Skip to main content

Evaluation of several commercial biocontrol products on European and North American populations of Phytophthora ramorum

Buy Article:

$71.00 + tax (Refund Policy)

Five commercially available biological control products were tested in vitro with seven isolates of Phytophthora ramorum from North American (NA1, NA2), and European (EU1) populations. The in vitro tests included dual culture methods and detached leaf assays on wounded Rhododendron and Camellia leaves. Variability in response to biocontrol agents among isolates of P. ramorum from North American and European populations was examined. In dual culture tests, both Bacillus subtilis products (Companion® and Serenade®) resulted in better inhibition of the NA1 group than NA2 and EU1. Actinovate® (Streptomyces lydicus) was the least effective of the three bacterial biocontrol agents and there was no difference in percent inhibition among P. ramorum lineages. Two products containing Trichoderma spp. were tested: Plant Helper® (T. atroviride) caused 100% inhibition of all lineages of P. ramorum, while SoilGard™ (T. virens) was only about 30% effective. There was great variability among P. ramorum isolates in their response to biocontrol agents. All treatments reduced P. ramorum lesion size on both Rhododendron and Camellia. Combined treatments of Actinovate® with one other BCA did not perform as well as either treatment used individually. Best results were obtained with Serenade® on Rhododendron and Camellia foliage, especially against the NA1 group. Lack of a linear relationship between percent inhibition of P. ramorum by BCAs in vitro and foliar treatments on detached Rhododendron and Camellia leaves indicates that in vitro testing is a poor predictor of BCA performance on plant material.

Keywords: Bacillus subtilis; Phytophthora ramorum; Streptomyces; Trichoderma; biological control; nursery crops; ornamental plants; ramorum blight; sudden oak death

Document Type: Research Article

Affiliations: 1: Puyallup Research and Extension Center, Washington State University, Puyallup, WA, USA 2: Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, BC, Canada 3: Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Sidney Laboratory, Sidney, BC, Canada

Publication date: 01 November 2009

More about this publication?
  • Access Key
  • Free content
  • Partial Free content
  • New content
  • Open access content
  • Partial Open access content
  • Subscribed content
  • Partial Subscribed content
  • Free trial content