The postharvest phase has been considered a very suitable environment for successful application of biological control agents (BCAs), since the first work on the biological control of brown rot disease of stone fruit was reported by Pusey and Wilson [1]. Sure enough, the conditions of constant temperature and high humidity seem to offer more chances to BCAs, increasing their antifungal activity [2]. BCAs are living organisms and act following different antagonistic strategies depending on pathogens, host and environment. Knowledge of their modes of action is therefore essential to enhance their viability and increase their potentiality in disease control. In general, antagonists used for biocontrol of postharvest diseases are yeasts and bacteria, and to a lesser extent fungi, and they have been widely reviewed [3–7]. Antagonists can display a wide range of modes of action, at different stages of their activity, relating to different hosts, pathogens; sometimes-different modes act simultaneously, and it is therefore difficult to establish which individual mechanism has contributed to a specific antifungal action. Considerable information is available with respect to their efficacy, their application under storage conditions, and their mixture with safe substances or according to the formulation. However, the mechanisms by which BCAs exert their activity against pathogens have not yet been fully elucidated [5] and sometimes, in order to achieve maximum effectiveness in postharvest phase, were combined with physical and chemical methods including heat treatments, gamma or UV-C irradiation, and controlled atmosphere (CA). The bottleneck of the biocontrol matter remains the BCAs formulation often done in association with private companies, due to the high costs of production and the regulatory barriers to BCAs registration in different countries that often do not encourage their dissemination. Also, a formulation often could reduce the activity of antagonists with respect to the fresh cells [2].
Alessandra Di Francesco, Elena Baraldi (2020). Biological Control of Postharvest Diseases by Microbial Antagonists. Basilea : © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 243 J.-M. Mérillon, K. G. Ramawat (eds.).
Biological Control of Postharvest Diseases by Microbial Antagonists
Alessandra Di Francesco
;Elena Baraldi
2020
Abstract
The postharvest phase has been considered a very suitable environment for successful application of biological control agents (BCAs), since the first work on the biological control of brown rot disease of stone fruit was reported by Pusey and Wilson [1]. Sure enough, the conditions of constant temperature and high humidity seem to offer more chances to BCAs, increasing their antifungal activity [2]. BCAs are living organisms and act following different antagonistic strategies depending on pathogens, host and environment. Knowledge of their modes of action is therefore essential to enhance their viability and increase their potentiality in disease control. In general, antagonists used for biocontrol of postharvest diseases are yeasts and bacteria, and to a lesser extent fungi, and they have been widely reviewed [3–7]. Antagonists can display a wide range of modes of action, at different stages of their activity, relating to different hosts, pathogens; sometimes-different modes act simultaneously, and it is therefore difficult to establish which individual mechanism has contributed to a specific antifungal action. Considerable information is available with respect to their efficacy, their application under storage conditions, and their mixture with safe substances or according to the formulation. However, the mechanisms by which BCAs exert their activity against pathogens have not yet been fully elucidated [5] and sometimes, in order to achieve maximum effectiveness in postharvest phase, were combined with physical and chemical methods including heat treatments, gamma or UV-C irradiation, and controlled atmosphere (CA). The bottleneck of the biocontrol matter remains the BCAs formulation often done in association with private companies, due to the high costs of production and the regulatory barriers to BCAs registration in different countries that often do not encourage their dissemination. Also, a formulation often could reduce the activity of antagonists with respect to the fresh cells [2].I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
