan M, Mandzhieva S, Sushkova S, El-Ramady H, Verma KK, Singh A (2021) Effects of silicon and silicon-based nanoparticles on rhizosphere microbiome, plant stress and growth. Biology 10:791. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10080791
Ramirez-Gil JG, Castaneda‐Sanchez DA, Morales‐Osorio JG (2017) Production of avocado trees infected with Phytophthora cinnamomi under different management regimes. Plant Pathol 66:623–632. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppa.12620
Ramirez-Gil JG, Morales JG, Peterson AT (2018) Potential geography and productivity of Hass avocado crops in Colombia estimated by ecological niche modeling. Sci Hort 237:287–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2018.04.021
Ramírez-Gil JG, Morales-Osorio JG (2020) Integrated proposal for management of root rot caused by Phytophthora cinnamomi in avocado cv. Hass crops. Crop Protect 137:105271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2020.105271
Rasoolizadeh A, Labbe C, Sonah H, Deshmukh RK, Belzile F, Menzies JG, Bélanger RR (2018) Silicon protects soybean plants against Phytophthora sojae by interfering with effector-receptor expression. BMC Plant Biol 18(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-018-1312-7
Rasoolizadeh A, Santhanam P, Labbé C, Shivaraj SM, Germain H, Bélanger RR (2020) Silicon influences the localization and expression of Phytophthora sojae effectors in interaction with soybean. J Exp Bot 71(21):6844–6855. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/eraa101
Rios P, Gonzalez M, Obregon S, Carbonero MD, Leal JR, Fernandez P, De-Haro A, Sanchez ME (2017) Brassica-based seedmeal biofumigation to control Phytophthora cinnamomi in the Spanish dehesa oak trees. Phytopathol Mediterr 392–399. https://doi.org/10.14601/Phytopathol_Mediterr-20771
Salazar-Garcia S, Cortés-Flores JI (1986) Root distribution of mature avocado trees growing in soils of different texture. Calif Avocado Soc Yearbook 70:165–174
Schaffer BA, Wolstenholme BN, Whiley AW (2013) The avocado: botany, production and uses, 2nd edn. CAB International, Boston
Schlatter D, Kinkel L, Thomashow L, Weller D, Paulitz T (2017) Disease suppressive soils: New insights from the soil microbiome. Phytopathology 107(11):1284–1297. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-03-17-0111-RVW
Schmidt B, Gaşpar S, Camen D, Ciobanu I, Sumălan R (2011) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in terms of symbiosis-parasitism continuum. Commun AgriCult Appl Biol Sci 76(4):653–659
Schmidt R, Cordovez V, De Boer W, Raaijmakers J, Garbeva P (2015) Volatile affairs in microbial interactions. ISME J 9(11):2329–2335. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2015.42
Serrano MS, De Vita P, Fernandez-Rebollo P, Hernandez MES (2012) Calcium fertilizers induce soil suppressiveness to Phytophthora cinnamomi root rot of Quercus ilex. Eur J Plant Pathol 132(2):271–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10658-011-9871-6
Shu B, Liu L, Wei Y, Zhang D, Shi S (2019) Differential selection pressure exerted by root rot disease on the microbial communities in the rhizosphere of avocado (Persea americana Mill). Ann Appl Biol 175(3):376–387
Silva SRD, Cantuarias-Aviles T, Bremer Neto H, Mourao Filho FDAA, Medina RB (2016) Management of root rot in avocado trees. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura 38(4):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-29452016175
Silvar C, Merino F, Díaz J (2009) Resistance in pepper plants induced by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici involves different defence-related genes. Plant Biol 11:68–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1438-8677.2008.00100.x
Sneh B, Humble SJ, Lockwood JL (1977) Parasitism of oospores of Phytophthora megasperma var. sojae, P. cactorum, Pythium sp., and Aphanomyces euteiches in soil by Oomycetes, Chytridiomycetes, Hyphomycetes, Actinomycetes, and Bacteria. Phytopathology 67:622–628
Solis-Garcia IA, Ceballos-Luna O, Cortazar-Murillo EM, Desgarennes D, Garay-Serrano E, Patino-Conde V, Guevara-Avendaño E, Mendez-Bravo A, Reverchon F (2021) Phytophthora root rot modifies the composition of the avocado rhizosphere microbiome and increases the abundance of opportunistic fungal pathogens. Front Microbiol 3484. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.574110
Sommaruga R, Eldridge HM (2021) Avocado production: water footprint and socio-economic implications. EuroChoices 20:48–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12289
Stanghellini ME, Miller RM (1997) Biosurfactants: their identity and potential efficacy in the biological control of zoosporic plant pathogens. Plant Dis 81:4–12. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS.1997.81.1.4
Stasikowski P, Clark D, McComb J, O’Brien P, Hardy GS (2014) A direct chemical method for the rapid, sensitive and cost effective detection of phosphite in plant material. Australas Plant Pathol 43(2):115–121
Sukul P (2006) Enzymatic activities and microbial biomass in soil as influenced by metalaxyl residues. Soil Biol Biochem 38(2):320–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.05.009
Thao HTB, Yamakawa T (2009) Phosphite (phosphorous acid): fungicide, fertilizer or bio-stimulator? Soil Sci Plant Nutr 55:228–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-0765.2009.00365.x
Thies JE, Rillig MC, Graber ER (2015) Biochar effects on the abundance, activity and diversity of the soil biota. In: Johannes L, Stephen J (eds) Biochar for environmental management: science, technology and implementation. Second edn, vol 2. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon, pp 327–389
Thomidis T, Elena K (2001) Effects of metalaxyl, fosetyl-al, dimethomorph and cymoxanil on Phytophthora cactorum of peach tree. J Phytopathol 149:97–101. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0434.2001.00584.x
Timmusk S, Wagner EGH (1999) The plant-growth-promoting rhizobacterium Paenibacillus polymyxa induces changes in Arabidopsis thaliana gene expression: a possible connection between biotic and abiotic stress responses. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact 12:951–959. https://doi.org/10.1094/MPMI.1999.12.11.951
Tubana BS, Babu T, Datnoff LE (2016) A review of silicon in soils and plants and its role in US agriculture: history and future perspectives. Soil Sci 181:393–411. https://doi.org/10.1097/SS.0000000000000179
Van den Berg N, Swart V, Backer R, Fick A, Wienk R, Engelbrecht J, Prabhu SA (2021) Advances in understanding defense mechanisms in Persea americana against Phytophthora cinnamomi. Front Plant Sci 12:636339. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.636339
Van Wees SCM, Van der Ent S, Pieterse CMJ (2008) Plant immune responses triggered by beneficial microbes. Curr Opin Plant Biol 11(4):443–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2008.05.005
Vida C, de Vicente A, Cazorla FM (2020) The role of organic amendments to soil for crop protection: induction of suppression of soilborne pathogens. Ann Appl Biol 176:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/aab.12555
Walters DR, Ratsep J, Havis ND (2013) Controlling crop diseases using induced resistance: challenges for the future. J Exp Bot 64:1263–1280. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ert026
Warnock DD, Lehmann J, Kuyper TW, Rillig MC (2007) Mycorrhizal responses to biochar in soil–concepts and mechanisms. Plant Soil 300(1–2):9–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-007-9391-5
Waterhouse GM (1940) A chytrid allied to Pleolpidium inflatum Butler. Trans Br Mycological Soc 24(1):7–19
Weller DM, Raaijmakers JM, Gardener BBM, Thomashow LS (2002) Microbial populations responsible for specific soil suppressiveness to plant pathogens. Annu Rev Phytopathol 40(1):309–348. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.phyto.40.030402.110010
Whipps JM (2001) Microbial interactions and biocontrol in the rhizosphere. J Exp Bot 52:487–511. https://doi.org/10.1093/jexbot/52.suppl_1.487
Whipps JM, Lumsden RD (2001) Commercial use of fungi as plant disease biological control agents: status and prospects. In: Butt T, Jackson C, Magan N (eds) Fungi as biocontrol agents: progress, problems and potential. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851993560.0009
Wolstenholme B (1979) Prospects for integrated and biological control of avocado root rot-some overseas impressions. South Afr Avocado Growers’ Association Yearbooks:17–20
Wolstenholme BN, Sheard A (2010) Integrated management of Phytophthora root rot the Pegg Wheel updated. South Afr Avocado Growers Association Avoinfo Newsl 175:11–15
Woo SL, Lorito M (2007) Exploiting the interactions between fungal antagonists, pathogens and the plant for biocontrol. In: Vurro M, Gressel J (eds) Novel biotechnologies for biocontrol agent enhancement and management. Springer, Netherland, pp 107–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5799-1_6
Yang CH, Crowley DE, Menge JA (2001) 16S rDNA fingerprinting of rhizosphere bacterial communities associated with healthy and Phytophthora infected avocado roots. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 35:129–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2001.tb00796.x
Yang R, Fan X, Cai X, Hu F (2015) The inhibitory mechanisms by mixtures of two endophytic bacterial strains isolated from Ginkgo biloba against pepper phytophthora blight. Biol Control 85:59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2014.09.013
Yeo JR (2014) Cultural controls for suppressing Phytophthora cinnamomi root rot of blueberry
You MP, Sivasithamparam K, Kurtboke DI (1996) Actinomycetes in organic mulch used in avocado plantations and their ability to suppress Phytophthora cinnamomi. Biol Fertil Soils 22:237–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00382518
Zentmyer G (1980) Phytophthora cinnamomi and diseases it causes Phytopathological Monograph. Phytopathology Society ST Paul MN, USA, p 96
Zentmyer GA (1984) Avocado diseases. Trop Pest Manag 30:388–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/09670878409370915
Zhang W, Han DY, Dick WA, Davis KR, Hoitink HAJ (1998) Compost and compost water extract-induced systemic acquired resistance in cucumber and Arabidopsis. Phytopathology 88:450–455. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO.1998.88.5.450
Zhang W, Zhang B, Deng J, Li L, Yi T, Hong Y (2021) The resistance of peanut to soil-borne pathogens improved by rhizosphere probiotics under calcium treatment. BMC Microbiol 21(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-021-02355-3
Zouaoui M, Essghaier B, Weslati M, Smiri M, Hajlaoui MR, Zouaoui NS (2019) Biological control of clementine branch canker caused by Phytophthora citrophthora. Phytopathol Mediterr 58:547–558. https://doi.org/10.14601/Phyto-10754
Zwart DC, Kim S-H (2012) Biochar amendment increases resistance to stem lesions caused by Phytophthora spp. in tree seedlings HortScience 47:1736–1740. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.47.12.1736
Acknowledgements
We thank Kamran Mujahid and Jodi Burgess for preparing the Figure and Quyhn Dang for sharing her knowledge of endophytes. We are grateful for funding from Horticulture Innovation Australia project AV16007, and Q F acknowledges Murdoch University for the postgraduate scholarship.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions. All authors declare they have no financial or non-financial interests directly or indirectly related to the work reported in this paper. Q. Farooq held a Murdoch University postgraduate scholarship, and funding was received from HIA (Horticulture Innovation Australia) project AV10067.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical Statement
This manuscript did not involve any work/study with human participants/animals performed by any of the authors.
Consent to participate
All Authors agreed to the submission of this manuscript.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest in the submitted paper.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Farooq, Q.U.A., McComb, J., Hardy, G.E.S.J. et al. Soil amendments for management of Phytophthora root rot in avocado and their impact on the soil microbiome. J Plant Pathol 106, 439–455 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42161-024-01604-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42161-024-01604-4