Next Article in Journal
Study of Sexual-Linked Genes (OGI and MeGI) on the Performance of Androecious Persimmons (Diospyros kaki Thunb.)
Next Article in Special Issue
Polysulfides Applied as Formulated Garlic Extract to Protect Tomato Plants against the Root-Knot Nematode Meloidogyne incognita
Previous Article in Journal
Impact of Foliar Application of Chitosan Dissolved in Different Organic Acids on Isozymes, Protein Patterns and Physio-Biochemical Characteristics of Tomato Grown under Salinity Stress
Previous Article in Special Issue
Marine Organisms for the Sustainable Management of Plant Parasitic Nematodes
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 10
Issue 2
10.3390/plants10020389
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Bacteria as Biocontrol Tool against Phytoparasitic Nematodes

by
Varvara D. Migunova
1,* and
Nicola Sasanelli
2
1
A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prospect 33, 119071 Moscow, Russia
2
Institute for Sustainable Plant Protection, CNR, Via G. Amendola 122/D, 70126 Bari, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2021, 10(2), 389; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10020389
Submission received: 14 January 2021 / Revised: 7 February 2021 / Accepted: 15 February 2021 / Published: 18 February 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Natural Products for a Sustainable Control of Phytoparasitic Nematodes)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Phytoparasitic nematodes cause severe damage and yield losses to numerous agricultural crops. Considering the revision of the EU legislation on the use of pesticides on agricultural crops, control strategies with low environmental impact are required. The approach based on the use of bacteria seems particularly promising as it also helps to reduce the applied amounts of chemicals and stabilize ecological changes. This paper gives an overview of the main types of bacteria that can be used as biological control agents against plant parasitic nematodes and their interrelationships with plants and other organisms. Many experiments have given positive results of phytoparasitic nematode control by bacteria, showing possible prospects for their application. In vitro, greenhouse and field experiments have shown that bacteria can regulate the development of ecto- and endoparasitic nematodes by different modes of action. Triggering the induction of plant defense mechanisms by bacteria is seen as the optimum tool because the efficacy of bacterial treatment can be higher than that of chemical pesticides or at least close to it. Moreover, bacterial application produces additional positive effects on growth stimulation, raises yields and suppresses other pathogenic microorganisms. Commercial formulations, both as single bacterial strains and bacterial complexes, are examined.

1. Introduction

Plant parasitic nematodes (PPNs) are widespread in nature and they can cause severe damages and yield losses to numerous agricultural, forestry, ornamental and officinalis plants [1,2]. Annual worldwide losses caused by PPNs on the most economically important crops (vegetables, fruits, and nonedible field crops) range between 12 and 25% of the total production, for a total of over USD 80 billion [3,4]. Plant parasitic nematodes have also been found in association with bacterial and fungal pathogens which utilize PPNs penetration pathways in plants to reinforce plant disease symptoms [5,6,7,8]. To control these complex diseases and to improve the plant’s health it is necessary to limit PPNs in the soil and suppress soil borne plant pathogens.
The use of chemicals in agriculture is currently restricted owing to increased EU legislation stringency [9]. This stimulates the search for alternative, environmentally friendly, nematode control strategies, that could be useful in a sustainable and organic agriculture [10]. Among these alternatives the use of bio-pesticides is an important tool in the integrated pest management [11] including the use of microorganisms and their metabolites. Pesticides and growth regulators of microbial origin have proved their potential in sustainable agriculture development and consequently in the development of ecofriendly nematode control measures [12]. Considering that microbial communities suppress nematode populations and determine soil suppressiveness [13,14], application of biocontrol agents, natural inhabitants of an ecosystem, can allow the reduction of the use of synthetic pesticides and stabilize ecological changes.
Plants and bacteria exist in intimate association within agricultural ecosystems. Bacteria may be attached to the root surface or phylloshere, forming symbiotic relationships with plants or existing as free-living organisms in soils [15].
According to Glick, soil bacteria, which facilitate plant growth and are found in association with plant roots and sometimes found on plant leaves or flowers or within plant tissues, are often termed plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB). Treating plants with PGPB, it is possible to observe: (i) biomass increase; (ii) nitrogen, phosphorus and iron content increase; (iii) increase in the length of roots and shoots; (iv) enhance seed germination; (v) greater resistance to disease and to various environmental stresses; (vi) increased production of useful secondary metabolites; and (vii) plant nutrition improvement [16].
Species of bacteria belonging to Agrobacterium sp., Arthrobacter sp., Azotobacter sp., Clostridium sp., Desulfovibrio sp., Serratia sp., Burkholderia sp., Azospirillum sp., Bacillus sp., Chromobacterium sp., and Corynebacterium sp. were reported for management of nematodes [17].
The suppression of PPNs by PGPB is achieved through different mechanisms based on the capacity of microbes to compete effectively for ecological niche, colonize plant surface and produce nematicidal and antimicrobial compounds (antibiotics, toxins, siderophores, hydrolytic enzymes, etc.).
Bacteria and their metabolites affect both plant and microbial community [18,19]. Direct antagonistic effect can be achieved by parasitism, antibiosis, or competition for nutrients or infection sites. Indirectly, bacteria can enhance host defense mechanisms provoking induced systemic resistance (ISR) [20].
Particular attention is paid to the members of the families Bacillaceae and Pseudomonadaceae, focusing on their applications to control the nematode of the Meloidogyne genus. Bacilli and pseudomonads widely occur in natural environments, especially in the root system of plants [21,22].
Biological control potential of PGPB against the two PPNs M. incognita and Heterodera glycines and the use of PGPB to prevent nematode damage to plants have been recently reviewed, emphasizing the importance of the application of bacteria for the management of these two PPNs and the mode of actions of PGPB [23,24]. These reviews focus on the mechanisms at the base of nematode suppression by PGPB (Volatile Organic Compounds, lytic enzymes, hydrogen cyanide, induced systemic resistance, lower ethylene, etc.) and on commercial Bacillus products.
In the present review, the authors highlight the interrelationships among plants, nematodes and pathogenic microorganisms, with particular focus on roots, stems and leaves. Ecto- and endoparasitic nematodes of roots, stems and leaves were selected. Growth stimulation and antagonistic activity of PGPB under nematode infestation are also analysed. In this context, the existing commercial formulations and their efficacy are considered.

2. Bacteria as Biological Control Agents

Bacteria and PPNs as components of agroecosystems coexist in the environment consisting of soil and plants. The whole entirety of interspecies and interpopulation relationships occurs in agrosystems, which have the self-regulation ability based on feedback control. This co-regulation stabilizes the population numbers of plants, PPNs and PPNs regulators. Population numbers of PPNs depend on the immune-genetic characteristics of the host plant and the composition and traits of biological regulators of nematodes [25]. Intensification of agriculture leads to crop rotation and decreases in biodiversity of natural regulators of PPNs [19].
By the feeding type, PPNs can be classified into ectoparasites, semiendoparasites, migratory endoparasites and sedentary endoparasites [26]. Several species of PPNs that feed on roots (root knot, cyst, reniform, lesion, dagger nematodes), stems and leaves (Ditylenchus, Aphelenchoides, Bursaphelenchus) are widespread in nature and represent the most harmful parasites of plants [4,27]. The effect of bacteria on PPNs population density is particularly interesting in the cases of genera Bacillus, Pseudomonas and Serratia which have shown the highest efficacy as PGPB in their biological control for the last two decades [20,28,29].
The nematode attack on a plant passes through three stages: (i) beginning (asymptomatic), (ii) visible symptoms (yellowing, wilting, drafting, yield losses, etc.) and (iii) the final stage of the parasitosis (often ending in the plant death depending on PPNs density). At each stage, changes occur both in the plant and in the interactions between the plant, the PPNs and biological control agents.
Biological control of PPNs by bacteria at different stages of the life cycle of nematodes is verified by in vitro tests, pot experiments and field trials.

2.1. In Vitro Tests

Nematicidal activity against the second stage larvae (J2) of Meloidogyne javanica and Heterodera filipjevi was demonstrated in vitro by cultural filtrates of Bacillus subtilis OKB105 (100%) and Bacillus cereus 09B18 (83%) [30,31]. Serratia proteamaculans Sneb 851 demonstrated high nematicidal potential against Meloidogyne incognita with 99% and 61% mortalities for J2 and eggs, respectively [32]. The screening of 662 bacterial strains for nematicidal activity against M. incognita revealed that Bacillus was the major genus that demonstrated high nematicidal activity compared with the other genera. A percentage of 34% of the tested Bacillus strains caused M. incognita J2 mortality similar to that obtained by Aldicarb [33].
From in vitro tests on migratory PPNs, the endophytic bacterium K6, isolated from leaves of coffee plants, caused 65% mortality of Pratylenchus coffeae [34]. Bacillus subtilis OKB105 and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens B3 demonstrated their nematicidal activity against the nematodes of aerial parts of plants Aphelenchoides besseyi, Ditylenchus destructor, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus with mortalities of 85%, 79% and 100%, respectively [30]. In vitro mortalities of the dagger nematode Xiphinema index of 85%, 94%, 80%, 65% and 52% were observed by bacterial filtrate of Pseudomonas chlororaphis, Pseudomonas fluorescens FP805PU, Serratia plymuthica, Bacillus cereus and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, respectively [35,36].
Efficacy of cell-free filtrate and bacterial cultures against PPNs may differ significantly. Radopholus similis mortality of 99 and 96% was observed in laboratory conditions by cell-free water extracts of two Bacillus firmus formulations (Bf-125 and Bf-106), respectively, whereas on the same nematode a 41% mortality was recorded in a non-sterile sand treated with different cell concentrations of Bacillus firmus. These different mortality percentages can be attributed to the competition with other microorganisms in soil ecosystem which results in a different efficacy between filtrates and cultures [37].

2.2. Pot Experiments

There are many tests demonstrating significant reduction of disease development and nematode reproduction by PGPB in plants [18,32,38,39,40,41,42,43].
Four bacterial agents were tested in a pot experiment in a screen house. Pots were filled with solarized mixture of sandy loam soil. In the pots sugar beet plants were treated with bacterial suspensions at 3 × 108 CFU/mL concentration added into four holes made around the base of each sugar beet plant. Bacillus pumilis, B. megaterium, B. subtilis and P. fluorescens significantly reduced numbers of galls and egg-masses of M. incognita on sugar beet roots. The reduction was 73%, 69%, 71% and 60% for gall numbers and 74%, 68%, 65% and 61% for egg masses, respectively [44].
Interesting results were achieved by bacterial complex treatments against root-knot nematodes (RKNs) and Xiphinema index in grapevines. In pot experiments with naturally infested soils exhibiting a high level of PPN infestation the liquid, powder and unformulated mixtures of rhizobacteria were tested. The concentrations of the bacterial strains were 106,108 and 109 CFU/mL. For the treatment, the roots of plants were soaked in the bacterial mixtures suspensions. Bacillus amyloliquefaciens FR203A, B. megaterium FB133M, B. thuringiensis FS213P and FB833T, B. weihenstephanensis FB25M, B. frigoritolerans FB37BR and Pseudomonas fluorescens FP805PU in different mixtures significantly suppressed Meloidogyne ethiopica and Xiphinema index reproduction and disease development compared to the untreated controls. Some bacterial complexes exhibited effects similar to the organophosphate nematicide cadusafos [45].
According to the “cry-for-help hypothesis,” plants attract entomopathogenic nematodes [46,47]. Bacterial suspensions of symbiotic bacteria of entomopathogenic nematodes (Photorhabdus luminescens, Xenorhabdus sp., X. szentirmaii) significantly reduced Meloidogyna hapla number of galls (51–67%), egg masses (48–68%) and the reproduction factor (RF) (55–62%). Cell-free supernatant of P. luminescens, Xenorhabdus sp., X. szentirmaii decreased the number of galls (51–74%), egg masses (72–83%) and RF (62–72%) of Nacobbus aberrans [48]. It was also demonstrated that the supernatant of Xenorhabdus bovienii suppressed the population number of A. besseyi [49].

2.3. Field Trials

Field experiments were carried out in Tieling (China) on 24 m2 plots. Tomato seeds treated by bacterial fermentation broth at 108 CFU/mL were sown in plastic pots and later at seedling stages transplanted in field. In these conditions a reduction of 56% of root gall inedx caused by M. incognita was observed by P. fluorescens Sneb 825 treatments in comparison to the untreated controls [32]. Bacillus cereus 09B18 showed 76% and 44% reduction of Heterodera filipjevi white females per plant in greenhouse and field conditions, respectively, which were not significantly different from those obtained by Avermectin treatments [31]. In two-years field experiment Bacillus aryabhattai Sneb517 also demonstrated suppressive effect on J2 number and cyst formation of Heterodera glycines on soybean of 4- and 3-fold, respectively, compared with the untreated control [50]. Bacillus subtilis provided effective control of root knot and lesion nematodes on sugarcane in field conditions reducing the final nematode population density compared to the controls. For root knot nematode control level ranged from 46% to 56%, which was 1.5 times higher than that for the chemical control with carbofuran. Control of Pratylenchus spp. by B.subtilis on sugarcane ranged between 38 and 49% whereas it was 30–35% in carbofuran control [51]. Bacillus subtilis also significantly reduced root knot nematode and root lesion nematode populations (54%) and disease development (64%) on common bean [52].
In the Camaguey province (Cuba) Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki LBT 3 treatments allowed 87% reduction of Radopholus similis population on banana plants [53].

3. Growth Stimulation and Productivity of Plants

PGPB frequently demonstrate both nematicidal and plant growth stimulation activities. Serratia plymuthica M24T3 isolated from pinewood nematode (PWN) showed a high nematicidal activity (100%) towards PWN [54]. This strain demonstrated high plant colonization activity and growth stimulation [54]. On the contrary, some PGPB can significantly stimulate plant growth but do not control nematodes, as was revealed by Aballay et al. [35] for B. brevis and Comamonas acidovorans.
Many reports have shown that PGPB can promote plant growth and enhance yield from plants affected by nematodes under greenhouse, microplot and field conditions [6,22,43,55,56,57,58,59,60]. A microplot experiment was carried out in the National Agriculture Research Center (Tsukuba, Japan) on low-humic and M.incognita infested soil to ivestigate the nematicidal effects of Pasteuria penetrans. Tomato plants were irrigated by Pasteuria suspensions at 2.5 × 109, 5 × 109 and 5 × 1010 CFU/mL concentrations. It has been demonstrated that tomato fruit yield increased by 46% compared to untreated control by application of P.penetrans [61]. Youssef et al., revealed that B. pumilis and Micronema (bacterial complex which included Serratia sp., Pseudomonas sp., Azotobacter sp., Bacillus circulans and B. thuringiensis) increased the length of shoot, fresh and dry weight of shoot and sugar beet root (tuber) weight in greenhouse conditions [44]. The percentage increase of these parameters was 34%, 44%, 88%, 88% and 48%, 88%, 72%, 152% for B. pumilis and Micronema, respectively. Treatment of tomato plants affected by M. incognita with B. subtilis Sneb 815 and P. fluorescens Sneb 825 increased plant height and root length by 25% and 30%, respectively, in field conditions [32]. Xiang et al. [33,62] demonstrated that Bacillus velezensis Bve12 and Bacillus weihenstephanensis Bwe15 increased early plant growth and enhanced cotton yield of plants grown in field conditions, affected by M. incognita. Bacillus altitudinis Bal13 increased soybean yield of plants affected by H. glycines. In other field trail, soybean plants infested by R. reniformis and treated with B. mojavensis Bmo3 and B. velezensis Bve2 resulted in a yield not significantly different from that obtained by the use of the Abamectin (c.n. Avicta) in the chemical control [63,64].

4. Modes of Action of Bacteria on Nematodes

Antagonistic interactions between bacteria and PPNs can be developed by more than one mode of action. The effect of bacteria on PPNs can be direct and indirect. Direct modes of action are colonization, parasitism and antibiosis (production of lytic enzymes, antibiotics, toxins, VOC (volatile organic compounds)). Indirect mechanisms include ISR, food supply for bacterivorous organisms (protozoa, nematodes), production of siderophores, hormones, phosphate solubilization, nitrogen fixation, transformation of bacterial microbiome.
Preemptive colonization can become a decisive factor in the competition for space and nutrients as bacteria interact with PPNs and plant pathogens [65]. Here it should be pointed out that an increase in the PGPB population numbers in the soil stimulates soil animal activity. Soil animals feed on bacteria causing a dissemination of bacterial cells in the soil and the increase of nitrogen and/or carbon mineralization. Nitrogen excretion by bacterivorous nematodes can promote bacterial growth and increase root colonization by PGPB [66]. However, this assumption needs more detailed investigation.
Pasteuria penetrans demonstrates parasitic mode of action on nematodes. Its spores get attached to the nematode’s cuticle, penetrate the body by germination tube and form endorspores inside the body. Pasteuria endospore adhesion is dependent on the nematode age. The age of phytonematode cuticule is affected by root exudates [67].
It is known that there are 323 nematode species belonging to 116 genera on which member of Pasteuria genera parasitize [68,69,70]. These include economically important PPNs: root-knot nematodes, cyst nematodes, root lesion nematodes, burrowing nematodes, foliar nematodes. Pasteuria is highly specific parasite which has been studied as biological control agent since 1980 [71] (Table 1).
Antagonistic mode of interaction of PGPB may include production of nematicidal and antimicrobial compounds. Only a few studies have so far characterized these substances and so they remain largely unknown. Nematicidal compounds of rhizobacteria were recently reviewed by Castaneda-Alvarez and Aballay [74]. The members of the family Bacillaceae produce proteases, chitinases, collagenases, lipases and complexes of enzymes, which affect different stages of the life cycle of PPNs. The ability to produce chitinases was also registered for Serratia marcescens. Pseudomonads produce glucanases, cellulases and pectinases to control M. incognita. (Table 1).
Crystal toxins of Bacillus thuringiensis are responsible for nematicidal effect against a wide spectrum of nematodes. Their high toxicity against PPNs makes B. thuringiensis the leading biocontrol agent [29,81]. Recently, it has been discovered that crystal proteins of B. thuringiensis may enter in PPNs through the stylet (Table 1).
Enthomopathagenic bacteria from the genera Photorhabdus and Xenorhabdus release toxins and antibiotic substances suppressing endoparasitic nematodes, inhabitants of roots and aerial parts of plants (Table 1).
It has been reported that hydrogen cyanide liberated by pseudomonads and hydrogen sulphide liberated by bacilli showed nematicidal effect on root knot nematodes, cyst nematodes, burrowing nematodes and dagger nematodes. The effect of hydrogen cyanide is related to inhibition of mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase [74].
Bacilli produce lipopeptides that suppress M. incognita: surfactin, bacillomycin D, fengycins, iturins and bacteriocins. Fluorescent pseudomonads produce antibiotic DAPG (2,4-diacetylphloroglucinol) which decreases juvenile mobility and enhances egg hatch of the potato cyst nematode Globodera rostochiensis (Table 1). Microbial community interactions, signals and communications with plants as well as biofilm formation could be regulated by antibiotics in low concentrations [86]. It has been demonstrated that nearly 10% of the B. amyloliquefaciens FZB42 genome synthesize antimicrobial metabolites. However, these compounds are not the main mode of PPNs suppression, they can act as inducers of plant-mediated mechanisms defense [6,14,79].
It has been shown that Meloidogyne spp. suppresses host defense responses to survive inside plant root. One of the underlying possible mechanisms is the prevention of calcium ion flux through sequestration of free calcium [27]. Bacillus subtilis, B. cereus, B. pasteurii, B. amyloliquefaciens, B. mycoides, B. pumilus, B. sphaericus, P. fluorescence, Rhizobium leguminosarum, P. putida, S. marcescens can provoke ISR [87]. ISR against Meloidogyne javanica and M. graminicola by fluorescent pseudomonads has been well documented [75,76,77]. DAPG has been shown acting as an inducing agent [65,86,88]. Cyclic lipopeptides and VOCs are the key triggers of ISR by Gram-positive endospore forming bacteria. It has been revealed that B. firmus I-1582 provoke ISR dependent on the plant species [89].
Nascimento et al. revealed that Pseudomonas putida UW4, which has no nematicidal activity, significantly decreased symptoms of B. xilophilus (PWN) disease in Pinus pinaster and the number of living nematodes [90]. Application of P. putida increased shoot and root growth of 7% and 61%, respectively, while in the untreated control affected by PWN the same parameters decreased by 41% and 35%. The main mechanism of the disease suppression is the 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC) deaminase produced by P. putida UW4. Through ACC deaminase production, P. putida UW4 reduces the deleterious ethylene levels in pine seedlings induced by PWN invasion. According to Nascimento et al., “Reducing deleterious ethylene levels and directly promoting plant growth, P. putida UW4 can boost plant defense systems, thus helping pine seedlings to overcome some of the negative consequences of PWN infection.” [90].
Siderophores can also be involved in ISR [79,91]. In fact, it is known that P.fluorescens CHAO, P.fluorescens WCS 374, P.fluorescens GRP3 produce siderophores acting as elicitors of ISR against tobacco necrosis virus, Fusarium spp. and Rhizoctonia spp., respectively. Pseudomonas aeruginosa 7NSK2 produce two siderophores under the low iron condition: pyoverdine and pyochelin. Pyochelin plays a role in tomato protection against damping off caused by Pythium splendens.

5. Mechanisms Involved in Plant Growth Stimulation

Plants affected by PPNs are under stress caused by lack of water and nutrients. PGPB can compensate this deficiency by an increase in nutrient availability (nitrogen, phosphorus and others).
Direct promotion of plant growth by PGPB includes the production of auxins, cytokinins, gibberellins, ethylene, abscisic acid, salicylic acid, jasmonic acid, strigolactones, nitrogen fixation, phosphate and potassium solubilization and sequestration of iron by bacterial siderophores [87,92,93]. Bacillus licheniformis FMCH001 enhanced the plant water use efficiency by increasing the root biomass of maize. These results might be caused by the upregulation of antioxidative enzyme catalase under both well-watered and drought stress conditions [94]. 2,3-butanediol (VOC) produced by Bacillus is responsible for significant improvement in plant growth [95].

6. Suppression of Phytopathogenic Microorganisms by Bacteria

The role of microbiome species composition is very important for the development of PPNs in soil [13]. Opportunistic phytopathogenic microorganisms as Botrytis cinerea, Rhizoctonia solani, Fusarium oxysporum, Pythium ultimum weaken the plants affected by nematodes causing nematode-fungal complex diseases. Production of chitinases and proteases by S. plymuthica C48 and pseudomonads, antibiotics (iturin A, surfactin, zwittermicin A, bacillomycin D, fengycin) by bacilli, siderophores (pseudobactin, pseudomonine) and hydrogen cyanide by Pseudomonas fluorescens suppresses development of phytopathogenic fungi [17,91,93,96,97].
It is recognized that some PGPB can control both PPNs and phytopathogenic fungi. Serratia plymuthica and pseudomonads are well known antagonists of fungal pathogens Rhizoctonia solani and Verticillium dahlia, moreover they reduced gall formation and egg masses on roots of tomato plants affected by M. incognita [6]. Bacilli and pseudomonads trigger pathways of ISR, which protect plants against microbial pathogens and PPNs [17,79]. Therefore, PGPB can suppress both PPNs and plant pathogenic microorganisms simultaneously.

7. Available Commercial Formulations of Bacteria

One sixth of active biopesticides ingredients registered in the United States of America (USA) against mites, insects and nematodes is of microbial origin which highlights the importance of microorganisms for biological control. Most of bacterial nematicides are registered in USA and Brazil (Table 2). Bacillus subtilis and B. amyloliquefaciens are prevalent in the market of products used to promote plant growth and biological control [73]. In Europe Bacillus firmus I-1582 and B. amyloliquefaciens FZB42 are the two microbial biological-based nematicides approved for use against RKNs in vegetable crops.
The majority of existing commercial formulations are represented by a single strain. The main targets for these products are root knot and cyst nematodes. At present, data about the efficacy of commercial bacterial formulations are scarce and inconsistent. It particularly concerns the bio-formulations based on Pasteuria. Products based on Bacillus, Pseudomonas and Serratia are more promising, because they not only suppress PPNs, but also stimulate plant growth and control plant pathogenic microorganisms. The application of the formulations Poncho and VOTiVO (based on B. firmus) demonstrated biological efficiency similar to the pesticides Avicta and Aldicarb [33,64,104].
Application of a consortia that includes bacterial, fungal and nematode antagonists is one of the most promising methods for RKN-control [114]. There are also several formulations consisting of two or more bacterial components (BioYield, Biostart, Micronema, Equity, Ag-Blends and others) proposed for the control of the root knot nematodes (Table 2).
However, future research is required to analyze the effects of single and complex formulations against PPNs in different seasons and soil types and their capacity to control pathogenic microorganisms and stimulate plant growth.

8. Conclusions, Problems and Future Prospects

Disturbance of biological balance and subsequent loss of microbiological diversity in an agrosystem can severely aggravate plant damage caused by PPNs determining the importance of bacteria into the soil. Introduction of bacteria in agroecosystems is completely different from the application of synthetic pesticides. Such pesticides are used to significantly reduce PPNs populations, whereas bacterial products trigger a series of processes that promote self-regulation of the ecosystem. Results of these processes are direct suppression or decrease of nematode population density and phyto-pathogenic microorganisms, ISR plant stimulation and changes in plant biochemical processes. Chemical pesticides are the agents alien to agroecosystems, whereas bacteria are important components of ecosystems. It is not clear whether it is necessary to introduce single strains of bacteria or bacterial consortia in agroecosystem. Must they be autochthonic or there may exist a universal solution?
One of the main reasons for appropriate application of bacteria as biological control agents against PPNs is the knowledge about their ecology and complex interactions in rhizobiome. To identify the factors determining PPNs regulation by bacteria and their survival in ecosystems, we need observations in natural and anthropogenic ecosystems, laboratory, field experiments and the study of conditions conducive to plant disease development. In conditions of insufficient data on bacterial application and inconsistent application results, the need for developing conceptual framework to manage PPNs populations is extremely urgent.
The major part of nematode biocontrol research has been carried out on sedentary endoparasitic nematodes. It has demonstrated significant suppression of population number of root knot and cyst nematodes belonging to genera Meloidogyne and Heterodera. On the contrary, data about migratory parasitic nematodes feeding on the surface and inside roots and parasitic nematodes of aerial part of plants are scarce. The strategy of biological control of such nematodes needs further development and experimental analysis. New data are needed to elucidate the interactions between bacteria and PPNs of different feeding types. It is important to take into consideration the life cycle of nematodes and the different conditions of their development.
The implication of the reviewed material essentially boils down to the following:
—It has been proven that bacteria as biological agents can be effective to control PPNs;
—Lack of data about their ecology and interactions in rhizobiome; therefore, further studies are required;
—Previous research focused on sedentary endoparasitic nematodes; this review broadens the scope of study as it looks at PPNs of other feeding types.
—PGPB not only suppress PPNs but also stimulate plant growth and productivity.
—Bacteria–nematodes interactions are based on multiple modes of action involving plants and other microorganisms.
—The market for commercial bacterial formulations is growing; the most effective and popular ones are based on Bacillus, Pseudomonas and Serratia.
The growing need to increase agricultural production and reduce environmental contamination causes future development in this domain. The multiple highly regulated in situ modes of action used by bacteria make them a safe and sustainable tool against plant parasitic nematodes. The most progressive strategy is the management of the population numbers of PPNs in the different agroecosystems.
The use of bio-pesticides is certainly an eco-sustainable method to control parasites and pathogens in a sustainable agriculture. It is natural that they are more sensitive to external factors, i.e., rain, temperature, chemical and physical characteristics of soil, which may adversely impact their effectiveness. Yet in many cases they are as effective as synthetic pesticides; even when they are not, agricultural goods produced using these bio-pesticides are likely to enjoy considerable demand for health and ecological reasons.
The market of bio-pesticides is booming. Their technological characteristics, such as persistence, transport and storage possibilities and shelf life, significantly improve their prospects on the bio-pesticide market.
This work is a contribution to the knowledge of the current situation in the biopesticides sector where bacterial formulations of different types are developed and traded.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.D.M. and N.S.; writing—original draft preparation, V.D.M.; writing—review and editing, N.S.; funding acquisition, N.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by project DBA.AD004.039 CNR, Italy.

Institutional Review Board Statement

“Not applicable” for studies not involving humans or animals.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mitiku, M. Plant-parasitic nematodes and their management: A review. Agric. Res. Technol. 2018, 8, 30–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sasanelli, N.; Toderas, I.; Ircu-Straistaru, E.; Rusu, S.; Migunova, V.; Konrat, A. Yield losses caused by plant parasitic nematodes graphical estimation. In Book of International Symposium “Functional Ecology of Animals”; SIBIMOL: Chisinau, Republic of Moldova, 2018; pp. 319–329. [Google Scholar]
  3. Agrios, G.N. Plant diseases caused by nematodes. In Plant Pathology; Elsevier Academic Press: Burlington, NJ, USA, 2005; pp. 825–874. [Google Scholar]
  4. Nicol, J.M.; Turner, S.J.; Coyne, D.L.; Nijs, L.; Hockland, S.; Maafi, Z.T. Current nematode threats to world agriculture. In Genomics and Molecular Genetics of Plant-Nematode Interactions; Jones, J., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 21–43. [Google Scholar]
  5. Mucksood, A.G.; Khan, T.A. Studies on the interactive effect of Meloidogyne incognita and Fusarium solani on Lycopersicon esculentum, Mill. Int. J. Bot. 2011, 7, 205–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Adam, M.; Heuer, H.; Hallmann, J. Bacterial antagonists of fungal pathogens also control root-knot nematodes by induced systemic resistance of tomato plants. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e090402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Lamelas, A.; Desgarennes, D.; López-Lima, D.; Villain, L.; Alonso-Sánchez, A.; Artacho, A.; Latorre, A.; Moya, A.; Carrión, G. The bacterial microbiome of Meloidogyne-based disease complex in coffee and tomato. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Leoni, C.; Piancone, E.; Sasanelli, N.; Bruno, G.L.; Manzari, C.; Pesole, G.; Ceci, L.R.; Volpicella, M. Plant health and rizhosphere microbiome: Effects of the bionematicide Aphanocladium album in tomato plants infested by Meloidogyne javanica. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. European Parliament. Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides. Off. J. Eur. Union 2009, 309, 71–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Stirling, G.R. Biological control of plant-parasitic nematodes: An ecological perspective, a review of progress and opportunities for Further Research. In Biological Control of Plant-Parasitic Nematodes; Davies, K., Spiegel, Y., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 1–39. [Google Scholar]
  11. Hildago-Diaz, L.; Kerry, B.R. Integration of biological control with other methods of nematode management. In Integrated Management and Biocontrol of Vegetable and Grain Crops Nematodes; Ciancio, A., Mukerji, K.G., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; Chapter 2; pp. 29–49. [Google Scholar]
  12. Singh, R.; Kumar, M.; Mittal, A.; Mehta, P.K. Microbial metabolites in nutrition, healthcare and agriculture. Biotech 2017, 7, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Ciancio, A.; Pieterse, C.M.J.; Mercado-Blanco, J. Editorial: Harnessing useful rhizosphere microorganisms for pathogen and pest biocontrol-second edition. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 1935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Topalović, O.; Hussain, M.; Heuer, H. Plants and associated soil microbiota cooperatively suppress plant-parasitic nematodes. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 10, 1935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Miliute, I.; Buzaite, O.; Baniulis, D.; Stanys, V. Bacterial endophytes in agricultural crops and their role in stress tolerance: A review. Zemdirbyste 2015, 102, 465–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Glick, B.R. Introduction to Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria. In Beneficial Plant-Bacterial Interactions; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1–28. [Google Scholar]
  17. Khabbaz, S.E.; Ladhalakshmi, D.; Babu, M.; Kandan, A.; Ramamoorthy, V.; Saravanakumar, D.; Al-Mughrabi, T.; Kandasamy, S. Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria (PGPB)—a versatile tool for plant health management. Can. J. Pestic. Pest Manag. 2019, 1, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Burkett-Cadena, M.; Kokalis-Burelle, N.; Lawrence, K.S.; van Santen, E.; Kloepper, J.W. Suppressiveness of root-knot nematodes mediated by rhizobacteria. Biol. Control. 2008, 47, 55–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Berg, G.; Köberl, M.; Rybakova, D.; Müller, H.; Grosch, R.; Smalla, K. Plant microbial diversity is suggested as the key to future biocontrol and health trends. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2017, 93, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Raymaekers, K.; Ponet, L.; Holtappels, D.; Berckmans, B.; Cammue, B.P.A. Screening for novel biocontrol agents applicable in plant disease management–a review. Biol. Control 2020, 144, 104240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mandic-Mulec, I.; Stefanic, P.; van Elsas, J.D. Ecology of Bacillaceae. Microbiol. Spectr. 2015, 3, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Dehghanian, S.Z.; Abdollahi, M.; Charehgani, H.; Niazi, A. Combined of salicylic acid and Pseudomonas fluorescens CHA0 on the expression of PR1 gene and control of Meloidogyne javanica in tomato. Biol. Control 2020, 141, 104134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Xiang, N.; Lawrence, K.S.; Donald, P.A. Biological control potential of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria suppression of Meloidogyne incognita on cotton and Heterodera glycines on soybean: A review. J. Phytopathol. 2018, 66, 449–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Gamalero, E.; Glick, B.G. The Use of Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria to Prevent Nematode Damage to Plants. Biology 2020, 9, 381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Migunova, V.D.; Shesteperov, A.A. Natural enemies of phytohelminths and bases of development of biological measures of protection of plants from helminthosis. Parasitol. J. 2007, 1, 78–86. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  26. Palomares-Rius, J.E.; Escobar, C.; Cabrera, J.; Vovlas, A.; Castillo, P. Anatomical alterations in plant tissues induced by plant-parasitic nematodes. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Jones, J.T.; Haegeman, A.; Danchin, E.G.J.; Gaur, H.S.; Helder, J.; Jones, M.G.K.; Kikuchi, T.; Manzanilla-Lopez, R.; Palomares-Rius, J.E.; Wesemael, W.M.L.; et al. Top 10 plant-parasitic nematodes in molecular plant pathology. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2013, 14, 946–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Maheshwari, D.K.; Shukla, S.; Aeron, A.; Kumar, T.; Jha, C.K.; Patel, D.; Saraf, M.; Wahla, V. Rhizobacteria for management of nematode disease in plants. In Bacteria in Agrobiology: Disease Management; Maheshwari, D.K., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 379–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Radhakrishnan, R.; Hashem, A.; Abd-Allah, E.F. Bacillus: A biological tool for crop improvement through bio-molecular changes in adverse environments. Front. Physiol. 2017, 8, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Xia, Y.; Xie, S.; Ma, X.; Wu, H.; Wang, X.; Gao, X. The purL gene of Bacillus subtilis is associated with nematicidal activity. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2011, 322, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Zhang, J.; Li, Y.; Yuan, H.; Sun, B.; Li, H. Biological control of the cereal cyst nematode (Heterodera filipjevi) by Achromobacter xylosoxidans isolate 09X01 and Bacillus cereus isolate 09B18. Biol. Control 2016, 92, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhao, D.; Zhao, H.; Zhao, D.; Zhu, X.; Wang, Y.; Duan, Y.; Xuan, Y.; Chen, L. Isolation and identification of bacteria from rhizosphere soil and their effect on plant growth promotion and root-knot nematode disease. Biol. Control 2018, 119, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Xiang, N.; Lawrence, K.S.; Kloepper, J.W.; Donald, P.A.; McInroy, J.A.; Lawrence, G.W. Biological Control of Meloidogyne incognita by spore-forming plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on cotton. Plant Dis. 2017, 101, 774–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Halimah, D.; Munif, A. Giyanto Effectiveness of endophytic bacterial consortium of coffee plant on mortality of Pratylenchus coffeae in vitro. Pelita Perkebunan, a Coffee Cocoa. Res. J. 2015, 31, 175–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Aballay, E.; Mårtensson, A.; Persson, P. Screening of rhizosphere bacteria from grapevine for their suppressive effect on Xiphinema index Thorne & Allen on in vitro grape plants. Plant Soil 2011, 347, 313–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Aballay, E.; Prodan, S.; Zamorano, A.; Castaneda-Alvarez, C. Nematicidal effect of rhizobacteria on plant-parasitic nematodes associated with vineyards. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2017, 33, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Mendoza, A.R.; Kiewnick, S.; Sikora, R.A. In vitro activity of Bacillus firmus against the burrowing nematode Radopholus similis, the root-knot nematode Meloidogyne incognita and the stem nematode Ditylenchus dipsaci. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2008, 18, 377–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Padgham, J.L.; Sikora, R.A. Biological control potential and modes of action of Bacillus megaterium against Meloidogyne graminicola on rice. Crop Prot. 2007, 26, 971–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lax, P.; Marro, N.; Agaras, B.; Valverde, C.; Doucet, M.E.; Becerra, A. Biological control of the false root-knot nematode Nacobbus aberrans by Pseudomonas protegens under controlled conditions. Crop Prot. 2013, 52, 97–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Munif, A.; Hallmann, J.; Sikora, R.A. The influence of endophytic bacteria on Meloidogyne incognita infection and tomato plant growth. J. Issaas 2013, 19, 68–74. [Google Scholar]
  41. Haque, Z.; Khan, M.R.; Ahamad, F. Relative antagonistic potential of some rhizosphere biocontrol agents for the management of rice root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne graminicola. Biological Control 2018, 126, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Viljoen, J.J.F.; Labuschagne, N.; Fourie, H.; Sikora, R.A. Biological control of the root-knot nematode Meloidogyne incognita on tomatoes and carrots by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Trop. Plant Pathol. 2019, 44, 284–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Susič, N.; Žibrat, U.; Sinkovič, L.; Vončina, A.; Razinger, J.; Knapič, M.; Sedlar, A.; Širca, S.; Gerič, S.B. From genome to field—observation of the multimodal nematicidal and plant growth-promoting effects of Bacillus firmus I-1582 on tomatoes using hyperspectral remote sensing. Plants 2020, 9, 592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Youssef, M.M.A.; Abd-El-Khair, H.; El-Nagdi, W.M.A. Management of root knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita infecting sugar beet as affected by certain bacterial and fungal suspensions. Agric. Eng. Int. Cigr. J. 2017, 37, 293–301. [Google Scholar]
  45. Aballay, E.; Prodan, S.; Correa, P.; Allende, J. Assessment of rhizobacterial consortia to manage plant parasitic nematodes of grapevine. Crop Prot. 2020, 131, 105103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Rasmann, S.; Köllner, T.G.; Degenhardt, J.; Hiltpold, I.; Toepfer, S.; Kuhlmann, U.; Gershenzon, J.; Turlings, T.C.J. Recruitment of entomopathogenic nematodes by insect-damaged maize roots. Nature 2005, 434, 732–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Wilschut, R.A.; Geisen, S. Nematodes as drivers of plant performance in natural systems. Trends Plant Sci. 2020, 26, 237–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Caccia, M.; Marro, N.; Dueñas, J.R.; Doucet, M.E.; Lax, P. Effect of the entomopathogenic nematode-bacterial symbiont complex on Meloidogyne hapla and Nacobbus aberrans in short-term greenhouse trials. Crop Prot. 2018, 114, 162–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Tülek, A.; Kepenekçi, I.; Oksal, E.; Hazir, S. Comparative effects of entomopathogenic fungi and nematodes and bacterial supernatants against rice white tip nematode. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2018, 28, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Zhao, J.; Liua, D.; Wang, Y.; Zhu, X.; Chen, L.; Duan, Y. Evaluation of Bacillus aryabhattai Sneb517 for control of Heterodera glycines in soybean. Biol. Control 2020, 142, 104147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mazzuchelli, R.C.L.; Mazzuchelli, E.H.L.; De Araujo, F.F. Efficiency of Bacillus subtilis for root-knot and lesion nematodes management in sugarcane. Biol. Control 2020, 143, 185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wepuhkhulu, M.; Kimenju, J.; Anyango, B.; Wachira, P.; Kyallo, G. Effect of soil fertility management practices and Bacillus subtilis on plant parasitic nematodes associated with common bean Phaseolus vulgaris. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosystems 2011, 13, 27–34. [Google Scholar]
  53. Fernández, E.; Mena, J.; González, J.; Márquez, M.E. Biological control of nematodes in banana. In Banana Root System, towards a Better Understanding for Its Productive Management; Turner, D.W., Rosales, F.E., Eds.; INIBAP: Montpellier, France, 2003; pp. 193–200. [Google Scholar]
  54. Proença, D.N.; Schwab, S.; Vidal, M.S.; Baldani, J.I.; Xavier, G.R.; Morais, P.V. The nematicide Serratia plymuthica M24T3 colonizes Arabidopsis thaliana, stimulates plant growth, and presents plant beneficial potential. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2019, 50, 777–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Hackenberg, C.; Muehlchen, A.; Forge, T.; Vrain, T. Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain Sm3, bacterial antagonist of Pratylenchus penetrans. J. Nematol. 2000, 32, 183–189. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  56. Terefe, M.; Tefera, T.; Sakhuja, P.K. Effect of a formulation of Bacillus firmus on root-knot nematode Meloidogyne incognita infestation and the growth of tomato plants in the greenhouse and nursery. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2009, 100, 94–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ashoub, A.H.; Amara, M.T. Biocontrol activity of some bacterial genera against root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita. J. Am. Sci. 2010, 6, 321–328. [Google Scholar]
  58. Chinheya, C.C.; Yobo, K.S.; Laing, M.D. Biological control of the root knot nematode, Meloidogyne javanica (Chitwood) using Bacillus isolates, on soybean. Biol. Control 2017, 109, 37–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Mostafa, F.A.M.; Khalil, A.E.; El-Deen, A.H.N.; Ibrahim, D.S. The role of Bacillus megaterium and other bio-agents in controlling root-knot nematodes infecting sugar beet under field conditions. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2018, 28, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Munif, A.; Supramana, M.; Herliyana, E.N.; Pradana, A.P. Endophytic bacterial consortium originated from forestry plant roots and their nematicidal activity against Meloidogyne incognita infestation in greenhouse. Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendel. Brun. 2019, 67, 1171–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Talavera, M.; Mizukubo, T.; Ito, K.; Aiba, S. Effect of spore inoculum and agricultural practices on the vertical distribution of the biocontrol plant-growth-promoting bacterium Pasteuria penetrans and growth of Meloidogyne incognita-infected tomato. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2002, 35, 435–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Xiang, N.; Lawrence, K.S.; Kloepper, J.W.; Donald, P.A.; McInroy, J.A. Biological control of Heterodera glycines by spore-forming plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on soybean. PLoS ONE 2017, 7, e0181201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Xiang, N.; Foshee, M.; Lawrence, K.S.; Kloepper, J.W.; Mcinroy, J.A. Field studies of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria for biological control of Rotylenchulus reniformis on soybean. In Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences, Dallas, TX, USA, 4–6 January 2017; pp. 201–204. [Google Scholar]
  64. Xiang, N.; Lawrence, K.S.; Kloepper, J.W.; Donald, P.A. Biological control of Rotylenchulus reniformis on soybean by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Nematropica 2018, 48, 116–125. [Google Scholar]
  65. Sikora, R.A.; Schäfer, K.; Dababat, A.A. Modes of action associated with microbially induced in planta suppression of plant-parasitic nematodes. Australas. Plant Pathol. 2007, 36, 124–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Knox, O.G.G.; Killham, K.; Artz, R.R.E.; Mullins, C.; Wilson, M. Effect of Nematodes on Rhizosphere Colonization by Seed-Applied Bacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2004, 70, 4666–4671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Mohan, S.; Kumar, K.K.; Sutar, V.; Saha, S.; Rowe, J.; Davies, K.G. Plant root-exudates recruit hyperparasitic bacteria of phytonematodes by altered cuticle aging: Implications for biological control strategies. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Tian, B.; Yang, J.; Zhang, K.Q. Bacteria in the biological control of plant-parasitic nematodes: Populations, mechanisms of action, and future prospects. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2007, 61, 197–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  69. Schmidt, L.M.; Hewlett, T.E.; Green, A.; Simmons, L.J.; Kelley, K.; Doroh, M.; Stetina, S.R. Molecular and morphological characterization and biological control capabilities of a Pasteuria ssp. parasitizing Rotylenchulus reniformis, the reniform nematode. J. Nematol. 2010, 42, 207–217. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  70. Abd-Elgawad, M.M.M.; Askary, T.H. Fungal and bacterial nematicides in integrated nematode management strategies. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2018, 28, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ciancio, A. Biocontrol potential of Pasteuria spp. for the management of plant parasitic nematodes. CAB Rev. 2018, 13, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Castaneda-Alvarez, C.; Aballay, E. Rhizobacteria with nematicide aptitude: Enzymes and compounds associated. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2016, 32, 203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Liang, L.M.; Zou, C.G.; Xu, J.; Zhang, K.Q. Signal pathways involved in microbe–nematode interactions provide new insights into the biocontrol of plant-parasitic nematodes. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 2019, 374, 20180317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Köhl, J.; Kolnaar, R.; Ravensberg, W.J. Mode of action of microbial biological control agents against plant diseases: Relevance beyond efficacy. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Chowdhury, S.P.; Hartmann, A.; Gao, X.; Borriss, R. Biocontrol mechanism by root-associated Bacillus amyloliquefaciens FZB42–a review. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Tabassum, B.; Khan, A.; Tariq, M.; Ramzan, M.; Khan, M.S.I.; Shahid, N.; Aaliya, K. Bottlenecks in commercialization and future prospects of PGPR. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2017, 121, 102–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Siddiqi, I.A.; Shaukat, S.S. Rhizobacteria-mediated induction of systemic resistance (ISR) in tomato against Meloidogyne javanica. J. Phytopathol. 2002, 150, 469–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Siddiqi, I.A.; Shaukat, S.S. Systemic resistance in tomato induced by biocontrol bacteria against the root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne javanica is independent of salicylic acid production. J. Phytopathol. 2004, 152, 48–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Anita, B.; Samiyappan, R. Induction of systemic resistance in rice by Pseudomonas fluorescens against rice root knot nematode Meloidogyne graminicola. J. Biopest. 2012, 5, 53–59. [Google Scholar]
  80. Akhtar, M.S.; Siddiqui, Z.A. Role of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria in biocontrol of plant diseases and sustainable agriculture Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; p. In Plant Growth and Health Promoting Bacteria, Microbiology Monographs; Maheshwari, D.K., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; p. 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Ghahremani, Z.; Escudero, N.; Beltrán-Anadón, D.; Saus, E.; Cunquero, M.; Andilla, J.; Loza-Alvarez, P.; Gabaldón, T.; Sorribas, F.J. Bacillus firmus Strain I-1582, a nematode antagonist by itself and through the plant. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Nascimento, F.X.; Vicente, C.S.L.; Barbosa, P.; Espada, M.; Glick, B.R.; Mota, M.; Oliveira, S. Evidence for the involvement of ACC deaminase from Pseudomonas putida UW4 in the biocontrol of pine wilt disease caused by Bursaphelenchus xylophilus. Biol. Control 2013, 58, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Ghosh, S.K.; Bera, T.; Chakrabarty, A.M. Microbial siderophore–A boon to agricultural sciences. Biol. Control 2020, 144, 104214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Shaikh, S.S.; Sayyed, R.Z.; Reddy, M.S. Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria: An Eco-friendly Approach for Sustainable Agroecosystem. In Plant, Soil and Microbes; Hakeem, K., Akhtar, M., Abdullah, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Aeron, A.; Khare, E.; Jha, C.K.; Meena, V.S.; Aziz, S.M.A.; Islam, M.T.; Kim, K.; Meena, S.K.; Pattanayak, A.; Rajashekara, H.; et al. Revisiting the plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria: Lessons from the past and objectives for the future. Arch. Microbiol. 2020, 202, 665–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Akhtar, S.S.; Amby, D.B.; Hegelund, J.N.; Fimognari, L.; Großkinsky, D.K.; Westergaard, J.C.; Müller, R.; Moelbak, L.; Liu, F.; Roitsch, T. Bacillus licheniformis FMCH001 Increases water use efficiency via growth stimulation in both normal and drought conditions. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Vejan, P.; Abdullah, R.; Khadiran, T.; Ismail, S.; Boyce, A.N. Role of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria in Agricultural Sustainability—A Review. Molecules 2016, 21, 573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Roberts, D.P.; Lohrke, S.M.; Meyer, S.L.F.; Buyer, J.S.; Bowers, J.H.; Baker, C.J.; Li, W.; de Souza, J.T.; Lewis, J.A.; Chung, S. Biocontrol agents applied individually and in combination for suppression of soilborne diseases of cucumber. Crop Prot. 2005, 24, 141–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Malviya, D.; Sahu, P.K.; Singh, U.B.; Paul, S.; Gupta, A.; Gupta, A.R.; Singh, S.; Kumar, M.; Paul, D.; Rai, J.P.; et al. Lesson from ecotoxicity: Revisiting the microbial lipopeptides for the management of emerging diseases for crop protection. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Horak, I.; Engelbrecht, G.; van Rensburg, P.J.J.; Claassens, S. Microbial metabolomics: Essential definitions and the importance of cultivation conditions for utilizing Bacillus species as bionematicides. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2019, 127, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  91. Huang, X.; Tian, B.; Niu, Q.; Yang, J.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, K. An extracellular protease from Brevibacillus laterosporus G4 without parasporal crystals can serve as a pathogenic factor in infection of nematodes. Res. Microbiol. 2005, 156, 719–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Kluepfel, D.A.; Nyczepir, A.P.; Lawrence, J.E.; Wechter, W.P.; Leverentz, B. Biological control of the phytoparasitic nematode Mesocriconema xenoplax on peach trees. J. Nematol. 2002, 34, 120–123. [Google Scholar]
  93. Huang, T.; Lin, Q.; Qian, X.; Zheng, Y.; Yao, J.; Wu, H.; Li, M.; Jin, X.; Pan, X.; Zhang, L.; et al. Nematicidal activity of Cry1Ea11 from Bacillus thuringiensis BRC-XQ12 against the pine wood nematode (Bursaphelenchus xylophilus). Phytopathology 2018, 108, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  94. El-Deen, N.A.N.H.; Fodor, A.; El-Barty, A.F. Nematicidal activity of entomopathogenic bacteria against root-knot nematodes, Meloidogyne incognita in-vitro. Int. J. Adv. Res. 2014, 2, 708–713. [Google Scholar]
  95. Sajnaga, E.; Kazimierczak, W. Evolution and taxonomy of nematode-associated entomopathogenic bacteria of the genera Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus: An overview. Symbiosis 2020, 80, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Bui, H.X.; Hadi, B.A.R.; Oliva, R.; Schroeder, N.E. Beneficial bacterial volatile compounds for the control of root-knot nematode and bacterial leaf blight on rice. Crop Protect. 2020, 135, 104792–104799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Crow, W.T.; Luc, J.E.; Giblin-Davis, R.M. Evaluation of Econem, a Formulated Pasteuria sp. Bionematicide, for Management of Belonolaimus longicaudatus on Golf Course Turf. J. Nematol. 2011, 43, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  98. Kokalis-Burelle, N. Pasteuria penetrans for control of Meloidogyne incognita on tomato and cucumber, and M. arenaria on snapdragon. J. Nematol. 2015, 47, 207–213. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  99. Tateishi, Y. Suppression of Meloidogyne incognita and yield increase of sweet potato by field application of Pasteuria Penetrans. Jpn. J. Nematol. 1998, 28, 22–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Subedi, P.; Gattoni, K.; Liu, W.; Lawrence, K.S.; Park, S.W. Current Utility of Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria as Biological Control Agents towards Plant-Parasitic Nematodes. Plants 2020, 9, 1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Meyer, S.L.F.; Roberts, D.P. Combinations of biocontrol agents for management of plant-parasitic nematodes and soilborne plant-pathogenic fungi. J. Nematol. 2002, 34, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  102. Mhatre, P.H.; Karthik, C.; Kadirvelu, K.; Divya, K.; Venkatasalam, E.; Srinivasan, S.; Ramkumar, G.; Saranya, C.; Shanmuganathan, R. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): A potential alternative tool for nematodes bio-control. Biocat. Agricul. Biotechnol. 2019, 17, 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Ameen, H.H.; Osman, H.A.; Lashein, A.M.S.; Hasabo, S.A.; Koura, F.H. Management of potato production cv. Diamond infected with root knot nematode, Meloidogyne arenaria using biological process under field conditions. Middle East J. Agric. Res. 2015, 4, 37–41. [Google Scholar]
  104. Castillo, J.D.; Lawrence, K.S.; Kloepper, J.W. Biocontrol of the Reniform Nematode by Bacillus firmus GB-126 and Paecilomyces lilacinus 251 on Cotton. Plant Dis. 2013, 97, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Keren-Zur, M.; Antonov, J.; Bercovitz, A.; Feldman, K.; Husid, A.; Kenan, G.; Markov, N.; Rebhun, M. Bacillus firmus formulations for the safe control of root-knot nematodes. Proc. Brighton Crop Prot. Pests Dis. 2000, 2, 47–52. [Google Scholar]
  106. Raddy, H.M.; Fouad, A.F.A.; Montasser, S.A.; Abdel-Lateef, M.F.; EL-Samadisy, A.M. Efficacy of six nematicides and six commercial bioproducts against root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita on tomato. J. Appl. Sci. Res. 2013, 9, 4410–4417. [Google Scholar]
  107. Mostafa, F.A.M.; Khalil, A.E.; El-Deen, A.H.N.; Ibrahim, D.S. Induction of systemic resistance in sugar-beet against root-knot nematode with commercial products. J. Plant Pathol. Microbiol. 2014, 5, 236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. El-Zawahry, A.M.; Khali, A.E.M.; Allam, A.D.A.; Mostafa, R.G. Effect of the Bio-agents (Bacillus megaterium and Trichoderma album) on citrus nematode (Tylenchulus semipenetrans) infecting baladi orange and lime seedlings. J. Phytopathol. Pest Manag. 2015, 2, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  109. Lopes, E.P.; Ribeiro, R.C.F.; Xavier, A.A.; Alves, R.M.; de Castro, M.T.; Martins, M.J.; de Almeida, L.G.; Mizobutsi, E.H.; Neto, J.A.S. Effect of Bacillus subtilis on Meloidogyne javanica and on tomato growth promotion. J. Exp. Agric. Int. 2019, 35, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Kloepper, J.W.; Ryu, C.M.; Zhang, S.A. Induced systemic resistance and promotion of plant growth by Bacillus spp. Phytopathology 2004, 94, 1259–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  111. Askary, T.H. Limitation, research needs, and future prospects. In Biocontrol Agents of Phytonematodes; Askary, T.H., Martinelli, P.R.P., Eds.; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2015; pp. 446–454. [Google Scholar]
  112. Berry, S.D.; Spaull, V.W.; Cadet, P. Field assessment of biologically-based control products against nematodes on sugarcane in South Africa. Afr. Plant Prot. 2009, 15, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  113. Lamovšek, J.; Urek, G.; Trdan, S. Biological control of root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.): Microbes against the pests. Acta Agric. Slov. 2013, 101, 263–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Wolfgang, A.; Taffner, J.; Guimarães, R.A.; Coyne, D.; Berg, G. Novel strategies for soil-borne diseases: Exploiting the microbiome and volatile-based mechanisms toward controlling Meloidogyne-based disease complexes. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table
Table 1. Bacteria and their modes of action against phytoparasitic nematodes.
Table 1. Bacteria and their modes of action against phytoparasitic nematodes.
Nematicidal CompoundsSpecies of BacteriaTarget Phytoparasitic NematodesReferences
Direct influence on nematode
Hyperparasitism
Pasteuria pentransAphelenchoides besseyi, Globodera rostochiensis, Meloidogyne incognita, M.arenaria, M. hapla, M. graminicola, Pratylenchus penetrans, Radopholus
similis		[68,70,71]
Antibiosis
Lytic enzymes
ProteasesBrevibacillus laterosporusBursaphelenchus xylophilus,
Heterodera
glycines		[70,72]
Bacillus megateriumM. graminicola (juveniles)[73]
ChitinasesSerratia marcescensM. hapla (eggs and juveniles)[74]
B. subtilis, B. pumilusMeloidogyne spp.[73]
CollagenasesB. cereusM. javanica (juveniles)[74]
LipasesBacillus thuringiensis FB833T,
B. amyloliquefaciens
FR203A,
B. thuringiensis FS213P		Xiphinema index[74]
Complex chitosanase, alkaline serine proteaseB. cereusM. incognita, (juveniles)[72]
Glucanases, cellulases, pectinasesPseudomonasM. incognita[74]
Antibiotics
2,4-diacetylphloroglucinol (DAPG) Fluorescent pseudomonadsM. javanica,
M. graminicola		[75,76,77]
Globodera rostochiensis
(eggs and juveniles)		[78]
Cyclic lipopeptides: surfactin, fengycin, iturins, acteriocins,
polyketides, bacteriocins.		B. amyloliquefaciens FZB42,
B. subtilis		M incognita[18,70,73,79]
Toxins
Hydrogen cyanidePseudomonadsBurrowing nematodes;
cyst nematodes; dagger nematodes
root-knot nematodes (juveniles);		[74,80]
Cry6Aa2 protoxinB. thuringiensisM. hapla (egg hatch, juvenile motility)[29]
Cry5BB. thuringiensisMeloidogyne spp.[81]
Cry1Ea11B. thuringiensisBursaphelenchus xylophilus[82]
Toxin A and toxin B,
antibiotics		Photorhabdus luminescens,
Xenorhabdus budapestensis,
X. szentirmaii		Aphelenchoides besseyi,
M. incognita,
Nacobbus aberrans		[49,83,84]
VOC
alkanes, alkenes, alcohols, esters, ketones, terpenoids, and sulfur families Bacillus spp.M. graminicola (juveniles)[85]
Arthrobacter nicotianaeM. incognita (juveniles)[23]
B. amyloliquefaciens FZB42M.incognita[79]
Table
Table 2. List of commercially formulated bacterial biocontrol agents against plant parasitic nematodes.
Table 2. List of commercially formulated bacterial biocontrol agents against plant parasitic nematodes.
BacteriaName/ProducerTargetObservations/FindingsReference
Pasteuria pentransEconem—Syngenta Belonolaimus
longicaudatus		Ineffective[98]
P. penetransEconem—Pasteuria Bioscience, USAMeloidogyne
incognita,
M. arenaria		Effect depends on plant culture and growing conditions.[99]
P. penetransEconem—Nematech, Japan.M. incognitaBiological efficiency 89%. Increase in marketable yield of sweet potato. The results are similar to Dichloropren.[100]
P. nishizawae Pn1Clariva PN—Syngenta, BrazilHeterodera
glycines		Ineffective[62]
Pasteuria sp. Ph3Naviva ST—Syngenta Rotylenchulus reniformisInhibition of nematodes in cotton, soybean, vegetables.[80]
P. usage Bl1 + Pasteuria sp. Ph3NewPro—Syngenta B. longicaudatusInhibition of lance and sting nematodes in turf.[80]
B. amyloliquefaciens FZB42RhizoVital—AbiTep
GmbH, Berlin, Germany		M. incognitaReduction in J2, enhanced of root weight[18]
Burkholderia
cepacia		Deny—Stine Microbial Products, Madison,
WI		M. incognitaSuppression of root-knot nematode population on bell pepper. Biological efficiency 60%[101,102]
Bacillus subtilisStanes Sting—Imported from T. Stanes and Company
Limited, India, by Gaara company, Egypt		M. arenariaReduction of J2 both in soil and roots as well as root galling, egg masses, biological efficiency 50%.
Enhanced potato yield.		[103]
B. firmus I-1582 Poncho—Votivo Crop Science, Raleigh, NCMeloidogyne spp.,
Heterodera glycines		Biological efficiency against Meloidogyne luci over 50%. Triggering ISR. Degradation of Meloidogyne eggs, colonization of plant roots.[43,62,89]
B. firmus I-1582 Poncho—Votivo Crop Science, Raleigh, NCR reniformisNematode control and yield similar to Avicta (Abamectin)[63,64]
B. firmus GB-126VOTiVO—Bayer, GermanyR reniformisReduction in number of females, eggs, and juvenile life stages. Cotton yield similar to aldicarb.[104]
B. firmusBioNem-WP—BioSafe—AgroGreen, IsraelM. incognitaField efficiency 75–84%. Enhanced shoot height (29–31%) and tomato weight (20–24%)[56,105]
B. firmusBioNemaGon—Agri-Life, IndiaMeloidogyne spp., Heterodera spp., Helicotylenchus spp.Reduction in nematode population and root infestation by nematodes in vegetables and herbs[80]
B. megateriumBio-ArcMeloidogyne spp.,Reduction in J2, egg masses, eggs and reproduction factor. Enhanced shoot weight.[106,107]
B. megateriumBio-ArcTylenchulus semipenetransBiological efficiency 88%,89% on baladi orange and lime[108]
B. methylotrophicusOnix—Laboratorio de Bio Controle
Farroupilha S.A., Brazil		M. javanicaIneffective on tomato plants[109]
Pseudomonas fluorescensSheathgua (Sudozone)— Agriland Biotech, IndiaMeloidogyne spp.,
Cyst nematodes		-[70]
Serratia marcescensNemaless—Agricultural Research Centre, EgyptM. incognitaReduction in J2, egg masses, egg numbers and reproduction factor. Improvement of tomato growth criteria: fresh weight of shoots and roots, length of both systems.[106]
B. amyloliquefaciens IN937a,
B. subtilis GB03		BioYield—Gustafson LLC, USAM. incognitaSignificant reduction in nematode eggs, juveniles and galls on tomato. Enhanced root weight.[18,110]
B. licheniformis,
B. subtilis		Nemix CMeloidogyne spp.-[33]
B. licheniformis FMCH001,
B. subtilis FMCH002 		Presense—FMC Química do Brasil Ltd.a., BrazilPlant parasitic nematodes-[70]
B. subtilis,
B. licheniformis,
B. megaterium,
B. coagulans,
P. fluorescens, Streptomyces spp.,		Pathway Consortia—Pathway Holdings, USAPlant parasitic nematodes-[111]
B. chitinosporus,
B. laterosporus,
B. licheniformis		BioStart—
Bio-Cat, USA		Meloidogyne spp.Inconsistent effect[112,113]
Serratia spp., Pseudomonas spp.,
Azotobacter spp.,
B. circulans,
B. thuringiensis		Micronema—Agricultural Research Centre, EgyptM. incognitaSignificant reduction in J2, galls and egg masses (97%, 80% and 88%). Enhanced growth parameters: length of shoots, fresh and dry weight of shoots and roots.[44]
47 strains of bacilliEquity—Naturize
Biosciences LLC, Jacksonville, FL, USA		M. incognitaSignificant reduction in nematode eggs, juveniles and galls on tomato. Enhanced root weight.[18]
Rhizobacteria and microbial metabolites produced during
anaerobic fermentation of a microbial community		Ag-Blend—Advanced Microbial Solutions LLC, Pilot Point, TX, USAM. incognitaReduction of gall numbers, enhanced root weight.[18]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Migunova, V.D.; Sasanelli, N. Bacteria as Biocontrol Tool against Phytoparasitic Nematodes. Plants 2021, 10, 389. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10020389

AMA Style

Migunova VD, Sasanelli N. Bacteria as Biocontrol Tool against Phytoparasitic Nematodes. Plants. 2021; 10(2):389. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10020389

Chicago/Turabian Style

Migunova, Varvara D., and Nicola Sasanelli. 2021. "Bacteria as Biocontrol Tool against Phytoparasitic Nematodes" Plants 10, no. 2: 389. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10020389

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop