Effects of microorganisms in Pinus merkusii on the behaviour of Dendrolimus punctatus
Keywords:
Dendrolimus punctatus, endophytic microorganisms, Pinus merkusii,, resistant plant,, susceptible plantAbstract
From 45 samples of Pinus merkusii needle (30 plants resistant and 15 plants susceptible to Dendrolimus punctatus), isolated 15 endophytic fungi strains and 19 endophytic bacteria strains. There are clear differences in the composition and density of endophytic microorganisms between resistant and susceptible host plants. In resistant plants, more diverse endophytic
microorganisms composition, with 8 endophytic fungi and 13 endophytic bacteria strains appear only in the resistant plants, only 3 endophytic fungi and 3 endophytic bacteria strains appear only in the susceptible plants, the remaining 4 endophytic fungi and 3 endophytic bacteria strains appear in
both host plants. Moreover, the density of endophytic bacteria in resistant plants is much higher than in susceptible plants (highest and lowest density of endophytic bacteria in resistant plants is 8.6 10 8 CFU/g and 3.7 105 CFU/g, respectively; whereas in susceptible plants the highest density is only 1.3 105 CFU/g). Results about rearing the D. punctatus by P.
merkusii needle were sprayed with a solution containing endophytic microorganism strains (NT1, NT7, KT1, KT8, KT10, KT12) isolated from the resistant plants showed that these strains may increase resistance in P. merkusii to D. punctatus through activity produces toxic chemical ingredients for or repel or prevent the attack of D. punctatus.
References
Aze e J W M e J Pe e J O A j W 2000 “E
e ew e e e e ” Elect. J. Biotech.
Benhamou, N., Kloepper, J. W., Quadt - Hallman, A., T z 6 “I f efe e - related
f e e e w e e ” Plant Physiol., 112: 919 - 929.
e E w P “ e w - promoting effects of a bacterial endophyte on lodgepole pine
e e e e e e f e z e ” Can. J. Microbiol., 44: 980 - 988.
D jff J G zz P e e P 7 “I e e f e e e e
lipopolysaccharides in the endophytic colonization of tomato roots by biocontrol Pseudomonas fluorescens
W 7 ” New Phytol., 135: 325 - 334.
H J Q H A M ffee W e e J 7 “ e e e ”
Can. J. Microbiol., 43: 895 - 914.
Ha J Q H A í ez e e J W “I e e wee Me e
e e e ” Soil Biol. Biochem., 30: 925 - 937.
M e e J 200 “Effe f e ee surface sterilization with hypochlorite on inoculated
e e e ” Appl Environ Microbiol., 67: 3046 - 3052.
O D D J e “ P P Me ” 2 e Boca Raton, Florida: CRC
Press, Inc., 1995.
Pill J w J 7 “I e e e e e e effe w
promotion and epiphytic and endophytic colonization of tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum L.) seedlings
e w e e ” Can. J. Microbiol., 43: 354 - 361.
Tạp chí KHLN 2014 Đào Ngọc Quang et al., 2014(4)
Q e A 2 “A e f e I e D P E M e
Signals in Plant - M e ” CRS Press, Boca Raton, FL: 475 - 491.
I M M H M J “ nning electron microscopy of Pseudomonas syringae pv.
morsprunorum wee e e e ” Phytopathologische Zeitschrift, 108: 18 - 25.
z A M e G 6 “P f e e w f e e - resistance to
Erwinia - e e f e ” Plant Soil, 184: 265 - 271.
z A e w J 2000 “ e e e e e e e
e e f ” Crit. Rev. Plant Sci., 19: 1 - 30.
Talaro K. P. (2005), Foundations in Microbiology, 5th Ed., McGraw - Hill.
M H J Q Z H 200 “ w e e - scale
revealed by a 2650 - e e e f w e e e e”, Geophys. Res. Lett, 30, 1617, doi:
1029/2003GL017352, 2003.
Z e D e P H Fe Z 2002 “I e z f e
z e f e ” Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 68: 2198 - 2208
